[ExI] my unified theory etc
atymes at gmail.com
Thu May 12 16:23:26 UTC 2016
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> One thing that really now rings true from that work is the concept that if
> a politician loses, that politician’s honesty, integrity, honor, all the
> rest of it doesn’t matter, isn’t worth a bucket of spit, etc. He’s out of
> power, he is completely irrelevant, absolutely regardless. That outlook
> has consequences, such as: to win ugly is to win just the same. It is
> better to win clean, but either is infinitely better than to lose.
Except...there are future races. This is not Hillary Clinton's first shot
at the White House. (Some) voters remember past tactics and past behaviors.
There is also the prospect of working with the winner. There have been
presidential nominations where a party's second place winner got the VP
nomination for coming in second...but this required that the winner could
stomach running alongside that person. One could easily envision Clinton
getting the Democratic nomination and asking Sanders to be her running
mate, so that if they get into office he can pursue the programs his
followers wanted. OTOH, it seems basically impossible that Cruz would
accept were Trump to offer this.
In short, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma fallacy: believing that the current
round is all there will ever be, and that there won't be future match-ups
with the other parties, when there won't actually be measures taken (such
as executing the losers) to ensure there won't be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat