Author Topic: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton  (Read 1400 times)

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11028
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2016, 04:20:43 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.

The gun is a cause. We both agree on that. What I'm asking is if the gun is responsible. If, as it seams, you don't think there is a difference between causation and responsibility, then it follows that the gun is indeed responsible.

What I'm saying is that those are different concepts. In this scenario, both the man and the gun are causes (that's mathematical, not a matter of opinion), but only the man is responsible(a much more subjective value-based judgement).
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 04:28:58 am by Burkingam »
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2916
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2016, 04:29:10 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.

The gun is a cause. We both agree on that. What I'm asking is if the gun is responsible. If, as it seams, you don't think there is a difference between causation and responsibility, then it follows that the gun is indeed responsible.

What I'm saying is that those are different concepts. In this scenario, both the man and the gun are causes (that's mathematical, not a matter of point of view), but only the man is responsible(a much more subjective value-based judgement).

You should've gone into politics instead of IT.

A gun is not a legal entity. Nor is it a living entity, it has no thoughts, no desires. It does what it is told. It's job is to to shoot, when a legal entity presses the trigger.

A voting system isn't a legal entity. Nor is it a living entity, it has no thoughts, no desires. It does what it is told. It's job is to elect, based on available data collected from legal entities.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11028
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2016, 04:35:02 am »
Something doesn't have to be a legal entity, a living thing, to have thought or desires to be the cause of an effect. If you acknowledge that those are criteria relevant to the concept of responsibility, but not causation, then it logically follows that these are not the same concepts.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2916
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2016, 04:43:52 am »
Only an entity can be responsible for anything. The gun is a tool. Tools are not responsible.

Items like these are stupid machines that turn input A into result B without question or reason.

The only thing I acknowledge is that a voting systems purpose is to elect something, it has no will, it has no responsibility, it just does, based on entities that do.

P.s. I have no fucking clue what you're trying to do.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11028
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2016, 04:55:01 am »
I'm trying to make you understand that responsibility and causation aren't the same concept.

But the fact that we only attribute responsibility to beings isn't the only difference.

So Bob shot in the air and it killed Annette. If he didn't shoot, Annette 100% certain wouldn't have died. Bob is therefore 100% the cause of the death. Would you therefore say that Bob is 100% responsible?
But wait, I gave the gun to Bob. If I hadn't given the gun, 100% certain Bob wouldn't have shot in the air and Annette wouldn't have died. So how responsible am I?
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2916
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2016, 04:58:22 am »
I'm trying to make you understand that responsibility and causation aren't the same concept.

But the fact that we only attribute responsibility to beings isn't the only difference.

So Bob shot in the air and it killed Annette. If he didn't shoot, Annette 100% certain wouldn't have died. Bob is therefore 100% the cause of the death. Would you therefore say that Bob is 100% responsible?
But wait, I gave the gun to Bob. If I hadn't given the gun, 100% certain Bob wouldn't have shot in the air and Annette wouldn't have died. So how responsible am I?

By my local law: Bob is 100% responsible for shooting anette. You are responsible for giving a lethal weapon to an idiot. Your responsibility in killing annette only enters the fray if you are an active part of events.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11028
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2016, 05:07:36 am »
And by my local law, if I reasonably try to help someone but end up accidentally harming them, then I'm 0% responsible.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2916
  • How might I assist you?
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2016, 05:12:34 am »
I see no purpose to this discussion.

I can't understand where it came up from; I can't see where it's going, or why your bothering with it.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11028
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2016, 05:19:17 am »
And I don't understand why you don't understand. Maybe I'm not explaining properly but I don't really see how else I could explain it at this point. We at the very least agree on one thing, this discussion doesn't seam to be going anywhere, so I guess I'm gonna withdraw from it. It's time for bed anyway. Good night, good sir.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline jaybug

  • Member
  • Posts: 6922
  • Go Ducks!
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2016, 06:04:22 am »
What the hell was that all about? TL;DR up the yik yak.

Jill Stein, the kingmaker? You mean the Jill Stein who got her ass arrested, and thrown off Hofstra property, that Jill Stein? Dude, can you spare some of what you're smoking?

To the topic at hand, of course Bush 41 wants Clinton, he's of the 1%, he's protecting his ass(ets). I doubt Bush 43 could make himself ever vote for a Clinton. But that is a guess, not some quantifiable insight.
Timing is everything in comedy!

Offline Lord of Fire

  • Member
  • Posts: 2207
  • The Voice of Reason
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2016, 10:58:57 pm »
Mind if I backtrack a bit?

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.

