Author Topic: 2016 Presidential Race  (Read 161731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2015, 11:53:53 PM »
Hillary Clinton deleted all email from personal server

Forget running for President.  Time to just run.

I read about that earlier. 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22457
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2015, 11:54:55 PM »
Hillary Clinton deleted all email from personal server

Forget running for President.  Time to just run.

I read about that earlier.

Yea I thought she already did that last week.

Online hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40977
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2015, 05:08:01 AM »
Hillary Clinton deleted all email from personal server

Forget running for President.  Time to just run.
I don't think it will make one bit of difference by the time we get to the general election.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9414
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2015, 01:08:27 PM »
Hillary Clinton deleted all email from personal server

Forget running for President.  Time to just run.
I don't think it will make one bit of difference by the time we get to the general election.

And that is just such a sad statement on the people we choose to elect to such an important office.  Over 300 million people to choose from and we limit it to this?    :\

I'm not enamored by Hillary in the least bit but I still think new agencies are making this email thing a big deal over nothing and it's coming off like they're trying desperately to fabricate a massive scandal. It's just being pounded at like it's something important whereas I highly doubt the average person even cares.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2015, 01:48:22 PM »
Hillary Clinton deleted all email from personal server

Forget running for President.  Time to just run.
I don't think it will make one bit of difference by the time we get to the general election.

And that is just such a sad statement on the people we choose to elect to such an important office.  Over 300 million people to choose from and we limit it to this?    :\

My sentiments exactly.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21363
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2015, 06:19:04 AM »
Hillary Clinton deleted all email from personal server

Forget running for President.  Time to just run.
I don't think it will make one bit of difference by the time we get to the general election.

And that is just such a sad statement on the people we choose to elect to such an important office.  Over 300 million people to choose from and we limit it to this?    :\

My sentiments exactly.

It makes me sick.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2015, 06:53:15 AM »
All good ideas, all with a kernel of truth, but I can't escape nagging feeling that there isn't full truth in them, and that they are over-simplifying what is anything but simple.   

I know two people that have met President Clinton personally, and both (at separate times; they don't even know each other) have said almost the exact same thing:  "He had a way of making you feel like you were the only person in the room, and the only person that mattered to him at that point in time."  Having said that, I don't think the regard for his Presidency can be dismissed so easily as "charisma".  History has a way of clarifying things, and I think you'll find that trend will continue as we get through the next two or three Presidents.  Every President has his triumphs and his failures, and only time can put those into perspective.  I think at this point, G.H.W. Bush is the last President for which we have any real context and legacy to look at. 

As for the "300 million potential candidates and we get [insert candidate we are looking to disparage]", we have only ourselves to blame.   We really do.   For whatever it is worth, WE THE PEOPLE have made this into a system where 99.5% of that 300 million would be disqualified before the primaries based on arbitrary and meaningless standards.  In almost any other field, we look to skills and skillsets to determine whether someone would be good at a job, and most research has shown that a strengths-based look at skills as compared to the actual tasks required for completion is the most effective way of doing that.   Yet in almost no other field (excluding entertainment and the arts) do we place so much emphasis on irrelevant skills in order to select a candidate.  Put it another way, the skillset to run a major campaign is NOT the same skillset to run a country.   The perception of Romney as "removed and callous" and Obama as "smart and caring" persevere, even though Romney, from a pure skillset perspective (and ignoring ideology for this discussion) arguably has the best skillset for actually running an organization the size of the United States of America.  Put it still another way, Jack Welch, certainly in the discussion for the greatest chief executive in US history couldn't get elected AS the Chief Executive if he was the only one running. 


Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2015, 08:55:38 AM »
I have a true W. story to tell.  As many of you know my wife has long been involved in U.S. politics. First as an intern for various members of Congress, to Legislative Director, Chief of Staff, Policy Director, then Chief Lobbyist, and now runs her own political/ election consulting firm.

We lived many years in DC, then split our time between homes there; before finally getting away from the "Beltway" on a daily basis a few years ago. I've met many dignitaries, and three Presidents and first ladies  (Clinton's, Bushes, Obamas), as a result of my wifes career. In 2004 while she was a lobbyist, she drug me to an event where Bush was going to speak. At the conclusion of the event we were near the end of the receiving line; and as people do when the President is present, they were jokeying for position to shake his hand; while the Secret Service dispersed throughout the crowd did their own pushing for position as well. This, despite the fact that everyone had already been vetted. Post 9/11 their presence was always strongly seen and felt. Needless to say, it was controlled chaos near the front.

