The Presidential Elections

[f0xx]

I read a very interesting article on Trump today.

Here is the full article, and here is a quote from it.:
 

Quote

“Trump has been playing the media with his supposed presidential ambitions for years, but it was clear then that it was just The Donald doing what he does best – promoting himself. So why now has he suddenly turned ‘serious?’ I give that word scare quotes because 1) Serious is not a word one associates with a clown, and 2) It’s not at all clear that, for all his megalomania, he really thinks he can win the White House. He may be a lunatic but he’s far from stupid.

“And so the question jumps out at us: Why now?

“Although I have no concrete proof of my theory, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. His ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base.

“Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements – the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric – sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.

“Now I realize this is a ‘conspiracy theory,’ and, as we all know, there are no conspiracies in politics. In that noble profession, everything is completely aboveboard and on the level – right?

[Pali]

Conspiracies are real, and can be good or bad things - sometimes, small groups acting in secret can be very beneficial.

 

Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, tend to fall prey to logical fallacies and quirks of the human mind, primarily arguments from incredulity and confirmation bias.  In this case, the arguments from incredulity are "Trump is too ridiculous to be a serious candidate", which fallaciously assumes that a serious candidate cannot also be ridiculous when ridiculous leaders have been plentiful throughout history, and that delusions and intelligence don't play into each other ("He may be a lunatic but he's far from stupid") when in reality an intelligent person is usually very, VERY good at rationalizing their delusions (think John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind", which was based on a true story).

 

The confirmation bias is in ignoring interpretations and facts that contradict the conspiracy theory: Trump's narcissism fully explaining his behavior, that he's spent ~$50 million of his own money on this campaign, that he's been involved from the outside in politics and viewed himself as a possible Presidential candidate since the late '80s (considered running for the Republican nod in '88, did run for the Reform Party in '00), and that every time he's run or considered doing so it has been for a Republican or conservative group.

 

Trump is not a clown.  Trump is an authoritarian social dominator who shows all the signs of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  A person like this is not capable of being used as a plant, because his goal is always to promote himself.

[Celerity]

Who knows if Trump was encouraged to run in order to disrupt the Republican party or not. I don't think he was masterminding, or had been manipulated into, a large-scale plot, but maybe there was some encouragement in order to create chaos and negative press for the Republican party. Regardless of how or why he got into the running in the first place, as soon as he started doing well, he became his own man. Once he had a shot at actually becoming President, any conspiratorial control over him would have been lost, if there had ever been any. It might be a case of the monster Clinton released coming back to haunt her or it might simply be Trump's own ambition. I don't think it matters much either way because I'm sure he intends to win now.

Both candidates are authoritarian to the extreme, so I can only hope whoever gets into power isn't able to do anything. In that sense, I'd prefer Trump because he would be even more vehemently opposed than Clinton in trying to enact his policies. If we are lucky, the government might be deadlocked for eight years. With Clinton, I'm sure it will be more hawkish imperialism (and more importantly, horrible economic policy) which is far worse than the nothing that Trump might do. Either way, it is very bad if either candidate can do what they want to do.

I sometimes check Google news by typing in Clinton (and Trump) and I seem to always see a slew of positive articles for Clinton and a slew a negative articles for Trump. If the mainstream media likes something, it must be a bad thing. If they try to smear or suppress it, it could be worth looking into.

That said, I will probably hold my nose and throw a vote to Johnson this time. Just like the two major party candidates, he isn't a good pick for his party.

A lot of people say that you don't need to vote for someone, just vote against the other person. I disagree with that. If I vote for someone, I attribute some personal responsibility for the actions that person takes, and I don't want anything to do with either Trump's or Clinton's actions. I believe it a fallacy to attribute that same responsibility for not voting against the other person. I don't feel responsible for Clinton's actions if I don't vote for Trump.

Here is a link for a new article titled "Top Ten "Acceptable" Western Establishment Conspiracy Theories". It was published today and is a very brief overview of some of the popular ones.

 

 

[Pali]

9 hours ago, Celerity said:

Both candidates are authoritarian to the extreme

I think this is a false equivalency.  Clinton's more authoritarian than I like, no doubt, but she doesn't play the outgroup paranoia to anywhere near to extent that Trump does.  Perhaps more importantly, her followers aren't authoritarian to any special degree, but authoritarianism is one of the strongest correlations yet found among Trump voters.  This isn't a new correlation, as high authoritarianism has long been the case for the Republican base, but it's stronger now with Trump than it has been in previous elections.

