If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)

[Cardboard]

"Cardboard I have always valued your opinions and was surprised at your support of Trump. Glad to see you were not fixed in your views."

 

I remain highly fixed in my views that we need someone center-right and will always. As I mentioned before, Trump has good ideas and has the leadership to implement. Unfortunately, what he says and the way he expresses himself makes him an unwinnable candidate.

 

Cardboard

 

 

 

 

[BTShine]

I think Trump did better last night than most realize.  This is not a judgement of who's fit to be a better president.  I'm currently an undecided/Johnson supporter at this point. 

 

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) has offered his thoughts, via his blog, Twitter and Periscope, on the elections, and they have been prescient.  For anyone that enjoys watching and talking about the political races, he is a great mind to learn from.  His knowledge of persuasion is top notch.

 

His Twitter is @ScottAdamsSays

[rb]

Here comes the Buffett smackdown

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-10/buffett-challenges-trump-on-taxes-discloses-2015-return-data

[valcont]

Oh really? Like when  Scott Adams predicted Trump will win Iowa primary in a landslide and claimed the polls were rigged when he was proven wrong.

He is a bitter divorcee and a known woman

hater. No wonder he is all in for Trump. Oh wait now he changed it to Gary Johnson to appear neutral.

[BTShine]

This is funny, because when writing that I thought "hmmm... giving insights into politics is usually a bad idea, especially on a message board.  I might regret this, but heck this board wants to know everyone's thoughts, right?"

 

 

I now regret joining the discussion.

 

 

All the best to all of you

[DooDiligence]

Letterman / Colbert in 2020

 

"What have you got to lose?"

[EliG]

At a stump rally in PA today, Trump recited false Russian story about WikiLeaks/Benghazi right after they published it. Russians later took it down once they realized their mistake.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

 

This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment).

 

[rb]

This shit stopped being funny a while back. But the fact is that despite all that went down half of the Republican party is still solidly with him. The republican speaker of the house is not going to defend him anymore but won't revoke his endorsement of him??? You know.... patriots!

[ccplz]

So Trump threatened to target his political opponent with the legal system. Even appointing a special prosecutor to go after her and throw her in jail.

 

Is this a first in this country?

 

First in this country?  Get real.

 

NY dem AG is going after Trump right now.  Obama didn't just threaten, he actually used the IRS to target his political opponents.

 

Also, think about what you are arguing for - those in power would never be able to enforce the law against law-breaking political enemies, without fear that their actions be construed as biased. How would you ever enforce the law against politicians who broke the law?  Think about what you are saying. 

 

That is the whole point of the concept of a Special Prosecutor.

 

Do you have a source for your claims?

 

Then again I guess facts aren't important for Trump supporters.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

 

“There is nothing historically that would be comparable.”

 

[rkbabang]

This is funny, because when writing that I thought "hmmm... giving insights into politics is usually a bad idea, especially on a message board.  I might regret this, but heck this board wants to know everyone's thoughts, right?"

 

 

I now regret joining the discussion.

 

 

All the best to all of you

 

As I've said many times politics is a mental illness that infects the victims brains and shuts down logical reasoning functionality causing cognitive dissonance.  You can't expect a rational polite conversation.  Not here, not anywhere.  How can someone think Trump saying that he grabs woman's private parts is disgusting, while at the same time think nothing of Bill Clinton raping women?  It's just politics.  A good rule of thumb is that both sides are usually pretty close to correct when talking about the other side, yet completely full of shit when talking about their own side.  Even when both sides do exactly the same things they only see it on the other side not their own.  For just one simple example of this: Liberals thought Bush was a war criminal, and still think Obama is not.  Any rational analysis of both presidents militarily would come to the conclusion that Obama has killed many times more innocent people than Bush did, yet they just don't see it.  They won't even let their minds entertain the thought.  If an Obama supporter is even reading this far, he is already saying that I'm nuts.  (Most aren't reading this, because they have probably blocked me already anyway.)  Just par for the course when discussing politics with those thoroughly infected with the disease.

 

[onyx1]

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) has offered his thoughts, via his blog, Twitter and Periscope, on the elections, and they have been prescient.  For anyone that enjoys watching and talking about the political races, he is a great mind to learn from.  His knowledge of persuasion is top notch.

 

I agree.  Scott Adams is profoundly brilliant.  He has completely transformed my thinking on how people make political decisions.  I now understand why facts & rational arguments are useless when in the realm of politics or articles of faith.  And, reactions (like almost all of the messages posted on this thread) are so easy to predict that it's become laughable.  Thanks to Packer for the original link to him.

