If you had to pick one of the presidential candidates from the other party who would you pick?

This widely-held opinion is something I have the hardest time understanding: What does a candidate's personality have to do with whether or not she will make a good president?

To me, it's everything!

So, maybe if we change the focus from politics and make your connection still risky, but on a more personal level.

Would you invest your savings and go into business with a partner who you knew to be dishonest?

My kid was offered an incredible business opportunity recently. He checked out the numbers - the amount of investment, the money currently being made, he did research into the business and it was a crazy good opportunity...

I can't be specific, but a moral failing of a minority partner as related by a majority partner make my kid grit his teeth and walk away. Not a dirty little personal thing that wouldn't touch the business, but something that makes you pause if you're trusting a guy with your money.

As cautious as i am, I would've been tempted to look the other way and hope for the best.

We just found out it's a damn good thing we kept our money. The partner who was warning us is ruined. Because of a trust issue. Because of a moral failing.

If you have a politician who tells you what she's going to do, but has been known to lie and/or change policies depending on their popularity at any given time, wouldn't you be crazy to predicate your vote for her based on what she says her policy is?

So, if you know she's apt to swing in the wind, what could you possibly base your vote on?

At least with an honest guy, you know what he's going to do. Additionally, if big corrupt money in politics pisses you off, you know he's not susceptible to it - and he's vowed to try to get rid of it.

That's meaningful to me.

Not you?

I don't see a great correlation between personality and results. E.g. I think GW Bush is worlds smarter and more honest than Trump. But if Trump is elected I would be everything I own that he will not **** things up like Bush did. It's just not likely.

Similarly, no matter how dishonest Hillary is I believe that she would govern the country much more similarly to how roger would prefer than would Sanders. Their honesty etc influences their likability much more than it influences their actual policies.



If I were building a business (say a tech biz) had a choice between a pathological liar who knows how to program a website and a very honest person who can't use a computer I would go with the pathological liar.

Of course in reality I'd be forced to choose neither and would pass on the liar till an honest guy who can grok a computer comes along.

But if I had to choose, and one guy would do things the way I want and the other the opposite how I feel about their personality is not going to be what I base my decision on.



That was a good move. But mainly because there are more than just two options. If his only other choice was to enter into a business with a very nice person who would make every business decision wrong he would do well to select the ass.

Thankfully he has more options than this contrived scenario I posed.



I wouldn't read too much into that, the overwhelming majority of all businesses fail, good people or bad.



I base my opinions on what I think they would do, not what they would say. I do not, for example, think that Trump would build a wall or ban Muslims, he's just being a loudmouth idiot for attention.



Who I think is most likely to make the decisions that I prefer. Quite frankly any of the candidates are not going to be very different in most regards other than bluster and what edge of the political spectrum they court.

As much as conservatives whine about Obama he is Bush-lite and not much difference in practice. His impact would not materially differ (except for Obama care) with any of the other candidates.



I think most people overvalue consistency. In general people who change their minds a lot tend to be correct more often and are generally smarter. This is because they constantly question and reevaluate their beliefs instead of simply finding things to support the beliefs they already have.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance

"Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." – George Bernard Shaw

And here is another article on this that I agree with: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3289-some-advice-from-jeff-bezos

(incidentally, I change my mind a lot so that is a possible source for bias)




No, I don't think he'll make any difference and I am not that concerned with the current state of campaign fundraising.

I have qualms about that, too. The thing is, I don't in the least think that what Clinton says or claims at any point in time has any relationship to what she will do or support as president. We might as well vote for one of those old Magic Eight Balls.

I guess I feel that way about everyone who runs for president, including ideological candidates like Bernie who isn't going to do much of what he says he will if elected (largely because he would not have the power to). I can really only guess and try to make educated guesses on them all which is all an eight ball to some degree.

I probably distrust Hillary less than you do, but the way I see it she is very likely to run the country more similarly to how you would (sans some of her lack of personal integrity) than Bernie.

