[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Timsup2nothin]

In some respects that's always true, but it does help to understand that there are actual standards, what they are, and who follows them.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's also a tough spot, dealing with a leak (politically). Chances are, there are some zingers that have been doctored by the person who released them or who provided them ... it's very likely.

So, if you point out that any specific story is doctored (by providing evidence), then you are implicitly stating all the ones you don't dispute aren't doctored. Now, for the sake of honesty, we'd want them to copt to any true story. But it's not something we'd expect.

Trump had the same problem, by announcing he'd 'disprove' the assault allegations. By presenting subpar evidence, he's implicitly suggesting that the other claims are true. I mean, we should all know that a certain percentage of the claims will be either exaggerated or false. But by accepting the burden of 'proving a negative' like he did, he's setting himself up for a fall.

OTOH, we shouldn't fall for the converse. Just because some of the wikileaks and assault claims are discredited, it doesn't mean that all of them all false. The trick is to watch the stories around the most credible claims and the most damning claims. Honestly, I find the cheating on debate questions to be beyond the pale of ethics, especially because it discredits too many important institutions. And the People writer's claim of being assaulted by a serial adulterer is also proving to be credible.

 

[tetley]

The not-implying-doctoring thing might have some truth to it when it comes to perception, but not reality. What I saw was a lot like what happened in the second debate: lie spam. When a lie is coming out of his mouth at a rate of 1 every 30 seconds, it's impossible to fact-check them all with evidence--nor will people actually read it even if you do.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, Trump lie-spams. And he botch-scams as well. We tend to use diminish each scam's intensity as a metric, due to reframing our standards.

But the problem of implicit perceptions is a really hard one, when dealing with controversies.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Trump's problem is that those women who "can say anything" are the second source. His tape is the gold standard of single source. It actually didn't even require authentication, but it opens the door to any and all second sources on the story. That isn't a bias problem, it's normal journalism.

Right... well there's that too , but I was looking at it more from the perspective of the Trump supporter who discounts that as "locker-room, boys-will-be-boys, he's a guy, whadya want from him? (but theres absolutely no double standard towards women!!), it-was-just-talk-it-never-happened-plus-it-happened-so-long-ago-why-you-bringin'-up-old-squeeze?" perspective. So in that realm of thought/reality, where the bus-video isn't a credible source... you still have to fall back on the competence, credentials, and experience that Trump just doesn't have.

It's also a tough spot, dealing with a leak (politically). Chances are, there are some zingers that have been doctored by the person who released them or who provided them ... it's very likely. So, if you point out that any specific story is doctored (by providing evidence), then you are implicitly stating all the ones you don't dispute aren't doctored. Now, for the sake of honesty, we'd want them to copt to any true story. But it's not something we'd expect. Trump had the same problem, by announcing he'd 'disprove' the assault allegations. By presenting subpar evidence, he's implicitly suggesting that the other claims are true. I mean, we should all know that a certain percentage of the claims will be either exaggerated or false. But by accepting the burden of 'proving a negative' like he did, he's setting himself up for a fall. OTOH, we shouldn't fall for the converse. Just because some of the wikileaks and assault claims are discredited, it doesn't mean that all of them all false. The trick is to watch the stories around the most credible claims and the most damning claims. Honestly, I find the cheating on debate questions to be beyond the pale of ethics, especially because it discredits too many important institutions. And the People writer's claim of being assaulted by a serial adulterer is also proving to be credible.

Your point about the debate questions brings up another point... Under what set of circumstances would our President be making a split second decision to deliver a 60 second soundbite, purely from memory/innate knowledge, with no help or preparation whatsoever from advisors, and no ability to check anything? And under what circumstances would it matter if said statement or decision sounded practiced, canned or rehearsed?

I mean, it strikes me that we are constantly judging the candidates (Hillary and Trump, frankly) on the basis of how well they entertain us, and how well they "play the game" to our enjoyment and satisfaction. How "natural" she sounds versus how "witty" he sounds... WTF? Does any of that even matter, really? Assuming just for sake of discussion that she hijacked the debate questions, presumably to be better prepared... I mean she is running for POTUS, not a freaking spelling bee, right? "She's not playing by the rules! She cheated!" Really? Is this a game of Candyland? When the matter at stake is literally the future of the free world, its not a game. The Klan I say!, the Klan... Preventing a David Duke-panderer (and worse) from becoming President is more important then the rules of some silly debate on CBS.

At this level (the fate of nations) we are well into the ends-justifying-the-means territory. It wasn't very nice or polite to break into Bin Laden's house in the middle of the night and shoot him in his underwear, but whateves, it wasn't a housecall. How much does following the rules of the "debate game" by not collecting advance intel matter, in terms of the person who will be in charge in one of the most powerful intelligence networks in the world? We don't want a President who looks for every advantage? We don't want a President who can see the woods through the trees?

