What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Ham said:
Before they answer: it has been established that despite the lies these were work emails that by law needed to be preserved...  Unless.  What's the unless?  Why did she/they want these gone forever?
Click to expand...
This makes the whole cloth comment make sense.  I clean my sink with a cloth and bleach, I clean my tub with a cloth and bleach.  I don't clean my emails with a cloth and bleach(bit).

 
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 

 
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 
Click to expand...
Eddie, I wouldn't be more surprised if I woke up and my head was sewn to the carpet

 
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 
Click to expand...
Incredible. Simply incredible. 

 
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 
Click to expand...
However it is well established she deleted official, public records, you can start there. Why did she delete them?

 
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 
Click to expand...
You are really a ####### lunatic

 
What's with the outrage over Clinton's foundation?  The foundation seems to be legit and have a good record with the organizations that keep track of such things.  If donors were granted special audiences with Hilldog, since she's not being personally enriched by her foundation, why would she give them special favors during those meetings?  Just because they donated to her foundation?  I'm just not getting the outrage over this.  Educate me please. 

 
James Daulton said:
What's with the outrage over Clinton's foundation?  The foundation seems to be legit and have a good record with the organizations that keep track of such things.  If donors were granted special audiences with Hilldog, since she's not being personally enriched by her foundation, why would she give them special favors during those meetings?  Just because they donated to her foundation?  I'm just not getting the outrage over this.  Educate me please. 
Click to expand...
Don't get outraged it's a simple issue.

The claim is US & international corporations, super wealthy persons and nations with business in front of the US government give large sums of money to the Foundation and then supposedly they get access to Hillary, special treatment and some claim even benefits.

It gets trickier after that: some of Hillary's staff has done work for the Foundation as employees while also working for State.  Hillary herself may have been doing double duty as SOS. So there's conflict of interest.

Then there is the claim that the Clintons personally benefit because of speaking fees, the lifestyle that came with a $2 billion entity, and the high profile it gave/gives them which helps them politically. So companies/countries/people pay the Foundation, the Clintons benefit.

After you get past all that there's the claim the Foundation doesn't really do much or that it sucks up a lot of dollars for overhead & travel. This gets tenuous because the Foundation obviously does do a lot of work globally. 

Another issue is that Clinton's staff also worked for a PRIVATE consulting company called Teneo which generated profits for Bill directly and it has the same issue as the Foundation with access, favoritism, benefits and dual roles. 

The influence peddling, personal benefits, dual roles & conflict of interest, and Teneo, are far bigger issues than the quality of the Foundation itself.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
badmojo1006 said:
Dr. Drew cancelled by HLN just a week after pushing alt-right theories regarding Hillary's health.
Click to expand...
Apparently the station that originally did the interview with him about Hillary's health has also taken down the link. 

Also I don't think the Hillary health issue is really exclusively 'alt right' and I don't think Pinsky was being exactly conspiratorial about it. He was asked about it so he answered.

Reality is he's a bit of a hack and old hat, I doubt his firing was related to any of this. I'd be more disturbed by his rehab treatment show of former stars, some of whom ended up dying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Don't get outraged it's a simple issue.

The claim is US & international corporations, super wealthy persons and nations with business in front of the US government give large sums of money to the Foundation and then supposedly they get access to Hillary, special treatment and some claim even benefits.

It gets trickier after that: some of Hillary's staff has done work for the Foundation as employees while also working for State.  Hillary herself may have been doing double duty as SOS. So there's conflict of interest.

Then there is the claim that the Clintons personally benefit because of speaking fees, the lifestyle that came with a $2 billion entity, and the high profile it gave/gives them which helps them politically. So companies/countries/people pay the Foundation, the Clintons benefit.

After you Germany all that there's the claim the Foundation doesn't really do much or that it sucks up a lot of dollars for overhead & travel. This gets tenuous because the Foundation obviously does do a lot of work globally. 

Another issue is that Clinton's staff also worked for a PRIVATE consulting company called Teneo which generated profits for Bill directly and it has the same issue as the Foundation with access, favoritism, benefits and dual roles. 

