IRC log started Fri Jun 28 22:00 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on Identification and Evaluation, and will be moderated by Tom Miovas. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone oops You should have edited that, Tom. sorry about the last used the wrong file <> TomM laughs...most be a popular topic ;) I did :) All right, let's begin. The topic of our discussion tonight is "Dole vs. Clinton: Which is the 'lesser of two evils?'" I'm going to try to have a discussion that is somewhat less structured than normal, by keeping thr topics relatively broad. I think a good place to begin is to discuss what priorites each of us place on various issues. That is to say, what short term issues are most important? Well, what is at the top of your list? Abortion? Taxes? foreign policy Or maybe for this election, not seeing worse immigration policy enacted To stop the forthcoming collapse of Social Security / Medicar Actually, what seems to be important for both of them is not to say anything that has any meaning. Tom: I was going to get into the qualities of the candidates later on No one says taxes? Supreme Court judges? Less government interference in the economy. Supreme Court judges is another good one. I don't think Dole will do much on Taxes. Bush didn't. They seem mostly to be talking about "family values"...which means placing a small group over the individual. taxes is definately important.. but I'm not yet sure where it falls in my personal importance spectrum Which includes taxes, specially taxation as a means of influencing the economy. I'd rather have SS seriously trimmed than big tax reform. Aaron - I dunno. We're paying (If I remember correctly) pretty close to 40% in taxes now just curious, who's registered to vote, what party and why? -Jasra- Is this thing on? Well, which issue is most important in this election? <> Carmen suspects a quite a few libertarians I registered Republican, so I could vote for Forbes Wait, let's try to keep to the topic, please Why would you suspect Libertarians here, Carmen? can't say, it's not on the topic Wright: I don't know that either of them has settled down onto an "improtant" issue...what's your view of that? important Wright: We should probably be looking for a more abstract formulation of the most important issue, ratherthan just throwing out concretes like "supreme court judges" and "taxes". TomM: He asking what *you* think is an important issue to vote for/against. Subetai: Oh...in that case, property rights and individual rights, of course. There are a great many issues. Unless we start organizing them into important abstratc essentials, we'll get nowhere. Tom: I would say that as well. I think the greatest issue is individual freedom. Of course Jay.. perhaps I should rephrase JayA: Fortunately, it looks as if the internet will be off limits for tampering (at least in the near future). Given the current state of politics.. what aspect of our freedom is in most danger now? Or what aspect has the best realistic chance of being improved? it IS a rights thing.. and each one has had ample opportunity to show where he stands on the issue. For example, are abortion rights in danger under a Dole admin? Yes Wright: they certainly are. The question is, is that the *essential* issue? My own take on both of them, or more specifically, their parties, is that neither has any real resolute positin on anyhting. They lack a central moral conviction to specific goals and premises. Thier approach is based on "marketing", not "meat" Wright: i don't think any politician these days will touch that...Clinton won't, because he has no principles...Dole won't be cause...geeze, this gets repetitive. My view of politics now, is that we have to go for "the least evil" or, who can cause the least damage In Dole's case, I would say that like many Republicans who are influenced by the religous right, he tends to be rather confused on issues of individual rights. The essential issue is...what is each candidate doing to eliminate themselves from our lives? Kimi, I think Dole's support for a "tolerance" plank in the Republican platform about abortion is a start in showing that the Robertson crowd does not neccessarily control the party. Wright: Maybe we ought to talk about how much damage clinton has done. Erik: Perhaps. However, there was a time when Bob Dole was a pro-choice *proponent*. He shifted gears and supported pro-life legislation when it became politically advantageous to do so. BlueGreen: Neither candidate is interested in eliminating themselves from our lives. Wright: isn't the least of two evils...still evil? Wright, why does it have to be "whoever is least dangerous"? Why not groom and support candidates you can really beleive in? Erik: I cannot help but wonder what kind of moral and ethical foundation a man can be made of, when his position on a such a critical individual rights issue can change with the political winds. Eriks: Unfortunately, no one like that can win... Erik - as long as we have just two parties, that will never happen TomM, I am living proof that one can make headway, but that is a discussion for another time. Sorry I lost my connection about a minute ago Kimi, who ever said Dole had either a moral or ethical foundation? :-) Alright, let's talk about what evil