Author Topic: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton  (Read 1443 times)

Offline Semnae

  • Member
  • Posts: 4028
Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« on: September 25, 2016, 03:50:05 pm »
This is the most surprising endorsement of the campaign so far. Former president George Bush Sr. has said he will be voting for Hillary Clinton. Recall that Bill Clinton is the man who defeated Bush Sr and ended his presidency in 1993.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/george-hw-bush-hillary-clinton/

Offline Tiffanys

  • Member
  • Posts: 10259
  • real female girl ojō-sama
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2016, 04:24:51 pm »
Well, Trump did say some pretty rude stuff about the Bushes. It's not surprising that they'd be a little bitter, especially one that has retired from politics and thus has no personal consequences for such an action.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2016, 05:09:11 pm »
Eh is that really so surprising? It's not like he's suddenly a democrats. He's still probably gonna vote republican on every other ballots. Trump is just too insane and hateful for him.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5871
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2016, 07:32:14 pm »
I read an opinion piece this morning on CNN that pissed me off.  Perhaps not coincidentally, I can no longer find it on the site.  The piece stated outright that liberals who choose to vote for Jill Stein are throwing their vote away and are as good as voting for Trump.  The piece said essentially that we should suck up and toe the party line, because anything else would ensure a Trump presidency.

I won't deny that the numbers seem to support this predicted outcome, but considering how the Democratic party treated the Sanders campaign, I'm not particularly pleased with efforts to bully those of us who have been on the fence about Clinton.  Personally, I'm remaining in the Democratic party for the moment because I do like having a say in the party's candidates, but it's becoming increasingly likely that I'll change party affiliations at some point soon.  I really dislike how our elections are always framed as a binary choice between two unlikable candidates.  It always feels like a false dichotomy.
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2016, 10:06:29 pm »
I can empathize with the notion that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away", but it's really dumb to say it's like voting for the other party. No it isn't.

I remember a Facebook argument I had about the Quebec election of 2014 in which people were saying "liberals got elected because of non-voters". To which I answered the obvious: " Actually, liberals got elected because of liberal voters." They didn't appreciate.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2016, 11:40:57 pm »
I can empathize with the notion that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away", but it's really dumb to say it's like voting for the other party. No it isn't.

I remember a Facebook argument I had about the Quebec election of 2014 in which people were saying "liberals got elected because of non-voters". To which I answered the obvious: " Actually, liberals got elected because of liberal voters." They didn't appreciate.

I disagree whole heartly and mathematically.

In a first past the post voting system, with a finite number of votes: casting a vote for someone is just as much a +1 as it is a -1 to the opposition; while not voting at all is 0 for both.

If you have two people to chose from, that doesn't matter. It works as basic logic tells you it does.

Now consider a ballot with three names - ding dong - you know have a king maker in the system. In this case it's Jill Stein. Jill Stein is effectively the nominee of the people who would vote for Hillary if they were to vote otherwise and her name wasn't there.

Given the dichotomy politics of the US what you have is a system of two parallel elections:

BURN IT ALL(Trump) vs SRS PPL(Clinton) and SRS PPL vs Fuck_Clinton(Kingmaker)

Ultimately, you have two elections going at the same time.
Not voting gives you a zero throughout the board.
Voting for trump gives it:
+1 to BURN IT ALL and -1 to SRS PPL and 0 to Fuck_Clinton, because the Kingmaker isn't competing with Trump.
Voting for Clinton gives it a:
-1 to BURN IT ALL, and +1 to SRS PPL, and -1 to Fuck_Clinton.
Voting for the Kingmaker gives you:
0 to BURN IT ALL, -1 to SRS PPL, and +1 to Fuck_Clinton.

Voting for Jill Stein does not affect Trump, as they aren't competing, but to Hillary it's the same as voting for Trump. So ultimately it's 1/2 as effective as voting for Trump would be.

Voting for Jill Stein would be the same as just throwing out your vote only if you would never under any circumstance vote for Hilary(Or Trump). In that case yes, your vote is irrelevant no matter what you do. However if you just like Stein more than candidate X, then it is not, it is voting for the opposition of candidate x.

The first past the post system only works if you have two candidates. The only other way for it to work if you have more than two candidates is if every candidate is in a position of dichotomy against EVERY other candidate. If you have more candidates and they overlap with primary two most popular candidates - they become kingmakers.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 11:52:19 pm by Saras »

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2016, 12:21:40 am »
Errh, your math doesn't work.