 

I do not share your optimism that a Trump presidency will simply be an impotent nothingness.  Not at all.  At the minimum, a Trump presidency will be a national embarrassment.  At the worst, Trump could precipitate international crises and make already tense situations worse.  Presidents have power, and keeping that power out of the hands of an incurious, know-nothing narcissist should be something we all want.  You want a very real difference between the two that should matter a great deal?  Their positions on climate change.  Clinton acknowledges it.  Trump thinks it is a hoax.  That alone disqualifies him from the office as far as I am concerned.

 

"If the mainstream media likes something, it must be a bad thing. If they try to smear or suppress it, it could be worth looking into."

 

Come now.  I'm happy to agree that the msm are lazy and sensationalist, but whether or not they "like" something (because the msm is a monolithic block?) has absolutely no bearing on that thing's validity.  This is the quintessential ad hominem fallacy with a dose of conspiracy theory thinking thrown on top.  You are also assuming that because there are more negative articles about Trump than about Clinton, the media is showing a bias; the reality can well be that Trump simply has more negative traits, policies, and behaviors to report, or it could simply be that writing about Trump brings in better ratings and that their bias isn't against Trump but in favor of making money (the msm arguably helped him win the Republican primary because of this).

 

As for voting... considering that you have already said you prefer Trump to Clinton, I am not going to try to talk you out of voting Johnson.  

[Celerity]

I disagree with the assertion that the US left is significantly less authoritarian than the US right. The rhetoric is different, but their actions are similar. Domestic authoritarianism manifests in the ability to do or not do things. Is the left or the right more famous for telling people what they can or can not do? Gun control, abortion, vaccinations, homeschooling, public prayer, denying service to gays, emissions controls, whatever. You'll see that BOTH sides pretty authoritarian.

Foreign authoritarianism: Hillary would have gone to war in Iraq just as Bush did. We know this because she voted for it. I don't know if Trump would have invaded Iraq or not, but I do know he was an early critic of it. Much earlier than Hillary, for that matter.

I don't really want to defend Trump because I don't like or agree with him on many things, but I do believe Hillary is at least as war hawkish as Trump, and the major difference to me is that Hillary has demonstrated and implemented her hawkishness (e.g. Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Haiti). I consider her just as hawkish as McCain. Hillary also touts the anti-Russia, anti-Iran, and anti-China line. This is what creates true international crises. Hillary has been a walking foreign policy disaster.

Assuming that Trump is equally as hawkish towards these powers as Hillary (which I don't believe he is, based on his willingness to talk to Russia), Hillary will have a far easier time implementing her hawkishness. Any aggressive move by Trump will be trounced on in the media and government, not to mention anti-war protestors. Similar to how the media dumped on Bush for Iraq but has been in support of Obama's aggression (who I believe is less aggressive than Hillary). Where did all the anti-war protestors go during Obama's administration, by the way?

I believe a Republican will be criticized more heavily for their actions and will subsequently be more limited.

Issues like the President's stance on abortion, climate change, gay marriage, etc. are not very important to me. Although I pro-gay, pro-choice and mildly anti-climate change, these are not federal issues and the President's power over them mostly is reduced to Supreme Court nominees. Economics, foreign policy, and respect for the rule of law (esp. Constitution) are the key Presidential qualities I look for. Both candidates fail abysmally on economics (Hillary a bit worse), foreign policy has been the focus of our discussion, and both do not respect the rule of law at all (yet again, Hillary is a poster child for this).

Media: Biases are confirmed by the media outlets themselves. Does anyone believe that the New York Times, Salon, HuffPost, FOX, or any other outlet is producing free and fair, honest journalism? I'm sure you don't. So, yes, I am assuming that if there is concentrated, painfully one-sided coverage of something, especially by both 'left and right' outlets, then there is something being influenced. I don't believe that multiple major outlets come to the same conclusions (often with the exact same oversights or emphasis) by naturally covering the topic independently in their financial interest. There is definitely major political influence at play.

If Trump is so popular as to win the Republican nomination, you'd think there would be a corresponding interest in keeping those Trump voters happy and paying for your media. You'd therefore naturally see positive coverage, if you accept that journalists are self-interested and independent.

[Mali]

Celerity, I like you, but your posts are nearly unreadable on this topic.

Could you tell me which of the following statements you disagree with?

 

Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.

