The headlines are in. Trump is the “anti-democratic” candidate because he refuses to rule out challenging the results of an election that has yet to take place. Such a course of action is “beyond the pale.” It’s a threat to democracy. And it is utterly and thoroughly unacceptable.
Except when Democrats do it.
When Hillary dragged Gore away from playing with his Earth globe to campaign for her last month, the crowd booed at his mention of the election and then chanted, “You won, you won.” Hillary grinned and nodded.
Hillary Clinton has always believed that President Bush illegitimately took office. She has told Democrats that Bush was “selected” rather than “elected.”
The media’s focus has been on whether Trump would accept the results if he loses. Yet a better question might be whether Hillary Clinton would accept her defeat.
Four years from now, will you regret having voted for the person you chose this year for president? In decision theory, there is a concept called “regret,” which is the emotion experienced when realizing that an alternative course of action would have likely resulted in a more favorable outcome.
The current voter regret matrix assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win, and that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will not. It also assumes that neither Hillary nor Donald will receive 50 percent of the vote, and a majority of Americans will have voted for other candidates.
This implies that those who vote for either Mr. Johnson or Dr. Stein will realize that if most of the votes that had gone to the minority candidates had been cast for the loser between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, the other candidate would have won.
Those who vote for Mrs. Clinton are probably doing so because she is a woman, or they like her bigger government policies with promises of free stuff, or because they fear Mr. Trump more.
Hillary’s supporters are probably going to be disappointed when they eventually realize that she is deeply flawed ethically, and her bad behavior and judgment are not going to improve once she becomes president.
“Either we are going to win this election or we are going to lose this country.”
That sums it up, doesn’t it? Either/Or. It’s a binary choice. Trump made this clear in an extraordinary speech yesterday (10/20) in Delaware, Ohio. I strongly encourage you watch it entire.
When the Pub candidate race began some 18 months ago, I was repulsed by Trump. I still was when he gained the nomination, and very grudgingly supported it only because the alternative of Hillary was a nightmare from which we might never wake up.
Now he’s causing me to think of Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975). For many years, the 12 volumes of his monumental A Study of History has occupied a pride of place in my library. (The link is to Wikipedia not Amazon, as the latter only offers abridged versions, not the entire set which sells for over $1,000 on Ebay.)
Toynbee’s thesis on the rise and fall of civilizations is one of “challenge and response.” Civilizational success is determined by the extent of using challenges as opportunities to grow; failure comes when that ceases.
Yet Toynbee’s thesis applies to the lives of individuals as well. They can grow and succeed as moral human beings in response to personal challenges. As I watched the third debate Wednesday night and his Ohio speech yesterday, it dawned on me that this has happened to Donald Trump. This is not the same man of yesteryear.
Truer words have never been spoken about Hillary Clinton. Yet they may cost Donald Trump the presidency.
Trump’s offhand observation came near the end of the third debate last night (10/19). His potentially fatal error was using the word “woman” instead of “person.” Because of it, millions more women may now vote for the nastiest and most vile candidate for president since Lyndon Johnson for no other reason than – she’s a woman.
If that isn’t sexist, what is?
On Monday (10/17), the non-partisan psephologists at FiveThirtyEight analyzed the “gender gap” between men and women voting Democrat since 1952, concluding that, “Men Are Treating 2016 as a ‘Normal’ Election; Women Aren’t” –
“Men are favoring the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, in typical numbers, but a historically overwhelming share of women say they will vote for the Democrat, Hillary Clinton… women are winning this election for Clinton.”
Eight years ago, American voters engaged in the most racist election in their country’s history. Are we about to engage in the most sexist?
The gender gap is now larger than we’ve ever seen. Here’s what it looks like as 538 mapped it out by electoral votes:
[Note: Please see Skye’s calculations below on how Putin’s investment in Hillary will make him $200 billion a year—JW]
Does Vladimir Putin want Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to win the presidency?
Those supporting Hillary claim that Mr. Putin wants Mr. Trump to win, claiming that is why WikiLeaks is putting out the Hillary emails and speeches. Specifically, John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman, has been very explicit in charging that Mr. Putin wants Mr. Trump to win.
