Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Trump

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Nicky said:

And I'm troubled by the level of delusion it takes for you to assume that someone other than Trump or Clinton is going to be President.

I'm not assuming someone other than Trump or Clinton is going to be president. I'm assuming you can read, so I can only conclude your sense of being troubled is idle rhetoric - as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Is it rational to ignore the fact that these are the two candidates engaged in an electoral process that is likely to run its course in a "business as usual" manner, and to assess which is likely to be appointed to the position of President of the United States?

Where's your plug and advocation for an alternative here, or is it sufficient to be content with calling integrity into question?

Is it rational to ignore the fact? Certainly not. I am not ignoring that fact. I'm drawing attention to it, and the lack of a case for voting for either of them.

It is also rational to assess which is likely to become president. However that likeliness should not influence your appraisal of which, if either of them, merits your support. Your appraisal should be based on their suitability for the position. 

I think there is a lack of integrity in strategic voting. The alternatives are to vote for a candidate who merits it, or if none of them do, to not vote at all. Do you want to be responsible for what Trump or Clinton do when they win? Because you would have put them there if you vote for them, knowing full well what it means.

Both of them are dangerous. They are both threats to peace (acting as aggressors) and justice. They are both a threat to capitalism and meritocracy. I just can't understand how you can want that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Where's your plug and advocation for an alternative here, or is it sufficient to be content with calling integrity into question?

I might be writing in Evan McMullin. https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues

This isn't some belief that he could win, but it isn't without strategy either. All I will really be able is to call attention to actually good people. Trump or Clinton are both tragically bad, so my strategy is to at least locally talk about potential ideas or people to win in 2020. We're already screwed now. Better to plan for the aftermath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

my strategy is to at least locally talk about potential ideas or people

I have several recurring events on my e-calendar I've been using as reminders to look up a two-three page article to read myself, and place next to a box of pastries on my desk at work for events like Magna Carta Day, Bill of Rights Day, Constitution Day. The pastries usually get eaten up.

As to the few times inquiry has been made about my support for either Trump or Clinton, I usually make polite inquiry about which one advocates and upholds the principle of individual rights.

 

An aside note to Constitution Day, one of the engineers I work with was surprised to learn about it. I suggested that it was interesting that we celebrate the 4th of July, the winning of the war of independence, but when it comes to the document that enshrines the principles we fought for and secured the right to enact—it takes a back burner, usually a footnote on some calendar, or included in a reading on the radio in the "Today, in history" section of the programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Is it rational to ignore the fact? Certainly not. I am not ignoring that fact. I'm drawing attention to it, and the lack of a case for voting for either of them.

I explained in detail why it's important to take part in choosing the next President, rather than let others make the choice for us. You never addressed any of that, instead, you went on an irrelevant tangent about a fantasy world in which we can elect someone who "deserves it".

I'll say it again, perhaps it gets through to you the 20th time: we don't have the option to elect someone who deserves it. "deserve" has nothing to do with who will win. The choice is between Clinton and Trump. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner you can start living, and making choices, IN REALITY.

* the above applies to 49 states. if you live in Utah and you want to hurt Trump's chances to become President, you should actually vote for McMullin rather than Clinton (because McMullin has a chance to take that state, Clinton doesn't).

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Do you want a criminal as president? A lying, cheating, power hungry aggressor in power? You all seem to. That's what you get with both of them.

Jon Southall,

Things aren't always what they seem. We are not going to get both of them, only one or the other. Indeed, it is as it usually is: the lesser of two evils. That's reality in America's present political arena. I've been witnessing this terrible event as I would a train wreck in slow motion. It's a bit like one of those absurd false choices: Would you prefer to have a flaming stick in one eye, or to have your right hand smashed with a three-pound sledge hammer? But it is reality and not a false choice. I believe most people on this forum view Hillary Clinton as a status quo candidate, as opposed to the unpredictable wild-card (or perhaps wild-man.) For those who will vote for Clinton, the miserable outcome will be mitigated. Clinton may be more easily held in check by a hostile congress. And if in fact she is a criminal, then may they start selecting the Special Prosecutor on January 8th of next year. If only there were some way to inform the American voters as to how to avoid this deplorable situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2016 at 11:58 PM, Jon Southall said:

I still am troubled by attempts here to rationalise voting for either candidate.

It's called electionitis. It's a psychological disorder that causes otherwise normal people to argue over which candidate to elect. A terribly debilitating disease, I wish there were a cure for it, so that we Americans could more easily embrace a life of not voting for our representatives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2016 at 1:27 PM, Jon Southall said:

Do you want to be responsible for what Trump or Clinton do when they win?

Yes, it's about time we take responsibility for what other people do. You can blame me for whatever Clinton does, if you like. I'm a big boy. I can take it. The buck stops with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

It's called electionitis.

Ha! According to a short write up at wiseGEEK, electionitis

is a condition which affects some political candidates and citizens during prolonged election cycles. This condition is characterized by a growing sense of fatigue with the election and the issues, and a tendency to express frustration with politics and the media. The best cure for electionitis is an election, which will end the cycle, although taking a few days of rest from election-related issues can help people "recharge" so that they can get through the rest of the election.

