Trump - Clown Genius

[jennypenny]

To be fair, Stepford isn't exactly diverse, so I'm only getting a tiny sample. I do have a friend down south who's supporting Clinton. I asked her about it because I would have though she'd like Sanders more (she works with impoverished families). She said Sanders was 'too white' for her LOL. When I pressed her on it and pointed out that, in fact, Clinton was also white, she said "No, no, no...not like that. I mean ... back in the day I would have said he's too 'honky'." She's very sweet and said he seems like a very nice person, but she doesn't think he could understand people like her.

Only anecdotal evidence, but there you go.

[Dragline]

I think for the older Democrats, Sanders probably reminds them of Dukakis in a visceral way they can't explain -- that "Northeastern intellectual" kind of thing. The middle class/office worker-type Democrats I know tend to support Clinton. Basically she gets all of the people who supported her in 2008 plus some of the minority voters who preferred Obama then.

[enigmaT120]

I'm not sure we've had a president who was a Christian since Jimmy Carter. I remember a while back (an election cycle or two ago) it seemed like all the presidential candidates were trying to out-christian the others, as if we were going to vote for Pastor in Chief. It was disgusting.

[Dragline]

They've all been Christians by their own accounts. Whether they've behaved that way is another matter (and subject to endless debate).

But the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity (and any other religion, for that matter) is when it became an official religion of a state. John Locke was right: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-c ... ration.pdf

[GandK]

I can't figure out where Clinton's support is coming from. I assumed boomer democrats, but that would be my older friends and they all like Sanders. The oldest (silent generation) like Clinton.

My parents voted for her. They are Boomer Democrats. My mom: "Hillary knows what she's doing. I'm not convinced that Bernie can get down to brass tacks. Not sure he even knows how to. His ideas have merit, though. Besides: if your sons join the military, I'd rather someone with experience be their Commander in Chief. Wouldn't you?"

[jacob]

But the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity (and any other religion, for that matter) is when it became an official religion of a state.

On a related note, vice versa. Gibbon included Christianity as a contributing factor to the decline of the Western Roman Empire.---That it replaced otherwise productive/civic Roman virtues (such as SPQR) and replaced them with a focus on patience and the afterlife while diverting money from soldiers towards charity, chastity/cloisters, and monuments. The redeeming factor is that the collapse was less violent than it otherwise would have been.

Overall, though, the two factors are hard to disentangle and they are not always driving factors of each other (i.e. strongly coupled).

[tsch]

...and being visited in the midst of a rally of 30,000 people by, of all birds, a sparrow--the only bird to stand by Christ for the duration of His crucifixion (or so I've heard).

Not a sparrow. House finch.

Very cute moment, though I feel like Sanders is already getting most of the birder vote.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Dragline: I agree, middle-class office worker Democrat seems to fit the mold of a Clinton voter. Perhaps I should have said the most common thread IMO is those who are most reliant on mainstream media or at least most indoctrinated into mainstream/party line thinking. So yeah, comfortable office sheep, folks who are still happy with Obama and don't feel he is a corporatist sell-out, et cetera, sounds about right.

@GandK: Experience, yes, Clinton's experience, good lord, no. If I had sons in the military I'd rather they not be sent to the middle east in more neoconservative wars for regime change and multinational profits, which is what Clinton's war-hawk record shows we'd be in for, but hey. She's definitely the most experienced at it.

@tsch: D'oh! They were calling it a sparrow at the time, but apparently you are right, the common consensus appears to be it was a house finch. Oh well. Apparently they have some fitting symbolism, too.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Jenny: That's an ironic position considering Bernie's record on civil rights is glowing compared to Clinton's. Bernie was getting arrested for protesting civil rights and marching with MLK in Washington while Clinton campaigned with segregationist Republican Goldwater. Not to mention Clinton's comments calling black youths "super predators", her support from the private prison industry, and her husband's terrible legacy on mass-incarceration (http://www.salon.com/2015/04/13/the_cli ... st_prison/). You wouldn't know this from the mainstream media, of course. Or the endorsements of black leaders and unions who are of course bought and paid for by the same establishment as Clinton.

