New Predictions

[Red]

I'm going to try to manage volunteering for HIllary, doing all my homework and studying for tests crammed into the end of the marking period, and going to sleep before midnight, so I'm going to respond to all of this later.

I wouldn't bother doing that first thing.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think there are good arguments against it, because I believe that she IS corrupt, did paint Bernie as sexist, did flip-flop based on political expediency, etc. etc..

A corrupt politician is the worst thing.

You've convinced me Hillary is corrupt. I think I'm going to vote for Trump instead. I didn't believe either of them were corrupt so I was going to vote for Hillary, but you talked me out of supporting Hillary on the basis of her corruption.

Trump 2016!

[EquALLity]

I don't think there are good arguments against it, because I believe that she IS corrupt, did paint Bernie as sexist, did flip-flop based on political expediency, etc. etc..

A corrupt politician is the worst thing.

You've convinced me Hillary is corrupt. I think I'm going to vote for Trump instead. I didn't believe either of them were corrupt so I was going to vote for Hillary, but you talked me out of supporting Hillary on the basis of her corruption.

Trump 2016!

I don't know how to respond to this?
Is this supposed to be an example of what might happen with some voters who I talk to who are undecided?

My total call number ATM is 280 calls, and I haven't spoken with a SINGLE undecided voter. It's 'get out the vote' calls (GOTV), we're calling supporters and encouraging them to vote, not trying to sway potential new voters.

Again, most people believe that Hillary is corrupt. Saying she's trustworthy when the overwhelming majority of the country thinks that BS isn't going to help at all.

But hey, if you don't like the way I'm volunteering, YOU could volunteer with the style that you want. Not sure why you're so opposed to it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Again, most people believe that Hillary is corrupt. Saying she's trustworthy when the overwhelming majority of the country thinks that BS isn't going to help at all.

But hey, if you don't like the way I'm volunteering, YOU could volunteer with the style that you want. Not sure why you're so opposed to it.

I guess I could join the Hillary call center, and get out the word that she is corrupt, so that people will stay home or vote for Trump instead?

If she's corrupt, I can't support her.

[EquALLity]

Again, most people believe that Hillary is corrupt. Saying she's trustworthy when the overwhelming majority of the country thinks that BS isn't going to help at all.

But hey, if you don't like the way I'm volunteering, YOU could volunteer with the style that you want. Not sure why you're so opposed to it.

I guess I could join the Hillary call center, and get out the word that she is corrupt, so that people will stay home or vote for Trump instead?

If she's corrupt, I can't support her.

Ummm... Ok...

I already addressed the point I thought you were trying to make, so I'm really not sure what to say.

If you actually care about the election, then you should ACTUALLY volunteer for it and try to stop Trump.

[Red]

You're kinda missing the point. Brimstone told you to stop making bold declarations such as "She IS corrupt", and suggested something else, say "I'm pretty sure she's corrupt." You didn't listen to that, and you still made claims that you asserted as fact.

[brimstoneSalad]

I already addressed the point I thought you were trying to make, so I'm really not sure what to say.

If you actually care about the election, then you should ACTUALLY volunteer for it and try to stop Trump.

I care, but I don't necessarily care more about doing that than the other things I have to do today/tomorrow. I'm not that worried about a Trump presidency, I don't think he's as bad as he pretends to be.

I'm more concerned with your dogmatic approach to assertions of Hillary's corruption and Sander's innocence.

If you will admit honestly and with sincerity:
1. That it was wrong for Sanders to call Hillary corrupt -- and wrong for you to do it too -- since there is no proof of corruption as such (only she really knows if she is corrupt), and because people are innocent until proven guilty
2. That what Sanders did in accusing her of corruption was at least as bad as Hillary wrongfully suggesting he's sexist (I think it's far worse, but I won't ask you to admit that).
3. If you dislike her for that, then you must dislike him for calling her corrupt. Sanders might be a sexist, you don't know that either, but just as with Hillary there's no proof. Recall I'm consistent on this, and also opposed the charges of Trump being a racist. Intellectually and morally, it's the correct position to hold.