The influence peddling, personal benefits, dual roles & conflict of interest, and Teneo, are far bigger issues than the quality of the Foundation itself.
Click to expand...
This was very helpful thanks.  With no foundation the Clinton's would rake in tens of millions in speaking fees so this shouldn't be an issue I don't think.

The double dipping by her staff and her would be an issue.  Would the world be better off without the Clinton Foundation?  I doubt it but again, I think the negative impact from influence peddling and access provided to big donors is way overstated.  I really don't think the Clinton's benefit in any significant way personally by having this foundation, they'd still be The Clinton's without it.

 
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 
Click to expand...
Several groups have "backup" copies of the deleted emails so you should be able to decide if it is 1 or 4 soon.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Apparently the station that originally did the interview with him about Hillary's health has also taken down the link. 

Also I don't think the Hillary health issue is really 'alt right' and I don't think Pinsky was being exactly conspiratorial about it. He was asked about it so he answered.

Reality is he's a bit of a hack and old hat, I doubt his firing was related to any of this. I'd be more disturbed by his rehab treatment show of former stars, some of whom ended up dying.
Click to expand...
You don't think Hilldog's health is altright?  What brought it to the forefront anyway?  Some stupid camera edits and her sitting down between debates?

 
James Daulton said:
You don't think Hilldog's health is altright?  What brought it to the forefront anyway?  Some stupid camera edits and her sitting down between debates?
Click to expand...
The alt right - read Breitbart especially - is into it. I'm just talking about the context of what Dr Drew said and I just don't think Dr Drew is an alt right Trump supporter. The conspiracy stuff is ridiculous. I don't even agree with Drew. I'm just saying the woman is near 70 and really she and Donald Trump both should face the same scrutiny as McCain did. By the time they're at the of 2 terms they'll both be near 80, Trump might actually be 80.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Don't get outraged it's a simple issue.

The claim is US & international corporations, super wealthy persons and nations with business in front of the US government give large sums of money to the Foundation and then supposedly they get access to Hillary, special treatment and some claim even benefits.

It gets trickier after that: some of Hillary's staff has done work for the Foundation as employees while also working for State.  Hillary herself may have been doing double duty as SOS. So there's conflict of interest.

Then there is the claim that the Clintons personally benefit because of speaking fees, the lifestyle that came with a $2 billion entity, and the high profile it gave/gives them which helps them politically. So companies/countries/people pay the Foundation, the Clintons benefit.

After you get past all that there's the claim the Foundation doesn't really do much or that it sucks up a lot of dollars for overhead & travel. This gets tenuous because the Foundation obviously does do a lot of work globally. 

Another issue is that Clinton's staff also worked for a PRIVATE consulting company called Teneo which generated profits for Bill directly and it has the same issue as the Foundation with access, favoritism, benefits and dual roles. 

The influence peddling, personal benefits, dual roles & conflict of interest, and Teneo, are far bigger issues than the quality of the Foundation itself.
Click to expand...
Hillary knows all the loopholes.  Looks like she took advantage of every single one of them.

 
James Daulton said:
What's with the outrage over Clinton's foundation?  The foundation seems to be legit and have a good record with the organizations that keep track of such things.  If donors were granted special audiences with Hilldog, since she's not being personally enriched by her foundation, why would she give them special favors during those meetings?  Just because they donated to her foundation?  I'm just not getting the outrage over this.  Educate me please. 
Click to expand...
I liked The Billion Oyster project and almost became a Clinton Foundation donor a couple of years ago before I did some research.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok you learn nothing.
Click to expand...
This is really it (in re: Tim).  My entire crusade against Hillary began with an awareness that she had clearly done things that it is played out she did.  Call it heuristics, but it was apparent to anyone who knows anything exactly what Hillary is capable of, and what she did.  And I feel vindicated already that her character was shown.  I just wish there were another candidate.