Truly, I understand the idea of fair play and all that, but this isn't Monday Night Football, and the opponent is not a paragon of honesty and moral forthrightness. So don't give that issue more weigh than it deserves. She is literally "playing against" an opponent who will snatch money out of the bank, and move pieces when you aren't looking... and then adamantly deny he did it, even as you show him the video of him doing it. "She peeked at the debate questions!" Really? C'mon, who cares...

 

[tetley]

I remember supporting Bill Clinton's impeachment, because I felt an adulterer to his wife would be prone to be an adulterer to the country as well, in that office. Now, those same Republicans overlook 11 accusers of sexual assault--some on married women, while he himself is married. Ken Starr was just fired from his job this year for ignoring allegations of sexual assault.

My faith in people's ability to rise above party politics was proven without merit.

 

[El_Machinae]

We don't want a President who looks for every advantage? We don't want a President who can see the woods through the trees?

Yes. Which is why the 'cheating on the debate' thing is so bad. It creates another talking point under which the press is delegitimized. We're talking collusion between the Current Estate and the Fifth Estate. We live in a world where scientists aren't believed. Trump is creating a world where polling methodology is misunderstood. We have a terrific concentration of media ownership ... these are all bad things. And if you don't hold your own candidate to a proper standard, then who's going to fix the system once they win?!?


That's forest for the trees.

 

[Kyriakos]

If the press will rehearse your answers with you or be ordered to ask a question you prepared and told them to ask, then how exactly is this not a fraud? Is this a circus?
Besides, it is not like all presidential candidates are as corrupt or unlikable as Hillary. I don't think Bern would do this lowly trick of getting reporters to pose to ask prepared questions by the candidate and the candidate's handlers.

Btw, at the VERY least, shouldn't the press people taking part in this be penalized?

 

[warpus]

I thought Clinton supposed to be impeached because he lied under oath, not because he got a happy ending from an intern while married to somebody else.

 

[uppi]

Your point about the debate questions brings up another point... Under what set of circumstances would our President be making a split second decision to deliver a 60 second soundbite, purely from memory/innate knowledge, with no help or preparation whatsoever from advisors, and no ability to check anything? And under what circumstances would it matter if said statement or decision sounded practiced, canned or rehearsed?

In a press conference during a developing crisis when asked an unexpected question? A 60 second soundbite of a US President could start or prevent wars.

I mean, it strikes me that we are constantly judging the candidates (Hillary and Trump, frankly) on the basis of how well they entertain us, and how well they "play the game" to our enjoyment and satisfaction. How "natural" she sounds versus how "witty" he sounds... WTF? Does any of that even matter, really?

In a personal election like this one, the character of a candidate is always a component of the voters' decision. However, it is hard to judge the candidate from afar, especially when everything is heavily scripted. So people rely on silly proxies like debate performance to gain a glimpse of the candidate's character. And that is very much subject to interpretation: You could interpret someone trying to get ahead at the debates as someone who will try everything to get the country ahead, but you could also deduce from someone cheating at a debate for personal gain that this person would also use the elected office for personal gain to the detriment of the people.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes. Which is why the 'cheating on the debate' thing is so bad. It creates another talking point under which the press is delegitimized. We're talking collusion between the Current Estate and the Fifth Estate. We live in a world where scientists aren't believed. Trump is creating a world where polling methodology is misunderstood. We have a terrific concentration of media ownership ... these are all bad things. And if you don't hold your own candidate to a proper standard, then who's going to fix the system once they win?!? That's forest for the trees.

I see, so you're looking at from the "objective" role that the press is ideally supposed to be playing. That's seems like an important aspect of it, and I did not consider that. Although, now that I think about it, wasn't that part of what we've all been complaining about, that the press in their zeal to not be accused of "bias" is failing to take a meaningful position on any issue?

 

[Sommerswerd]

In a press conference during a developing crisis when asked an unexpected question? A 60 second soundbite of a US President could start or prevent wars.

But again, in a press conference when a President is asked a hypothetical "war starting/preventing" question, that they theoretically don't know the answer to, they would be able to say, "Sorry I'm not going to make any commitments on that until I've had a chance to review the blah, blah, blah, and confer with blahbedity blah blah." And if it is literally a DEFCON 3, finger on the button, cold sweat situation, the President isn't going to be standing at some silly lectern in the Press corp room making statements on a Armageddon-in-progress. They are going to be in the situation room, surrounded by advisors, right?

You could interpret someone trying to get ahead at the debates as someone who will try everything to get the country ahead, but you could also deduce from someone cheating at a debate for personal gain that this person would also use the elected office for personal gain to the detriment of the people.