[Jurgis]

What is really sad - and this applies not just to the current USA presidential campaign - is that in second decade of 21st century humans are still lying through the teeth to each other and also believing in outright lies that can be fact-checked easily. The pessimist in me thinks that even if people had a direct data feed into their brain and could check anything instantly, a lot of them would still choose to ignore the actual facts.

 

How can we progress to evaluating theories and complex claims on validity if we can't even evaluate facts?

 

To paraphrase Gandhi, "fact-based humans would be a great idea".

[onyx1]

What is really sad - and this applies not just to the current USA presidential campaign - is that in second decade of 21st century humans are still lying through the teeth to each other and also believing in outright lies that can be fact-checked easily. The pessimist in me thinks that even if people had a direct data feed into their brain and could check anything instantly, a lot of them would still choose to ignore the actual facts.

 

How can we progress to evaluating theories and complex claims on validity if we can't even evaluate facts?

 

To paraphrase Gandhi, "fact-based humans would be a great idea".

 

 

The mistake here is the belief that facts matter.

[Liberty]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/10/second-presidential-debate.html

[rkbabang]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/10/second-presidential-debate.html

 

The debates are useless in normal years, this year, with these candidates, even more so.  I don't watch the debates anymore for the same reason I don't vote.  I don't want to be counted as supporting the system itself.  I do what I wish everyone else would do (be the change you want to see in the world).  Imagine if the ratings showed that almost no one watched the debates and imagine if on election day less than a million people showed up to vote.  How could these idiots even pretend that they have some kind of mandate to rule?

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

What is really sad - and this applies not just to the current USA presidential campaign - is that in second decade of 21st century humans are still lying through the teeth to each other and also believing in outright lies that can be fact-checked easily. The pessimist in me thinks that even if people had a direct data feed into their brain and could check anything instantly, a lot of them would still choose to ignore the actual facts.

 

How can we progress to evaluating theories and complex claims on validity if we can't even evaluate facts?

 

To paraphrase Gandhi, "fact-based humans would be a great idea".

 

Agreed. Every time I think about solutions to this broken political system they all fall apart at the voter. We get what we deserve.

 

We do not have an informed enough electorate, nor an electorate motivated enough to become truly informed, to have a political system that works on anything more than broken promises and mud-slinging to the ignorant masses who eat it up.

[matts]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/10/second-presidential-debate.html

Imagine if the ratings showed that almost no one watched the debates and imagine if on election day less than a million people showed up to vote.  How could these idiots even pretend that they have some kind of mandate to rule?

 

Do you really believe that? Politicians would love that scenario as they could better concentrate their resources on only that million. And then they would care even less about what is best for the majority of the country.

 

 

 

 

[Uccmal]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/10/second-presidential-debate.html

 

The debates are useless in normal years, this year, with these candidates, even more so.  I don't watch the debates anymore for the same reason I don't vote.  I don't want to be counted as supporting the system itself.  I do what I wish everyone else would do (be the change you want to see in the world).  Imagine if the ratings showed that almost no one watched the debates and imagine if on election day less than a million people showed up to vote.  How could these idiots even pretend that they have some kind of mandate to rule?

 

I have a problem with people not voting.  I am Canadian and have voted in every Provincial and Federal election since I was 18.  Now, in the last several provincial and federal elections I have voted for candidates who will not win, because the major parties disgust me.  But my vote is registered.  If I lived in New Hampshire I would hold my nose and vote for Gary Johnson.

 

To my mind, not voting is heading in the direction of allowing a full on dictatorship, or theocracy.  No matter how bad our governments are, they are nowhere even close to the behaviour of dictatorships such as Saudi, Syria, or North Korea. 

 

Now, one person not voting makes no difference but in one example above, only 1 million of 250 million voting will result in a dictatorship.  The 60% (600,000) who voted for the party that wins will get massively favoured treatment. 

 

If anything this circus in your country may actually get more people to the polling booth than in normal years.  And the republicans are handling the situation, finally, under Paul Ryan's (whom I dont like) guidance.  Get out of the way of the implosion and keep the democrats from getting a blank cheque.  The best government is an accountable one. 

[Liberty]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-and-the-enablers-1476142879

 

Wow.

[Investor20]

Little press and not touched at all in the debate is Hillary dream of open borders and open trade.  The last point is important for stock purchases, IMO.

 

In early 2000s I brought IFN, an Indian ETF.  It did 18.6% vs S&P of 6.8% (morningstar 15 year total return).  This trade was based on effects of outsourcing and who is going to gain and loose.  This is despite the interest rates in India are steady or even increased and right now about 7-8%, vs US that are driven down to zero.