It is, and there's a name for it, too: the spoiler effect

In this case, a lot of people who vote for Hillary do so because they really dislike Trump, not so much because they think Clinton is the best. These people are overwhelmingly liberal, so if a third-party liberal candidate would emerge, some of them would abandon Hillary and vote for that candidate. As a result, votes for Hillary get siphoned away, giving Trump an advantage. The reverse is equally true: there are a lot of people who vote Trump because they dislike Hillary more, but if a conservative third party candidate enters the race, chances are s/he'll get a lot of votes, which would be in Hillary's favor. In this case, only left-leaning parties are challenging the main two, which mostly pose a threat to Hillary.

The most recent example of a spoiler effect toppling the election in the opponent's favor was in 2000, when Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in favor of Bush Jr. Had Nader not run, Gore wouldn't have lost the decisive Florida vote, and it would have made him win the election.

CGP Grey explained the whole problem with First Past the Post voting, and how it creates a spoiler effect. Watch it, and learn from it.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 11:18:47 pm by Lord of Fire »

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5867
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2016, 01:03:26 am »
I'm aware of the mechanics of the spoiler effect -- it's one reason why I've come to despise the two party system.  It makes it extraordinarily difficult for a 3rd party to supplant an existing party, and it makes it difficult to instigate change from within a party.  The stability that a two party system provides also means that entrenched corrupt elements in the two parties are much harder to get rid of.

I despise being told not to vote for a 3rd party candidate because doing so is the only way that I can make my displeasure with both parties known, and if I don't feel well-represented by the major parties, then I still have an alternative choice.  If enough registered Democrats or independents vote for a 3rd party, then the Democratic party will have to start taking those voters' concerns more seriously.  Ditto for the Republicans of course.  This is particularly important now, because of how Sanders was treated in the Democratic primary.  When both major candidates are terrible, it's not good enough to vote for the less terrible candidate.  It's disillusioning.  By demanding that voters choose between only 2 extremely unpopular candidates, the end result is further disgruntlement and feelings of disenfranchisement among the voters, which could further depress voluntary voter participation.  In other words, when a voter doesn't feel that any major candidate or party sufficiently represents their interests, it's highly tempting to just say fuck it and not bother voting.  Even more so if there aren't any viable alternatives.

In my particular case, I looked at the Green Party's platform and decided that it corresponded closely enough to my own positions.  Not completely, but close enough that I felt adequately represented, whereas with the other 3 candidates, I had various other reasons not to vote for any of them.  Although I'm not happy with the state of the Democratic or Republican parties, my particular decision was a conscious choice to vote for a platform that I liked, rather than an explicit rejection of parties & candidates that I didn't like.  Closely related ideas, but not exactly the same thing.
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 Tanis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3242
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2016, 05:55:14 am »
Too bad the two current 'non-D/R' are both fucking nuts and idiotic.

Jill is an antiscience twit whose won't give a straight answer about whether or not she thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

Johnson wants to destroy the federal government, unless he doesn't, but maybe he does and he's also making pot smokers look like retards half the time he opens up his mouth.

Frankly, the best thing for both Jill & Johnson is that nobody has really taken a good, long, look at them.
-Except, maybe, John Oliver.
If anyone from Fox or CNN or even the AP ever did...they'd lose a shit load of supporters.

Offline Nikkoru

  • Member
  • Posts: 5890
  • Cyberpun
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #33 on: October 20, 2016, 09:07:28 am »
Jill is an antiscience twit whose won't give a straight answer about whether or not she thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

It is, sadly, placating to her base. 9/11 Truthers and Anti-Vaxx people - and similar distorted views which tend to be skeptical of Western medicine/science and believed W. Bush and the Neo-cons were capable of pretty much anything - are part of the the insipid thorn in the heel of the American Left.

I spent a not-insignificant amount of time with people such as these in the 00's when MSN Chat was a thing and I was stuck in my house for months. It's annoying that caring about things like economic and social justice or the environment often put me in similar brackets with people with alarmingly anti-Semitic views coded somewhat within anti-Zionist discourse or those claiming milk is carcinogenic, among other positions I just found pretty distracting and difficult to reason out.

Stein has shades of that - not sharing those views implicitly perhaps, but keeping her own dog whistle language handy to alert people such as they.

I don't know why the Green Party of the United States has to be such an outlier politically. It's not hard at all to occupy a much further Left position to the American Democrats and still remain well within the political center of much of the industrialized world, Bernie Sanders proved that such legitimacy is within reach. It's frankly why I've no particular reaction with regards to Ixarku's vote despite my most sincerest desire to never see Fascism succeed in a democratic state ever again, the Greens simply aren't doing enough to even muster up the apathetic left-leaning voters who are likely going to just not vote when it comes down to it.