I don't get the impression that this article was written tongue in cheek, and given the history, the cure, at best, is only temporary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Ha! According to a short write up at wiseGEEK, electionitis

is a condition which affects some political candidates and citizens during prolonged election cycles.

I didn't know that someone already used the word. That's funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Repairman said:

It's a bit like one of those absurd false choices: Would you prefer to have a flaming stick in one eye, or to have your right hand smashed with a three-pound sledge hammer?

I view them as equal. It's more like picking which eye to put the flaming stick into. To avoid this, better candidates need support, whoever they are. After you vote, what will you do? I say it's short-term thinking to pick Clinton or Trump, with no apparent post-election plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I view them as equal. It's more like picking which eye to put the flaming stick into. To avoid this, better candidates need support, whoever they are. After you vote, what will you do? I say it's short-term thinking to pick Clinton or Trump, with no apparent post-election plan.

That's why I see it as a false alternative. And that's because we, the People, can appoint better candidates. On that we agree. I won't speculate anymore as to how it has come to this travesty; from here out, it's a matter of getting over it.

Off hand, I recall that one of the Founders warned that democracy would be the ruin of the United States, when the people started expecting "free things" from their government. I don't remember exactly who or how that sentiment originated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Repairman said:

Off hand, I recall that one of the Founders warned that democracy would be the ruin of the United States, when the people started expecting "free things" from their government. I don't remember exactly who or how that sentiment originated.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

From the quote source:

The above, in the reference shown, is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish born British lawyer and writer (1747-1813). However, there is some doubt about the original author, although the quotation has been often repeated by knowledgeable people. Certainly, the principle was well known to our Founders, and to informed writers of that period.

For more detail about the question of attribution, http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/11/2016 at 3:26 AM, Nicky said:

I explained in detail why it's important to take part in choosing the next President, rather than let others make the choice for us. You never addressed any of that, instead, you went on an irrelevant tangent about a fantasy world in which we can elect someone who "deserves it".

I'll say it again, perhaps it gets through to you the 20th time: we don't have the option to elect someone who deserves it. "deserve" has nothing to do with who will win. The choice is between Clinton and Trump. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner you can start living, and making choices, IN REALITY.

* the above applies to 49 states. if you live in Utah and you want to hurt Trump's chances to become President, you should actually vote for McMullin rather than Clinton (because McMullin has a chance to take that state, Clinton doesn't).

Nicky, 

You are setting up a false dichotomy and then accusing me of living in a fantasy - can't you see the contradiction? 

You firstly have a choice to vote or not. You secondly have a choice of whom to vote for. This is fact, not make-believe. Your individual vote is not decisive in electing the next president. The only chance of getting what you want is to vote for the candidate who best represents that. 

Your delusion stems from your belief that the lack of widespread popularity for candidates who merit and deserves the vote from an Objectivist, means you have no choice but to join the sheep and vote for a candidate who certainly does not deserve it - Clinton or Trump.

I'm drawing attention to the fact that this is not necessary and also that it draws in to question your integrity, because you are supporting a candidate who does not share or uphold Objectivist values (you claim to hold these). Clinton may be a lesser of two evils under your appraisal, but a vote for her is still a self-sacrificial act. You have the choice not to do that, I'm encouraging you to exercise that choice.

All this will fall on deaf ears with you Nicky. You want Clinton - not because she is the lesser of two evils, not to stop Trump but because you want her to be president. You value her. This speaks volumes about your values and what you stand for, but is no surprise given the standard of your contributions to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thinking points for you to enrich this discussion.

The probability that your vote will be decisive might currently be between 1 in 10 million to 1 in 60 million. It can be as low as 1 in a billion:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/vote.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi0-tOrupPQAhUCahoKHYRRA_MQFggfMAE&usg=AFQjCNH77EB5T--coUgb_V0PhMwcbmS74g&sig2=gfKKtxE8bbihApKu4ME3_Q

The odds are similar to taking part in a lottery. The thinking that your individual vote will be decisive in electing Trump or Clinton is irrational. The odds that it will do are close to zero in all cases, but greatest in swing states. Your reason for voting should therefore reflect your preferences, and not who you think may or may not win.

Strategic voting is also a cause of  preference intransitivity (e.g. where the candidate you vote for isn't your first preference, you are therefore ranking a lesser value over a higher one - resulting in a individually irrational intransitive ordering e.g. you vote for Clinton over McMullin but you prefer McMullin to Clinton and Trump).

According to Downs's theory, if you are future orientated and rational, you will vote for your preferred candidate/party even if they have no chance of winning the current election. The reason is to grow support for them to expand the set of alternatives in the future, and also to possibly prompt the current parties/candidates to alter their platforms in order to attract more support.

 

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Some thinking points for you to enrich this discussion.

The probability that your vote will be decisive might currently be between 1 in 10 million to 1 in 60 million. It can be as low as 1 in a billion.

