[Discussion] 2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

The US Presidential Elections catch-all. All discussion related to the ongoing campaigns can go here.

Aetius wrote:

In short, Johnson's record as governor should reassure you - he's not a libertarian extremist, and he was able make progress despite the adamant opposition of a legislature that was 60% Democrat. He essentially kept New Mexico from making a lot of stupid spending decisions that would have come back to haunt them five years after he left office. About the only thing he did that was a mistake was the film credit, and he himself will admit that was mistake and he's pressed current legislators to get rid of it. And while you may dismiss his ideas as 19th century, he pretty much proved that they work in New Mexico, even against opposition.

And still, his budgets increased the size of the state budget by 50% in ten years, and that's more than twice the rate of inflation for the period (which was around 21%). How is that any more fiscally responsible than any other "small government" hand-waving Republican? It's not. He's in no way Ron Paul, and while I'm grateful for that, I just don't see that his policies will be better than Clintons, and at least she's got a huge Rolodex of people on all parts of the political spectrum who've worked with her.

While I'm all for moderate Republicans over the crazies we see today, I believe Clinton is far better prepared for the challenges of the office. And I think you're exaggerating the dangers of her policies. That remains to be seen, of course. But I'll take her over Trump any day.

You've made a good case, though.

Aetius wrote:

Two nuclear attacks don't make a right, they just make more of a mess.

Welcome to the past 60 years. The US has always used the threat of MAD to protect its NATO allies.

Could be worse: Trump favors the idea of attacking Iran over rude gestures.

Aetius wrote:

Economically, she supports wage controls (raising the minimum wage), which is economically certain to suppress job growth, and likely to put more people out of work.

That's funny, Paul Krugman doesn't think so.

BadKen wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Economically, she supports wage controls (raising the minimum wage), which is economically certain to suppress job growth, and likely to put more people out of work.

That's funny, Paul Krugman doesn't think so.

That's funny, because this article says it's a bad idea.

And I'm sure we can find plenty of others that say either way.

obirano wrote:
BadKen wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Economically, she supports wage controls (raising the minimum wage), which is economically certain to suppress job growth, and likely to put more people out of work.

That's funny, Paul Krugman doesn't think so.

That's funny, because this article says it's a bad idea.

And I'm sure we can find plenty of others that say either way.

I think this would be a great excuse to put the "Debate" thread type of the new format to good use.

Also, I liked Aetius's post, even though I disagreed with about 60-70% of it, just because it was well-written.

OzymandiasAV wrote:
obirano wrote:
BadKen wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Economically, she supports wage controls (raising the minimum wage), which is economically certain to suppress job growth, and likely to put more people out of work.

That's funny, Paul Krugman doesn't think so.

That's funny, because this article says it's a bad idea.

And I'm sure we can find plenty of others that say either way.

I think this would be a great excuse to put the "Debate" thread type of the new format to good use.

Also, I liked Aetius's post, even though I disagreed with about 60-70% of it, just because it was well-written.

I really liked it as well. I agree with the majority of it, though I've not been a fan of either party for a long while.

obirano wrote:
BadKen wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Economically, she supports wage controls (raising the minimum wage), which is economically certain to suppress job growth, and likely to put more people out of work.

That's funny, Paul Krugman doesn't think so.

That's funny, because this article says it's a bad idea.

And I'm sure we can find plenty of others that say either way.

But that's very important, because Aetius said that an increased minimum wage is "economically certain to suppress job growth". In actuality there is a large body of evidence on this subject that shows that in many different instances of reasonable increases to the minimum wage there was no increase in unemployment that could be isolated to that as a cause, and in many others there was a minor effect. That is very, very different from "certain".

Also, the NY Times link is a respected Economist's opinion which is--more importantly--backed up with peer reviewed research linked in that article. Your response article is the opinion piece of a representative of the organizations who would be forced to pay higher wages, which doesn't have the same weight.

obirano wrote:

My bad on that. I just grabbed one as snark.

Here is a research paper saying its bad and has a negative effect. Yes, it's a bit older.

GWJ doesn't seem to like embedded PDF URLs www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf

Robear wrote:

Convince us that Johnson is less dangerous than Clinton.

*Mod hat*
Sounds like you want a Debate thread.

I have created a Debate thread for the minimum wage talk. (Not for the Johnson vs Clinton threat assessment that sometimesdee just mentioned).

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/c6PlORZ.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/nop1idR.jpg)

Spoiler:

I honestly hope she gets well soon.

