Americans’ Distaste for Both Trump and Clinton Is Record-Breaking (2016)
fivethirtyeight.com
fivethirtyeight.com
If what he says is remotely true then politics is never going to be the same again.
"The magnetic strip makes you think if debt which is bad"
There's no evidence that thinking of debt (a) happens or (b) is bad
The whole post feels like that to me.
What I didn't know until very recently is that S. Adams subscribes to every New Age bullshit under the sun. I mean, the whole lot, law of attraction and all that crap.
One would think that all this goes against his Dilbert character and aligns more with something his PHB would believe... but yeah... surprise!!
It's an amazing feat, but, Clinton managed to change my mind and convince me that Trump is the best candidate of the two. Shudder the thought!
I truly feel for the Amerucan population. The only choice is who to block out, rather than who to vote in.
He thinks he's a trained hypnotist(hypnosis is total baloney) and he thinks he has awesome persuasion skills. Oh by the way he thinks that Trump has awesome persuasion skills as well.
I don't think there's much analysis that needs to be done for the Trump phenomenon. He is a narcissistic douche, exuding "success" according to the contemporary American standards. The mass has been completely brainwashed for the past decades, with regards to what happiness and success looks like. Case closed.
There are no magical persuasion skills at play here.
That "narcissistic douche" just overran the Republican Party, and you doubt that he's persuasive? That's an interesting view.
Also, for future reference, things that should make your alarm bells go off:
a) something works on someone only when you describe it to that someone
b) something works only on some people, not all of them and you don't know why.
EDIT: some people didn't understand that what I'm implying with the above points is that hypnosis is more akin to the placebo effect than anything else(altered state of mind etc).
But no hypnotist says that hypnosis is placebo!!!
I totally agree that it is.
And as with all other evidence around it, I agree that the "altered state of mind" part is total baloney.
If you have evidence to the contrary please share, thanks.
IMHO, there are some flaws in your analysis.
Your only claim is that Trump is successful by today's standard. You're implying that's the reason for his success and not his "persuasive skills" and you don't mention anything else, but you are saying "case closed" as if these words are enough.
So what are you saying?
In fact, by today's standards, to have success one very important ingredient is to have persuasion skills, also known as salesmanship. Many of us, software developers are sadly not good at salesmanship, but at least we can recognize it when we see it. And personally I think Trump has it, even if his style is obnoxious.
That he has skills only because of today's standards, that may be true, but I wouldn't be so sure of causality: are today's standards responsible for Trump's success, or has Trump adapted to today's standards? I guess we'll never know.
My problem with your argument is that it seems you're considering Trump to be unskilled. I think that's a mistake and if I were in Trump's shoes, that's exactly how I'd like for people like us to think, because he's not the kind of man leaning towards dialog, strategies or cooperation, but rather the kind that does battles and in battles you want to be an asshole (people love assholes in battles, because they make a good show and supposedly show "strength"). And also you want to be underestimated.
To everything else you're saying: if you think Trump's past displays awesome management skills and strategy, well ok. We just disagree I guess?
Personally, to people like Trump, I wouldn't even trust them with carrying out the simplest of tasks. If you think he has achieved much, I'd refer you to his family's wealth and connections. If you still disagree, then we just agree to disagree.
There is a lot more to the man. He seems a simpleton on the face of it. He thrives on people underestimating him.
Yet everything points towards him being an excellent player of the "Game of Thrones".
Whether you think him an idiot or not - he is one of the best strategists I have ever seen.
That said, the CIA is no ordinary hypnotist.
If you have evidence that suggests, or better yet proves, otherwise please paste a link.
EDIT: lately it's become apparent to me that whenever you ask for citation, people downvote you. People, just because you disagree you don't have to downvote. Just offer some evidence to what you're supporting.
Here's an excerpt of the declassified MK ULTRA reports released by Freedom of Information Act in 2001 (as well as parts released previously), and printed in Lapham's Quarterly <http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/spies/new-york-state-mind>:
> H experimentation, February 10, 1954
> The group of five subjects appeared on schedule. A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Mses. [redacted] and [redacted] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state. [Redacted] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken [redacted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep), and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at [redacted]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [redacted] for failing to awaken.
> [Redacted] carried out these suggestions to the letter, including firing the (unloaded pneumatic) gun at [redacted] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. [Re- dacted] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.
I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Lapham had a widely distributed issue titled "Spies", I recall, in which the linked article (or a variant of it) appeared.
Here is a Gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/project-mkultra-one-of-the-most-shocking-... and wired: http://www.wired.com/2010/04/0413mk-ultra-authorized/
There are a lot of other reputable news agencies confirming the same.
The NY Times even hosts the exceptionally well written report of the government here: https://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13inmate_Proje...