 
Mr. Ham said:
This is really it (in re: Tim).  My entire crusade against Hillary began with an awareness that she had clearly done things that it is played out she did.  Call it heuristics, but it was apparent to anyone who knows anything exactly what Hillary is capable of, and what she did.  And I feel vindicated already that her character was shown.  I just wish there were another candidate.
Click to expand...
I think awareness is the key word here. And probably you have to believe that character of leaders affects the kind of government and country we have and that it's important in its own right. The Clintons bring this really unfortunate extra baggage with them whereby supporters both in politics and in the electorate are asked to carry their water for them. So that starts with denying facts and supporting the Clintons when they deny facts. Now it's Oh look Hillary did destroy public records Oh look the Foundation really does pose conflict of interest problems. Does it affect these folks? No, it's just on to the next barricade.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Don't get outraged it's a simple issue.

The claim is US & international corporations, super wealthy persons and nations with business in front of the US government give large sums of money to the Foundation and then supposedly they get access to Hillary, special treatment and some claim even benefits.

It gets trickier after that: some of Hillary's staff has done work for the Foundation as employees while also working for State.  Hillary herself may have been doing double duty as SOS. So there's conflict of interest.

Then there is the claim that the Clintons personally benefit because of speaking fees, the lifestyle that came with a $2 billion entity, and the high profile it gave/gives them which helps them politically. So companies/countries/people pay the Foundation, the Clintons benefit.

After you get past all that there's the claim the Foundation doesn't really do much or that it sucks up a lot of dollars for overhead & travel. This gets tenuous because the Foundation obviously does do a lot of work globally. 

Another issue is that Clinton's staff also worked for a PRIVATE consulting company called Teneo which generated profits for Bill directly and it has the same issue as the Foundation with access, favoritism, benefits and dual roles. 

The influence peddling, personal benefits, dual roles & conflict of interest, and Teneo, are far bigger issues than the quality of the Foundation itself.
Click to expand...
None of this comes close to a smoking gun. The only thing that will make it a real scandal is if someone uncovers a felonious email from Hillary. And if she sent any, they will surface eventually.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think awareness is the key word here. And probably you have to believe that character of leaders affects the kind of government and country we have and that it's important in its own right. The Clintons bring this really unfortunate extra baggage with them whereby supporters both in politics and in the electorate are asked to carry their water for them. So that starts with denying facts and supporting the Clintons when they deny facts. Now it's Oh look Hillary did destroy public records Oh look the Foundation really does pose conflict of interest problems. Does it affect these folks? No, it's just on to the next barricade.
Click to expand...
Saints you keep using the phrase "public records", making no distinction as to whether or not these were private emails or work-related emails. If they were private emails they're not public records, and nobody should care what she did with them. If they're work related that's a different story. 

But more importantly the usual folks here are calling me crazy or worse for stating that I will continue to support Hillary Clinton even if she's proven to be corrupt. All of you guys know why I would write that: it's because IMO a corrupt, lying Hillary Clinton would be a preferable President to Donakd Trump, and it's not even close. 

But again I don't think she is corrupt. I don't care about what you call "public records". Prove that she deliberately destroyed work related emails. Prove that she deliberately destroyed emails that show some kind of corruption. Prove that she deliberately altered US foreign policy as a result of private influence from donors to the Clinton Foundation. Prove that she used the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund for personal profit. 

If somebody can prove any one of those things THEN I will believe that she is corrupt. But not based on what we know now. 

 
timschochet said:
Saints you keep using the phrase "public records", making no distinction as to whether or not these were private emails or work-related emails. If they were private emails they're not public records, and nobody should care what she did with them. If they're work related that's a different story. 

But more importantly the usual folks here are calling me crazy or worse for stating that I will continue to support Hillary Clinton even if she's proven to be corrupt. All of you guys know why I would write that: it's because IMO a corrupt, lying Hillary Clinton would be a preferable President to Donakd Trump, and it's not even close. 

But again I don't think she is corrupt. I don't care about what you call "public records". Prove that she deliberately destroyed work related emails. Prove that she deliberately destroyed emails that show some kind of corruption. Prove that she deliberately altered US foreign policy as a result of private influence from donors to the Clinton Foundation. Prove that she used the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund for personal profit. 

