US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Elixir]

He is a habitual liar, a con artist, and doesn't pay his subcontractors and hides behind his lawyers.

When you don't pay someone something you owe them, are you not a thief? Donald is multiple times more a liar, con-artist and thief than Hillary is.

He's been doing it for a lifetime though, so his supporters just accept it as "strength". They wish he was lying cheating and stealing on their behalf, just as he has on his own behalf for 70 years. I can understand that, but it's hard to grasp why there is anyone in this country who believes he's suddenly going to act in the interest of anyone other than Donald J. Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree completely. If you think that whites are statistically superior and give them advantages at your company as a result, you are causing harm to members of other races because you're denying them opportunities. Now, if there were an unlimited number of equally paying jobs within an easy commuting distance then that would be a moot point which does no damage at all, but if someone finds themselves living in a world with a limited number of jobs with different rates of pay in different areas, then it becomes a concern.

If you think whites are statistically superior that's no reason to give them advantages. If they're superior they'll end up in front anyway without any special advantages.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree completely. If you think that whites are statistically superior and give them advantages at your company as a result, you are causing harm to members of other races because you're denying them opportunities. Now, if there were an unlimited number of equally paying jobs within an easy commuting distance then that would be a moot point which does no damage at all, but if someone finds themselves living in a world with a limited number of jobs with different rates of pay in different areas, then it becomes a concern.

If you think whites are statistically superior that's no reason to give them advantages. If they're superior they'll end up in front anyway without any special advantages.

That's not relevant to the point about hiring, though. If they'll inevitably succeed at someone else's company if you pass them over for another candidate of one of inferior or mongrel races, they're not using their superiority to generate profits for you. A racist who only hires white people because he feels that they're superior is doing so in order to give himself an advantage, not so that he can give the candidate an advantage.

 

[angelo]

He is a habitual liar, a con artist, and doesn't pay his subcontractors and hides behind his lawyers.

When you don't pay someone something you owe them, are you not a thief? Donald is multiple times more a liar, con-artist and thief than Hillary is.

Bloody great! There are two dishonest [putting it mildly] presidential candidates running for the leadership of the free World! Latest polling has them running neck and neck.

 

[RavenSky]

True, of course. But both groups will still call themselves libertarians.

Ya, but neither of them are REAL(tm) libertarians.

There is only one of those

 

[RavenSky]

When you don't pay someone something you owe them, are you not a thief? Donald is multiple times more a liar, con-artist and thief than Hillary is.

Bloody great! There are two dishonest [putting it mildly] presidential candidates running for the leadership of the free World!

Politifact shows that's a bullshit Moore-Coulter - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, found 50 percent of the Clinton statements it examined to be either true or mostly true.

That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html?_r=0

50% vs 9%

50% vs 9%

50% vs 9%

50% vs 9%

One of these numbers is not the same as the other. So no... NOT "two dishonest presidential candidates"

Just one YUUUGGGELY dishonest presidential candidate, and his name is Trump

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Trump's honest 9% of the time? I find that difficult to believe. What's he said that wasn't a lie?

 

[RavenSky]

Trump's honest 9% of the time? I find that difficult to believe. What's he said that wasn't a lie?

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump's honest 9% of the time? I find that difficult to believe. What's he said that wasn't a lie?

That he thinks he is great.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Trump's honest 9% of the time? I find that difficult to believe. What's he said that wasn't a lie?

That he thinks he is great.

OK, I but that he has a massive inferiority complex and he actually thinks he sucks, but isn't that statement about 23% of everything he says and not 9%?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you think whites are statistically superior that's no reason to give them advantages. If they're superior they'll end up in front anyway without any special advantages.

That's not relevant to the point about hiring, though. If they'll inevitably succeed at someone else's company if you pass them over for another candidate of one of inferior or mongrel races, they're not using their superiority to generate profits for you. A racist who only hires white people because he feels that they're superior is doing so in order to give himself an advantage, not so that he can give the candidate an advantage.

The thing is even if whites are on average superior to blacks that's no reason to adjust your hiring--the only time it would matter is if all whites were superior to all blacks.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not relevant to the point about hiring, though. If they'll inevitably succeed at someone else's company if you pass them over for another candidate of one of inferior or mongrel races, they're not using their superiority to generate profits for you. A racist who only hires white people because he feels that they're superior is doing so in order to give himself an advantage, not so that he can give the candidate an advantage.

The thing is even if whites are on average superior to blacks that's no reason to adjust your hiring--the only time it would matter is if all whites were superior to all blacks.

I'm not following your logic. If a hiring manager thinks that Harvard graduates are superior to Yale graduates then his company is going to end up having more Harvard graduates than Yale graduates working there because, all other things being equal, Harvard grads are going to be given more weight than their competitors when evaluating them as potential employees, since graduating from there is a positive trait in his eyes. It's the same with racists looking at whites and blacks.

 

[George S]

Ya, but neither of them are REAL(tm) libertarians.