Clinton has actually done while in office. I'm game. <> TomM is still tempted to vote for c started eroding the tax reform of 86 vote for Clinton in the next election, except he may be impeached. Erik: Well, he's a politician, so a lack of moral foundation is kind of redundant. No offense to you, of course. hmm.. do "he tried" items count? Tom: I will definitely be voting for Clinton, although I opposed him in the last election and voted for Bush. Okay, sorry about that folks, Wright: isn't the least of two evils...still evil? Thank you for the exception Kimi. :-) I know of a few others that may bear watching, but some are flirting with the LP and need to be cured of that first. You won't find a rational defense of individual rights from either. Instead of focussing on pet "issues" likes abortion or taxes, it would be better to size up each candidate's position on individual rights if you're trying to decide which is less evil. Erik: The LP? Aside from "image", has Clinton done any real damage? Sube: Exactly. BG: Certainly. But one of them is vitrually assured election virtually Tom- as I said, he's started eroding the tax revisions of 86 our taxes have definately gone up under his adinistration Lurch: Sure, and in a big way...and that hurts, but what else? Sube: I don't think either one is better on rights. That's why I chose the method of protecting whatever is in most danger How about health care? he's certainly damaged the "image" of the whitehouse, perhaps as much as Nixon did (though I'm not sure how important this is) Wright: One of them is virtually assured of being elected...is that a reason to choose one of them? JET: Yeah, if Clinton gets in again, he may raise that monster again, as if it were a mandate. We really need to focus on establishing a standard of judgment for this issue. Wright In Forbes Perhaps not, BlueGreen there is the choice of not voting for prez Jay: The standard is certainly individual rights. See, in certain respects, I see Clinton's tendency toward waffling as a possible bonus. With another four years of Clinton as president and a strong Republican hold on Congress, we might possibly see him sign something useful, like a nice welfare reform bill. Wright: It's hard to predict what'll happen on any single issue during the next 4 years. Neither is known for sticking to a principle. I don't think you *can* decide what's most in danger of being lost, or predict what other "issues" will come up that aren't even in sight yet. yeah. Kimi. I really really doubt it Kimi: However, I think the Republicans have lost a lot of advantages, and will be voted out next election. Tom: Yes, but in what respect? On certain concrete issues? As a comprehensive whole? Kimi: BUT, what if a strong pro-Clinton vote pulls the GOP out of power in congress? I like where Pataki is headed with welfare reform. I wish Congress would follow his lead. I dread the thought of a democratic controlled congress with Clinton living on the Ave Jaya: Well, given the current politicians, I think you have to do it on a case by case bases...I mean, who is more for individual rights--Clinton or Dole? If you are looking to choose between Dole and Clinton based on their principles, good luck fining them finding Wright: Exactly! Wright: Then we'd be in trouble. It'd be nice to be able to look into the future and see which way the congressional votes will blow. My feeling is the religous right will enable the Repubs to keep their stronghold. you wont' find them in any career politician Tom: If you do it on a case by case basis, then how do you combine all of your case evaluations into an objective decision? Do you keep a scorecard? Wright: In many of the more conservative states (i.e. Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas) voters seem to have outgrown their tendency to vote Democratic in local elections and Repub. for president. Jaya: it may be the only way...do you have a better solution? Wright: I'm saying in the *absence* of principles, you can't depend on them to vote the way you think they will, given public pressure/opinion polls/etc. For example: If one or two more appointments to the SC were to cause a Roe v. Wade reversal, that would be a strong incentive to vote Democratic, however distasteful Tom: My point is, that's not sound epistemological method. Congress started reading polls and acting like the politicians they were elected to replace. Jaya: I'm not arguing with that at all...what's your take on who to vote for? and why? Tom: I'm trying to settle on standards and methodology atthe moment. I see everybody using different methodologies to make their decisions, and it's getting us nowhere. The point is they're both bad. Neither one has strong principles Jaya: The methodology is to determine which will most uphold individual rights. The standard is "which one will be least harmful to individual rights?" Tom: I agree with that much. But how do we determine that? Wright: yes. and you can't really look at past track record, because Dole (example) has reversed himself Jay: Going by the record, who has done the least damage over the years? I'd say that you look at the reasons they give for their defense of individual rights or their failure to defend them. Analyze them critically. Jay: by examining the context.. i.e. what rights