It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide

The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

[Pali]

2 hours ago, Celerity said:

I disagree with the assertion that the US left is significantly less authoritarian than the US right.

Then you aren't very familiar with the research on authoritarianism in the US.  From the Wikipedia article I linked to on authoritarianism: "There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. However, left-wing authoritarians were found in Eastern Europe ^[20] There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon.^[21] "  I highly recommend reading Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians", which is available as a free ebook.

 

I do agree that authoritarianism on the left has been on the rise lately, but it still does not exist to the same degree as on the right.  " Gun control, abortion, vaccinations, homeschooling, public prayer, denying service to gays, emissions controls, whatever. You'll see that BOTH sides pretty authoritarian. "  No.  You really don't.  Gun and emissions regulations are not authoritarian by nature any more than speeding limits - public prayer favoring a specific faith, denial of service to gays, hostility to Muslims, denying others the decisions regarding their own bodies, those ARE authoritarian, because they are targeted attacks on specific groups of people or attempts to control social norms. "Foreign authoritarianism: Hillary would have gone to war in Iraq just as Bush did."  Imperialism and authoritarianism are not the same thing.

 

I agree that the media has biases, but you are accusing the media of acting under a form of conspiracy.  These are not the same thing. " So, yes, I am assuming that if there is concentrated, painfully one-sided coverage of something, especially by both 'left and right' outlets, then there is something being influenced. " Influenced by whom?  If both the left and right media come strongly down on the side of the sky being blue instead of green, are you going to doubt the color?  Doubting the media, wanting confirmation of claims by it?  I'm fine with that, and in fact wholeheartedly recommend doing so.  But you seem to think there is some large-scale media conspiracy against Trump here, and frankly, I think that's absurd.  Trump is ridiculous enough on his own that yes, even the Republican channels like Fox don't like him (hell, he picked a fight with Megyn Kelly at his first debate).

 

2 hours ago, Celerity said:

Although I pro-gay, pro-choice and mildly anti-climate change, these are not federal issues and the President's power over them mostly is reduced to Supreme Court nominees.

Climate change HAS to be dealt with at the federal level, because not only does it require action within and across the entirety of our own county, but it also requires cooperative international action to take place as well.  It will require legislation, treaties, executive orders, and use of the bully pulpit to convince the nation of their necessity.  This goes far beyond Supreme Court nominees.

[Celerity]

It is interesting that this has come up, because I was just reading about left-wing authoritarianism yesterday (as per your suggested links).  The book you mentioned comes straight from the wiki article I read. I haven't read the book or heard of the guy, but I think there is some confusion over the meaning of left and right here. I can disagree pretty easily with him, because you cannot attribute authoritarianism strictly with left and right. It is much like attributing positive y values only for positive x values. Literally, as it may be, in the case I'm about the present.

If you are talking about the American left, you are actually -mostly- talking about right-wingers globally.  Both the American right and left are actually right wing on the single axis. Because talking about the single axis is obviously very awkward, left/right isn't actually very useful in of itself. This is where the candidates really stand:

Notice how Hillary and Trump are both in the top right quadrant? Did you also notice that Hillary is MORE right-wing than Trump? Obama, Bush, and most other modern American politicians are in that corner. You aren't choosing between a left and right, you are choosing between two rights. Do you see Hillary's huge top-right shift from 2008 to 2016? This is in spite of "Bernie pulling her left". What do those quadrants mean anyways? Ideologically:

And with governments:

For the detailed explanation: http://factmyth.com/the-left-right-political-spectrum-explained/

On the other hand, if you do believe that right-wing is correlated with authority, it means you must believe the same about Hillary, as she is at least as right-wing as Trump.

How does authoritarianism work? It is very simple. If the government requires something of you, ultimately through the threat of the loss of property (fine), freedom (prison), or life (execution), then it is exerting authority over you. So yes, a speed limit is an authoritarian gesture (albeit a weak one). Emission control is the same way. Gun control too.

If the government requires that all citizens must not have a weapon and the government will fine, arrest or kill the citizen if they do, that is a strong display of authoritarianism. These things can be done in either the name of the public goodwill (left) or for the interest of the individual (right). Welfare is considered a left issue because it deals with the public good whereas gun ownership is considered right because it is centered on the individual. Gay marriage is a right issue, because it concerns the rights of individuals. National gay marriage law is a left issue, because it concerns the rights of the collective. I firmly agree with gay marriage. I firmly disagree with a national marriage law. This is as applies to the American left and right.

