Hillary and the ordinary people

[hrothgar]

Interestingly, L. Neil Smith based an entire alternate world series on the premise that the word "unanimous" did appear in the final version of the declaration. That resulted in a world in which the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded, Washington was executed for treason, and the Articles of Confederation (suitably amended over time) still govern two hundred years later (the first book, The Probability Broach, was set in 1987). Yes, it's fiction. Still a fun read, imo.

 

One scene I especially liked: the main character, from something like, and yet unlike, our version of reality, is getting a tour of the capital, a small town in Kansas that is deserted unless the Continental Congress is in session — and that only occurs when a major crisis is imminent. He's shown a corridor with framed pictures of all the Presidents of the Continental Congress. At one point the guide stops, points at one of the frames and says "and this was our proudest moment". There is no picture in the frame, only a small brass plaque on which is engraved "None of the above is acceptable." :P

 

Another quote from that first book: "Telephone operator" (not a human, apparently an AI) says "Sir, I have nine billion listings on three planets, nine moons, and twenty seven asteroids, and there is no 'Denver, City and County of'!"

 

Oh, and the current President of the NA Confederacy is Hugh Featherstone-Haugh (pronounced "Fanshaw") an African mountain gorilla.

 

I did mention this is fiction, right? :lol: :lol:

 

 

Does the fact that your preferred form of government only appears in works of fiction ever give you pause for thought?

[y66]

No, I don't see the world this way. Harry Lime was created by Graham Greene as total evil. But I do think that a little skepticism now and then can be extremely useful.

That was such a good movie. When I read The Quiet American, I appreciated its similar handling of the idealism theme.

 

Of course, it may also be prudent to be skeptical of pithy quotes or, at least, to know when poetic license is being employed vs factual accounts from history. Wikipedia has this anecdote from Orson Welles: "When the picture came out, the Swiss very nicely pointed out to me that they've never made any cuckoo clocks", as the clocks are native to the German Black Forest.” In "La Place de la Concorde Suisse", John McPhee observes:

 

Greene was not the author of the line about the Borgias and Switzerland. They were interpolated by the ingenious Welles, who may have chosen to suppress in his memory that when Italy was enjoying the Borgias, Switzerland was enjoying a reputation as -- to quote Douglas Miller's "Swiss at War" -- "the most powerful and feared military force in Europe". Switzerland was about as neutral in those days as had been Mongolia under Genghis Kahn.

So much for creeps like Harry Lime crediting terror, bloodshed and rule by Italian one percenters with the origins of the Renaissance.

[kenberg]

It has often been said that we should never let truth get in the way of a good story. In this case I did indeed take it to be poetic license, even without knowing much Italian history or, especially, Swiss history.

[blackshoe]

If we go to fiction for political thoughts, certainly one of my favorites comes from my absolutely favorite noir film of the 1940s. The Third Man. Harry Lime (Orson Welles) is explaining life to the naive and idealistic Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton). I take the quote from here

 

 

 

No, I don't see the world this way. Harry Lime was created by Graham Greene as total evil. But I do think that a little skepticism now and then can be extremely useful.

 

I remain interested in just how people do come to decisions. The title of this thread refers to Hillary Clinton and "ordinary people". Ordinary people seldom have deep discussions about quantum field theory. Nor are they prepared to hold their own with a professional economist. In this sense, I regard myself as ordinary. The difference between these two fields is that most people realize that they do not understand quantum field theory but an absurdly large number of people think that they fully understand economics.

 

Still, we vote, so we must choose. Ordinary people will elect the president. Someone once observed that all important decisions are made on the basis of insufficient information.

I saw that movie when I was very young. I was two when it came out, so it was some years after that. All I remember of it is that I liked it. I couldn't even tell you why. :ph34r:

[kenberg]

I saw that movie when I was very young. I was two when it came out, so it was some years after that. All I remember of it is that I liked it. I couldn't even tell you why. :ph34r:

 

I'll only hijack for a little while here to talk about The Third Man. Some friends saw it recently for the first time and did not like it. As near as I can remember, they are the only people I know who have not liked it. There are some very touching scenes, maybe difficult to get across in print but let me try with one of them.

 

 

The setting is divided Vienna, after the war. Anna (Valli) holds a forged passport, being (I think) Czech the Russians would claim her (as she put it). As the plot develops, Inspector Calloway (Trevor Howard) is looking at Anna's passport and questioning her about her relationship with Harry Lime.

Anna He just did one thing for me, a small thing.

Calloway: And what is that?

Anna: You have it in your hand.

 

Much of the theme is how people cope with being in way over their heads, in big ways and small. Calloway narrates in the beginning, noting the absurdity of the city being divided into four pieces run by four nations, so with people not knowing the language of the city or the language of each other.

 

Anyway, I highly recommend it.

 

Back to politics!

[y66]

Short commercial break ...

 

The American Film Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland is running a retrospective on the works of Orson Welles from April 17 thru July 1 which ends with a one-week run of The Third Man starting June 26.

[kenberg]

Short commercial break ...

