None of the Presidential Candidates ever have a Plan…a Vision

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Wow that is old school man. Time to upgrade. Trust me it is spinning opposite each other. The Down pointing one is spinning to the right and the up pointing to the left. I know because I made it myself.

You're welcome to it though. But if you can't copy it how do you want me to give it to you??

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Wow that is old school man. Time to upgrade. Trust me it is spinning opposite each other. The Down pointing one is spinning to the right and the up pointing to the left. I know because I made it myself.

You're welcome to it though. But if you can't copy it how do you want me to give it to you??

I was 5 when I had that computer; have upgraded since then just as I evolved from an amoeba to a human in record time!
Just add it to your next post is all. Congrates to the making, awesome. You might find a business in this, creating mandalas and spinning them as well. Hypnotise the world into a better place.

a reply to: Willtell

They all lie, lie, lie. They make promises they don't plan on keeping. They only cater to whoever is their audience and tell them what they wanna hear to earn their vote.

The only candidate I believe this time is Rand Paul. Screw the rest.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Take your pic.

Here's the url too.
files.abovetopsecret.com...


files.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, if you know how to make money from doing these I'd love to hear it.

But any more discussion about it has to be somewhere else because we are derailing this thread and that's not cool.

Go Bernie Sanders.....Now we're back on course.

Hey will tell I agree with you, it's not just America.

But let's look at it, pick a policy, scientifically (you can theoretically) fix it and then perhaps we can see how difficult it might and where all the problems will be against a POTUS?

I bet it's easy for Ats to find all the money and power against any idea!

a reply to: mOjOm
Thankyou, NOW DELETE IT (never to see the light of day again on this forum). I will let you know; have some ideas. Bernie Sanders (I heard he was a far left wing socialist) anyone than Hillary.

originally posted by: Forensick
Hey will tell I agree with you, it's not just America.

But let's look at it, pick a policy, scientifically (you can theoretically) fix it and then perhaps we can see how difficult it might and where all the problems will be against a POTUS?

I bet it's easy for Ats to find all the money and power against any idea!

The powers that be claim managing the macro economy is a big problem


I wonder what a computer would say.


I would bet a massive IBM computer with artificial Intel, massive memory and a super speedy CPU would tell them just what they don’t want to hear


Don't you wonder why they never do this?

Rand comes the closest to plan and vision.

Then again it all depends on what concerns you:

· Sanders supports parts of the TPP. Here's Paul on that,

The more interesting comments are on TPP, which the elder Paul strongly opposes (along with his son). Paul answers the King question about his concerns with President Obama's TPP trade deal:

Source

· On The American Freedom ACT(just passed instead of the Patriot Act renewal):
Rand Paul, Ron Wyden Release Nine Amendments to USA Freedom Act -see here
Plus some are calling it worse than the Patriot Act.

· He calls the NSA program "illegal".

· He supports hemp production, legal medical marijuana, etc.
From earlier this year:
Rand Paul to introduce medical marijuana bill in U.S. Congress

Senator Rand Paul, a possible Republican presidential candidate, will introduce legislation with two Democrats that would prevent the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana users in states where it is legal, aides said on Monday.

Source


· Foreign Policy:
Rand Paul Campaign Targets Marco Rubio's Foreign Policy

Rand Paul went after rival Marco Rubio's foreign policy credentials on Thursday, saying the Florida senator "continues to be confused" by the Iraq war and "contradicts himself almost on a daily basis." In an appearance on Fox News earlier in the day, Rubio said the U.S. has a responsibility to Iraq to "build a functional government that can actually meet the needs of the people in the short- and long-term. And then ultimately, from that, we can hope it would spring a democracy."

Source

a reply to: crazyewok

No change because the fact is purely and simply they cant. If we were living in a democracy, it would be different. Then ask, what democracy would ever subject its citizens to mass surveillance, and social control. Only a system that feared democracy. Enough common laws are in place to take care of the few idiots, that are born antisocial. Their never was a rule by the many, its just made to look that way. When was the last Watergate? or have the power brokers just become honest. The last investigative reporter, left the day the music died.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: mOjOm
Thankyou, NOW DELETE IT (never to see the light of day again on this forum). I will let you know; have some ideas. Bernie Sanders (I heard he was a far left wing socialist) anyone than Hillary.

Labels, who cares what labels he has or what other people say about him. Do your own thinking, don't let others do it for you.

Look at what he votes for.
Find out what his opinion is.
Find out what he wants to change and why.
Find out who he's going after and who he fights for.
Make up your own mind rather than have others persuade you. You should be doing that anyway. Do you really want Fox news or MSNBC to tell you who you're going to vote for or would you rather make that choice on your own??

I'll be waiting to see what you do to my avatar. Don't screw it up or you'll be cursed......

originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

mOjOm: Labels, who cares what labels he has or what other people say about him. Do your own thinking, don't let others do it for you.

Look at what he votes for.
Find out what his opinion is.
Find out what he wants to change and why.
Find out who he's going after and who he fights for.
Make up your own mind rather than have others persuade you. You should be doing that anyway. Do you really want Fox news or MSNBC to tell you who you're going to vote for or would you rather make that choice on your own??

Two candidates, Guy Fawkes or Walt Disney.

mOjOm: I'll be waiting to see what you do to my avatar. Don't screw it up or you'll be cursed......