In actuality, all issues are both left and right. Gun control can be talked about in terms of the individual or collective rights, in freedom or authority rights, or any combination thereof. If I say that I have a right to own a gun, I'm asserting mostly an authoritative argument: The government does not have authority over my ownership of this kind of property. However, I can flavor it left (it protects the collective's rights) or right (it protects my rights) or even simply in terms of pure authority (the government does not have legal authority to regulate it).

I strongly favor individualism over collectivism, so I tend to support things like gun rights (although I have no weapons) instead of things such as taxes and welfare (which harm the individual for the collective).  I also strongly favor competition over cooperation as a superior economic driving force, so I would be in the bottom right quadrant of these charts. Probably all the way to the right and a good ways down. So I guess I am right and left!

One way to highlight the difference between someone who is on the left and right side of these quadrants is this:

1. I believe there is one correct and best way, and it will be applied to everyone.
2. I believe that there is not one correct and best way, so that each may choose their own path.

If the federal government exerts authority over a local government, we have what is called centralization. The federal government forcing local governments to do things, such as allow gay marriage, minimum wage, abortion, or any other social/fiscal issue is likewise at least moderately, if not extremely, authoritarian. If local authority is weaker than central authority, and I don't like authority, then I want the authority to stay in local hands. This lets the individuals choose their local governments as best suits them rather than all being under the same centralized authority. I prefer that local governments write their own marriage laws instead of the central government mandating the one that I agree with. Even better, I prefer that there are no marriage laws. Seems a very personal issue to me and unrelated to governing a society.

The other nice point about this is that the U.S. Constitution was written that way as well. If it is not expressly written as a power of the central government in the Constitution, it is a power of the local government. The Constitution has been thrown out the window for the most part, unfortunately, but it happens to be the legal way and I agree with it.

Media again: It is more that I believe there is a 'conspiracy' in favor of Hillary rather than against Trump. She has done things that are very bad that aren't being picked up much by the media.

edit: minor clarification and typos

 

[Mali]

Those graphs are total nonsense.

[Celerity]

3 hours ago, Mali said:

Celerity, I like you, but your posts are nearly unreadable on this topic.

Could you tell me which of the following statements you disagree with?

 

Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.

It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide

The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

 

Oops, completely missed your post. I often think your opinions are difficult to read as well (literally in this case), but that is pretty irrelevant. Climate change was only a very small part of the discussion anyways, so maybe I can post my reply separately:

My opinion on climate change is pretty agnostic. I don't personally read much about the topic, but if the scientific consensus is that it is generally warming, I agree that it probably is, but I'd point you to your scientific sources, not my opinion. The part where I disagree is how and if climate change can be dealt with through political action. I don't think it is an issue that you can legislate a solution to. Kind of like war in that sense. Edit: Or poverty for that matter, heh.

[Mali]

The part where I disagree is how and if climate change can be dealt with through political action. I don't think it is an issue that you can legislate a solution to. Kind of like war in that sense. Edit: Or poverty for that matter, heh.

Are you saying then that you would support unilateral executive action on all three issues? 

[Celerity]

2 hours ago, Mali said:

 

 

Are you saying then that you would support unilateral executive action on all three issues? 

Err--no? I'm not following you here. I don't believe the solution is in the hands of the political class at all. If there is going to be any significant progress, it will be through industrial and scientific innovation. Certainly not through executive mandates or bureaucratic regulations.

[Manual Labour]

The whole climate change issue is bullshit anyway because the most significant cause of it is not being addressed. You are lead to believe that if you carpool, and take shorter showers then we will all be fine, when in reality it is deforestation and animal husbandry that are by far and away the worst offenders.

 

Also the whole left/right tug of war in the USA is also bullshit. From what I can gather the vast majority of people are indoctrinated into picking a side at an early age and sticking with it, they then seek out one sided "facts" in order to prove they are voting for the "better" side. I agree with Celerity 100% on what she said about left and right, and Mali is a total troll if he/she doesn't believe those charts.

 

I think whoever wins, Trump or Clinton the same 2 things will happen to Americans.

1) The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

2) Everyone will continue to get stupider.

 

If I was a citizen of America I would vote for Trump over Clinton for one simple reason. I think Trump is way more predictable and I prefer an Evil I know to one I don't.