There is only one of those

I am part of the True(tm) libertarians. (Distant relatives of the True(tm) Scotsmen.)

 

[Trausti]

Fraternal Order of Police union endorses Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/16/fraternal-order-of-police-union-endorses-trump/

 

[maxparrish]

Fraternal Order of Police union endorses Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/09/16/fraternal-order-of-police-union-endorses-trump/

Don't forget David Duke and Hulk Hogan, they endorsed him too!

 

[angelo]

It's a real race now if all the polls are to be believed!

 

[George S]

The thing is even if whites are on average superior to blacks that's no reason to adjust your hiring--the only time it would matter is if all whites were superior to all blacks.

I'm not following your logic. If a hiring manager thinks that Harvard graduates are superior to Yale graduates then his company is going to end up having more Harvard graduates than Yale graduates working there because, all other things being equal, Harvard grads are going to be given more weight than their competitors when evaluating them as potential employees, since graduating from there is a positive trait in his eyes. It's the same with racists looking at whites and blacks.

I am a libertarian hiring manager. I think that Harvard graduates are superior to Yale graduates. If they are then my company is going to end up having more Harvard graduates than Yale graduates working here because, all other things being equal, Harvard grads are going to outperform their competitors as employees. It's the same with blacks. And Jews. And Bulgarians. And Gypsies.

Giving weight to being a Harvard grad is prejudice -- prejudgment. Knowing that Harvard graduates are, indeed, superior to Yale graduates as a group is an interesting statistic. I am happy to see an applicant from Harvard. I am happy to see an applicant from Yale. In short, I am happy to see an applicant even from outside the Ivy League.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is even if whites are on average superior to blacks that's no reason to adjust your hiring--the only time it would matter is if all whites were superior to all blacks.

I'm not following your logic. If a hiring manager thinks that Harvard graduates are superior to Yale graduates then his company is going to end up having more Harvard graduates than Yale graduates working there because, all other things being equal, Harvard grads are going to be given more weight than their competitors when evaluating them as potential employees, since graduating from there is a positive trait in his eyes. It's the same with racists looking at whites and blacks.

If you simply picked the best and Harvard graduates were better than Yale graduates you would end up with an excess of Harvard graduates even if you didn't look at which school they graduated from.

 

[SimpleDon]

Such is true of all utopian worlds, Sapredon. If everyone would only agree and there were no cheaters it would be perfect. True of communism. True of libertarianism. Both extremes unrealistic. In the real world there are those who would take from others with force or fraud.

It would be a better world if everyone could agree to end all war. Riiiiiiiight. Dream on. There will always be disagreements as to the best political system that provides the best life possible for everyone. None works for everyone. None at all. The idea of a representative republic approximating the libertarian ideal was embodied in the original constitution. The Senate a playground for the politically connected in each state to represent that state's interests. The House of taxpayers (yes, you had to pay taxes to vote back then) who had skin in the game to control the purse. An executive who had to enforce all laws whether he agreed with them or not. A vice president who came in second to chair the senate. A non-partisan (tee hee) group -- Electoral College -- of representatives of the people who they trusted to vote their conscience.

The founders were libertarians I think. Freedom to do anything as long as it did not harm others. Freedom to say anything as long as it did not harm others. ("Fire" in a crowded theater, and a rabble-rouser provoking a mob do potentially harm others.) Responsibility for actions which did harm. It is libertarian to leave a note on a car explaining that you damaged it and will pay for the repair.

A pretty good system. Changed over the decades into a democracy. Sorry Ben, we could not keep it.

I agree with you that libertarians are anti-democracy. They inherited their opposition to democracy from the classical liberals of the early 19th century and their fear of the oppression of the majority.

But the ideal form of government for libertarians isn't the government outlined in the original US Constitution but in the Articles of Confederation that the US Constitution replaced. The Articles of Confederation had a weak central government, much closer to the libertarian ideal of today.

The reason that the current US Constitution was written was because Ben and the rest of the founding fathers realized that a stronger and more powerful central government was required to face the challenges of the late 18th century. They would be amazed, in my opinion, that the document that they wrote and the government that they formed survived with so few changes into the 21st century.

And the document and the government that it created survived for so long was because of the very democracy that the libertarians fear so much. Because the US Constitution was the product of compromise of many different interests and different constituencies and had to be approved by three quarters of them the constitution was written with a large degree of ambiguity that allowed different interpretations of its component parts.

Interpretations of ambiguities that allowed the different parts of the 18th century country to read into the document what they needed to in order to approve the constitution also allowed the document to change as required to meet the needs of the US over two and a half centuries of a changing society.

Therefore the section of the constitution that assigned control over commerce between the states was used to bust trusts, to prevent the police from listening in on phone calls without a warrant, allows the federal government to force businesses to convert to manufacturing armaments in wartime, allows the federal government to outlaw discrimination by race and allows the federal government to require the purchasing of health care insurance. None of which was foreseen by the authors of the constitution.