are relatively safe TomM:Do you choose to vote for whom is "more" for individual rights as a basis for your decision...isn't the issue who is "for" individual rights? refer to my abortion example Actually, the standard is "who will be most beneficial to personal rights, and failing that, do the least damage?" (just to pick nits) Tom, Wright: But if both candidates lack principles, then it BlueGreen: Usding a strick standard like that (which would be nice) leaves one with no options at all. it's like letting a bull loose in a China shop either way. it's dangerous to be sure.. All we have to predict them is their records Here's an idea: What about character? *snort* In a politician? Jaya: Ok, who has the best character? Someone who has no principles or someone who betrays his principles? Character? As in "integrity" and "honesty"? All right.. perhaps a question would be, does either one have any principles at all? Does Clinton hold left wing ideals, or does Dole hold religious ones? <> MCMast laughs. All they really seem to differ on is which individual rights they're more willing to violate. I suggested to several congressionla watch organizations this week that they publish the voting record of all congressmen, as well as the stand of the president - on every bill that came up durign their tenure JET: Sadly, you may have a point there. There's really no need to discuss the "character issue" vis a vis Clinton... Tom: I have no hard evidence that Dole lacks honesty. Evidence is pretty firm that the Clintons lack any form of moral virtue. I think Clinton stands by the "principles" of modern liberalism...does Dole stand by modern republican standards? Lacking in honesty, no. Jaya: Agreed. For instance, Clinton has no respect for "economic" rights and Dole has no respect for "individual (moral)" rights. Jay: Oh, well...they may have *dabbled* in dishonest behaviour from time to time. JET: Clinton has no respect for individual rights either. he signed the CDA. TomM: MOdern Repub principles have been fairly fluid phenomena lately. For the record, I don't like Clinton much either. The question is, on the whole, will the alternative be better? Clinton has no regard for rights, honesty, or morals. What is Dole's persoanl stance on abortion? and if he is personally for abortion, but politiacally timid about expressing that, is he really being honest? He's little better than a trained dog My point is, Dole is pretty bad, but Clinton is disgusting. JET: I would say that Clinton has a lack of understanding of the concept of property rights, certainly. He's also lacking in concern for individual rights in general. Jay: Agreed. So, does one knowingly elect someone who is morally bankrupt as US president? And what kind of potential disaster does that invite? Dole has been (rightly) called the Welfare State's Tax Collector, too... Tom: Dole claims to be against it firmly. But he once seemd to be pro choice (back in the 70's) jay - we have no choice Jay: I voted for Clinton for him to destroy the Democratic party, so far, he's done a very good job ;) Jay: GIven recent polls, I'd say, many plan to re-elect such a pres. Well, we knew Clinton was morally bankrupt in '92 Unfortuantely, clinton will take a positive vote for him as a further means of pretense of his character. Tom: When I worked on Dole's campaign in '88, his official position was that while he understood the pro-choice position, he would support the Republican party stance on abortion, in that protecting the life of the unborn child took precedence over a woman's right to choose. I think he's worse than bankupt - he is the national debt of morals Tom: Did you see the poll where 60% of Americans said they thought Clinton was a weasel - and then said that they would vote for him as President over Dole? Jay: I did Jay: It was to that poll to which I was referring. Jaya: Sure...I think they ahve decided that so long as he is a weasle, he can't do much harm (rather like Mouch getting a high office in AS under the same terms). Is pretty telling about Americans *if* it was an accurate poll Tom: That indicates to me that any exposure of incompetence and corruption on the Democratic party front is *useless* if people still firmly hold to the principles of the welfare state. I think they're saying "better the devil we know..." I see Clinton as a phenomenally weak man. Too weak to actively make much of any kind of decision. I think Hilary runs that presidency as thoroughly as she runs him. When I was a campaign worker the saysing was "yes he's a Bozo, but he's OUR Bozo." Wright: Yes, it speaks rather loudly. Fortunately, most of those reporting it have pointed out the idiocy of the responses. I guess the reall question is: How powerful is an American president? Tom: The poll said that the same people liked Clinton because he upheld social welfare programs. How much does who is in the President's seat affect your day to day life? Jay: And b.c he "Cared about the needs of people like them"... Jaya: sure, this country has a split affirmations on that issue...the moral vs the practical issue. That's true Tom.. and it leads me to another question? Is it better to have a semi competent, pragmatic "defender" of "less government" or an incompetent leftist? and since 60% of Americans are on some form of social