The US Election 2016, Part VIII

[Malcador]

Well, if the U.S. does end up as broken as Brazil, we'll get an American Tropa de Elite 2 (good movie, not sure if Brazil is really THAT ****ed up though).

 

Sure as hell doubt Trump is really going to stop that. Not much strength on show there.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. There is little interest in curbing the current demographical trend in Hillary's camp. I do not even need to point to history like the empires of old, to make it clear out that no majority is destabilising (just look at Putham's study if you're really interested http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

 

 

 

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position:

 

 

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," [Putnam] writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

 

"Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.

 

 

That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work.

 

 

Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet.

 

 

The study says otherwise, feel free to provide a study or an argument that says that demographic diversification/heterogeneity is an advantage for social cohesion for a nation, and how, anytime you want. Besides, why should I or anyone else here care on whose opinion you trust more?

 

Interesting how you skipped point 1 and 3 as they build up to the whole picture of the decline.

 

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed heterogeneity is advantageous for social cohesion. I pointed out that the very researcher you cite to support your idiocy believes that the answer doesn't lie in embracing "ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism".

 

As for skipping points, I think it's probably for the better if we don't touch your rant on how Hillary "has no signs of strength, vitality and lucidity", as it is exactly the kind of "feelz before realz" thinking you're keen to decry as irrational when it suits you. There is a reason the halo effect (and its inverse, charmingly named "the horns effect", as I've learned recently) is acknowledged as a form of cognitive bias, not "a reliable method by which we should be selecting our leaders". The part where you ruminate on how "leadership reflects the currents of the masses", while at the same time managing to paint "virtuous" leaders as exemplars without whom society inevitably falls into decline is just utterly incoherent, which is kind of an impressive feat, given that you're practically ripping off Plato and Confucius here, who might have had terrible ideas, but at least managed to phrase those in a not completely self-contradictory fashion.

 

Your third point has a glimmer of rational thought in it (TPP is bad news), but then once again you descend into howling insanity with "certain groups climb the ladder faster due to having better inner cohesion" (gee whiz, and here I thought having wealth and connections was the fast-track to the top, but no, apparently any group with any socio-economic background can just saunter right there if they just have enough inner cohesion!), and then you top it off with...whatever you're trying to get at with the bit about armed uprisings of people who feel the system is rigged against them. At this point, I can't even follow.

 

 

Oh, you just quoted him without phrasing something of your own? Fair enough. Suffice to say, i am right in my opinion and he is wrong in his opinion and his study ractifies that.

 

You misinterpret what i said about Clinton, it's a symbiotic relationship between leaders and the people who follow them. If society is heading towards further degeneracy and the leaders are, willfully or not, nurturing those bad impulses, it will spiral down and the examples i mentioned manifest in those. Empty platitudes, feel goods, insincerity is not something only observed because of a certain cognitive bias, unless of you think of course that there's no objective values, then we will just end the discussion here. The same way, a society with strong sense of virtues and to uphold them will increase the probability of the next Aurelius to step up, but first it requires someone to change the pendelum into the right direction, and that's where Trump comes into the picture. He is but a mere echo of anything truly great or of any higher principle, but his strength is in his being, which will hopefully pull down the curtain and make sure that apathy will not be the guiding principle of the following generation. There is simply no one else at the moment.

 

As for the last point, different groups of people have strong inner cohesion compared to others and such will help each other accelerate in society through different degrees of nepotism was just one of the manys symptoms from capital being global and labour local. The bolded part is what is important as the ability for companies to have more power than the citizenry in a country was omitted as that goes without saying and i wanted to highlight other issues that goes with it.

 

Pro-tip: if you're failing to understand the point someone is making in the future, you can always ask to clarify. 

[Zoraptor]

In the UK, they cannot defend someone they know is guilty, at least if what Germany has taught me about UK law is correct. If a murderer confesses to the lawyer, he must rat him out.

 

Pretty sure the only circumstance under which you have to 'rat out' your client in the UK is if they pose a continuing or imminent threat to the public or themself. As a comparison that's the only circumstance (exc court orders etc) under which doctors can break privilege too. Otherwise it's the same as elsewhere, you cannot use a defence knowing it to be false, so if your client confesses you cannot mount a defence pretending they didn't do it.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. There is little interest in curbing the current demographical trend in Hillary's camp. I do not even need to point to history like the empires of old, to make it clear out that no majority is destabilising (just look at Putham's study if you're really interested http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

 

 

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position:

 

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," [Putnam] writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

"Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.

That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work.

Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet.

The study says otherwise, feel free to provide a study or an argument that says that demographic diversification/heterogeneity is an advantage for social cohesion for a nation, and how, anytime you want. Besides, why should I or anyone else here care on whose opinion you trust more?