W. made his way down the line as quickly as he could before being whisked away; as dozens of people clamored to shake his hand. Some he briefly chatted with who had a comment or question, or others he knew or recognized and he paused momentarily to say, "Hey!" or to offer more than just a handshake and a quick hello. I had met him twice before, and he recognized both me, and especially my wife. So when he took my hand and I said what everyone else said, ("Hello Mr. President") a hint of recognition came over his face and he paused to say, "Hey! Glad to see you." Which makes you feel like the most important person in the world, and is very impressive considering the people he comes into contact with each day. He mentioned my wife by name, and I swelled further with pride; and then he was gone in an instant. About five or six people down from us at the very end was a Sikh (a very large man, with a very large beard, and a very large turban atop his very large head) and his adorable little daughter who was probably no more than 6 or 7 years old. As W. made his way down the line, the little girls smile grew wider and wider. Her turbaned father stood behind her, his bear paw-like hands on her shoulders. Bush got to them at the end and shook the fathers hand, then bent at the waist slightly, and gracefully shook the little girls outstretched hand and smiled as he offered, "¿Como esta?" before he turned, pivoted, and hurried away with his entourage in tow. The little girl looked up over her shoulder at her father and said, "What did he say daddy?" And in his thick Indian accent he replied, "I don't know!"

 :facepalm:

I know he was in a hurry, and I know it was chaotic, and I know he's "from" Texas; but not all brown people are Hispanic. Especially ones who wear turbans. I remember after instantly and briefly feeling bad for the little girl, my next thought was, "Damn, if there are video cameras around, John Stewarts gonna have a field day with that one!"

 :lol
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 10:01:32 AM by TempusVox »
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2015, 09:52:47 AM »
 :rollin

I literally LOL'd.     :lol

Online hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40977
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2015, 11:43:05 AM »
As for the "300 million potential candidates and we get [insert candidate we are looking to disparage]", we have only ourselves to blame.   We really do.   For whatever it is worth, WE THE PEOPLE have made this into a system where 99.5% of that 300 million would be disqualified before the primaries based on arbitrary and meaningless standards.  In almost any other field, we look to skills and skillsets to determine whether someone would be good at a job, and most research has shown that a strengths-based look at skills as compared to the actual tasks required for completion is the most effective way of doing that.   Yet in almost no other field (excluding entertainment and the arts) do we place so much emphasis on irrelevant skills in order to select a candidate.  Put it another way, the skillset to run a major campaign is NOT the same skillset to run a country.   The perception of Romney as "removed and callous" and Obama as "smart and caring" persevere, even though Romney, from a pure skillset perspective (and ignoring ideology for this discussion) arguably has the best skillset for actually running an organization the size of the United States of America.  Put it still another way, Jack Welch, certainly in the discussion for the greatest chief executive in US history couldn't get elected AS the Chief Executive if he was the only one running.
I agree with you.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21363
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2015, 01:02:38 PM »
As for the "300 million potential candidates and we get [insert candidate we are looking to disparage]", we have only ourselves to blame.   We really do.   For whatever it is worth, WE THE PEOPLE have made this into a system where 99.5% of that 300 million would be disqualified before the primaries based on arbitrary and meaningless standards.  In almost any other field, we look to skills and skillsets to determine whether someone would be good at a job, and most research has shown that a strengths-based look at skills as compared to the actual tasks required for completion is the most effective way of doing that.   Yet in almost no other field (excluding entertainment and the arts) do we place so much emphasis on irrelevant skills in order to select a candidate.  Put it another way, the skillset to run a major campaign is NOT the same skillset to run a country.   The perception of Romney as "removed and callous" and Obama as "smart and caring" persevere, even though Romney, from a pure skillset perspective (and ignoring ideology for this discussion) arguably has the best skillset for actually running an organization the size of the United States of America.  Put it still another way, Jack Welch, certainly in the discussion for the greatest chief executive in US history couldn't get elected AS the Chief Executive if he was the only one running.
I agree with you.

Are we past the point of no return? Let's say hypothetically that somehow everyone started caring about politics overnight. Those who watch Keeping Up With the Kardashians and 16 and Preganant suddenly care about global affairs and the actions of our political parties. What could be done to get out of this? I feel like the scales have been tipped so far to the rich, that's there's virtually no chance getting out of it.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2015, 01:15:03 PM »
General elections will almost always lead to awful presidents. The ones who do well are more of a fluke, methinks. I think Stadler was absolutely correct that the criteria We The People use to nominate someone for the job are back-assward. I'm still of the opinion that a parliamentary system is the way to go, but only after the US system is overhauled to remove the tremendous financial incentives. Representation should be a shit job, not a jackpot. When you have 435 normal people who are in Congress because they got drafted, those guys will be able to pick from among them somebody worth a damn.