 

My point is these policies hardly help the American worker or American investor.  When Hillary says her dream is open borders and open trade, she just does not understand the economy.

[valcont]

As I've said many times politics is a mental illness that infects the victims brains and shuts down logical reasoning functionality causing cognitive dissonance.  You can't expect a rational polite conversation.  Not here, not anywhere.  How can someone think Trump saying that he grabs woman's private parts is disgusting, while at the same time think nothing of Bill Clinton raping women?  It's just politics.  A good rule of thumb is that both sides are usually pretty close to correct when talking about the other side, yet completely full of shit when talking about their own side.  Even when both sides do exactly the same things they only see it on the other side not their own.  For just one simple example of this: Liberals thought Bush was a war criminal, and still think Obama is not.  Any rational analysis of both presidents militarily would come to the conclusion that Obama has killed many times more innocent people than Bush did, yet they just don't see it.  They won't even let their minds entertain the thought.  If an Obama supporter is even reading this far, he is already saying that I'm nuts.  (Most aren't reading this, because they have probably blocked me already anyway.)  Just par for the course when discussing politics with those thoroughly infected with the disease.

 

You know what's worse, a false equivalency. That is an ultimate cognitive dissonance. No one is even disputing that Bill Clinton assaulted women.How in the world Hillary is responsible for any of it? Did she tie up ,sedate, overpower these women while Bill was raping. Nope nada zilch. Oh she criticized them. That is indeed more demeaning then talking about sexually assaulting a women or gloating how voluptuous your daughter is. I know a lot of conservatives have hard time believing men and women can be equal but at least they have come around to wife sharing equal blame for husband's sins. Thats progress!!

 

I don't believe Bush is a war criminal. Some loons consider him one because he or his vice president lied about the Iraq war that caused several innocent deaths. Now that's a grey area and I have no expertise to decide but it is definitely not as outlandish as birther, muslim Obama, forced abortions ,voting fraud that is considered acceptable in Republican circles. The loons of the left are controlled and live on the edges , the loons on the right are the establishment. A big difference.

 

I think it all comes down to the sources of information. Just compare the ones on the left and the right and you'll know where the ignorance resides. If someone is going to cite Scott Adams ( a hypnotist and a master of persuasion , whatever the heck that means) as a credible source in a political discourse, you have to give your opinion.

 

 

[EliG]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-and-the-enablers-1476142879

 

Wow.

 

In the same vein, by George F. Will ***

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-candidacy-is-chemotherapy-for-the-gop/2016/10/10/73e40f30-8f05-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.8da2efb2f167

 

 

*** George Frederick Will (born May 4, 1941) is a Pulitzer Prize–winning conservative political commentator. In 1986, The Wall Street Journal called him "perhaps the most powerful journalist in America"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will

 

 

[valcont]

If anything this circus in your country may actually get more people to the polling booth than in normal years.  And the republicans are handling the situation, finally, under Paul Ryan's (whom I dont like) guidance.  Get out of the way of the implosion and keep the democrats from getting a blank cheque.  The best government is an accountable one.

 

Just wondering what do you find so unacceptable in Paul Ryan? I am his fan not just because he is a fellow Wisconsinite but he is a policy wonk with the moral courage.

[tengen]

The mistake here is the belief that facts matter.

 

They certainly don't matter to Trump. In 40 minutes of speaking time, he made 33 false statements:

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/10/fact-check-donald-trump-made-33-false-claims-at-second-debate.html

 

PS: Everyone should vote, even if you ignore the names on the ballot and write in "Mickey Mouse".

[randomep]

This is funny, because when writing that I thought "hmmm... giving insights into politics is usually a bad idea, especially on a message board.  I might regret this, but heck this board wants to know everyone's thoughts, right?"

 

 

I now regret joining the discussion.

 

 

All the best to all of you

 

As I've said many times politics is a mental illness that infects the victims brains and shuts down logical reasoning functionality causing cognitive dissonance.  You can't expect a rational polite conversation.  Not here, not anywhere.  How can someone think Trump saying that he grabs woman's private parts is disgusting, while at the same time think nothing of Bill Clinton raping women?

 

Talk about calling the kettle black.  How can Trump condone his boasting of sexual assault by saying the husband of the woman next to him has done worse.  Did anyone think that his statements could be grounds for prosecution? Sexual assault statute of limitations could be 10-20yrs.

 

The argument I keep hearing about the Trump camp is that, basically, both candidates are as low as mud, but Trump is less blemished so its ok he runs the country.