 

Interesting how you skipped point 1 and 3 as they build up to the whole picture of the decline.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed heterogeneity is advantageous for social cohesion. I pointed out that the very researcher you cite to support your idiocy believes that the answer doesn't lie in embracing "ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism".

 

As for skipping points, I think it's probably for the better if we don't touch your rant on how Hillary "has no signs of strength, vitality and lucidity", as it is exactly the kind of "feelz before realz" thinking you're keen to decry as irrational when it suits you. There is a reason the halo effect (and its inverse, charmingly named "the horns effect", as I've learned recently) is acknowledged as a form of cognitive bias, not "a reliable method by which we should be selecting our leaders". The part where you ruminate on how "leadership reflects the currents of the masses", while at the same time managing to paint "virtuous" leaders as exemplars without whom society inevitably falls into decline is just utterly incoherent, which is kind of an impressive feat, given that you're practically ripping off Plato and Confucius here, who might have had terrible ideas, but at least managed to phrase those in a not completely self-contradictory fashion.

 

Your third point has a glimmer of rational thought in it (TPP is bad news), but then once again you descend into howling insanity with "certain groups climb the ladder faster due to having better inner cohesion" (gee whiz, and here I thought having wealth and connections was the fast-track to the top, but no, apparently any group with any socio-economic background can just saunter right there if they just have enough inner cohesion!), and then you top it off with...whatever you're trying to get at with the bit about armed uprisings of people who feel the system is rigged against them. At this point, I can't even follow.

Oh, you just quoted him without phrasing something of your own? Fair enough. Suffice to say, i am right in my opinion and he is wrong in his opinion and his study ractifies that.

 

You misinterpret what i said about Clinton, it's a symbiotic relationship between leaders and the people who follow them. If society is heading towards further degeneracy and the leaders are, willfully or not, nurturing those bad impulses, it will spiral down and the examples i mentioned manifest in those. Empty platitudes, feel goods, insincerity is not something only observed because of a certain cognitive bias, unless of you think of course that there's no objective values, then we will just end the discussion here. The same way, a society with strong sense of virtues and to uphold them will increase the probability of the next Aurelius to step up, but first it requires someone to change the pendelum into the right direction, and that's where Trump comes into the picture. He is but a mere echo of anything truly great or of any higher principle, but his strength is in his being, which will hopefully pull down the curtain and make sure that apathy will not be the guiding principle of the following generation. There is simply no one else at the moment.

 

As for the last point, different groups of people have strong inner cohesion compared to others and such will help each other accelerate in society through different degrees of nepotism was just one of the manys symptoms from capital being global and labour local. The bolded part is what is important as the ability for companies to have more power than the citizenry in a country was omitted as that goes without saying and i wanted to highlight other issues that goes with it.

 

Pro-tip: if you're failing to understand the point someone is making in the future, you can always ask to clarify.

Curious, but what changes are you for that you see coming from Trump? And his strength is inciting enemies to action?

[Volourn]

Hillary salivating over the possibility of seeing man **** with a fellow feminist pervert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drBXq9CnZUI

[BruceVC]

Hillary salivating over the possibility of seeing man **** with a fellow feminist pervert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drBXq9CnZUI

Surly you cant get offended by that ? You insult Hilary and say she laughs at rape victims....you need to toughen up volo, life is hard 

[HoonDing]

a rapist misogynist is gonna get elected

 

how do you feel about that Bruce

[Volourn]

"Surly you cant get offended by that ? You insult Hilary and say she laughs at rape victims....you need to toughen up volo, life is hard  :biggrin:"

 

I'm not offended. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters or people all butthurt over Trump's comments. Bottom line is everyone ogles the gender/genders theya re attracted to and say so called 'inappropriate' things about those they are attracted to. Just ask all the older women saliviating over Beiber when he was still a kid.

[BruceVC]

a rapist misogynist is gonna get elected

 

how do you feel about that Bruce

Trump wont get elected....you need to accept this as truth. Its okay I accept your trust 

 

 

 

"Surly you cant get offended by that ? You insult Hilary and say she laughs at rape victims....you need to toughen up volo, life is hard  :biggrin:"

 

I'm not offended. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Clinton supporters or people all butthurt over Trump's comments. Bottom line is everyone ogles the gender/genders theya re attracted to and say so called 'inappropriate' things about those they are attracted to. Just ask all the older women saliviating over Beiber when he was still a kid.

But that is my point, the analogy is completely unreasonable. Two women joking about something that is funny but harmless is not the same as Trump saying he can grope any women he wants and get away with it 

 

You must see the difference ?

