All I know about his judicial positions is his saying that his sister would make a good justice and his enthusiastic approval of the Kelo decision, upholding the right of government to use eminent domain for the benefit of private developers. I can’t imagine why anybody here at OO would be optimistic about him on this question.
On 9/30/2016 at 7:29 PM, softwareNerd said:
In your evaluation, would Hillary be worse than Obama. For instance, is she significantly more socialist that Obama? Some people say she’s similarly socialist, but also corrupt and helps her Wall Street buddies which makes her a more fascist-style/GOP style statist. The issue I have with the second narrative is that corruption of that kind undercuts ideology. So, if it is true it makes her less ideological and more of an everyday politician.
I suppose she would be similar to Obama. He’s done a lot of bad things, although the worst things that was predicted he could do never really materialized. It’s still been more of a creeping socialism type thing with him. So, I’m guessing we’d get similar with Hillary.
I always disliked Hillary since I was a kid so don’t want to see her anywhere near the Whitehouse, although I think that’s becoming more and more likely. Regardless of what her Presidency ends up looking like, I still think it’s the next person 4 or 8 years from now who will be our main concern in the context of threatening freedom.
I don’t like being a pessimist, but I fully realize my view right now is rather pessimistic with regards to the countries future right now.
4 hours ago, EC said:
I suppose she would be similar to Obama.
… …
I don’t like being a pessimist, but I fully realize my view right now is rather pessimistic with regards to the countries future right now.
Thanks for the reply. I think you’re probably right about Hillary and Obama, except that she will probably be more aggressive than he is on foreign policy.
The populist mood of the day does not bode well for the medium-term, regardless of whether she wins or Trump does. I think one simply has to insulate oneself – to the best of one’s ability – from what one cannot change. With that done, life will probably be worse than it could be, and its frustrating knowing so, but it should still be pretty good.
Good to see the world is still sane. The morning after Trump threatened to put his opponent in prison if he wins:
NBC two way poll: Clinton +14
Rasmussen four way poll : Clinton +7 (Johnson 9%)
Nate Silver prediction based on state by state polling: Clinton 82% chance of victory (highest in the last two months), most likely a landslide with 338 electoral votes vs 200.
Rasmussen is a Republican leaning pollster that had Trump ahead a week before the debate, and had Romney ahead in 2012, all the way to the day of the election.
Historically, Utah has been the most Republican state out of all of them. Romney won Utah with 72.8%, Bush with 72%, Reagan with 75%.
New poll out of Utah: Trump 26, Clinton 26, McMullin 22, Johnson 14, Stein 1
(margin of error 4.4%; McMullin is the #neverTrump conservative candidate).
Look, the most probable outcome of this election will be a Clinton victory. Whether it is her or Trump the US will be worse off.
I admittedly have not studied the candidates in any great depth. Trump’s self indulgence and lack of self restraint, his immaturity and conspirational thinking, combined with a degree of racism and protectionism make him unfit to lead from a character perspective. His stance on policy is merely superficial, and he has been a poor leader of his party. I can’t see his appeal, apart from his declared desire for Americans to be freed up to achieve “great things”. His followers are like religious followers, there is no proof, but they are psychologically weak and so need to believe. History shows us how dangerous this can be - he is a popularist nationalist collectivist.
Clinton…well she has more self-control and her long time in politics has taught her when to keep her mouth shut and which battles to fight. She demonstrates more coherence than Trump, she appears to be more sophisticated and statesmanly. She appears more tolerant and inclusive. I think when taken in contrast to Trump these are in truth the primary reasons for her popularity.
What would stop me voting for her is her poor judgment, her deceitfulness, lack of integrity, the fact I think she lacks moral merit as a person (even less so than Trump), she lives by double standards. She is both power hungry and irrational. I also think she would be more dangerous militarily compared to Trump, despite his comments.
So if I were an American, I wouldn’t vote. If I could vote a “no confidence in either candidate”, then I would. Don’t help these people suceed by voting for them, if you have any sense. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
1 hour ago, Jon Southall said:
…and he has been a poor leader of his party.