The charge seems to be a bit odd, given that both the Clintons’ and the Podestas’ (John and his brother Tony’s) organizations have been recipients of large sums of money coming from Russian interests, apparently with the blessing of the Kremlin.
What is the problem? Did the Clintons and their people not stay bought, or is it all a deception? If the American people were to believe Russians are for Mr. Trump, it would hurt him.
Having been an economic adviser to senior Russian government officials during the 1992 transition from communism and subsequently involved in business with Russians, I quickly learned that the conventional wisdom was correct in that things are often not what they seem.
Off the coast of Yemen and at the UN Security Council we are seeing the strategic endgame of Barack Obama’s administration. And it isn’t pretty.
In the last ten days, Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen have attacked US naval craft three times in the Bab al Mandab, the narrow straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Bab al Mandab controls maritime traffic in the Red Sea, and ultimately control the Suez Canal.
Whether the Iranians directed these assaults or simply greenlighted them is really beside the point. The point is that these are Iranian strikes on the US. The Houthis would never have exposed themselves to US military retaliation if they hadn’t been ordered to do so by their Iranian overlords.
The question is why has Iran chosen to open up an assault on the US? Iran’s game is clear enough. It wishes to replace the US as the regional hegemon, at the US’s expense.
Since Obama entered office nearly eight years ago, Iran’s record in advancing its aims has been of uninterrupted success. Is this an accident on Mr. Obama’s part, sheer incompetence, or is it something far far worse?
There's been a lot of concern recently about the “takeover of the Internet.” Yesterday (10/17), news reports broke that the lawsuit of four states suing the US for the Internet turnover has been dropped.
Here’s why not to worry about it. There’s something else to worry about instead.
The organization being handed to an “international body” is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.
ICANN runs the DNS system that allows you to type in something like mysite.com, rather than something like 237.57.364.1. The root servers that people talk about keep track of all those numbers and names.
So, could the international group play ugly games with ICANN? It's possible, of course, but unlikely. ICANN really isn't very important anymore, save for political bragging rights. Here are some of the reasons why:
[This is Matt Ridley’s full lecture delivered Monday, 10/16, at the Royal Society of London, the oldest – founded in 1660 – and one of the most prestigious institutions of science in the world. Ridley’s lecture will likely be considered the currently definitive refutation of the fraudulent doomsday science of Man Made Global Warming. –JW]
I am a passionate champion of science.
I have devoted most of my career to celebrating and chronicling scientific discovery. I think the scientific method is humankind’s greatest achievement, and that there is no higher calling.
So what I am about to say this evening about the state of climate science is not in any sense anti-science. It is anti-the distortion and betrayal of science.
I am still in love with science as a philosophy; I greatly admire and like the vast majority of scientists I meet; but I am increasingly disaffected from science as an institution.
The way it handles climate change is a big part of the reason.
After covering global warming debates as a journalist on and off for almost 30 years, with initial credulity, then growing skepticism, I have come to the conclusion that the risk of dangerous global warming, now and in the future, has been greatly exaggerated while the policies enacted to mitigate the risk have done more harm than good, both economically and environmentally, and will continue to do so.
And I am treated as some kind of pariah for coming to this conclusion.
Why do I think the risk from global warming is being exaggerated? For four principal reasons.
Because we tend to understand ourselves in relation to the world we live in, Freud and his students created explanations for emotions, drives and instincts in terms of build-up and release, just like the steam engines of their time.
This formed the basis of the charge/discharge theories of emotional release that were influential in psychotherapy and pop psychology in the 1960s and ‘70s, and into the ‘80s.
Fortunately for us, we aren’t steam engines. We’re also not computers either. The best that such explanations do is give us the illusion that we understand ourselves through an analogy or metaphor.
Analogies and metaphors are fine as far as they go, but the computer analogy doesn’t do justice to the complexity of our creative, living systems. And the steam engine analogy doesn’t do justice to our emotions.
So just what are emotions, anyway?