I may be wildly optimistic here, but I think they could easily be on the level of the Libertarians in terms of popularity,  particularly with the polls showing increased concern for AGW has been putting green issues front and center with every heavy damaging hurricane, flood, drought, or forest fire along with stuff like Flint's water poisoning and other corporate/governmental environmental catastrophes -- they should have a louder voice in the world.

McMuffin in Utah is making a bigger name for himself and he's just some guy.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 09:10:39 am by Nikkoru »
Peace, Love, and Tranquility

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5867
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #34 on: October 20, 2016, 12:04:14 pm »
Yeah, sadly, there's no doubt that there are plenty of loonies on the Left.  Anti-vaxxers, people that don't put fluoride in the water, etc.  It just proves that conspiracy nuts cross all political spectrums.  If the Greens reached more people, perhaps they could mitigate some of the loonie influence.  Stein certainly isn't the perfect candidate - among other things, I think that she hasn't held public office before is a big minus - but she's at least acceptable.
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 Stridar

  • Member
  • Posts: 157
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2016, 02:07:39 pm »
I dont know why Trump is bad at this point. Yeah he pulls in a lot of garbage voters but Hilary getting into power is setting precedents, enjoy future presidents after her.

Offline surdumil

  • Member
  • Posts: 1660
  • Yeah! I'm lookin' at you!
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2016, 03:52:33 pm »
Why is Trump bad?
I'm just an observer, but I can offer some clues:

He's an idiot.
He's an extreme sociopath.
He's a seditionist.
He's a habitual suer (or sewer, if you'd like)
He's a racist.
He's a misogynist.
He's a sexual predator who has boasted of his predation publicly.
He's a habitual liar.
He's an extreme narcissist.
He has no respect for democratic process.
He's a vindictive dictator.
He's a lackey for international dictators.
He has absolutely no sense of decency or honesty or humour.
His opponents have long lists as well, though not nearly as long and not nearly as extreme.
He's an extremely selfish opportunist.
The list can go on and on.

Other than that, perhaps the U.S. deserves such a president.
Whatever.

Offline DespondenSea

  • Member
  • Posts: 220
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2016, 06:48:48 pm »
I dont know why Trump is bad at this point. Yeah he pulls in a lot of garbage voters but Hilary getting into power is setting precedents, enjoy future presidents after her.

I'm guessing you're not an American citizen?

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5867
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2016, 11:37:03 pm »
I dont know why Trump is bad at this point. Yeah he pulls in a lot of garbage voters but Hilary getting into power is setting precedents, enjoy future presidents after her.


What precedents are you referring to?  Not having elderly white men as Presidents?  If you're worried about the President taking greater power for himself/herself, you should have been worrying about that 35 years ago.


Also, what Surdumil said.  Trump is a deluded ill-mannered misogynistic bigoted narcissistic liar.  On top of that, some of his policies or statements on policy border on lunacy.  Among other things, his economic plan is projected to add as much as $5 trillion to the national debt, as opposed to Clinton's plans which would likely add closer to $200 billion to the debt.  I've noticed that people that think Trump is just going to fix everything wrong about the economy have a tendency to ignore some of these important little details.
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 Stridar

  • Member
  • Posts: 157
Re: Former President George Bush Sr. Endorses Clinton
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2016, 01:54:43 pm »
^

As in, if she gets into power, she pretty much got away with murder to get there. What does that say about the future? I don't even think she's that smart, she's just the stereotypical puppet, she just has the machine behind her, for me she is suffering from severe delusion, probably from that blot clot a few years back.


Why is Trump bad?
I'm just an observer, but I can offer some clues:

He's an idiot.
He's an extreme sociopath.
He's a seditionist.
He's a habitual suer (or sewer, if you'd like)
He's a racist.
He's a misogynist.
He's a sexual predator who has boasted of his predation publicly.
He's a habitual liar.
He's an extreme narcissist.
He has no respect for democratic process.
He's a vindictive dictator.
He's a lackey for international dictators.
He has absolutely no sense of decency or honesty or humour.
His opponents have long lists as well, though not nearly as long and not nearly as extreme.
He's an extremely selfish opportunist.
The list can go on and on.

Other than that, perhaps the U.S. deserves such a president.
Whatever.

In all honesty they do probably do deserve it.

There difference between trump and hilary is that Trump is more honest, what you see is what you get. so when they reach that presidential platform, it'll be easier for the history books to know the behind the scenes fuck ups. Ofcourse I could be wrong but I never said he was a good guy, but surely Hilary makes him into the more honest candidate right?