Jon,
While I agree with most of what you’ve said, Trump has only been a leader of the Republican Party by virtue of delegate count. He is only the leader of an outraged mob of ignoramuses. The vast majority of Republican leadership is now required to hold their noses and follow along, or reject him outright. Very few jumped on his bandwagon before the nomination. In the not-too-distant past, Trump identified with and donated to the Clintons, and golfed with Bill. Now the Republicans will bear the foul odor of Trump for some time to come, the US will have to get used to President Hillary, and no good will come of any of it.
2 hours ago, Jon Southall said:
So if I were an American, I wouldn’t vote. If I could vote a “no confidence in either candidate”, then I would. Don’t help these people suceed by voting for them, if you have any sense. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Americans have the option of participating without feeling guilty of contributing to the decline and fall of Western Civilization. And it is important that they do participate. There are congressional, state, and local officials in competition as well as the national leadership. Many people would disapprove of my choice to cast a vote for the Libertarian candidate for president, but I rest better knowing that I showed support to other office-holders, while showing no support to either Trump nor Hillary. The most hopeful outcome will be a Republican controlled Congress versus President Hillary. I believe there is hope where there is gridlock.
5 hours ago, Jon Southall said:
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’m faced with hard choices (multiple options, none of which will make me happy) all the time. We all are.
Odds are, choosing Hillary for President will not be the most unpleasant choice people will have to make that week. There are business owners who will have to choose between firing loyal employees who have done nothing wrong, and letting their business fail. There are parents who will have to choose between divorce, and keeping their dysfunctional family together. Etc., etc.
And sure, choosing the better of two bad options is not as emotionally gratifying as choosing the better of two good options. Yes, they’re hard to make, on an emotional level. And yet, adults make those choices anyway, because they’re just as important as the fun choices we’re faced with.
There are significant differences between Trump and Clinton, and choosing one over the other will have a significant impact on the world. American Objectivists should make this choice, they shouldn’t let others make it for them just because they don’t like Clinton.
Thank you Repairman.
To Nicky. I am purest in the sense I won’t compromise what I consider to be my highest values by pledging support to someone who does not live to the same standards.
In Trump and Clinton, I find it hard to understand how any Objectivist could rationally vote for them for that reason. Neither of them deserve the presidency, they haven’t earned it. So I would say, don’t give them what they value of yours - your vote.
You diminish yourself by doing so.
2 hours ago, Jon Southall said:
Thank you Repairman.
To Nicky. I am purest in the sense I won’t compromise what I consider to be my highest values by pledging support to someone who does not live to the same standards.
In Trump and Clinton, I find it hard to understand how any Objectivist could rationally vote for them for that reason. Neither of them deserve the presidency, they haven’t earned it. So I would say, don’t give them what they value of yours - your vote.
You diminish yourself by doing so.
Are you an Objectivist?
On 10/10/2016 at 1:46 PM, Nicky said:
Good to see the world is still sane. The morning after Trump threatened to put his opponent in prison if he wins:
I’m not “for Trump” at all but his opponent should be in prison for her crimes. Instead she will be elected President. lol Wouldn’t the Founding Fathers be proud if they were alive to see today’s clusterfuck of an election.
2 Likes
7 hours ago, EC said:
I’m not “for Trump” at all but his opponent should be in prison for her crimes.
What crimes?
Nicky,
I would like to answer simply yes or no, but it needs qualification to be an accurate answer.
As far as Objectivism is a closed system, I find I agree with it, so it would be a Yes.
However there are aspects of life where Objectivism is silent, or I would judge it to be incomplete/underdeveloped. Where this is so, it is not possible to call myself an Objectivist. So to that extent, my answer is No. E.g. on land ownership.
What was your reason for asking? Do you consider yourself to be an Objectivist?
1 hour ago, Jon Southall said:
Nicky,
I would like to answer simply yes or no, but it needs qualification to be an accurate answer.
As far as Objectivism is a closed system, I find I agree with it, so it would be a Yes.
However there are aspects of life where Objectivism is silent, or I would judge it to be incomplete/underdeveloped. Where this is so, it is not possible to call myself an Objectivist. So to that extent, my answer is No. E.g. on land ownership.