BoogtehWoog wrote:

I just do not understand the mentality of supporting a third party candidate. I think it is a display of privilege more than anything. There are so many people that will be very negatively impacted by a Trump/Pence presidency. I don't understand how it can be justified. Dislike Hillary and the establishment all you want, but the fact remains that if she loses there will be very dark times ahead for a lot of people and those people are your friends and family.

And this is why I hate the winner take all republic that the USA is. I really wonder how many more people would vote for third party candidates if the election was just a straight who got the most votes.

There is a lot to be said for proportional representation. While here we have been dominated by one party for 20+ years, local government elections recently have put opposition coalitions in control of several municipalities and it's getting interesting.

Something that sprang to my mind today: back in 2008, when Obama was just elected, a few Goodjers asked in ye olde P&C whether we could finally stop pretending race was an issue in the US.

I wonder where they stand now, when an overtly racist candidate polls at 40% in the general election.

Sometimesdee wrote:

Robear wrote:
Convince us that Johnson is less dangerous than Clinton.

*Mod hat*
Sounds like you want a Debate thread.

It's going to take a lot of practice to change how to think about these groups, so thanks. But I do consider that Aetius made his case well (especially that Johnson is not very libertarian in his economics) and so I'll stick with that. I still have objections to voting for a third party candidate who is polling at barely noticeable levels, but that's true for any candidate in that situation, given our current system.

The problem with third party voting, in my experience, is that a lot of people who talk about it only seem to care when it's a Presidential election and they want to use the idea as a way to mark themselves as a truly educated thinker. Voting for a smaller party is pointless if people think that one can suddenly surge to power in a Presidential election cycle.

Regarding "throwing your vote away" and "voting for X by default" discussion:

I live in a "safe" blue state. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about any third parties this year, but in the past, I've voted for them and felt no compunction. I voted, for example, third-party for president in 2004 and Kerry still got 100% of the Illinois electoral college votes. I was not voting for Bush by default then, and it looks unlikely that third-party voters in Illinois will be voting for Trump by default this year, either.

Yes, Most Donald Trump Supporters Are Deplorable and Irredeemable

*I know the comment by Clinton pissed of conservatives but when I look at the poll numbers I kind of agree that Trumpists are deplorable.

1. The overwhelming majority of Trump aficionados support his proposed ban on Muslim immigrants

2. two-thirds of them register unfavorable views of American Muslims.

3. A plurality of Republicans supported Trump’s claim that a Mexican-American judge was inherently biased and therefore unfit to preside over his fraud trial.

4. Two-thirds of voters who like Trump consider President Obama a Muslim

5. three-fifths of them believe he was not born in the United States.

6. And Trump himself notes - “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

What Do the Presidential Candidates Know About Science?

Clinton, Trump and Stein answer 20 top questions about Science, Engineering, Technology, Health & Environmental Issues

We at Scientific American are asking our readers and viewers, particularly those with relevant technical expertise, to help us out by sending us your analysis of one or two of the answers from the candidates. We will take your responses into account, along with our own reporting, to make a final determination.

Our plan is to grade the answers on a pass/fail basis, using the following three questions as a guide: Does the answer address the question asked? Is it well-informed with respect to scientific consensus about the issue? Does the response offer specific, workable details?

Please email your responses to [email protected] with the words “Science Debate 2016” in the subject line. We regret that we will not be able to respond to all the answers individually.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

What Do the Presidential Candidates Know About Science?

Clinton, Trump and Stein answer 20 top questions about Science, Engineering, Technology, Health & Environmental Issues

The contrast in the depth of the responses from the various candidates is more interesting to me than any of the responses in particular to me.

We at Scientific American are asking our readers and viewers, particularly those with relevant technical expertise, to help us out by sending us your analysis of one or two of the answers from the candidates. We will take your responses into account, along with our own reporting, to make a final determination.

Our plan is to grade the answers on a pass/fail basis, using the following three questions as a guide: Does the answer address the question asked? Is it well-informed with respect to scientific consensus about the issue? Does the response offer specific, workable details?

Please email your responses to [email protected] with the words “Science Debate 2016” in the subject line. We regret that we will not be able to respond to all the answers individually.

Of interest to me is the contrast of the depth of the responses from the various candidates.

I really don't buy this subtle goalpost-moving when pro-Clinton pieces attempt to "prove" irredeemability. The word contains some very heavy baggage when used in a moral, religious, or political context, and the argument that Trump supporters are less likely to be swayed by facts kind of misses the point. "Irredeemable" people cannot be saved, have nothing of value to contribute, and therefore can be completely ignored, shot into the sun, etc. By calling someone irredeemable, you're basically stripping the core of who they are as people down to a position and deeming them worthless, both now and in the future. The frustrating thing is that Clinton gave what I considered to be a pretty great speech to the National Baptist Convention just last week that included elements of humility, sin, failure, and salvation through grace and prayer. I just wish she could apply the same thinking to people supporting her opponent.