 

The American Film Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland is running a retrospective on the works of Orson Welles from April 17 thru July 1 which ends with a one-week run of The Third Man starting June 26.

 

 

Thank you greatly. I will gather up a group to go see it.

[Cthulhu D]

My first thought about states was that Maryland, where I live, always votes Democratic. but wait, we just elected a Republican governor. And I voted for him. I would advise Democratic strategists to not get over-confident. If they can arrange to run against someone who likes to compare himself to Galileo that will boost their chances.

 

Specifically about Hillary: I have been told many times that she is very smart. Possibly it is even true. I have an open mind on that.

 

Actually, I think the country is in deep stuff.

 

The candidates shouldn't matter one iota - never has the gap between the GOP and the Democrats been bigger. The reason America is in deep is because people somehow think this is a personality battle between Hillary and whoever the republican clown car spits out. But look at the party policies for even 5 seconds:

 

Democrats pro social safety nut, republicans gut the ACA, medicare and convert medicare to a voucher system

Democrats pro high income tax hikes, and probably extent - Republicans cut taxes on the wealth and cut programs like food stamps that lower the effective tax rate on lower income family

Democrats pro 2010 finacial reform, republicans cut it including consumer protections

Democrats pro climate policy (if required to be exec action), republicans would block efforts to regulate.

 

That's just the fist 4 things that spring to mind, igoring supreme court justices - it's not inconceivable that 1-2 more republican justices could see gay marriage overturned. Trying to make it about Hillary's personality is what is wrong with the system.

[NickRW]

That's just the fist 4 things that spring to mind, igoring supreme court justices. Trying to make it about Hillary's personality is what is wrong with the system.

 

From afar, the American presidential election looks more like a beauty contest than a serious debate about anything. (Not that much of the rest of the world has a lot to crow about!)

[mike777]

The candidates shouldn't matter one iota - never has the gap between the GOP and the Democrats been bigger. The reason America is in deep is because people somehow think this is a personality battle between Hillary and whoever the republican clown car spits out. But look at the party policies for even 5 seconds:

 

Democrats pro social safety nut, republicans gut the ACA, medicare and convert medicare to a voucher system

Democrats pro high income tax hikes, and probably extent - Republicans cut taxes on the wealth and cut programs like food stamps that lower the effective tax rate on lower income family

Democrats pro 2010 finacial reform, republicans cut it including consumer protections

Democrats pro climate policy (if required to be exec action), republicans would block efforts to regulate.

 

That's just the fist 4 things that spring to mind, igoring supreme court justices - it's not inconceivable that 1-2 more republican justices could see gay marriage overturned. Trying to make it about Hillary's personality is what is wrong with the system.

 

you present a good view, we can debate/discuss the corners but ya

----------

 

I note you present zero I mean zero reasons why one is better than the other but yes.

 

If the debate is dems want to help most of us and rep want to hurt most of us....ok.

If the debate is dems help 99% of us and rep help 1% of us ok.

[billw55]

Sure you can. There will be consequences, of course. There would be consequences (what will the neighbors think of you?) even if it weren't illegal.

The folks who founded this country attempted to go another way. They suggested that "…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

Considering these two together, one could argue that it is illegal precisely because the neighbors think it is peculiar and bothersome. And conversely, that if the neighbors didn't think anything odd of it, it would not be.

 

Someone upthread said that filing tax returns in the US is voluntary. Really? What do you think would happen if you didn't. Okay, the IRS doesn't currently have to manpower to go after the little guy. What about Bill Gates? Suppose he just doesn't file, and when they go after him (and they will) he says "but filing is voluntary, I don't have to do it"? What do you think would happen?

Well, if he gave enough of his would-be tax bill to the right politicians, chances are pretty good that nothing would happen, and the whole thing kept quiet.

 

Actually, in a less direct way, isn't this how the very rich actually do operate?

 

 

[kenberg]

The candidates shouldn't matter one iota

For me, it does.

 

This is not just rhetoric.. I usually vote for a Democrat. In the 2014 election for Governor of Maryland, I voted for the Republican candidate.

 

Way upthread, Helene posted an article from Psychology Today on voting behavior. ok, it is Psychology Today, but anyway here is an excerpt:

 

James Fowler and Laura Baker have conducted a series of studies on voting behavior in families. They found that the party affiliation of adopted children tended to be similar to that of their adopted parents and siblings, suggesting that party affiliation was culturally transmitted. When the authors compared the voting behavior of a large sample of identical and fraternal twins, they found that identical twins were more similar than fraternal twins in regard to whether or not they voted, but no more similar in their choice of candidate. In sum, this work suggests that voter turnout is related to genetics while party affiliation is related to environment.

 

As I mnetined, my parents usually voted Democratic, but in 1952 (the first presidential election I paid much attention to) they Liked (and voted for) Ike. So who knows? Maybe both my Democratic tendencies and my willingness to stray all come from the way I was brought up.

 

Note to Democratic strategists: Yes I expect to vote for your candidate. But it's not a guarantee, and threatening to burn me at the stake for heresy is actually not the best way to keep me on your side.