relief.... Jay: Kinda hard to tell what he cares about if you can't trust him...but no one thought of that. Of the two of them, I view Hilary as the greater evil. I'd be willing to bet she was the mind behind anything unethical or illegal they might have done, and he let himself be led by the necktie. Wright: I think that is *the* question. Kimi - I'm not at all fond of elizabeth either Wright: I'd take the former...he'll more likely bumble in the right direction. It would be more honest of Clinton to step down and let Hilary run for the office. Maybe he married up with her becaause she is a "closer." He needed a power wife, cuz, hell, he's from Arkansas. we could fold that back to.. was Ronald Reagan or Bush a help or a harm to the cause of freedom? After all two years of Clintion did for the GOP what they couldn't do for themselves in 40 odd years Lurch: Now there is an interesting woman for you. Tough as nails. You have to wonder what besides politics motivated that marriage. I think Clinton is not as much as a bozo as he comes across....I'm convinced he is a skeamer that presents an image of a bozo to get away with things. -i Kimi - yeah. I admit my bias is personal, and based on her term as Sec Trans. (she damn nearl destroyed the Coast Guard) Tom: That may well be the case Tom - I agree. TomM: Clinton as Francisco D'Anconia? SHUDDER at the thought... Sorry...got cut off at 11:36 Tom: I dunno. Clinton kind of reminds me of Larry Sanger. Intelligent in an abstract sense, but lacking the ability to apply it to practical matters. But if so, he does seem to be bad at choosing employees :) Yankees have this image of suthunuhs as slow. I think Clinton is sharp as nails just pure evil Good thing he is not very effective As typical leftists go, the Clintons do not want to take responsibility for *anything*...to them, it's all collective. yeah, but can you see him and hillary with a Dem congress? They had that for two years.. couldn't get a thing done Lurch, honey, I'm from Oklahoma, next door to that pathetic excuse for a state Clinton ran before he took over the country. I have no such misperception. Is it taken for granted that the '94 revolution has sputtered to a halt? They represent their own constituencies, still. Even if they share the same party. Just more infighting. McMast: Er...what "revolution"? for granted, no Is Arkansas a state? I meant, "revolution"...I forgot the quotes, sorry. Kimi - I know. THey spell it Jeasus there too. But a LOT of us are from the north, and I see that stereotype everywhere I think it mascarades as one Tom: good point small changes do not a revolution make OK, OK...it was a good run at things, at least, if not a revolution. Lurch: *nod* Oh, I'll definitely agree with that, having lived in the East for almost a year now. However, despite all this fun, I do not believe, give or take a buck in either direction, it matters if Clinton or Dole is Prez the point is, though, that we tend to see that "aw shucks" andy griffith type as just plain dim and lucky. I plan to vote for neither of them all, right, I seen all these arguments against the Clintons, anything to say for/ against Dole? Are you voting for someone else HardCandy? HardCandy: What about the "foreign policy issue"? I'd think anyone in the Armed Forces would have a big-ass concern here.. Not sure yet. Maybe a token vote.. a write in. Bo Gritz in '96. Mcmast - I was just heading to that too... Hell, it even has a ring to it... I am (would) not be willing to serve another term with CLinton as my CIC. Lurch: Bo Gritz? or foreign affairs? I don't think there's too much question of voting for Slick Willie.. my option would be Dole, write-in, or no vote I see Clinton/Dole as one and the same. Neither representing anything close to what I believe in. BUT....if I chose to vote for one...it would have to be Dole. I will probably write in Forbes I'll have to see how "file-gate" goes...Clinton may wind up being impeached. Because....afterall he is our BOZO That does semm to be the crux of it all yes...basically so Tom - it's getting too late for that. If he's re-elected, though... Wright: I'd agree with that last statement. It then comes down to...vote for the best option - or Dole, as most likely alternative, so as not to "waste" a vote. a figurehead at best Just so that the label says GOP....nothing more to it than that. As an aside from this discussion, I do think that congress is more important Anyone have one of those 'Freshmen Republicans" for a congressman? Any chance of a massive Leonard Peikoff write-in campaign? I can't agree...If there is a choice between being stabbed or shot, I would pick neither oh puhleeeze....LP? Wright: don't think he's a freshman, but I have Armey. Tom: Cool! Just a joke, geez. MCM - I think it would be negated... doesn't a candidate have to be declared? I am represented by one of those "good guys" You can write in whomever you want I have Gorton Wright: I don't think so (though I did)...whend the regulation vote for internet came up, I called his office and expressed my concerns...he said: and Jack metcalf <> MCMast was just kickin' thoughts around, and since I'm not yet 35... I'm as worry about censorship as you are, but the children need to be protected. Hey...I'm 35! bah! <> MCMast pukes. IDEA!!! well, what do you expect