All of this assumes that we can move beyond lib/con and dem/con labels, of course. Not sure we can ever get past that.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2015, 01:17:14 PM »
I'm not enamored by Hillary in the least bit but I still think new agencies are making this email thing a big deal over nothing and it's coming off like they're trying desperately to fabricate a massive scandal. It's just being pounded at like it's something important whereas I highly doubt the average person even cares.
I think the opposite is true. This one actually is a big deal, but people are so used to the attempted fabrications of massive scandal that they're tuned out.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2015, 02:08:09 PM »
I think at this point, G.H.W. Bush is the last President for which we have any real context and legacy to look at. 
Never thought about it but you're right. We can actually see the long term effects of his term but not Clinton's. It's interesting because I'm usually fairly indifferent to him as a prez and now that he's old and infirm I'm softening up on him even more, but with the advantage of 20+ years of hindsight he's not looking too good to me. Most of what we're seeing in the Middle East has a defining moment in Iraq, 1991; a situation that could have been handled with a lot more finesse with better consequences.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2015, 02:09:00 PM »
As for the "300 million potential candidates and we get [insert candidate we are looking to disparage]", we have only ourselves to blame.   We really do.   For whatever it is worth, WE THE PEOPLE have made this into a system where 99.5% of that 300 million would be disqualified before the primaries based on arbitrary and meaningless standards.  In almost any other field, we look to skills and skillsets to determine whether someone would be good at a job, and most research has shown that a strengths-based look at skills as compared to the actual tasks required for completion is the most effective way of doing that.   Yet in almost no other field (excluding entertainment and the arts) do we place so much emphasis on irrelevant skills in order to select a candidate.  Put it another way, the skillset to run a major campaign is NOT the same skillset to run a country.   The perception of Romney as "removed and callous" and Obama as "smart and caring" persevere, even though Romney, from a pure skillset perspective (and ignoring ideology for this discussion) arguably has the best skillset for actually running an organization the size of the United States of America.  Put it still another way, Jack Welch, certainly in the discussion for the greatest chief executive in US history couldn't get elected AS the Chief Executive if he was the only one running.
I agree with you.

Are we past the point of no return? Let's say hypothetically that somehow everyone started caring about politics overnight. Those who watch Keeping Up With the Kardashians and 16 and Preganant suddenly care about global affairs and the actions of our political parties. What could be done to get out of this? I feel like the scales have been tipped so far to the rich, that's there's virtually no chance getting out of it.

I'm going to say this with a lot more respect than it sounds like, so please take a deep breath if your first reaction is "asshole..." but your statement is exactly part of the problem.  You've conflated about three different thoughts into one, as if they are one, and I think that is part of the problem.   It's not the rich doing this, it's the general population, and it isn't necessarily because we get our entertainment from dumbed-down sources.   Saying "it's the rich" or "the rich do this" is as inane as voting for a guy because he is a great public speaker.  It's shallow.    It's not "the rich" because as a general proposition, they are going to get rich and keep being rich regardless of what happens (think about fossil fuels; the rich are going to get a whole lot richer if the American population as a whole has to replace each of their cars immediately, and at a premium (as the electric car industry is requiring at this stage of the game)). 

This is about people thinking about things in 140 character twitter-bites.  I suppose if you want to blame that on the Kardashians, you can, but to even remotely think you can distill immigration, or the ACA, or the tax code problems, or the problems with education, etc. down to 140 characters or less and have anything less than a fucking mess, you are on Mars.  It's not that the American population all of a sudden doesn't have the capacity to handle complex issues, it's that they don't want to.  It's easier to blame "Darth Cheney" or "Maobama" than it is to take personal accountability for how each individual is contributing to the system (or not).   It's about looking in the mirror and realizing that what is right for Johnny Rubandatug in Erie, PA is NOT necessarily what's good for the entire country en masse.   Not suggesting that Johnny should ALWAYS put himself second, but we're not even having that conversation (even internally) now, and that has to stop.   