If you will do that, then I'll get my phone and try to make some calls tonight for Hillary.
I bet Red would make that double or nothing, and offer to make some calls too if you'll admit your mistake there.

Otherwise, I really do have other things to do tonight than make calls for a "corrupt" politician (one I don't believe is corrupt, but you seem to, so I'll take your word for it since you're in her camp).
I won't support Hillary in the next couple days politically if you won't support her intellectually by taking back your unfair charges against her.

That seems fair to me. I'll put myself out to make some calls if you'll put yourself out to admit you were wrong. It's a much bigger inconvenience for me to make these calls today than it would be for you to change your mind about political corruption and the standards of evidence that merit that smear.

[EquALLity]

I already addressed the point I thought you were trying to make, so I'm really not sure what to say.

If you actually care about the election, then you should ACTUALLY volunteer for it and try to stop Trump.

I care, but I don't necessarily care more about doing that than the other things I have to do today/tomorrow. I'm not that worried about a Trump presidency, I don't think he's as bad as he pretends to be.

I'm more concerned with your dogmatic approach to assertions of Hillary's corruption and Sander's innocence.

If you will admit honestly and with sincerity:
1. That it was wrong for Sanders to call Hillary corrupt -- and wrong for you to do it too -- since there is no proof of corruption as such (only she really knows if she is corrupt), and because people are innocent until proven guilty
2. That what Sanders did in accusing her of corruption was at least as bad as Hillary wrongfully suggesting he's sexist (I think it's far worse, but I won't ask you to admit that).
3. If you dislike her for that, then you must dislike him for calling her corrupt. Sanders might be a sexist, you don't know that either, but just as with Hillary there's no proof. Recall I'm consistent on this, and also opposed the charges of Trump being a racist. Intellectually and morally, it's the correct position to hold.

If you will do that, then I'll get my phone and try to make some calls tonight for Hillary.
I bet Red would make that double or nothing, and offer to make some calls too if you'll admit your mistake there.

Otherwise, I really do have other things to do tonight than make calls for a "corrupt" politician (one I don't believe is corrupt, but you seem to, so I'll take your word for it since you're in her camp).
I won't support Hillary in the next couple days politically if you won't support her intellectually by taking back your unfair charges against her.

That seems fair to me. I'll put myself out to make some calls if you'll put yourself out to admit you were wrong. It's a much bigger inconvenience for me to make these calls today than it would be for you to change your mind about political corruption and the standards of evidence that merit that smear.

You're giving me an ultimatum in which I'm being forced to decide between saying I believe something that I don't so you'll do something I think is important vs telling the truth but you not helping out by volunteering. :/

Well, I'll try to be as fair as possible:
1) But I do think she is corrupt. I mean, what am I supposed to say? The evidence that I believe shows this is that she has opposed legislation in the past and then supported them after she received money from companies that had a financial interest in the bills, she was a huge supporter of the TPP until this election where it was brought into the public sphere and most people were against it, she didn't support marriage equality by 2013 (which really doesn't make sense for a democrat who I don't believe is bigoted), she has basically tried to use 9/11 to defend her support for Wall Street... I'm not saying she's definitely corrupt, but I believe that she is.
But... Ok, maybe you're right about the definitive wording. I can see how that could be misinterpreted, but it was never my intention to say that she is absolutely corrupt. I don't really ever make absolute claims, so if I don't put "I think" in front of something, that doesn't mean I believe it 100%.

2) If I didn't believe she was corrupt, and if I didn't believe it so strongly (not 100%, but I believe it pretty strongly), then I would agree with you that it's at least as bad. I'm not sure if I would agree it's worse. I could see an argument to be made there, but accusing someone of sexism is pretty terrible.

