Clinton in Wall Street's pocket

By -
I ranked all the candidates standing a few months back on two criteria:

1) Less likely to start wars; and
2) Less in Wall Street's pocket.

Bernie Sanders came out on top in both rankings.

Donald Trump was second in both.

Hillary Clinton was at the bottom, along with Marco Rubio, in both rankings.

My ranking Trump ahead of Clinton on peace was confirmed by Bill Kristol trying to get a third-party candidate to throw the election to Clinton.

Now my ranking Trump ahead of Clinton on independence from Wall Street has been confirmed as well:

"Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown. They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being solidly behind Hillary—older, professional women who live in major cities—who regard Trump as an acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons."

Comments

  1. Lord6:29 PM

    There is a definite anti woman bias in leadership that people go to lengths to rationalize away. It will be interesting if that will still be enough to matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:55 AM

      And a very definite anti sleazy politician who takes bribes from Wall Street banks bias. And an anti reckless politician who wrecks foreign countries bias.

      All this ugly bias out there!

      Delete
  2. Lord6:44 PM

    Kristol being noteworthy for all the times he has supported Democrats for being stronger on defense no doubt. More farce please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:01 PM

      Well, Lord, there is... THIS TIME. In previous elections, Republicans have always been more hawkish, and so... he would not have been supporting the Democrat, would he?!

      Delete
    2. Lord1:38 PM

      Which is more likely, a) Kristol looking forward to being welcomed into the Democratic party, or b) Kristol fearing ending up out in the cold, a man without a party? As sweet as the latter would be, I am not convinced it is worth cutting off our nose.

      If Clinton and Trump had policy transplants is there any doubt there would be talk of how her lack of knowledge and weakness would lead us into war while his strength would prevent that?

      Delete
  3. Lord4:59 PM

    I do have a question. Who would/will be the successors to Clinton and Trump, win or lose? Perhaps Warren for both on Clinton, but who for Trump, Christie or Cruz? A remade Rubio, or Ryan?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more