If somebody can prove any one of those things THEN I will believe that she is corrupt. But not based on what we know now. 
Click to expand...
Do people actually think she did any of the things Tim suggested?  I for one think she plays fast and loose with the rules and feels that she and Bill are kind of above the law.  These by themselves are serious character flaws and not something I want in my president but to believe she actually either made policy decisions that she thought weren't in the best interest of the country or somehow syphoned money for her own personal gain is pretty out there I think.  The Clintons were multimillionaires basically as soon as Bill finished being president.  

 
James Daulton said:
Do people actually think she did any of the things Tim suggested?  I for one think she plays fast and loose with the rules and feels that she and Bill are kind of above the law.  These by themselves are serious character flaws and not something I want in my president but to believe she actually either made policy decisions that she thought weren't in the best interest of the country or somehow syphoned money for her own personal gain is pretty out there I think.  The Clintons were multimillionaires basically as soon as Bill finished being president.  
Click to expand...
If you read through this thread, or spend any time in the right wing blogosphere, you'll find there are tons of people who think she did everything I described and far worse. 

 
timschochet said:
Saints you keep using the phrase "public records", making no distinction as to whether or not these were private emails or work-related emails. If they were private emails they're not public records, and nobody should care what she did with them. If they're work related that's a different story. 
Click to expand...
Do you understand that if State produces emails or documents for Foia they do that because the documents are public records.

If they are private/personal, they don't get produced.

Do you understand that basic fact?

 
James Daulton said:
Do people actually think she did any of the things Tim suggested?  I for one think she plays fast and loose with the rules and feels that she and Bill are kind of above the law.  These by themselves are serious character flaws and not something I want in my president but to believe she actually either made policy decisions that she thought weren't in the best interest of the country or somehow syphoned money for her own personal gain is pretty out there I think.  The Clintons were multimillionaires basically as soon as Bill finished being president.  
Click to expand...


timschochet said:
If you read through this thread, or spend any time in the right wing blogosphere, you'll find there are tons of people who think she did everything I described and far worse. 
Click to expand...
I'm going to cut to the chase here.

What James has there is fine. I don't wrangle with people on their values and tell them how to vote or what to think is important. Just live in the real world of what the Clintons are doing and then proceed from there. What you do after that is up to you.

The way Tim puts it is to create a false proposition and ridiculous bar, throw in a dash of the VRWConspiracy, and bingo bango it's all false. And really that is what the Clintons ask political supporters to do every day. Deny, deny, deny - all for them and the truly stupid decisions they make - until it can't be denied anymore and then move on to the next denial.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I don't care about what you call "public records".
Click to expand...
It's up to the State Department, not you or me. If the State Department releases them for public records requests they are by their very nature public records. And if Hillary initially destroyed them then she tried to destroy public records.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 
Click to expand...
Tim is often nutty when it comes to Hillary, but if you change "lessen" to "withdraw," I don't see anything in this post to disagree with.

 
timschochet said:
Prove that she deliberately destroyed work related emails.
Click to expand...
How would she not deliberately do this? Right now I think the number is 14,000. The FBI says it's tens of thousands. How do you think she went about destroying them, not deliberately? Why lie about them being about yoga, funerals, and weddings?

 
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 
Click to expand...
1. No duh. However you have to admit that it has been reported and conceded that Heather Samuelson, Cheryl Mills and David Kendall and his attorneys went through and purposefully deleted emails as a deliberate process over roughly 4-5 months. That's not controverted.

2. Ok that much has been established. So already you should have a problem with it.

3. see 1. How would she not deliberately do this? Right now I think the number is 14,000. The FBI says it's tens of thousands. How do you think she went about destroying them, not deliberately? Why lie about them being about yoga, funerals, and weddings?

4. Who knows. We will see what's in them when they're rolled out slowly over the next 2 years. So part of the glory of Hillary is this constant controversy and scandal machine which will just grind away as revelations are dropped one by one over time. I have no idea why people have ever wanted this aspect of the Clintons, it's of their own making.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect they were 'work e-mails' much like she had 'documents marked classified' in her in box.

Or like she prevented a rescue mission reaching Benghazi.

Or killed Vince Foster.

Or something something White House Xmas cards list.