from the GOP? at least one of us here is older than 35.. make that two heh heh "children need to be protected"? yes...by their parents or any one of them.. they all knew that the CDa would be tossed out Hell, I ain't even 25...I can't even be a Representative yet. Wecom Eriks That's Welcome anybody here older than 38? HardCandy: yes, it's called "family values"...a loose term that emans adults will not be permitted to live...also, he's a bleeding haeart conservative. Happy Gay Pride Week means They were imagining the CC denouncing them as "porno protectors" <> TomM is 38, but don't write him in ;) HC, what is there to be "proud" of? I'm just me and I happen to be gay. I sent a vituperous letter to Gortons office when I found he co-sponsored the CDA - compared him unfavorably with FOley Tom - you can be my VP, how 'bout? I was intending to run for Congress this year, but decided not to due to my other committments. Lurch: Did you use the word "vituperous?" Proud enough to announce it in your profile though, I notice. Elections are wonderful fun. MCM not in the letter, no. that's a description. Eriks here tells me he is running for office himself Why? Man...people take me literally tonight... Wright, I ran in 1995 for the General Assembly, and will be doing so again in 1997. blah blah blah "Compassion Burnout" SOmebody should shoot Asner Eriks: What does the gernal assembly do? Eriks: why are you running? oops general assembly Tom - nothing Okay. Thanks for attending the discussion. Sorry about the beginning Sube: where is your contribution? TomM: To be specific, I was/will be a candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates. (the lower house of the General Assembly of Virginia, i.e., our legislature) I'm listening, HC. I don't vote. My losing my connection near the start sort of spoiled the intended structure, but things seemed to go fairly well regardless Eriks: a representative? Erik: A glutton for frustration, are you? Sube: no opinion? all complaints to the management :)\ Erik.. I'll give your number to my parents MCMast, actually, running for office is great fun. I got over 400 questionaires from special interest groups and got to lots of talkin to the media about "principled politics" HC: Yes, I have an opinion. If I had a vote, I wouldn't vote for Clinton. I might vote for Dole, depending on the context at the time of the election. OOOHhhhhh...Objectivist parents? I'm jealous. What if Powell runs as Dole's running mate? Erik: Can you tell me "why" you are running?? MCM - not o'ist. But definately not driven by sob stories. Erik: Sounds like it could be fun...as long as I really didn't wanna get elected... <> MCMast pukes again. BlueGreen, because it is my way of spreading the ideas I support and tryin to educate the general public of what things could be like... Lurch: Must be nice...My mom holds "the nice" as her standard of value...very annoying and destructive to me as a yout'. Good for you, Eriks. <> HAL9001 mops the floor Erik: I applaud you as well. Mayhaps I'll try that approach in time. I think running for office is a great way to get Objectivism noticed.. :) Thanks HAL...missed a bit there. MCMast, well, in my first election, I got 5% with no money and no staff. Exit polls indicate that the people who voted for me did so because they support my views. MCM - I sympathise. My parents (to me) are one of the biggest proofs that LUCK really exists I can't wait 'til I'm old enough :) Heh heh heh Erik - do the folk in Billyburg vote for you? or is it Richmond only? <> Eriks thanks all for their words of support. um, what is Billyburg? Williamsburg Eriks: sure, keep at it...but I'd be worried about my reputation as I told folks, "Hey, I'm a politician!" ;) heh - only a step up from "hay, I'm a prostitute" Eriks good luck this time! my district includes parts of northern Chesterfield County and parts of western Henrico County. No city at all. People here are economic conservatives, but tens to be pro-choice, hence my runs... An O'ist concerned about reputation?!?...Hmmmmm........ Hey, good stomping grounds... Ah - so jamestown/williamsburg are out. Oh well TomM, well, when people ask, I say, "Hey! I'm in industrial engineering operations... oh, and I run for public office too." Eriks: ;) Eriks: Sorry but I can't support you...I think the system itself fosters dishonesty and irrationality. Bluegreen: Sure, it's about as bad as being a modern teacher at a university. There's nothing that can make an honest man act dishonestly if he doesn't want to, BG. Well, I do think that statement requires some explaination, BG BlueGreen, why do you say that? The U.S. Constitution is the greatest political document ever written, and if we can restiore its values, we'll be fine. yeah. for one thing, stop trying to "interpret" what the founding fathers "meant" Screw the morons that sit in chairs people like us should occupy. We'll beat them simply because we are right. It is time to reclaim the world... sounds like something you should put in your campaign ads Eriks: Of course...I'm starting with completing my novel ;) Since censorship is not a problem for our ideas, we have every opportunity to reach "the masses" <> Eriks had to spit after sating "the masses", but it got the point across he guesses. IRC log ended Fri Jun 28 23:08