Garrcia wrote:

Of interest to me is the contrast of the depth of the responses from the various candidates.

Of interest to me is whether Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein were smiling while they wrote their responses.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I really don't buy this subtle goalpost-moving when pro-Clinton pieces attempt to "prove" irredeemability. The word contains some very heavy baggage when used in a moral, religious, or political context, and the argument that Trump supporters are less likely to be swayed by facts kind of misses the point. "Irredeemable" people cannot be saved, have nothing of value to contribute, and therefore can be completely ignored, shot into the sun, etc. By calling someone irredeemable, you're basically stripping the core of who they are as people down to a position and deeming them worthless, both now and in the future. The frustrating thing is that Clinton gave what I considered to be a pretty great speech to the National Baptist Convention just last week that included elements of humility, sin, failure, and salvation through grace and prayer. I just wish she could apply the same thinking to people supporting her opponent.

I don't even disagree much but I do think that we have been reading for months how Trumpists have a variety of views many would call deplorable, but when some actually calls them deplorable suddenly we are supposed to be shocked.

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Did anyone actually say this?

farley3k wrote:

I don't even disagree much but I do think that we have been reading for months how Trumpists have a variety of views many would call deplorable, but when some actually calls them deplorable suddenly we are supposed to be shocked.

It always seems like the people who are "anti-PC" and who deride how "oversensitive" the world has become are the quickest to throw a tantrum.

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Did anyone actually say this?

If someone is throwing a fit about being called a racist and ignoring or hand-waving away racist speech and actions then yes, they are effectively saying that calling someone out on racism is more deplorable than racism itself.

Secretary Clinton wrote:

Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

I think that's what Norman is objecting to as coming from a professing Christian, and I'm with him on that. Christianity has, at its core, the concept of a redemption beyond what humans could effect or merit. A lot of the speech was more tightly worded than that.

On a personal note, I put a lot of my own time and energy into not writing off people who I think are wrong. My church, for example, has a fair number of attendees who are significantly more conservative than I am—culturally, politically, and theologically. I could switch to a more liberal church; I've been asked why I haven't. I think that those of us who have the energy and ability to engage* "across the aisle" probably should. Otherwise, do we just hope that these ideas will die out of their own accord?

Note: I do not want to condemn those who pull back as part of their self care.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I really don't buy this subtle goalpost-moving when pro-Clinton pieces attempt to "prove" irredeemability. The word contains some very heavy baggage when used in a moral, religious, or political context, and the argument that Trump supporters are less likely to be swayed by facts kind of misses the point. "Irredeemable" people cannot be saved, have nothing of value to contribute, and therefore can be completely ignored, shot into the sun, etc. By calling someone irredeemable, you're basically stripping the core of who they are as people down to a position and deeming them worthless, both now and in the future. The frustrating thing is that Clinton gave what I considered to be a pretty great speech to the National Baptist Convention just last week that included elements of humility, sin, failure, and salvation through grace and prayer. I just wish she could apply the same thinking to people supporting her opponent.

How heavy is the moral, religious, and political baggage of Trump's campaign tagline "Make America Great Again"?

Given what Trump himself has said, what his spokespeople and political allies have said, what political policies he's committed to, and how his supporters and fans have interpreted all of the above it is clear that what "Make America Great Again" really means is that practically everyone who isn't a non-college educated Christian white male has made America worse in some way. And, taking the next logical step, the only way to make America great again is to either get rid of those people entirely or make it so they are politically powerless and socially invisible again.

Let's be honest, though. Short of Trump supporters suddenly have life-changing personal epiphanies about race and religion they aren't going to change their minds.

But the likelihood of that happening isn't great considering that the areas with the highest support of Trump also happen to be areas where a disproportionately high percentage of white people live. Doubly so because of the age of Trump supporters: half are grown-ass adults between 45 and 64 and a more than a third are over 65. That's not a demographic that's typically open to radically changing their beliefs.

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yup. Once again, it's a far greater sin to call racists racist, than it is to *behave* in a racist manner.

Did anyone actually say this?

Has Mike Pence denounced any of the racist, misogynist, islamophobic and homophobic behaviors of Trump's followers in as stern terms as he did Hillary? Has Trump? Has CNN? Has *literally* anyone on the 'right'?