[ArtK78]

Note to Democratic strategists: Yes I expect to vote for your candidate. But it's not a guarantee, and threatening to burn me at the stake for heresy is actually not the best way to keep me on your side.

Damn. That would have been fun to watch. :)

[Winstonm]

The candidates shouldn't matter one iota - never has the gap between the GOP and the Democrats been bigger. The reason America is in deep is because people somehow think this is a personality battle between Hillary and whoever the republican clown car spits out. But look at the party policies for even 5 seconds:

 

Democrats pro social safety nut, republicans gut the ACA, medicare and convert medicare to a voucher system

Democrats pro high income tax hikes, and probably extent - Republicans cut taxes on the wealth and cut programs like food stamps that lower the effective tax rate on lower income family

Democrats pro 2010 finacial reform, republicans cut it including consumer protections

Democrats pro climate policy (if required to be exec action), republicans would block efforts to regulate.

 

That's just the fist 4 things that spring to mind, igoring supreme court justices - it's not inconceivable that 1-2 more republican justices could see gay marriage overturned. Trying to make it about Hillary's personality is what is wrong with the system.

 

I think it is actually a little deeper than personalities - the choices are narrowed to social conservative (read: Christian right) or wanton communist harlot.

 

I'm voting for the harlot because I like to live life on the edge. :)

[cherdano]

It's more of an anecdote than an argument. But the trend of the economy doing better under demand-side economics is actually quite well documented. The same comparison would hold for Clinton vs. Reagan, for example. Or you can get better information at the state level, where governors like Scott Walker and Sam Brownback have implemented supply-side schemes to great fanfare and grandiose claims about the economic benefits, only to see their states perform worse than neighboring states with different policies.

 

I have often seen claims like this. But I have never seen a study that was both rigorous, methodically sound and showed significant results. Have you?

 

(And remember that there is always a lot of fiddling possible in such studies. "Let's assume presidential policies have no effect until 8-10 months after the president gets elected." and BOOM! Suddenly the burst of the dot-com bubble is mostly attributed to Clinton rather than Bush, and the study collapses.)

[kenberg]

Damn. That would have been fun to watch. :)

 

Perhaps we could do it as a fundraiser.

[blackshoe]

Actually, in a less direct way, isn't this how the very rich actually do operate?

So the anti-rich would have us believe. For all I know, it might even be true.

[gwnn]

What do y'all think of Bernie Sanders? He seems to be making a lot of sense. But he is against the death penalty and that might cost him a lot of support? It's more or less an established fact that Hillary will get the nomination but I'm just curious what others think of Bernie Sanders (not necessarily his chances).

[hrothgar]

What do y'all think of Bernie Sanders? He seems to be making a lot of sense. But he is against the death penalty and that might cost him a lot of support? It's more or less an established fact that Hillary will get the nomination but I'm just curious what others think of Bernie Sanders (not necessarily his chances).

 

I donated $250 to Sanders the day he announced. I disagree with Sanders on trade, but for the most part I like his policies.

(I certainly prefer him to Clinton)

 

I don't expect him to win the nomination, but I wish him well.

[kenberg]

As a guess, I would expect to like him. Honestly, I have not spent any time thinking about it. Being against the death penalty is fine with me, but often that's a state imposed penalty not a federal one. It would be good for a change if when the Republicans described the President as a Socialist he could say, yes, so I have said. But then I suppose they will call him a Communist. Or the Anti-Christ.

 

 

It's true that if by being a Socialist he means that the government should replace private enterprise to a far greater extent than now, I would not agree. But he is from Vermont so I figure that he is not totally nuts. Already that puts him ahead of several other presidential hopefuls.

[Winstonm]

I have often seen claims like this. But I have never seen a study that was both rigorous, methodically sound and showed significant results. Have you?

 

(And remember that there is always a lot of fiddling possible in such studies. "Let's assume presidential policies have no effect until 8-10 months after the president gets elected." and BOOM! Suddenly the burst of the dot-com bubble is mostly attributed to Clinton rather than Bush, and the study collapses.)

 

Although it is not a study, this is fairly strong evidence IMO.

 

Sam Brownback’s failed ‘experiment’ puts state on path to penury

[Winstonm]

What do y'all think of Bernie Sanders? He seems to be making a lot of sense. But he is against the death penalty and that might cost him a lot of support? It's more or less an established fact that Hillary will get the nomination but I'm just curious what others think of Bernie Sanders (not necessarily his chances).

 

I favor Elizabeth Warren over Sanders.

[gwnn]

Don't we all? I wonder if she's just building up some sort of momentum (there's already a website https://runwarrenrun.org/) from people who want her to run or if she is genuinely resolute about not running. I'm obviously a bit isolated here and see much of my taste of American public opinion/political climate on Facebook and Youtube, but Elizabeth Warren seems to be a bit of a media celebrity nowadays (appearing in even mainstream media) so she could have a shot against Hillary Clinton. Or am I just living in Fantasyland?