For 20 years the most salacious claims haven't stood up to reason or a full airing if the facts. I strongly suspect these won't either.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I suspect they were 'work e-mails' much like she had 'documents marked classified' in her in box.

Or like she prevented a rescue mission reaching Benghazi.

Or killed Vince Foster.

Or something something White House Xmas cards list.

For 20 years the most salacious claims haven't stood up to reason or a full airing if the facts. I strongly suspect these won't either.
Click to expand...
This is really simple.

If the 14,000 to "tens of thousands" of recovered emails are not work related then the number released will be ZERO.

You think zero emails will be released by State?

 
What James has there is fine. I don't wrangle with people on their values and tell them how to vote or what to think is important. Just live in the real world of what the Clintons are doing and then proceed from there.
Click to expand...
My thinking is like James.  The U.S. has elected some shady people who did a decent job as President. 

A presidential personality


Intelligence and achievement-striving--but not straightforwardness--may predict the newly elected president's effectiveness.

By SADIE F. DINGFELDER

Monitor Staff

November 2004, Vol 35, No. 10

Print version: page 26



Twenty-seven percent of American voters claim they choose presidential candidates primarily on the basis of the nominee's character and moral values, according to a poll conducted after the 2000 elections. However, candidates with a solid character--straightforward, dutiful and disciplined--often run into trouble being an effective president, says Steven J. Rubenzer, PhD, a Houston-based clinical psychologist and co-founder of the Foundation for the Study of Personality in History. In fact, a tendency to tell the truth can actually harm a president's shot at being considered historically "great," he says.

"We don't hear too many candidates touting that they are a better liar than the others," says Rubenzer. "But it seems to increase their chances of putting their policies in place."

For example, the president widely considered the greatest of the 19th century, Abraham Lincoln, skillfully "massaged" the truth and cleverly shifted positions, when necessary, despite his "Honest Abe" reputation, said Rubenzer. For example, he softened his opposition to slavery in an attempt to keep the country unified.

But skillful prevarication isn't the only ingredient necessary for a successful presidency, says Rubenzer. Chief executives also profit from high intelligence and "achievement-striving"--a preference for setting and tackling high goals, says the psychologist.

Rubenzer and his colleagues, including psychologist Deniz Ones, PhD, at the University of Minnesota, came to this conclusion by assessing each past American president's straightforwardness, intelligence, achievement-striving and other personality factors. They did so by asking about four experts and biographers for each president to score them using the NEO personality inventory--a commonly used personality test. Though the NEO does not assess intelligence directly, the personality measure "openness to experience" correlates highly with ratings of cognitive ability, says Rubenzer.

The psychologists then linked the chief executives' personality scores with success in office, as rated by the Murray-Blessing survey of 846 academic historians, which was published in the book "Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, Washington through Carter," (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988).

Those presidents who received high marks from historians tended to be smart, have ambitious goals and be willing to bend the truth, according to results published in Rubenzer's new book--co-authored with retired clinical psychologist Tom Faschingbauer, PhD--"Personality, Character & Leadership in the White House: Psychologists Assess the Presidents" (Brassey's, 2004). And these findings converge with previous research by political psychologists such as Dean Simonton, PhD, at the University of California, Davis, who finds that intelligence, as measured by a combination of personal achievements, analysis of a president's interests and scores on the personality measure openness to experience, predicts presidential success above all other individual factors.

Knowing what personalities make a good fit for the White House could help psychologists and historians understand a former president's weaknesses, says Rubenzer, and even predict how a candidate for the presidency might fare once in office.

Intellect's importance

Most presidents are not keen on publicizing their IQ scores, and so this variable, like all chief executives' personality and cognitive factors, must be measured at a distance, says Rubenzer. While other researchers have estimated the intelligence of presidents by analyzing their writings or accomplishments, Rubenzer and his colleagues used items from the NEO measure of openness to experience.

"Openness overlaps with intelligence because to some degree you have to be intelligent to appreciate new experiences," explains Simonton. "People who are low in intelligence, their systems are overwhelmed by the very rich environments that are attractive to people who are open to new experiences." There are, of course, certainly exceptions, he notes.