What was your reason for asking? Do you consider yourself to be an Objectivist?
Because it’s a very odd thing for an Objectivist to say that you diminish yourself by living in reality, and participating in the electoral process of your country. Objectivism isn’t about withdrawing from society. That’s usually the perception of people who don’t really know Objectivism, because of that one famous plot line in AS where producers go on strike, that everybody’s familiar with. But it’s not an Objectivist position.
And yes.
[edit] I just remembered: you said that you would vote (or consider voting) Leave in the British referendum. So helping Hillary or Trump win would diminish people, but you voting to help UKIP and Boris Johnson doesn’t? What’s the difference?
14 hours ago, Nicky said:
What crimes?
Having classified material on her private server? Then deleting them? The whole thing the FBI investigated her on a couple months ago.
8 hours ago, EC said:
Having classified material on her private server? Then deleting them? The whole thing the FBI investigated her on a couple months ago.
What was the result of that investigation?
And I was asking for the name of the crime, not a description of her actions. I know what she did, it was in the headlines. What I don’t understand is why you think it is a crime, while the FBI doesn’t. Surely, you have a strong legal argument, and deep knowledge of relevant laws and precedents, if you’re willing to contradict reputable law enforcement officials who are saying no crime took place.
So, which laws did she break, when was anyone successfully prosecuted for similar actions, and what are the errors in the official FBI documentation explaining why they didn’t press charges?
7 hours ago, Nicky said:
What was the result of that investigation?
And I was asking for the name of the crime, not a description of her actions. I know what she did, it was in the headlines. What I don’t understand is why you think it is a crime, while the FBI doesn’t. Surely, you have a strong legal argument, and deep knowledge of relevant laws and precedents, if you’re willing to contradict reputable law enforcement officials who are saying no crime took place.
So, which laws did she break, when was anyone successfully prosecuted for similar actions, and what are the errors in the official FBI documentation explaining why they didn’t press charges?
That doesn’t matter. The FBI let her go because of who she is not because of what they found. I highly disagree that they have a strong legal argument.
I have no clue what the law is exactly and what it says exactly about not securing classified documents but I know that it exists and should exist. It’s also well known that she didn’t follow that law however it’s stated.
The only logical conclusion is that they let her off because they didn’t want to create a political situation with a Presidential nominee, not that she didn’t break any laws.
If you think we still live in a country that doesn’t let people off on crimes because of political pull then you are mistaken.
Edit: This new software for the forum is annoying. I had your last quote stuck here for the longest time before I could delete it. And there’s no simple “go advanced” feature where you can quickly just edit quote tags and stuff either.
39 minutes ago, EC said:
That doesn’t matter.
It matters to those of us more interested in facts than conspiracy theories.
Quote
The FBI let her go because of who she is not because of what they found.
Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy? Can you name some of the people involved?
Jon,
The election is not about giving someone what they deserve (your vote). It’s about _selfishly _determining which candidate you prefer. There’s a difference.
Forget what they deserve. You don’t owe them anything.
Which one has a scrap of value to offer you? Even if it’s only a potential value, that’s still something to consider.
Also, some people don’t vote in these situations because they refuse to share moral responsibility for an evil candidate’s actions. I think that’s misguided, too. It’s a rationalism that we use to extricate ourselves from a seemingly hopeless, political exercise. We don’t want to admit that we can’t figure out the “lesser evil”, so instead we pretend that voting for evil, itself, is an evil act, while dropping the entire political context in which the terrible choice is made.
In the end, if you can’t find some small value in one of the candidates, then you always have the option of writing in whomever you please.
The worst thing Trump has said, as of yet: he’s refusing to say that he’ll accept the election results. Coupled with his embrace of Russian Intelligence efforts to destroy the credibility of American democratic institutions, this is the single most destructive thing he can do, without actually holding any political office.
Republicans have made a huge mistake allowing this mindless egomaniac anywhere near their party. The only thing left to do is for Republican politicians to mitigate the damage, by loudly and publicly condemning Trump’s refusal to accept the election results, and by unequivocally backing federal authorities’ conclusion that Russian Intelligence is behind the leaks targeting the Clinton campaign.