3) I think the idea that Bernie is sexist is much less supported by evidence than Hillary's corruption. There's just no reason that I can think of to even consider that he's sexist. Can you at least agree that there's a reason to suspect corruption of Hillary Clinton, or an appearance of corruption? It's not comparable with Bernie, it's just an accusation that was made that came out of nowhere. Unless you think there is some evidence that he is sexist.
You're really asking me to say I dislike Bernie Sanders? I think he's an amazing person. He's why I started volunteering in political campaigns, and his campaign basically introduced me to politics and important issues (not that that makes me agree with them on everything- I don't agree with him on nuclear energy). He energized so many people and brought so many important issues to the table, and I believe he CARES about those issues.
As for Trump, that's another story, and I don't understand how you could say he's not racist at this point. Will you at least agree that Trump is sexist? Just look at this statement:

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. "Blood coming out of her wherever."

He basically said Megyn Kelly asked him a question because she was having PMS. Come on.

You keep saying I should ADMIT I'm wrong, but I honestly believe this things, so I really am not sure what you expect here.
I'm guessing this won't be satisfactory for you, and you won't make calls, but this really wasn't a reasonable or fair suggestion IMO.
Again, you're asking me to say something I don't believe so that you'll do activism.

It's like if I said I'd do vegan activism if you said you didn't believe factory farming caused climate change, or something.

[brimstoneSalad]

You're giving me an ultimatum in which I'm being forced to decide between saying I believe something that I don't so you'll do something I think is important vs telling the truth but you not helping out by volunteering. :/

I wouldn't volunteer otherwise. Beyond discussions, I don't really get involved in politics. So, my offering to do that IF you can concede those points is extraordinary.

1) But I do think she is corrupt.

But Christians do think the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God.
The problem is that belief is founded on faith, and you've used it to justify slander.

A criticism like that, in order not to be the worst kind of smear and political rhetoric, has to be backed up by very solid evidence. You're backing it up by speculation and correlations which you think have a particular causal link but you can't prove.

I mean, what am I supposed to say? The evidence that I believe shows this is that she has opposed legislation in the past and then supported them after she received money from companies that had a financial interest in the bills

I see some correlations. It takes a conspiracy theory to claim causation there.
I don't like Trump, but you've seen how charitable I am to him. I may even over-correct because I don't like him, and be more charitable than I should; that's the act of critical thinking, and it has no place in modern politics (but it should).

she was a huge supporter of the TPP until this election where it was brought into the public sphere and most people were against it,

That's moving in the opposite direction of money, toward popularism. She may have just realized that people don't want it, so it would be wrong to force it on them. Some people are ideological popularists, and believe that as politicians they should represent their bases to the best of their abilities (even like lawyers arguing a case they believe they're on the wrong side of).
Clinton's values verge on deontological in some ways, where she has a very unique, but quite consistent (and conservative), view of the law and duty.

Just because somebody has different values than you do and you can't always understand their motivations in a charitable light doesn't mean he or she is corrupt.

There are multiple models of her psychology that explain her actions -- one of them is corruption, and it's a poor model because there are many cases where she has acted against special interests. Even if you make excuses and rationalize all of the exceptions, or even if there were no holes in the model, you can't just decide on that without proof.
And based on what we know of psychology, the equivalent of Occam's razor for human motivation is to believe in so far as possible what people say, and always believe people have good intentions in their own minds and actually see themselves as heroes (from Trump to Terrorists). Once you accept that and understand the profound power of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalized reasoning, you can understand people better.

The proper assumption to make is that Hillary, like Sanders, Trump, Johnson, and even Stein, all have good intentions and are doing what they each think is right. The difference being a gulf of knowledge and critical thinking capacity, and slightly different values (is it OK to lie if it's for a greater good? Most politicians seem to think it is).

she didn't support marriage equality by 2013 (which really doesn't make sense for a democrat who I don't believe is bigoted),

You think she was being paid not to?
That seemed to hurt her politically, being behind the party.
She was wrong, and now she has corrected that mistake. I don't hold prejudices against people for changing their minds; that's a horrible way to encourage people to become better human beings.

she has basically tried to use 9/11 to defend her support for Wall Street...