[Guard Dog]

Disregard. It's BS. Volo was right. My fault for not googling before posting: http://www.snopes.com/tim-kaine-yells-at-his-daughter/

Edited October 13, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Volourn]

Are you sure that is Kaine? that sounds like Alec Baldwin. So, no, can't put that on Kaine I don't think. Just such yuckster trying to drag  Kaine down. Target Clinton herself. She has done and said horrible things. I mean that's a woman who laughs at women raped  and molstesed and abused by her husband. She is the one who laughs at level girl rape victims and blames them for their rape and brags about getting her clients off. She is the one who enjoys bombing innocent people. EVIL. And, she has experience laughing at rape victims. 30+ years of it at that.

[BruceVC]

Disregard. It's BS. Volo was right. My fault for not googling before posting: http://www.snopes.com/tim-kaine-yells-at-his-daughter/

Not a big deal, it is possible?

[Gromnir]

http://www.nytco.com/the-new-york-timess-response-to-donald-trumps-retraction-letter/

 

david mccraw and the times just went all ll cool j on trump.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[redneckdevil]

http://www.nytco.com/the-new-york-timess-response-to-donald-trumps-retraction-letter/

 

david mccraw and the times just went all ll cool j on trump.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

I will say this about the situation....it shows neither Trump NOR Hillary should run for president. It looks like Trump will end up as another Bill Clinton and Hillary will actually be bringing Bill with her.....

Either way a good chance for a huge amount of sexual harassment and "rape" to be going on in the White House for at least 4yrs.

I will say this, I think I finally found a silver lining with the election. Even if Hillary wins, she won't get a second term. Look at who her opponent is right now and how well she had been doing with Trump... All they gotta do is present an actual decent opponent and she will go down like an intern on Bill's sack.

[Zoraptor]

She'll have four years to entrench herself though, and put down further roots into the establishment power bases that she has exploited and which are protecting her already. Incumbency has a large effect and Hillary will use that to its full extent- she barely seems to care about what is legal now, she'll be worse in power. And to be honest, the Republicans don't look like they're able to produce anyone popular and inspiring; people like Jindal, Walker or Rubio were meant to be this generations hot new conservatives and they flopped, badly. The Republican platform has got too narrow, barring someone like Trump and he's too narrowly appealing in a completely different way.

 

Ironically, I suspect that Hillary would probably have a worse chance against Sanders v2.0 in 2020 than the current obvious Republican candidates but there would be very little chance of any serious primary challenge to a sitting President.

[redneckdevil]

I know, either one would. Trump I think would meet to much opposition to do anything IF he knew what to do in the first place.

I dunno, I think if Trump's VP ran as president or hell the republican from SC I believe would stomp her. I dunno if sanders will be still be alive that long to oppose her or would even want to after seeing and experiencing a rigged election against him.

[Volourn]

Sanders is such a loser he kissing the ass of the person who cheated to beat  him (even though she might have won anyways). That's disgraceful, cowardly, and a spit in the face of anyone with decency when it comes to 'fairness' (lol) in politics. he claimed to want to fight against that kind of thing.. yet here is supporting not only the person who screwed nhim over but also a rape apologizer. EVIL AND MORONIC.

[Enoch]

She'll have four years to entrench herself though, and put down further roots into the establishment power bases that she has exploited and which are protecting her already. Incumbency has a large effect and Hillary will use that to its full extent- she barely seems to care about what is legal now, she'll be worse in power. And to be honest, the Republicans don't look like they're able to produce anyone popular and inspiring; people like Jindal, Walker or Rubio were meant to be this generations hot new conservatives and they flopped, badly. The Republican platform has got too narrow, barring someone like Trump and he's too narrowly appealing in a completely different way.

 

Ironically, I suspect that Hillary would probably have a worse chance against Sanders v2.0 in 2020 than the current obvious Republican candidates but there would be very little chance of any serious primary challenge to a sitting President.

 

Or, you know, she might do a good job and earn more popularity. 

 

Really, the head of the FBI calling her extremely careless with classified information would've likely been near-fatal in a normal year.  (I say "near fatal" mostly because of the degree to which the electoral college and demographic math favors the Democrats right now.)  But, in 4 years, that'll be old news, and her competition will have a tough time convincing the voters that it's still an especially relevant factor to consider. 

 

That said, you're right about the problem before the GOP.  Absent a very unlikely turnaround in the next few weeks, Trump won't be the 2020 nominee, but his supporters will still be around (egged on by what they see everyday on Trump TV).  The party tried to do the whole "broaden its appeal in the face of demographic doom" thing first with W's efforts at "compassionate conservative" immigration reform, and second with their post-mortem studies after Romney's loss, but the base rebelled to prevent any of that from taking shape.  "Rural white folks" is not a sufficient voter base for a national party, but it's going to take an unusually persuasive candidate to convince the rural white folks in the Trump camp right now that support for policies that can bring in a large-enough-to-win coalition is in their best interest. 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

A corrupt system can only produce a corrupt result.