[Mali]

When I said the charts were nonsense, I meant it. The constructs are poorly defined, there is no basis for instrumentation, and the placement and movement of figures among the quadrants are arbitrary. 

I am not a troll, I am an optimist. I believe that policies have real and objective consequences and effects that can mitigate or exacerbate an issue. Specific issues that may be  influenced by policy include  climate change, war, and poverty. 

Cel, you seem overly cynical about this topic. I suspect there are deeper issues or perceptions at play that you have simply failed to communicate. Couching these issues as existing within a leadership domain shared by both candidates is misleading. One candidate has solutions, the other has bravado, we may choose accordingly.

[Celerity]

14 minutes ago, Mali said:

When I said the charts were nonsense, I meant it. The constructs are poorly defined, there is no basis for instrumentation, and the placement and movement of figures among the quadrants are arbitrary. 

I am not a troll, I am an optimist. I believe that policies have real and objective consequences and effects that can mitigate or exacerbate an issue. Specific issues that may be  influenced by policy include  climate change, war, and poverty. 

 

The first image is explained here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
If you want an in-depth explanation, you'll have to start reading deeper on the site. It is there, however, if you sincerely doubt the 2016 presidential analysis, placement of figures, or the concept of the compass.

The link I provided in the other post goes into quite some detail as well about the other two charts. They went to a lot of effort to make it educational and easy to understand. If you are having a rough time, spend some time and read through it. It is actually pretty interesting.

So no, it isn't random nonsense. I believe he thinks you are trolling because I provided the link to the detailed explanation in the original post. You don't need to agree with it, but the charts are clearly defined, and while the placement of each figure is an approximation, they aren't far off. By definition, it is not arbitrary.

However, you can take the test and answer the questions to see for yourself where it places the candidate you are accurately portraying.

edit: response to your edit: Please don't make this a personal argument. It is really just a deflection and we all know it. Political discussions typically have strong feelings and it isn't appropriate to go into some psychoanalysis of my state of mind because I disagree with you.

[Mali]

No insult was meant to you and you have my apologies. We simply perceive the effects of policy differently.

I took the test

 

[Celerity]

No surprises here:

[egreir]

[egreir]

Me and ghandi. What up. 

[Manual Labour]

49 minutes ago, Mali said:

One candidate has solutions, the other has bravado, we may choose accordingly.

This kind of statement just proves my point about the political polarisation and indoctrination in America.

I would be more inclined to say "one candidate would be awfully terrible in office the other would be terribly awful, may we endure the madness"

[Mali]

Egrier, welcome to the team my man!

[egreir]

Just now, Mali said:

Egrier, welcome to the team my man!

Peace be with you.  

[Vaerick]

The DNC leaks smoked any chance of my voting for Clinton, and Trump is a nightmare even in the best case scenario. So, I figure we're screwed no matter what. Probably will vote Johnson in the hopes that Trump won't take Texas.

[Pali]

12 hours ago, Celerity said:

but I think there is some confusion over the meaning of left and right here. I can disagree pretty easily with him, because you cannot attribute authoritarianism strictly with left and right.

There certainly is some confusion over terms here, and the term being confused is authoritarianism.  You are discussing authoritarianism as it relates to governments - I have been discussing it as a personality type.  The proper terminology when discussing authoritarian personality types is a left-right spectrum, where left is less authoritarian, right is more.  This is why my first post specifically linked to this article rather than this one.  I recommended Altemeyer's book because it is freely available online for anyone to read and does a fantastic job of exploring authoritarian personalities (as well as social dominators, which I also linked to above, and how the two types interact).  Short version: they are scary.  Long version: " Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it. "  It is this definition of authoritarianism that is correlated with the Republican party and American conservatives, though like authoritarian governments, it is not intrinsically so: a right-wing authoritarian can indeed be a leftist, but that is not how the correlation occurs in modern American society.  Obviously, highly authoritarian people tend to be more likely to support highly authoritarian governments, but they have to see those governments as legitimate - an authoritarian Democrat is not likely to get much support from authoritarian Republicans, because the Democrat is part of the out-group and likely considered illegitimate.

 

EDIT #2: An unfortunate corollary to this, however, is that an authoritarian Republican will get support from authoritarian Republicans simply because they are the established authority.  Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of authoritarian followers (discussed in Chapters 2/3 of Altemeyer's book) is that they do not actually have principles, though they think they do; instead they largely just follow the established authority.  The danger of authoritarians is magnified when you have an authoritarian leader for them to follow, which is why I said above that it may matter more that Trump's followers and Republicans in general are more authoritarian than the specific degree of how differently authoritarian Trump and Clinton are.  I sincerely doubt that he will face the kind of resistance from Congressional Republicans that you think he will, and the party's correlation with authoritarian thinking is a large part of why.