That was a weird deflection on her part. I don't think you understood what she was trying to say, I think she got confused and kind of talked herself into a corner.
Hillary does deflect; she tries to avoid answering a question if she thinks the answer will come off wrong or people won't like it -- mainly because people are ignorant of economics. That's probably not why she supports Wall Street, but that doesn't mean the real reason is nefarious or a matter of corruption.

I'm not saying she's definitely corrupt, but I believe that she is.
But... Ok, maybe you're right about the definitive wording. I can see how that could be misinterpreted, but it was never my intention to say that she is absolutely corrupt. I don't really ever make absolute claims, so if I don't put "I think" in front of something, that doesn't mean I believe it 100%.

You used it as justification for Sanders' behavior when I criticized him.
How is that not circular reasoning?

2) If I didn't believe she was corrupt, and if I didn't believe it so strongly (not 100%, but I believe it pretty strongly), then I would agree with you that it's at least as bad. I'm not sure if I would agree it's worse. I could see an argument to be made there, but accusing someone of sexism is pretty terrible.

Obviously, which makes what you said to defend Sanders circular reasoning unless you were again making the assertion that she IS corrupt.

You're defending your belief that Sanders acted correctly by pointing to your belief that he was correct.
It's like defending the stoning of Homosexuals in the Bible by saying the Bible is the inerrant word of God. How is that going to work on an Atheist who doesn't accept the premise?

How did you think that argument would be in any way compelling? I saw it as just another firm assertion, and argument by negation (which is not useful).

3) I think the idea that Bernie is sexist is much less supported by evidence than Hillary's corruption. There's just no reason that I can think of to even consider that he's sexist. Can you at least agree that there's a reason to suspect corruption of Hillary Clinton, or an appearance of corruption?

There was reason to suspect the appearance of sexism from Sanders based on some of his remarks; they came out wrong, and in a poor context which hit a nerve with feminists. The appearance of something is not that thing, though.

Christians also think the world appears to be created by god. Your evaluation is only as credible as your knowledge of the topic. In the case of Christians, that bad evaluation comes from a lack of knowledge of the natural sciences, and in the case of Sanders' followers, that bad evaluation comes from a lack of knowledge of economics and the political process.

We have people seeing conspiracies everywhere, and this "money in politics" rally is absolutely a conspiracy theory. It's people drawing unfounded conclusions from apparent correlations. What seems intuitive to the naive is often obviously false to the informed. Again, look at the Flat Earth thread.

If I could spend a year educating you on economics, and why her policies basically make sense and Sanders' policies are dangerous, you might finally be able to see through it and understand that Hillary taking contributions isn't necessarily corrupt at all, because there are legitimate reasons to hold the views she does.
Just like you would be able to understand that, were I running for office, taking money from mock meat companies wouldn't make me corrupt, because I already support policies that favor them for good reasons (and would whether they financed me or not).

If you don't understand why her policies are right, and you aren't willing to be charitable, then that leaves you no options of belief but corruption.

You need either a lot of education on the policies, or you need to be willing to take the position of being charitable because you know it's the right thing to do based on human psychology and in order to support your own capacity for dialogue and critical thinking.
This isn't just about the election, this is important in ways that go far beyond politics. You need to be able to see adversaries as sincere even when you don't like them and can't understand why they hold the positions they do, and not jump to conclusions like corruption without proof.

It's not comparable with Bernie, it's just an accusation that was made that came out of nowhere. Unless you think there is some evidence that he is sexist.

What he said actually did sound kind of sexist if you didn't get the context and know he's like that with everybody.
The only thing you need to think he's sexist is to be uncharitable. Sanders and Clinton were both uncharitable toward each other.

I don't think he's sexist. I saw his other quotes, it just looks like he's treating her like anybody else. I think he's kind of a jerk, but that's another issue entirely (I also think he's racist as we discussed before regarding the whites don't understand poverty thing, but again, another issue).

Just because you don't know where it came from doesn't mean you can assert it came "out of nowhere".
As I explained, she has a lot of hard core SJW feminists around her. They probably convinced her it was sexist after the fact, or confirmed her unspoken ire about it. Good old echo chamber. Maybe something Madeleine Albright put in her head.

