Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'hillary clinton'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Introductions and Local Forums
    • Introductions and Personal Notes
    • Local Forums
  • Philosophy
    • Questions about Objectivism
    • Metaphysics and Epistemology
    • Ethics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Aesthetics
  • Culture
    • Current Events
    • Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures
    • Productivity
    • Intellectuals and the Media
  • Science and the Humanities
    • Science & Technology
    • Economics
    • History
    • Psychology and Self Improvement
  • Intellectual Activism and Study Groups
    • Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
    • Study/Reading Groups
    • Marketplace
    • The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
  • Miscellaneous Forums
    • Miscellaneous Topics
    • Recreation and The Good Life
    • Work, Careers and Money
    • School, College and Child development
    • The Critics of Objectivism
    • Debates
  • The Laboratory
    • Ask Jenni
    • Books to Mind – Stephen Boydstun
    • Dream Weaver's Allusions
    • The Objectivist Study Groups
    • Eiuol's Investigations
  • About Objectivism Online
    • Website Policy and Announcements
    • Help and Troubleshooting

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Other Public-visible Contact Info





Website URL




Interested in meeting

Chat Nick


Digg Nick

Experience with Objectivism

Real Name

School or University


Member Title

Found 4 results

  1. Hillary Clinton blamed the election loss partly on Vladimir Putin, saying he had a "personal beef" with her and ordered his people to hack emails. Apparently she once accused him of rigging a Russian election in 2011, and 2016 was his revenge on her. So, the story has slightly changed, I think. At first she wanted us to believe that Putin was trying to help his buddy, Trump, win. But now the story is that he was actually holding a grudge and getting revenge on her for something she said five years ago. I automatically doubt whatever Clinton says. So now I'm wondering if this revision has anything to do with Trump's threat to investigate her corruption. Perhaps he'll be less likely to go after her, if she invents this new motive for Putin, which has less to do with Trump and Putin being buddies, and more to do with Hillary and Putin being enemies.
  2. Maybe we could state who we voted for President without arguing about it on this thread. No nitpicking or criticizing other people's answers. Just listening. I'll go first. I ended up voting for Clinton because I don't want to see the Alt-Right gain real, government power with Trump in the White House.
  3. There's an interesting system for predicting the presidential elections, developed in 1981, that has always been right. I'm curious how others would answer the 13 questions below [note: I'm copy/pasting the description from wikipedia, because there's no point in me typing out the same thing]: The Keys to the White House is a 1996 book about a historically based prediction system for determining the outcome of presidential elections in the United States. The system, inspired by earthquake research,[1] was developed in 1981. by American historian Allan Lichtman and Russian scientist Vladimir Keilis-Borok, an authority on the mathematics of prediction models. The model has a record of accurate forecasts but has been criticised by some statisticians as including too many predictors to be a sound model and for forecasting only the winner of elections rather than the vote share of the winning party [note: it's been criticized for not taking any chances?]. The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. (F) Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. (F) Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. (F) Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. (T) Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (T) Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. (F) Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. (T) Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. (F) Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (?) Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. (F) Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (F) Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (F) Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#The_13_Keys_to_The_White_House The answers in parentheses, at the end, are MINE, not Lichtman's. (F) means false, (T) means true. By to my count, the Repubs should've won this election (eight false, three true). Of course, this model is based on a long history of elections where the nominee is an established political figure, is a long time member of the challenging party, and has the support of the vast majority of his party. So it doesn't apply this year. Lichtman himself seems to be aware of this, because, as far as I can tell at least, he hasn't made a prediction. But it does show that, had the Republicans nominated a reputable Republican politician, that has the support of major donor networks and the Republican infrastructure, they would've almost certainly won. P.S. I answered no. 8 false because of Black Lives Matter (mainly because of the cop shootings, not because BLM is significant in itself), and no. 10 false because of the rise of ISIS, the mess in Libya and Ukraine, and all the terrorist attacks.
  4. I understand that all the choices we have are bad. None of them support non-coercive solutions to this country so voting based on policies is futile for libertarians/objectivists. I know Trump supports some statist policies and says stupid things sometimes. The reason I think libertarians and objectivists need to vote for Trump is because I feel he will shift the political dynamic in ways that will undermine political correctness, the establishment and media propaganda that serve as barriers to freedom. Read my blog post for a more in-depth case about why I think Donald Trump is the best option. I wrote this case for my libertarian readers but this can also apply to objectivists who would like to challenge conventional wisdom and reduce government tyranny. https://vforvoluntary.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/why-libertarians-should-vote-for-donald-trump/
  • Create New...