Voting for Clinton means
+1 Clinton, 0 Trump, 0 Kingmaker
Voting for Trump
0 Clinton, +1 Trump, 0 Kingmaker
Voting for Kingmaker
0 Clinton, 0 Trump, +1 Kingmaker
And not voting
0 Clinton, 0 Trump, 0 Kingmaker
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2016, 12:54:45 am »
While I wouldn't argue that what I said was a gross simplification where the actual coefficients would require significant consideration....

Errh, your math doesn't work.

Voting for Clinton means
+1 Clinton, 0 Trump, 0 Kingmaker
Voting for Trump
0 Clinton, +1 Trump, 0 Kingmaker
Voting for Kingmaker
0 Clinton, 0 Trump, +1 Kingmaker
And not voting
0 Clinton, 0 Trump, 0 Kingmaker

However, this only holds true. If a voter in question has a 0% elasticity towards voting. Which is demonstrably false for the absolute majority of voter base.

Still, you can't honestly have such a simplistic viewpoint towards voting, can you?

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2016, 12:59:21 am »
Could you please rephrase what you mean when you talk about having "0% elasticity towards voting"? I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2016, 01:13:18 am »
Could you please rephrase what you mean when you talk about having "0% elasticity towards voting"? I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

Elasticity in economics, politics and business is a measure of a variable's sensitivity to a change in another variable.

Normally it is a price/demand function but I'm applying the concept to the chance of voting based on the reaction of a candidates actions.

Basically, it would mean that the system is completely irresponsive. I.E. There's nothing that could happen that would sway that particular voter to vote in a different way. A trump voter would still vote for trump if he came into house, shotgunned his kids and fucked his wife.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2016, 01:34:08 am »
I don't see how you get that from what I wrote. I guess is there is an assumption in my comment it's that the default scenario voting patterns should be compared too is "not voting", which if we are gonna talk about responsibility is the only default that make sense. Having a right to vote means that you get to chose who you want to vote for. Hillary Clinton doesn't own your vote by default, she has to win it.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2016, 01:55:01 am »
I don't see how you get that from what I wrote. I guess is there is an assumption in my comment it's that the default scenario voting patterns should be compared too is "not voting", which if we are gonna talk about responsibility is the only default that make sense. Having a right to vote means that you get to chose who you want to vote for. Hillary Clinton doesn't own your vote by default, she has to win it.

Scenario 1)

There is 1 voter, he is on the fence.

You are a politician.

You have a potential of getting 1 vote.

Your opponent gets the vote. You no longer can get 1 vote, because the pool of voters is 0.

Compared to the starting position you are at -1, from where you started.

Scenario 2)

There is 1 voter.

You are a politician.

The voter will only ever vote for your opponent, no matter what you do.

You potential of getting 0 votes.

The voter chooses you opponent. You can not lose a vote you could have never gotten in the first place.

Compared to the starting position, you are at 0. You have not gained anything you have not lost anything.



Does this make sense Y/N?

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2016, 02:16:25 am »
Not really. When we fault a group for a situation, the concept being invoked is responsibility, not causation. People frequently mix those concepts together, there is a lot of ambiguity in how we speak which often makes it hard to tell which we are talking about and the two concepts are obviously linked in many way, but they are nevertheless different.

If people do not vote for Hillary Clinton, she won't get elected but it was never their responsibility to elect her to begin with. In another hand, voting for Donald Trump is an active choice and by doing so one implicitly accept the responsibility of him being elected.

Of course, if you are a political strategist trying to see where money should be spent, it's probably gonna make more sense to spend it on people who are on the fence. That's because then you are thinking about the effect of each strategies, not about who's responsible to elect who.

See the difference? To be fair, I generally think it makes more sense to think in term of cause and effect then in term of responsibility, but if one nonetheless invoke responsibility, it should be invoked properly.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2016, 02:24:47 am »
Not really. When we fault a group for a situation, the concept being invoked is responsibility, not causation.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Voting for Jill Stein reduces the potential voter space for Hillary Clinton. Reducing the potential voter space for Hillary Clinton decreases the threshold needed for trump to win, meaning he needs less votes to win.

You have two candidates, your action decreases the votes needed for the first candidate to win. How is that not the same as voting for the first candidate?

Also how the fuck don't we fault groups for causing A, B C or D? We do. We do it constantly. They are responsible for causing something to happen.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 02:36:42 am by Saras »

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2016, 03:09:43 am »
I'm making a distinction between two concepts, responsibility and causation. If you get the distinction, then you should understand the difference between what we are saying.

The concept of responsibility all about blaming people. If you don't take your responsibility, then whatever results is your fault. That's what people are talking about when they point fingers, when they try to find culprits, they say it's not the fault of Annette because Bob's.