You're really asking me to say I dislike Bernie Sanders? I think he's an amazing person.

Or not dislike Hillary.
She has a few dubious policies, like her tendency to be a war hawk (which I believe comes from a sincere desire to help people in other countries suffering from oppressive governments and wars), but otherwise she's a very sound candidate with sensible positions.

He's why I started volunteering in political campaigns, and his campaign basically introduced me to politics and important issues

That's great, but just because Barney the Dinosaur taught you to be creative when you were little doesn't mean you have to still like him when you've grown up.
Sanders has done a lot of unintentional harm this election.

I believe he CARES about those issues.

I do too. He's just also very wrong, and I also believe he's very hard headed -- a terrible combination. None of that goes against basic principles of human psychology.

The fact that Hillary has evolved over time makes me like her more, and trust her to improve her positions further in the future. I don't have that faith in Sanders, and nothing in psychology gives me confidence that this is something easy to change in somebody's personality.

As for Trump, that's another story, and I don't understand how you could say he's not racist at this point. Will you at least agree that Trump is sexist? Just look at this statement:

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. "Blood coming out of her wherever."

He basically said Megyn Kelly asked him a question because she was having PMS. Come on.

I think Trump was racist in the past, based on his discriminatory housing policies and comments he made. But I don't know if he's still racist. There's really no good way to tell, since only he knows his own mind unless he produces some more verbal diarrhea on the subject for us to examine.

You keep saying I should ADMIT I'm wrong, but I honestly believe this things, so I really am not sure what you expect here.

And Hillary honestly believes Glass Steagall shouldn't be renewed and that Wall street is a good thing. She honestly doesn't see the same problem Sanders imagines (neither do I).

I'm guessing this won't be satisfactory for you, and you won't make calls, but this really wasn't a reasonable or fair suggestion IMO.

Well, fairness is subjective.
It would save me hours of argument if you agreed, thus I could devote those hours to making calls.

Again, you're asking me to say something I don't believe so that you'll do activism.

Maybe you have some insight into the moral dilemma Hillary faces sometimes, when she lies (she does lie sometimes) to support a greater good.
In consequentialist terms (hedonic ones, at least), the trouble with lying is that then nobody trusts you. I'm not saying she didn't have a hand in making her own bed, but the extremes to which her character is smeared are not in line with any plausible reality based on the facts of economics or human psychology.

It's like if I said I'd do vegan activism if you said you didn't believe factory farming caused climate change, or something.

Well, it doesn't by comparison to small farms. The scope is large, but that's because consumption is high, and as long as that is the environmental issue will be severe. Animal agriculture in general causes climate change. Factory farms are probably the lesser of two evils in that respect (vs. subsidizing small farms as Sanders and Stein want to do).

[PsYcHo]

I believe she will fix the affordable care act. The problems with it are actually do to the compromises added to it to placate republicans (like softening the individual mandate). If you look into the data, though, the affordable care act has actually been very successful despite that. It has curbed the increase in insurance costs (which were already rising), and it has expanded insurance coverage substantially. It was (and still is) very expensive to subsidize ERs instead of preventative care.

It definitely has improved certain situations, I'll give it that. BUT.... If I made the personal decision to gamble at not having health insurance, financially I benefited more. (As long as my gamble paid off)

I don't like the idea of the government forcing me to buy a product. I only buy vehicle insurance because I choose to use the roads. If I were to suddenly decide to become a hermit and live in the woods, I would still be legally obligated to have insurance coverage. (If the next election is as bad as this one, that is a real possibility...)

If in two years Hillary (assuming she is elected, and I still think she will be) seems to be making positive changes, then I will vote for Democratic legislators as well. One of my main reasons in supporting (aside from EquALLity's insistence ) her is I believe she will pick better supreme court justices than Trump would. His comments about anti-abortion judges far outweighed my concerns about over-restrictive gun control.