 

Now.  Regarding your charts, I have some issues, but the first one is simple confusion: first you claim that Hillary and Trump are both extremely authoritarian, sufficiently so that there is no need to distinguish between the two, and then you give us charts that consistently have Hillary be slightly to his right economically yet significantly below Trump on the authoritarian scale (Trump has the noble company of Hitler and Stalin at his level of authoritarianism).  Which position do you hold, your previously stated one or the one on your charts?

8 hours ago, Celerity said:

If you want an in-depth explanation, you'll have to start reading deeper on the site. It is there, however, if you sincerely doubt the 2016 presidential analysis, placement of figures, or the concept of the compass.

Second, I've looked into that site, and I'm having serious trouble finding any in-depth explanation at all of how they created them beyond: " Please note that the positions on the chart are based on speeches, manifestos and, where applicable, voting records .If positions markedly change during the campaign, we will revise the chart accordingly. Already the positions of Trump and Clinton differ slightly from the primaries chart. " I find nowhere a breakdown regarding how any of these are judged and weighted.

 

12 hours ago, Celerity said:

Media again: It is more that I believe there is a 'conspiracy' in favor of Hillary rather than against Trump. She has done things that are very bad that aren't being picked up much by the media.

I agree that the media as a whole is likely to be more favorable of Clinton - they know and like her, which is understandable as she's spent decades building relationships with the media.  But I do not agree that this is responsible for the negative coverage Trump gets.  For the opposing explanation, you may find the following article interesting and more in-depth than anything I'm going to post here: "The Exaggerated Claims of Media Bias Against Donald Trump."

 

I have little interest in rehashing the many discussions we've had over the years regarding economic policy and federalism.  I think we know where we stand.  However, in the case of climate change, you say "I don't believe the solution is in the hands of the political class at all. If there is going to be any significant progress, it will be through industrial and scientific innovation."  Why can't all three work together?  Historically, the federal government has been a major driving force for most American expansion, both geographically and economically.  Federal grants gave land to people pushing out west in the 1800s after the Louisiana Purchase, federal subsidies built roads and later railroads and the interstate system to that land so that it could be developed and industrialized, federal subsidies for research gave us nuclear power via the Manhattan Project, and federal defense contracts gave us the Internet (this list of things we've gotten out of federal funding is FAR from exhaustive).  Federal funding is also by far the main source of funding for climate research.  I do not understand why you think that federal funding could not again play a useful role in subsidizing industrial and scientific progress as it has so many times in the past.

 

EDIT: I would also like to reiterate a key point regarding global climate change: it is global.  Not national.  The US cutting its emissions will do little good if India and other developing nations start pumping out more emissions to offset our cuts - international agreements are absolutely required to actually deal with this problem, and international agreements by their very nature will require the government to enforce any standards created by those agreements as well as to support developing countries to jump past reliance on still-cheap fossil fuels.  Keeping the federal government out of efforts to deal with climate change will neuter those efforts from the start.

 

9 hours ago, Manual Labour said:

If I was a citizen of America I would vote for Trump over Clinton for one simple reason. I think Trump is way more predictable and I prefer an Evil I know to one I don't.

You have them completely reversed.  Clinton will effectively be four more years of Obama - perhaps a bit more hawkish, a bit cozier with Big Money, but really little will change.  Trump is a complete wild card.  His suggested policies, what few there are, are often retracted or contradicted by him within days.  He can be baited with a Tweet, is completely comfortable making up his own facts and history, and is only consistent regarding one thing: that Trump is the best.

 

9 hours ago, Manual Labour said:

You are lead to believe that if you carpool, and take shorter showers then we will all be fine, when in reality it is deforestation and animal husbandry that are by far and away the worst offenders.

This is not quite accurate.  Here you can find charts regarding the sources of greenhouse gas emissions both globally and for the US nationally.  In both cases, electricity and heat generation are the top source of emissions, and while agriculture and deforestation are the VERY close number two globally, for the US alone they are last place.  For people living in the US, yes, the best things you can do individually are use less electricity/heat (heating up water for showers is part of this) and drive less.

 

 

 

[egreir]

Ghandi.