There is also the 1999 "based on a true story" called the Sleep Room, which I gather is quite accurate (but obviously not proof in itself).
I hope you find the above interesting, if not persuasive, evidence of hypnosis.
As far as I can see there's nothing new here, other than the usual super-secret 3-letter agency experiments, full of material for great spy movies but thin on substance or evidence. I think you'd agree that the same quality of evidence is abundant for aliens, area 51 and all that.
>I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Um nope :)
Hypnotize someone and instruct them to do some kind of self-harm. Jump off a roof. Shoot themselves or whatnot. It won't happen :D
So maybe I wasn't clear earlier. I am aligned with the scientific consensus at this point. And that, at the moment, is that this is hocus-pocus, placebo effect and the usual trait of humans that they need an excuse to justify actions that would usually never do. You know, kinda like "oh no, the alcohol did it!"
Maybe we'll have stronger evidence in the future, but right now it's all smoke. Nevertheless, interesting.
cheers
People can certainly be compelled to do things they would not otherwise do by what people would ordinarily call hypnosis. The focus on harm brings MK ULTRA to mind. However, a more generic definition is widely documented in the medical literature, see e.g.
The Prefrontal Cortex and Suggestion: Hypnosis vs. Placebo Effects. <http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00...
Self-harm may not be possible, as you say. Given the the nature of hypnotic suggestion, I speculate it is possible to suggest a separation of the physical self from the harm, and in that way trick someone into self harm. Particularly when combined with mind-altering drugs like LSD. But I've no evidence other than the reports linked.
The MK ULTRA report was read into evidence at Senate hearings because the truth of the report indicated abominable and deplorable practices. Nobody has, in spite of powerful incentives to do so, denied the truth of these reports. That ought to be a compelling indicator, IMHO.
Though I did not see an article discussing harm, dozens of articles on PubMed describe the effects of hypnosis (versus placebo).
I feel like your standard may be practically unattainable, meaning one must ask: What sort of evidence would convince you?
So all bets(and my opinions) are off, when LSD enters the game :)
I was only discussing pure hypnosis, so I can concede whatever you want if you put LSD into the discussion.
My standards are a bit high, but not unattainable. In general, I stick to what is the current scientific consensus. I appreciate any research in all directions, but until that research produces tangible and specific results, I'll abstain.
Mostly because I've seen what happens when people run wild with their assumptions and imagination. e.g. homeopathy, various other medical conditions(leaky gut syndrome) and other less worrying stuff, like aliens or super-secret technology.
Add on top of it various funny facts, like that CIA has also experimented with telekinesis, telepathy, etc and all kind of crazy loony-baloney that, of course, resulted to nothing, and you've got an explanation about my strong stance against extraordinary claims.
Also keep in mind, just at the back of you head, that no government agency that sunk gazillions of dollars into crazy shit, would like to admit that it was all for nothing. Ain't saying that it's all fabrication, but if it were... it wouldn't be the first time. Better to get caught doing "despicable" acts, rather than spending tax dollars that amounted to nothing. And of course, don't forget that you must terrify your enemies.
My 2 cents, and I'm off for now. See you later.
Cheers
I'm not American either, but my understanding is that the answer to this question is a big yes.
On the Democrat side, the Clintons just have such deep roots in the Democrat party institutions. Whatever you think of her personally she's a very experienced heavy hitter and her husband is still very popular in his own right. Many people on the Democrat side that dislike Hillary personally still like Bill.
But, if you look at Clinton/Bernie he underperformed in States with "closed primaries" meaning people had to declare party affiliation months in advance. (New York was almost a year ago) independents and swing-voters weren't allowed to say "hey, I actually like this Bernie guy."
Bernie did overwhelmingly well in places with open primaries. On two occasions he "beat the polls" (IIRC -Indiana and one other had Clinton's chances of winning at ~99% and he came out with victory) open primaries are being credited with contributing to that phenomenon. People who have never voted are coming into the mix for Bernie
If you look closely you will also see a couple States where there has been either "gross incompetence" or voter suppression / electoral fraud.
People's part affiliation swapped without their knowledge, budget cuts forcing extremely long lines, running out of ballots.
In some areas around electronic voting machines, the disparity between voter counts and exit polls are higher than the ones seen at the Ukrainian election which was declared fraudulent.
In Chicago for example there was an "audit" where the observers saw the clerks alter their tallies to match the expected number.
I know that it's all very "tinfoil hat" sounding, but there are a number of places where the disparity is highly suspect.
Edit: (Apologies, I started pasting in references for my outlandish claims and it got wiped because of a mobile-page-reload and have now got to decide whether or not to throw my phone out the bleeping window :))
Here's one reference covering a few points about the electoral fraud thing: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9...