The odds were the same when you voted to get Boris Johnson into office...and yet, you did. What's the difference? Aside from the fact that he's a populist demagogue, and Clinton isn't, I mean.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Southall said:

The only chance of getting what you want is to vote for the candidate who best represents that.

That's nonsense. I don't mean that I disagree, I mean literally nonsense. There is no sense in it. There is no attempt at sense. It's the exact opposite of what the actual cause and effect relationship is between those two events.

Seriously? You think me writing in Alex Epstein for President is going to give me a chance of getting what I want?

Right. You're not delusional at all.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

According to Downs's theory, if you are future orientated and rational, you will vote for your preferred candidate/party even if they have no chance of winning the current election. The reason is to grow support for them...

Yes, I get it. But your preferred candidate is basically a one-trick pony, and I absolutely detest her one trick. The day I vote for the Green Party is the day I renounce Western Civilization entirely. Until then, I'll disregard stupid Stein and know that I tried my best to prevent Trump from getting into the White House.

A "future-oriented and rational" person should get as far away from Stein as possible:

Quote

 

Jill Stein is the only candidate with a serious plan to halt climate change and switch to 100% renewable energy by 2030.

She’s the only candidate, now that Sanders is out of the race, with a plan to release students from impossible levels of debt.

She’s also the only candidate who is talking seriously about Black Lives Matter, institutional racism, and police brutality—and she has realistic and workable plans to address these social problems.

She is also taking a stand against unexamined military overspending and the irresponsible and often criminal misuse of those who volunteer to serve in our country’s armed forces.

She eloquently draws attention to the patriots who are forced to fight in illegal, immoral, unnecessary, and unwinnable wars.

 

Putting aside my disagreement with Stein's whole cataclysmic fear of man-made climate change, the simple fact that she fantasizes about a green, fossil fuel-free world by 2030 should win her a "Moron of the Decade" award right now. Hillary wants 30℅ renewable by 2030, and even that's a tough sell. Stein's few bonus ideas are almost equally idiotic, hardly worth mentioning, and certainly not "deserving" of my vote.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I never said Stein was my preferred candidate. I simply agreed with what she said in the video about voting for what you want. 

I don't support the Green party either. I would not vote for Stein. As I'm UK based its not worth me researching it in depth, I admitted not knowing a lot about her.

However if you know of a decent candidate (not DT or HC) then go for who you judge to be best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nicky said:

That's nonsense. I don't mean that I disagree, I mean literally nonsense. There is no sense in it. There is no attempt at sense. It's the exact opposite of what the actual cause and effect relationship is between those two events.

Seriously? You think me writing in Alex Epstein for President is going to give me a chance of getting what I want?

Right. You're not delusional at all.

No it is meaningful Nicky. You just haven't got it, but it is ok.

In order to win an election, a candidate needs to garner support, ultimately from voters. A candidate's chances of winning are elevated the more support they get. If you want a particular candidate to win, the only way you can directly influence the chance of that happening is by voting for them.

If you think they will need more support and backing and you care enough about it, then donate, campaign with them etc. There is loads you can do.

You won't get them elected perhaps, but what they stand for, their programme of change rises in prominence. The greater the support for this, the more likely it will become mainstream until the point it is possible that a deserving candidate can be elected as president.

I don't want DT to win, but he's not a politician, just a rich businessman. He has destroyed the other Republican nominees and is depending on the polls very close to Clinton, a career politician backed by just about everyone. Yes its remotely possible he will win, but given his character and background, that he has come so close is truly remarkable.

Who would have taken that seriously as a prospect from the outset?

But why are you & I even discussing this. You value Clinton, you want her to be president - not even as the lesser of two evils. I'm not appealing to your "reason".

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

I don't support the Green party either. I would not vote for Stein. As I'm UK based its not worth me researching it in depth, I admitted not knowing a lot about her.

Ok. I misunderstood the intention of your posting of her video. But do you at least see our problem here? The candidate most like an Objectivist is Libertarian Gary Johnson, but he lacks a serious, national, political focus. It's like he's running for governor again. Very uninspiring and seemingly aloof to truly important, history-making issues, such as the war against Islamic fundamentalism and the corruption of the American Establishment. Still, I might vote for him at the last minute, since I'm in California and another Hillary vote is nearly worthless here, except perhaps as part of the general, popular-vote protest against Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

I'm not sure this is what causes dictatorship. A pure democracy is already a dictatorship of the majority, and will crush the minority eventually. What causes dictatorships, including pure democracies, is not so much corruptions of the state's economy or finances, but corruptions of the people's sense of individualism. Once collectivism becomes the dominant belief and political trend of a nation, some form of dictatorship is bound to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

A pure democracy is already a dictatorship of the majority, and will crush the minority eventually.

If you take a dictatorship as concentrating the power into the hands of one, it would keep things clearer to state that a pure democracy is a tyranny of/by the majority.

The relationships between altruism, collectivism and statism are mentioned together several times in Rand's writings. A dictatorship is one variant of statism. I could have omitted the "Fatal Sequence" from the quote. I did not think it would become another centerpiece in this already diverse thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...