/rage

[jennypenny]

Scott Adams did an AMA in the Reddit forum for Trump supporters.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I almost regained some respect for him with his responses about fuck you money and "moist robot theory" (aka determinism with added marketing, per his words), but he can safely count me among the 40% of his audience he's turned off forever. Strangely, I never cared for Dilbert all that much anyway (sometimes I'd see it on the Yahoo front page, but now my mind may just find itself programmed to scroll past).

This part: "I offered to persuade a Trump-hater to a supporter in one hour on video if I get a volunteer and figure out an easy way to record it." LOL. Bring it on. Who does he think he is, Christian Morgan?

Seriously though, I don't know that he's overestimating Trump's mastery of NLP (or even his own), but I do believe he's overestimating its effectiveness generally. Then again, people are dumb (or moist robots).

I also believe he doth protest too much that he's not invested in a Trump victory. You can tell in his responses he's convinced himself to be convinced (which, btw, is the key factor in hypnosis). "Trump is the most likely to change the corrupt system..." Oh, sure.

[Dragline]

I did not read the whole thing, but I'm not convinced that he's serious.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Ha! I took that possibility into remarkably small account considering he's a satirist.

[Chad]

I also believe he doth protest too much that he's not invested in a Trump victory. You can tell in his responses he's convinced himself to be convinced (which, btw, is the key factor in hypnosis). "Trump is the most likely to change the corrupt system..." Oh, sure.

This argument is kind of like the arguments all the NFL teams without good quarterbacks (QB) make every year about the top rookie QBs coming out. They all need a QB desperately, but rarely is one worth picking high in the first round of the draft. Maybe once every 5-10 years [Elway, Manning (Peyton not his borther), Luck] a QB is worth that pick (other great QBs come out, but they aren't obvious and go later like Aaron Rodgers, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, etc.). So, these teams continue to miss in the most expensive round on the most expensive position. This causes a bad team to deteriorate, as they continue to miss getting at least decent players at other positions, with the pick they waste on a hope and prayer QB (It's easier to judge talent at certain other positions than it is at QB, which is one reason why there is less risk in picking these other positions.).

Sure, Trump may be the most likely out of this group to change a corrupt system (assumption, not my belief), but that doesn't mean he is likely to actually change it. It's much more likely his downside is greater than his upside, which is the case for almost all of them. The QBs too.

Sanders is the best person of all the candidates, but his economic policies are too extreme. Trump is the most unpredictable, which means one can fantasize about him doing the "right" thing. Cruz is even more extreme right than Sanders is left and a huge douche. Clinton is the most predictable/same-old candidate, though she is an ass and liar.

So, who do you use your high draft pick on this year? The very very remote chance of some improvement or the same-old to just get us through to the next election with the hope this one woke some people up, and we get a real candidate in the next one?

This is why people will vote for Clinton. This is why I will probably vote for her.** I wish I didn't have too, but the downside of the other candidates is too big when compared to their upside. I will take the boring left tackle who won't make my team better, but won't make it worse either. Instead of picking the feast or famine QB, who is more famine than anyone cares to admit. All the while, I will be waiting for the obvious Hall of Famer to come along. This might take a while, but they will have to dig my team out of a much smaller hole than if I reach for a QB too early.

**I completely realize that mentioning I might vote for Clinton will completely distract everyone from anything else I wrote.

[Ego]

@Chad, I agree with your logic to a T and.... gulp.... it is seeming more and more likely that I will vote the same way.

[jacob]

@Chad - See the Pew Research in the middle of this article http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473982997 ... ohn-kasich ... combine what you say with the ideological identity protection concept of the Reality thread to get a picking strategy/alternative to explain these results.

Trump and Hillary are clearly the most polarizing candidates. They also happen to be the most publicized ones.
In both cases, people have more faith in their respective runner ups. They're both more excellent and less terrible.

However, the least public Kasich (who also happens to have deliberately run a non-polarizing campaign) actually has the highest weighted score.

The game theoretic implications/complications of picking which candidate to run given these weightings are huge.