Presidents such as Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson--also widely considered successful chief executives by historians--tended to score high on openness and therefore intelligence, Rubenzer found.

"We weren't surprised--intelligence is a well established predictor of performance in all kinds of jobs," he says.

An as-yet unpublished study by Simonton confirms this hypothesis. Simonton combined three previous studies' data on presidential intelligence scores, including Rubenzer's openness scores. He then linked composite scores with presidential success, as measured by 12 surveys of historians and polls of the American population.

The researcher found that differences in intelligence accounted for about 10 percent of the variance in presidential greatness--making intelligence about as good a predictor for a president's success as the SAT is at predicting a student's first-semester college grades.

"Intelligence isn't the only factor that contributes to a president's success--the political climate and other situational factors certainly matter too," says Simonton. "But intelligence seems to be an across-the-board advantage."

However, the personality factors that increase candidates' chances for success in office are not necessarily the same as those that help them get elected, psychologists say. For example, intellectual brilliance seems negatively related to a president's margin of victory, finds Simonton.

"The ones who are the most intellectually brilliant are often barely elected," he says. "They have trouble speaking in sound bites and communicating with the public."

For example, Woodrow Wilson, a president historians rated as intelligent and the only American president with a PhD, won with only two-fifths of the popular vote, Simonton notes.

Ambition's double-edge

While intelligence can make for a good president but a bad candidate, achievement-striving--or the tendency to work toward lofty goals--may benefit presidents both on the campaign trail and while in office.

"Achievement-striving means people have high goals, but more importantly, they work hard to achieve them," says Rubenzer. "They stay focused; they are kind of workaholics."

Successful presidents such as Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt outscore 90 percent of Americans on this personality factor, found the psychologist--perhaps not surprisingly since becoming president is itself an accomplishment, says Rubenzer.

In contrast, research by psychologist David Winter, PhD, at the University of Michigan, finds that achievement motivation, defined as a drive to do things well, may be a hindrance for presidents in office.

In a study published in a chapter of "Political Leadership for the New Century" (Praeger, 2002), Winter and his colleagues rated the achievement motivation of presidents by counting the number of achievement-related phrases in presidents' inaugural addresses, including references to excellence and future goals. Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter, who scored high on achievement imagery, tended to meet resistance while attempting to implement their policies.

"People high in achievement motivation do best when they have large amounts of personal control," says Winter. "They become frustrated by the bureaucracy of politics."

Indeed, in Rubenzer's personality analysis Carter, who historians note as stymied by the checks and balances of the presidency, scored very high on achievement-striving--in the top 1 percent of all former presidents. However, Carter had two fatal personality flaws: a lack of assertiveness and a tendency to be straightforward, notes the psychologist.

"A president has to influence, either by deceit or forcefulness," says Rubenzer. "When you see those two scores on someone who is otherwise so qualified you think, well, maybe that is the reason."

This observation is similar to Winter's analysis of Carter through his inaugural address, which found him low in power motivation--another predictor of presidential success, he says.

With these lessons in mind, those 37 percent of voters who cast their ballots for the presidency based primarily on issues may want to weigh in the candidates' character after all--given that the person who seems smart, ambitious and assertive, but not necessarily candid, may be the man or woman best suited for the job.
Click to expand...

 
Folks - please accept this: the State Department does not and will not release personal emails. Doesn't happen. If someone has a Foia request for Hillary's deleted emails then IF they are ALL private the response will be "None". Everyone, understand this, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
My thinking is like James.  The U.S. has elected some shady people who did a decent job as President. 
Click to expand...
I'm fine with this. It's arguable to a matter of degrees, but fine. I'm also ok with 'USSC is more important'. Ok. It's the 'lying liars telling damned liars about the poor Clintons again & oh yeah VRWC' thing that is so insane and corrosive. Trump and the Fox punditry helps drive it too. This board is just a microcosm of society and our political culture right now.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Do you understand that if State produces emails or documents for Foia they do that because the documents are public records.

If they are private/personal, they don't get produced.

Do you understand that basic fact?
Click to expand...
Thousands of emails, stuff gets confused. Again, were work emails deliberately destroyed? 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
1K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
195K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top