The examples have gotten more egregious since it was written though.
It is tinfoil hat sounding because it is tinfoil hat territory.
I'm sorry, but the internet has made Sanders supporters lose touch with reality; Hillary Clinton, even at the very end, still beat Sanders by double digits (source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-d...). The Obama vs Clinton matchup was much, much closer. We're only talking a few point difference.
I saw this same thing happen back in 2008 with Ron Paul. Paul supporters had a hard time believing that Paul didn't stand a chance.
The reason Clinton trounced Sanders is multifaceted; First off, Sanders is old and he's Jewish. Unfortunately, that puts some people off right away (bigotry and prejudice is still alive and well in America). Secondly, he embraced the term Socialist. While people under 40 may be aware of what that term entails (we think of European/democratic socialism, not Russian/Chinese socialism) the older generation & boomers still thinks of the commies and pinkos. America is still 10-30 years away from using that word without the stigma & negative connotations. And that kind of sums up Sanders; he's espousing an ideology that America isn't quite ready for.
We need to move further to the left a bit. Kind of like how the GOP has kept moving this country to the right over the last 35 years, we need to move it back to the center, and ultimately to the left. I'm a democratic socialist myself but even I knew Sanders didn't stand a chance. That's because I'm aware that it's going to take some time. Perhaps a couple decades. It starts with small steps, electing moderates who lean left, then finally left candidates like Sanders.
You're right that Overwhelmingly well was a massive oversimplification and exaggeration.
More accurate would be "appears to perform worse in closed primaries"
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528764/closed-primaries-berni...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/19/bernie-...
I can't see anything in your link that clearly indicates your position WRT clinton overwhelmingly winning open ones.
Wiki does not list open primaries, her win proportion of those, or the 'goal difference' in terms of awarded delegates. So - I'm not sure your statement is entirely true either.
The facts are, in open primaries Clinton has won 10-4. If you include semi-open it's 11-4. In closed primaries Clinton has won 8-1. If you include semi closed its 10-3. There is no meaningful difference. Sanders underperforms in all primary types.
The only contest type Sanders has performed better in are caucuses, winning 11-4. These are the least democratic type of contest of them all.
I think this is a huge problem with the current system, as the lack of candidates they agree with make people get disillusioned and stop voting.
> The first-past-the-post voting model is broken and virtually guarantees a two-party system
I understand it that in Canada it's first-past-the-post per "riding", so I'd expect each riding to have a maximum of two viable parties. I'm sure it's messier than that in the real world, but I still think you'd be better off with something else than FPTP.
For instance, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_by_riding_of_the_Canad..., is the Green Party accomplishing anything else than diverting votes from other parties?
Using ballpark numbers to present the idea:
You have country with 220 million Americans eligible to vote. 16 percent of all age-eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential primaries. That's 35 million. If those voters are equally divided between the two parties, and winning party candidate gets roughly half of the votes, they get their party nomination with 9 million votes each.
Checked the numbers and they check out. George W. Bush, with his 10.8 million votes in 2000 is the record holder in the GOP side. Trump will likely break this record.
We have some problems in this area in Europe as well, but US numbers are ridiculous. How can candidates say that they represent "the whole country" with a straight face?
Those who vote in primaries represent different demographics than Americans in general. There are differences in age, race and ethnicity, education, income, religious and political views.
https://youtu.be/dGeyhgp2N8A?t=151
On the Republican side, Trump did something I don't think people quite get yet. He basically became a gaffe machine and didn't walk it back. Everyday was 2 or 3 gaffes that kept him in the news. He covered one gaffe with another.
No, I didn't predict the the Republican Party would lose it's fucking mind.Trump basically "primaried" his way to the nomination by going hard right to appeal to the Republican talk-radio base. He'll lose of, course, in the general, but that's the basic strategy of winning any Republican nomination. Many, many Republicans have won their local primaries only to lose in the general.
He's never going to lose the hard right republicans to hillary so he doesn't have much to lose by completely flipping on a lot of issues
Cruise on by the National Review or Red State and it's all panic and doom and gloom and "#nevertrump".
From that, I would take that firing up your base (and thus making the other side dislike you more) is more effective than being moderate and trying to appeal to both sides.
No more so than the rest of the world's distaste for the US system. Everyone else can elect a government in a couple months or even weeks. We're sick of hearing about your pretty little mini-elections. Just get on with it!
And I cannot be the only one here who's ears bleed every time I hear some pundit talk of the "black vote" or how evangelicals have this or that opinion. I see some of the CNN pundits, many of which are actually Canadian, flinch every time they are fed such lines. The American political obsession with racial and religious categories is just creepy.
I would say it doesn't get talked about on TV.