[Dragline]

This is why people will vote for Clinton. This is why I will probably vote for her.**

What? Benghazi! Whitewater! Emails! Huma's husband's (that's Anthony Weiner) junk! Bimbo eruptions!

But will she be the new Bill? Or the new Dick? Cue "Twilight Zone" music . . .

http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... ic-rhyming

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Chad/Ego: I asked you both earlier which of Sanders's policies you disagree with or feel are "too extreme". I don't think either of you responded. (If you did, I apologize, I may have missed it.)

This was after I posted this survey from the Progressive Change Institute, one of many showing Americans broadly in favor of Sanders's policies:

http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/ ... l_results/

His ideas are only "too extreme" because the people who believe in those ideas still won't vote for him, because "he can't win", "he can't fill his promises", et cetera--all of which is true if you don't vote for him. This is self-fulfilling prophecy.

Chad, I understand your reasoning (and suspect you follow the Redskins...) but I disagree on many of your premises. For instance, I disagree that Clinton "won't make the team worse"; the coronation she has attempted to rig is already dividing the Democratic party and, thanks in part to voters like me who will not vote for her under any circumstance, may well cost the general election. Not only that, if she does squeak out a win and ends up being terrible, as I suspect, it could actually lessen Democratic prospects in the next cycle.

I disagree with the idea of waiting for a Hall of Famer. It's too late to wait. Can't afford to be neutral on a moving train, etc.

I also think Bernie IS the most obvious Hall of Famer. He has a 40 year track record of integrity and independence from the corrupt two-party monster. He has gotten pretty much everything right and has one of the highest approval ratings of any current politician. I could go on, but you already acknowledge he is the best person among the candidates, and I'm trying hard not to turn this into my personal "for the love of God vote Bernie Sanders" thread, so I'll leave the point at this: suffice it to say, I am not aware of any other politicians even near Bernie's record and level of authenticity. Warren would be closest, but her silence in this election has seriously disappointed me.

I also honestly question whether we will ever be given another candidate like Sanders (or even Trump, for that matter). If the establishment wins this one, you can bet both parties will tighten their grip on the election process even further to prevent this kind of thing from happening again (more stuff like this, but probably worse: http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/dnc-makes-sw ... e-hillary/). If you thought superdelegates, campaign financing, and electioneering were undemocratic now...

If you want to play the long-game strategically as a liberal, I'd rather have Trump than Clinton. Trump will either be a lame duck or absolutely terrible, which may pretty much ensure a Democrat will win in the next cycle. The DNC, having taken a beating, may have learned its lesson and start listening to its base rather than trying to shove the most unpopular politician of all time down our throats.

No need to mention how important it is to have a "Democratic" president for Supreme Court nominations when Obama is attempting to nominate a moderate who supports Citizen's United.

ETA: Actually, I might vote for Clinton on the off-chance Cruz is the nominee. Cruz REALLY scares me. But I would hate myself for it. TBH, if anyone but Bernie wins, I've pretty much given up on ever changing the system and will probably sit back to watch the Republic transition fully to Empire. At least, like Scott Adams, I'll have my fuck you money.

[Toska2]

"Clinton is more of the same"

So is a Trump gridlock.

I think if we were trying to wake up the people and political parties we would vote for the worst candidate.

[Spartan_Warrior]

One more thing: political positions aren't filled like a football draft. It's not a choice between drafting the hall of famer QB or filling in other positions. In fact, it's the opposite--your best chance of getting new blood in every position is by drafting a really good QB.

That is, the best hope of getting liberals in the House and Senate would be running a presidential candidate who actually excites the liberal base to get out and vote. This will naturally lead to more Democratic/liberal candidates being voted down-ballot. Whatever you can say for Clinton, she doesn't generate that excitement.

Bernie's rally in NY last night: 27,000 attendees

Hillary's rally: 1,300 attendees

(Of course, the media reports both events as "huge". Accuracy in the media at its finest. Then again, it appears that Business Insider is owned by a right-leaning German media conglomerate and (drum roll please) Dr. Evil himself, Jeff Bezos. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. )