But now you're talking about people's self-serving internal spin, and that goes back to my original point... If you like Trump, you see his gaffes as him cracking jokes and being personable... if you don't like him, you might see it as him not taking the job or the issue seriously... but then its a wash and it all goes back to competence, and experience, which again Hillary wins everytime.

 

[tetley]

I thought Clinton supposed to be impeached because he lied under oath, not because he got a happy ending from an intern while married to somebody else.

That argument was out there, too, but it's still lying under oath about some sexual escapade, and it's chicken feed compared to what those same Republicans are glaringly ignoring in their own party.

When I supported Bill Clinton's impeachment, naturally I had the expectation that a Republican president would also be impeached under the same circumstances. In fact, I thought that would never happen to begin with, because Republicans were better than that. The religious right would never allow a man of that character into office to begin with. Lo and behold--wrong wrong wrong.

If we wanted to, we could cite Trump for lying under oath on his tax returns (which are being audited) so easily, it's not even funny. And that's lying about $200 million in Federal revenues.

 

[Leoreth]

I mean, it strikes me that we are constantly judging the candidates (Hillary and Trump, frankly) on the basis of how well they entertain us, and how well they "play the game" to our enjoyment and satisfaction. How "natural" she sounds versus how "witty" he sounds... WTF? Does any of that even matter, really? Assuming just for sake of discussion that she hijacked the debate questions, presumably to be better prepared... I mean she is running for POTUS, not a freaking spelling bee, right? "She's not playing by the rules! She cheated!" Really? Is this a game of Candyland? When the matter at stake is literally the future of the free world, its not a game. The Klan I say!, the Klan... Preventing a David Duke-panderer (and worse) from becoming President is more important then the rules of some silly debate on CBS

This isn't meant to be condescending to them, but many voters only have superficial knowledge about the issues and no idea which skills are required to act as President. If you have insufficient knowledge, trust becomes even more important than it is with politicians in general. That's why people are looking for character traits they can relate to and that communicate trustworthiness to them. This is where the "guy you can have a beer with" vote comes from, relatability implies trust which is the best substitute for more "objective" on-the-issues alignment on political goals and beliefs. It's also why Clinton is so badly hurt by her reputation of being secretive and untrustworthy. Lastly, the Clinton campaign itself has centered the election on the question of temperament and fitness for being president. This is an inherently character related question, and while I agree that there are more and less pertinent character traits in such a question, it legitimises looking at character traits in general.

 

[El_Machinae]

I see, so you're looking at from the "objective" role that the press is ideally supposed to be playing. That's seems like an important aspect of it, and I did not consider that. Although, now that I think about it, wasn't that part of what we've all been complaining about, that the press in their zeal to not be accused of "bias" is failing to take a meaningful position on any issue?

Well, cheating for a candidate is a bit beyond what I want them to be doing.

 

[uppi]

But again, in a press conference when a President is asked a hypothetical "war starting/preventing" question, that they theoretically don't know the answer to, they would be able to say, "Sorry I'm not going to make any commitments on that until I've had a chance to review the blah, blah, blah, and confer with blahbedity blah blah." And if it is literally a DEFCON 3, finger on the button, cold sweat situation, the President isn't going to be standing at some silly lectern in the Press corp room making statements on a Armageddon-in-progress. They are going to be in the situation room, surrounded by advisors, right?

I was more thinking of a small country that the USA is interested in and has a large neighbor massing troops at the borders. Answering a question whether or not the USA will support the small country with "Uhh...I have no idea" will do little to deter a potential aggressor. And a bold "Of course!" might drag the USA in a war they cannot win. Being able to give an immediate answer that is firm enough, yet leaves enough room for political action would be a very valuable skill in such a situation.

But now you're talking about people's self-serving internal spin, and that goes back to my original point... If you like Trump, you see his gaffes as him cracking jokes and being personable... if you don't like him, you might see it as him not taking the job or the issue seriously... but then its a wash and it all goes back to competence, and experience, which again Hillary wins everytime.

No argument from me there. I am just trying to figure out why people vote like they do.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This isn't meant to be condescending to them, but many voters only have superficial knowledge about the issues and no idea which skills are required to act as President. If you have insufficient knowledge, trust becomes even more important than it is with politicians in general. That's why people are looking for character traits they can relate to and that communicate trustworthiness to them. This is where the "guy you can have a beer with" vote comes from, relatability implies trust which is the best substitute for more "objective" on-the-issues alignment on political goals and beliefs. It's also why Clinton is so badly hurt by her reputation of being secretive and untrustworthy. Lastly, the Clinton campaign itself has centered the election on the question of temperament and fitness for being president. This is an inherently character related question, and while I agree that there are more and less pertinent character traits in such a question, it legitimises looking at character traits in general.