I hope it doesn't cost me.

originally posted by: Willtell
A candidate who had a plan or vision would do more than just recycle the change platitude as they all do.

Indeed a plan such as for the resuscitation of the infrastructure; the future economy where returning good jobs is the goal; the establishment of a foreign policy of real peace and not constant conflict and war; true environmental standards with a legitimate scientific debate not just AL Gore pedantic ramblings; a real policy on crime and inner city revival.

These issues and many more are always dealt with in empty platitudes NEVER any real scientific strategic analysis by these vapid candidates who are only specialist in demagogic propaganda at best, never any real thoughtful, visionary ideas and solutions. So get ready for another show of gamesmanship and propaganda, demagoguery and money driven bullsh__

There's a few reasons why politicians don't often lay out specifics. To start with, let me say that I'm the type of person who thrives on those details. I don't want to hear someone say they're for student loan reform, I want to evaluate their plan for that reform. When you get down to it, just about every politician is for some type of adjustments to every single aspect of the government. Saying a person is pro change is a less interesting statement to me than saying nothing at all.

Anyways the reason politicians take such an approach is that details are the enemy of politics in a democracy. The public doesn't know the finer points of various issues, and as such is in no position to validate the details of any particular plan. To give a brief economic example the prevailing myth is that the value of money is inversely proportional to the supply of money. If there is $1000 in the system and you then increase it to $10,000 each dollar is worth 1/10 what it previously was. The economy doesn't work that way, it is all about perceived value. If people believe a product or currency is worth something then it generally is. Belief in such a thing is not necessarily rational either. As such, any plan that takes this factor into account is generally met with skepticism by the populace, what the voters want to hear is general ideas that they can take to mean an endorsement of their own preconceptions rather than a fact based approach that challenges what they believe to be true.

originally posted by: Willtell
We should have a politician who seeks a plan that has scientific facts behind it. We have all these great and powerful computers

Cant, for example, they come up with a holistic and integral economic system of fairness, justice for all that will feed and employ everybody? A mixture of fair capitalism, a small dose of socialistic ideas, and freedom?

The problem is that science isn't the holy grail that pop culture likes to pretend it is. Gravity, one of the fundamental forces that we see proof of every moment of every day is something that we know the least about. Look at global warming, there's mountains of so called scientific proof both for and against it and so far every climate change model we have created has been wrong. This is indicative of science as a whole and it's part of the process. Every single scientific fact humans have today has been a result of overturning a series of previously held and supposedly proven beliefs that we now know are incorrect. If our track record is anything to go by our current knowledge is also wrong which means basing a political system on incomplete at best and outright wrong at worst ideas would be a massive error.

Additionally, most of science never conclusively proves anything. At the most it can draw correlations between cause and effect. In a complex system such as the macro economic situation of a nation it becomes extremely difficult to find a particular action and it's related effect. Lets take the economic boom of the 80's for example as many like to exemplify Reagan. In that economic boom we had a large decrease in inflation, deregulation, union busting, and lowered taxed. Yet at the same time we also had tax increases on most of the population for all 8 years of his presidency (after the initial reduction), large spending increases to the then small MIC (which makes up 22% of our economy today), massive deficits that were essentially printing money, and others. I just listed 7 events that happened under Reagan's economic policy.

If we were going to be scientific about such things we would need to apply the scientific method and evaluate each change in a vacuum until we could determine what if anything was responsible. In the real world however we don't have that luxury. Presidents have limited terms, their cabinet usually has even less, and congress has to constantly pass or change legislation. They can't wait for the results of isolated tests to finish. This is why it's so easy for people to take opposite viewpoints from the same data pool, and why a scientific approach isn't viable.

originally posted by: Willtell
The powers that be claim managing the macro economy is a big problem


I wonder what a computer would say.


I would bet a massive IBM computer with artificial Intel, massive memory and a super speedy CPU would tell them just what they don’t want to hear


Don't you wonder why they never do this?

I'm a computer programmer (game programmer, actually). Something I do often is program an economy into a game. Think of whatever strategy game you have enjoyed. There's resources, time to earn them, increases in rates of acquisition, resource sinks that give your savings a purpose, loss of already purchased items, and more. Sometimes I even program AI. I think I have a pretty good idea of what a computer would say.

Most likely the computer would find flaws in the market where items are being under valued, and then purchase those and sit on them until they become correctly valued or over valued. It's only a matter of time. Despite our love of logic and reason in political debates humans are very illogical.

If you were trying to get a report from a computer, provided it had enough linkable data, what it would likely tell you is that each human has a generic buying pattern, behavior pattern, and lifestyle pattern. There are #X templates of these people in the country (the world is too big to currently study), lets say 750 templates. Each template is within X% of each other on political opinion and opinion Y will prevail with a large majority of people.

In essence, a computer doesn't tell you anything useful. It just tells you what talking points to use.

Here's what I would suggest for presidential elections (this is the approach I take). Put aside partisanship and ideology. Presidents are meant to be leaders, vote for the guy who lays out a good case as to what's broken, and gives an actual plan to fix it. Don't worry about if that plan goes against your beliefs. Most likely both your believes and the candidates beliefs are wrong anyways. But vote for someone who can lead, get an agenda passed, and create more data one way or the other as to what would be tolerable for most.