[BruceVC]

A corrupt system can only produce a corrupt result.

WOD can I ask you something, would you say you feel depressed about the state of this election or more irritated?

 

Pence would be a much better choice, I was watching him in the Kain debate and as much as I like Kain I have to admit Pence simply had more composure and insights than him. He is a much more balanced and reasonable person than Trump

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Or, you know, she might do a good job and earn more popularity.

 

Oh yeah, she might. I rather doubt it personally but she certainly could.

 

A lot of the problems that make her a flawed candidate would not necessarily make her a flawed president, but there a lot of other factors that may. When it comes right down to it Hillary is a status quo candidate who is unlikely to make any earthshaking departures from general orthodoxy. She probably won't get into a nuclear war with the Russians or any of the other nightmare scenarios. That's fine when the status quo is popular, but it certainly isn't popular at the moment. The trouble is also that the status quo- things like the low interest rates, deficit spending- cannot be maintained indefinitely, most of the vested interests that want it maintained are Hillary supporters, and fixing issues will often require working against those who backed her. If Obama, far less beholden to/ supported by those vested interests has found it hard to make changes she'll find it harder, while making such changes becomes more and more urgent.

 

The big problem she will have though is the same as her big problem on the campaign though; she isn't really likeable. People tend to be far more forgiving of people they like and forget their flaws more readily. She's likely to be elected as the most disliked/ negatively viewed president elect ever, so she's starting from behind in the first place. Of course, if she gets a run of excellent growth, lower unemployment, reduced deficits or even surplus etc then people are unlikely to care about her likeability, but the last such run was 20 years ago when Bill was President.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Or, you know, she might do a good job and earn more popularity.

 

Oh yeah, she might. I rather doubt it personally but she certainly could.

 

A lot of the problems that make her a flawed candidate would not necessarily make her a flawed president, but there a lot of other factors that may. When it comes right down to it Hillary is a status quo candidate who is unlikely to make any earthshaking departures from general orthodoxy. She probably won't get into a nuclear war with the Russians or any of the other nightmare scenarios. That's fine when the status quo is popular, but it certainly isn't popular at the moment. The trouble is also that the status quo- things like the low interest rates, deficit spending- cannot be maintained indefinitely, most of the vested interests that want it maintained are Hillary supporters, and fixing issues will often require working against those who backed her. If Obama, far less beholden to/ supported by those vested interests has found it hard to make changes she'll find it harder, while making such changes becomes more and more urgent.

 

The big problem she will have though is the same as her big problem on the campaign though; she isn't really likeable. People tend to be far more forgiving of people they like and forget their flaws more readily. She's likely to be elected as the most disliked/ negatively viewed president elect ever, so she's starting from behind in the first place. Of course, if she gets a run of excellent growth, lower unemployment, reduced deficits or even surplus etc then people are unlikely to care about her likeability, but the last such run was 20 years ago when Bill was President.

 

Zora would it be possible for you to not parrot the stereotypical attacks on Hilary Clinton that our Americans do believe because they live in the US and for many of them they have to live with her as president 

 

Yes, yes I get it .....its the Internet and feelings dont matter and you just saying what others are saying. But you dont care about the USA yet you love taking the time to make your usual intellectual\captious comments that ostensibly appear normal but on further reflection are utterly negative

 

Or can you at least say something new when you criticize her ?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

A corrupt system can only produce a corrupt result.

WOD can I ask you something, would you say you feel depressed about the state of this election or more irritated?

 

Pence would be a much better choice, I was watching him in the Kain debate and as much as I like Kain I have to admit Pence simply had more composure and insights than him. He is a much more balanced and reasonable person than Trump

 

Depressed is about right. I've thought we're doomed for quite some time, and now I'm almost certain. Pence didn't run in the primary, and if he did he'd still be the establishment candidate, thus would likely lose. That's what I meant when I said a corrupt system produces corrupt results. Edited October 14, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

At this point the most likely outcome is that Hillary wins and is in office during the next big market crash which will be caused by factors outside any politician's control. Trump 2.0 gets elected with a wave of right-populists and we get some protectionist policies that are too little too late along with stuff that makes things even worse for workers. Small towns die forcing a migration to cities, the only jobs will be **** minimum wage stuff you have to fight with 50 other college educated applicants for and get maybe 10 hours a week, and the US government will continue to be an entity that exists to protect the interests of the ruling class as it was since inception. We will ping back and forth between increasingly extreme right-populists and status quo "progressives who get things done" until the system collapses or is overthrown.

Edited October 14, 2016 by KaineParker

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Or, you know, she might do a good job and earn more popularity.

 

Oh yeah, she might. I rather doubt it personally but she certainly could.

 

Disagree. It's not even remotely possible. Everything she will do is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. 100% chance she will be an awful president.