But yeah, I get not trusting someone and that see that being a potential dealbreaker for many. My problem with that is that I do not trust a single one of them.

I tend to give Republican candidates the benefit of the doubt when they say stuff like that. They're just bullshitting everyone in an attempt to avoid alienating their red neck base. Also it makes headlines, and serious candidates need to catch people's attention fast with the primaries around the corner.

For me #1 is Sanders; #2 Hillary. Don’t see any Republicans I could support but if push came to shove it would probably be Bush or Kasich. However, as things now stand, both of those guys are dead meat. Christie showed in the last debate that he’s a lot of hot air and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Rubio is a pretty face who can be bought off by the highest bidder. He has no spine or ethics. Trump and Cruz are the anti-establishment crazies that the Republican are going to have to learn to live with. Unless there is a large shift in Republican sentiment Trump has it pretty well sewed up. It’s looking like a Trump vs. Hillary election. But what makes this stuff so exciting is nothing is written in stone. Like a football game momentum can shift.

If I had to choose a Republican, I guess I would go for former New York governor, George Pataki. He's still quite socially liberal (relatively speaking).

For me the problem isn't so much honesty as it is the Clintons' McCarthyist witch hunting and demonization of their political opponents.

The hateful demagogy is repugnant enough to outweigh all the policy agreements that I have with them.

This is what he is replying to:



Notice my opinion that Sanders has the best interests of the country in mind. He may be the only candidate that does, even though his vision and mine differ.

I think most of the candidates do, including the Clintons. The only one I'd question is Trump. And who knows, maybe even he does as well.

You could be right. . . .

What's meaningful to me is that Hillary is very likely to govern in the mode of her husband, and her husband's Administration was a very very good one. I expect her to stand up for Social Security and Medicare, which is under constant attack from the GOP. And I expect her to pursue moderate but successful economic policies, much like her husband did, to much applause.

That's what's meaningful to me.

You enjoyed the 2008 crash and the bail out? No parents or grandparents lost their life savings, I guess. No one lost a job in that recession?

You're trying to put the 2008 crash on Clinton? What a laugh. I love the way you try to say you're not a Republican, but you take the Republican position on that.

This country was in much better shape when Clinton left office than when he began.

I'm looking at the changes he put in place, listening to economists, and not spinning it with a bias for Clinton.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

Wrong. We were headed for the fall because of changes he made.

The article you quoted was a short blurb about what Time magazine saw as the reason for the financial crisis, not a reasoned piece at all. The fact that the article tried to blame the Community Reinvestment Act is telling: The Fed itself investigated and proved the Community Reinvestment Act was NOT to blame, though conservatives howl that it is.
From the Federal Reserve board site:
"The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas. "
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

Sorry, you have to do better than a splashy "Rate the culprits" article in Time to say that the president who presided over the nineties prosperity was responsible for everyone's problems. Not that anyone who isn't died-in-the-wool Republican would believe that anyway.

That article named one of the single most important thing that contributed to causing the financial crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act

Blaming it on Clinton might be a stretch, but it did happen on his watch.

Nonsense. Bill Clinton took office when the economy was in an upswing, and he left office when it was in a downswing.

Yes, blaming the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on Clinton is indeed a stretch, as it passed the Senate by 90-8 and the Senate by 362-57, so they could easily override any veto Clinton might have given anyway. Add to the fact that Gramm, Leach and Bliley are all Republicans, and the worst you can say about Clinton is that he went along with a Republican bill.

But even more to the point, the Fed's investigation of the matter showed that the much maligned Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the crash, it was outfits like Countrywide which were not covered by the CRA. These places simply did not properly check out the house loan applicants, in fact the loan officers have testified that when they saw an applicant who couldn't afford to pay, they gave him the loan anyway and turned the loan in for reimbursement even before the the first payment was due!

That was the problem.