The keys to understanding our two candidates

I understand them both just fine. Both believe that they're smarter than everyone else. Both will use and abuse the system to enhance they're personal and professional lives. Both are full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
The decision for voters, assuming you're going to allow yourself to be pushed into this Hobson's choice, is that Clinton we know for sure has held a very high position in government and acted with gross negligence, apparently within the law, on several occasions. The other, being Trump, has gamed the financial system to his favor, all within the law of course, on several occasions. I wouldn't trust either as far as I could throw them. You, any of you may choose to vote for one or the other of these two. I will not.
 
CaptainObvious said:
I understand them both just fine. Both believe that they're smarter than everyone else. Both will use and abuse the system to enhance they're personal and professional lives. Both are full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
The decision for voters, assuming you're going to allow yourself to be pushed into this Hobson's choice, is that Clinton we know for sure has held a very high position in government and acted with gross negligence, apparently within the law, on several occasions. The other, being Trump, has gamed the financial system to his favor, all within the law of course, on several occasions. I wouldn't trust either as far as I could throw them. You, any of you may choose to vote for one or the other of these two. I will not.
More...
another vote for the libertarians?
 
ETcallhome said:
another vote for the libertarians?
More...

Rational choice theory



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory


Formal statement

The available alternatives are often expressed as a set of objects, for example a set of j exhaustive and exclusive actions:

A = { a 1 , … , a i , … , a j }

For example, if a person can choose to vote for either Roger or Sara or to abstain, their set of possible alternatives is:

A = { Vote for Roger, Vote for Sara, Abstain }

The theory makes two technical assumptions about individuals' preferences over alternatives:

Completeness – for any two alternatives ai and aj in the set, either ai is preferred to aj, or aj is preferred to ai, or the individual is indifferent between ai and aj. In other words, all pairs of alternatives can be compared with each other.

Transitivity – if alternative a1 is preferred to a2, and alternative a2 is preferred to a3, then a1 is preferred to a3.

Together these two assumptions imply that given a set of exhaustive and exclusive actions to choose from, an individual can rank the elements of this set in terms of his preferences in an internally consistent way (the ranking constitutes a partial ordering), and the set has at least one maximal element.

The preference between two alternatives can be:

Strict preference occurs when an individual prefers a1 to a2 and does not view them as equally preferred.

Weak preference implies that individual either strictly prefers a1 over a2 or is indifferent between them.

Indifference occurs when an individual neither prefers a1 to a2, nor a2 to a1. Since (by completeness) the individual does not refuse a comparison, they must therefore be indifferent in this case.

Research that took off in the 1980s sought to develop models which drop these assumptions and argue that such behaviour could still be rational, Anand (1993). This work, often conducted by economic theorists and analytical philosophers, suggests ultimately that the assumptions or axioms above are not completely general and might at best be regarded as approximations.
More...
 
We don't really know exactly how Trump will adapt to office.

But we know exactly what killary would do in the situation outlined in this article. The same and more. Cover up.

Is China´s Gov´t Hacking Your Bank Account?
Investor´s Business Daily, by Staff Original Article
Posted By: RockyTCB- 7/15/2016 8:00:35 AM Post Reply
Cyberwar: What if China´s government hacked into a sensitive U.S. financial data network that could, at least potentially, disrupt the entire economy? It might make you very mad — unless, that is, the government covered it up, which it did. It turns out that´s exactly what China did, according to a report from the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Congressional investigators say China´s government hacked 12 computers and 10 backroom servers at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 2010 through 2013, but no one knew because U.S. government officials tried to cover it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top