It seems like both campaign's approaches along these lines boil down to an appeal to dislike the other. Hillary wants you to look at Trump and think "He's a rich prick, a sleaze and a scumbag who is pandering to racial/ethnic/gender prejudice and I don't like him"... whereas Trump wants you to look at Hillary and think "She's a grasping, conniving, power-hungry shrew who is a status quo panderer to the establishment and I don't like her".

TBH, this campaign was never going to be about "issues" because Trump is literally making it up as he goes along as far as his stances on the issues go. Its impossible to have any meaningful contrast with positions that are so fluid. And the campaign can't be about credentials/competence/experience etc., because that's a boring, one-sided affair... The only way we could have a horse race, was to look for an area of equivalence... ie likeability. How quickly we all forget at the beginning of the campaign when we were all whining and bemoaning that we didn't want a Hillary "coronation"... well the media heard us, and they gave us what we wanted. We wanted a race, so they gave us one, on the only track that they could.

Well, cheating for a candidate is a bit beyond what I want them to be doing.

But again... cheating at what? The debate game? The campaign game? Is Assange part of "the media"? Is hacking only the Democrats, and leaking the Russian's handpicked content, with the intent to harm Hillary "cheating"? Is editing the documents and inserting fabricated statements prior to release to make them more damaging "cheating"? Is running the wikileaks stories "cheating" on Trump's behalf? Claiming that someone is "cheating" implies that they have broken some kind of rules... what rules? Are we talking about actual rules or just our personal subjective sensibilities about "fairness" and "bias"?

Anyway, to the extent that there are any actual rules... what is the relationship between the actual big-picture goals and the isolated rules we are applying to a particular event/situation? If my goal is to get a particular girl's affections, and I know she will be impressed if I win a card game, so I get with my buddies and stage the game so that I win, thereby accomplishing my goal and impressing the girl... who cares that I "cheated" to win the card game?... the card game isn't the point. The goal here is to win election, "fair and square" not to win the silly debates "fair and square"... the debates are just theater. If we have some evidence that the candidates are stuffing the ballots, suppressing the vote, or otherwise engaging in vote-rigging/fraud, then there is more of an issue, because then they are cheating at the actual contest at issue. But the debate? Again, this isn't a sport, where the number of games you win determines whether you make it to the playoffs, and complaints about the media "cheating" sort of suggest that we are looking at it that way.

 

[El_Machinae]

Have you considered not having lower standards? Hillary beating Sanders was a big deal. If she was able to misrepresent her attributes along a dimension that voters find important ... well, I guess you being 'fine' with it means that you have a higher opinion on what voters should see than they do.

But, again, helping shatter the reputations of institutions is certainly not big picture.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Have you considered not having lower standards? Hillary beating Sanders was a big deal. If she was able to misrepresent her attributes along a dimension that voters find important ... well, I guess you being 'fine' with it means that you have a higher opinion on what voters should see than they do. But, again, helping shatter the reputations of institutions is certainly not big picture.

Hillary v. Sanders did raise the standards in a way that even Hillary v. Obama didn't. The race demonstrated that you can have a compelling, exciting race focused almost entirely on issues. Hillary v. Sanders also demonstrated, that being the next/new exciting thing isn't necessarily enough... the American electorate as a whole is too cautious, too cynical, for that... precisely because the standards are too high.

In any case, what do you mean by "misrepresent her attributes along a dimension that voters find important"? It sounds like you are saying that Hillary tricked the foolish Democratic primary voters into thinking that she was a much nicer, and more worthy person than she actually was... and that is why Bernie didn't win. Is that right? If so, I have to say that I think that the American electorate has been very clear about who and what Hillary is, what she is about and what she represents... maybe moreso than any previous candidate. A decision to vote for Hillary is not a "low information" decision, not relatively anyway. Hillary is one of the most vetted and scrutinized candidates we have ever seen. As I mentioned previously, the white guys voting for Hillary in particular would have had to consider, and reject a lot of low-hanging-fruit information-wise to get to the point of supporting Hillary, and everyone else has been so immersed in Hillary info over the past two decades... she isn't fooling anyone.

As I have said many times... Trump voters have their reasons. Hillary voters have their reasons. Nobody is being fooled into voting for anyone. I tend to be skeptical of the whole "the American electorate is dumb" and being tricked and fooled by the media, politicians, etc., argument. People might give illogical, irrational, poorly reasoned etc justifications for their vote, but as I have said numerous times... The justifications people give are oftentimes just what they came up with after the fact to defend the commitment they have already made.

Speaking of which... Early voting started today in my state

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, if you're okay with the press being a secret wing of the government, I guess finding out that the winning candidate is the one who cheated isn't going to bother you.