Causation is a lot more objective, a lot more mathematical. A is the cause of B if A being true makes B more likely to be try. While it's generally assumed that the responsibility for an event adds up to 100% (e.g. we are each 50% responsible for this situation), that's not necessarily the case when we talk about causes and effects and in fact, for every effects there might be an infinity of causes (that's a bit what Chaos theory is all about). Causation is what a good strategist should be interested in.

Again, the confusion between the two ideas is very common and you see it all the time in politics.

For example, when talking about gun control, a gun right advocate might say "gun don't kill people, people kill people". And by that, he means guns can't be held responsible for murders, which is obviously true. Guns are things. It doesn't make a lot of sense to hold a thing responsible for anything. Yet, if the gun hadn't been there, the murder might not had happened and therefore by definition the gun could still be one of the causes of the murder. And more generally, gun control may (or may not) still be an effective way to lower the murder rate.

Another example with the political spectrums reversed. If you tell a feminist that drinking alcohol makes a woman more likely to get raped, expect to be yelled at, to be accused of blaming the victim. A feminist would say that the rapist is always to blame for a rape, and I would agree. The rapist is the one who acted with an intent to cause harm which is relevant when we talk about responsibility. Yet, while we may say it's always the rapist's fault that a rape happened, it may still be true that drinking alcohol makes a woman more likely to be victimized. So if we ought to point fingers, they should all be pointed toward the rapist and never the victim, but a women who refuses to drink alcohol because she doesn't want to put herself at risk wouldn't necessarily be irrational.

So now that I have hopefully clarified the distinction. If someone were to say "if half the non voters had voted for the PQ in the 2014 Quebec election, the PQ would have been elected" then that person would be correct. But if someone were to say "it's all the fault of non-voters that liberals got elected" then that would be wrong because it was never their responsibility to elect the PQ to begin with.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2016, 03:29:37 am »
You're giving me an aneurysm.

This isn't an opinion, this is math.

This is a highly systematic model that can be solved to minutia. Everything about it follows mathematical laws. Your opinion, or you wanting to take responsibility for something is irrelevant. The end result depends on the numbers. The process depends on the numbers.

This is a solvable question. It either is, or it isn't. Responsibility doesn't come into this.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 03:35:39 am by Saras »

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2016, 03:48:19 am »
Causation is mathematical. Responsibility is not.

To prove that A is the cause of B, one only has to prove that B is either the necessary result of A, or that B is more likely if A is true.

Attributing responsibility is a lot more subjective. Generally causation is a prerequisite, in the sense that it doesn't make sense to blame a person for a situation they didn't cause, but there is a lot more to consider. Is who you are blaming capable to make an informed decision? What were their intend? Did they neglect a duty? Did they violate any rule? Who people blame for a situation is generally heavily dependent on their system of values.

Have you heard about Good Samaritan laws? They are laws that exist in some jurisdictions that say if you cause harm to someone while reasonably trying to assist them, then you are not responsible. You caused a situation but you aren't responsible for it.



edit(since you edited your comment): Again, if you want to talk about cause and effect, I'm all with you, but someone who says "if liberals got elected it's all non-voter's fault" isn't talking about that.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 03:51:56 am by Burkingam »
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2016, 04:01:14 am »
If you're DUI and cause an accident, your at fault. Your opinion is irrelevant.

If you shoot a gun towards the sky and the balistic projectile ends up killing an unsuspecting civilian. You just killed a man.

Manslaughter by accident is still manslaughter.

Wishing for reality to not be it, doesn't make it go away.

We're deeply in the american "My feelings equate to facts" politics here and I have no business in continuing it. And yes, "if liberals got elected it's all non-voter's fault", they are correct. They did not participate, they forfeited their right to effect what happened.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2016, 04:10:03 am »
If you shoot a gun towards the sky and the balistic projectile ends up killing an unsuspecting civilian. You just killed a man.
If you hadn't had a gun, you couldn't have shot that man. Hence, mathematically the gun is a cause. That's mathematical, not a matter of opinion.

Would therefore say it's the gun's fault the man was shot?
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2016, 04:14:52 am »
If you shoot a gun towards the sky and the balistic projectile ends up killing an unsuspecting civilian. You just killed a man.
If you hadn't had a gun, you couldn't have shot that man. Hence, mathematically the gun is a cause. That's mathematical, not a matter of opinion.

Would therefore say it's the gun's fault the man was shot?

You're speaking to someone from country that has very strict gun regulation.

My answer is that the man is responsible, but the gun made it possible.