Short answer, it's not too late; it won't be too late until we are addressing our leader as "Your Highness" or "Comrade", but it won't happen as long as we're pointing fingers at anyone other than our own bad selves, at least at first. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #50 on: March 30, 2015, 02:10:34 PM »
General elections will almost always lead to awful presidents. The ones who do well are more of a fluke, methinks. I think Stadler was absolutely correct that the criteria We The People use to nominate someone for the job are back-assward. I'm still of the opinion that a parliamentary system is the way to go, but only after the US system is overhauled to remove the tremendous financial incentives. Representation should be a shit job, not a jackpot. When you have 435 normal people who are in Congress because they got drafted, those guys will be able to pick from among them somebody worth a damn.

All of this assumes that we can move beyond lib/con and dem/con labels, of course. Not sure we can ever get past that.

For the record, we may disagree with the "how do we do that?" a little bit, and certainly how we said it, but el Barto and I are not that far apart on this issue in concept. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #51 on: March 30, 2015, 02:16:15 PM »
I'm not enamored by Hillary in the least bit but I still think new agencies are making this email thing a big deal over nothing and it's coming off like they're trying desperately to fabricate a massive scandal. It's just being pounded at like it's something important whereas I highly doubt the average person even cares.
I think the opposite is true. This one actually is a big deal, but people are so used to the attempted fabrications of massive scandal that they're tuned out.

I'll go you one better; in the current climate of party v. party and the culture I noted above, where everything has to be distilled down to a twat or a glib cartoon, I would argue that we can't even tell the difference at this point.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #52 on: March 30, 2015, 07:59:44 PM »
The media controlling the people and the people controlling the media would be impossible to distinguish. You blame the media for a lot of things, and I don't begrudge you that point of view, but recognize that the media is governed by its own interests, and believe it or not providing what the people are clamoring for is the primary one. Also keep in mind that the people who give a shit about politics and elections can watch one of those sham debates and learn what they need to know, despite the total absence of information provided. The fact is that most are there to hear the soundbites they want, so everybody wins in that regard.

And for the record, I'd love to see actual debates with a moderator who'd demand actual answers to actual questions, but that's not what WTP really want; only the small percentage of interested voters do.



edit: I seem to have lost my grasp of spelling, grammar and syntax today. Post repaired.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 10:18:07 PM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #53 on: March 30, 2015, 09:28:37 PM »
Barto I'm not so sure that the current format is what they want as it's more that people have become apathetic to the entire process and government as a whole because they don't trust that it matters anymore.

Back when I advised clients as an attorney I often had corporate executives blame certain people for their legal problems; when the majority of the time it was an unhealthy culture that led them to the path they were on instead. Whenever a healthy and strong culture no longer exists it is always eventually replaced with a bad one. That's what exists in American politics today. That's why our legislative branch is basically worthless. The people no longer trust them; they've grown weary and apathetic; the parties now serve their special interests and the entire system has devolved into what they decide to give us now. It's fucking pathetic.

Btw...when I refer to culture in this instance I mean our current political system and environment.
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #54 on: March 30, 2015, 10:36:24 PM »
Barto I'm not so sure that the current format is what they want as it's more that people have become apathetic to the entire process and government as a whole because they don't trust that it matters anymore.
Oh, I don't doubt that. Nor do I fault them for their apathy; the system is defunct. I'm just of the opinion that there's a perverse cycle working between the people and the media. If people didn't want to watch shit the networks wouldn't provide it. Yet the people are still influenced by what the media dishes out, quite possibly on the mistaken assumption (of both parties) that it's what is wanted.

Judging from how many times it's acutely accurate and I have to mention it, Take Me To Your Lizard must be one of the most profound things ever written. Seems to reflect the clusterfuck that is the society/media circle jerk quite well.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Lucien

  • James 5:1-5
  • Posts: 4618
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2015, 12:27:38 AM »
It seems nobody cares any more. The youth and young people of America are uninterested in politics, they feel they can do no good, that no candidate fits them exactly, and that they are too small in the grand scheme of things to make any sort of impact.

And since such a great amount of people, great, intelligent people feel this way, it does make an impact, and all the candidates have to do is cater to everybody else and they get elected, and hope the media doesn't fuck them up before then.

It is rather sad and broken.
"Kind of a stupid game, isn't it?" - Calvin

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2015, 07:44:41 AM »
I agree and disagree with "We the People" being the problem.  Obviously, it is going to take people taking the election process more seriously.  BUT .....

We the People are actually supposed to be attending to our own lives.  That's why we have *representatives* in government as opposed to mob rules American Idol / Twitter / Text voting for actual legislation.

The problem is how the media handles it.  Change the debate format?  Newt did that in 2012.  He had pretty good events of actual deep questions and answers and invited others to join him.  I only recall Huntsman joining him.  And if a candidate were to stand up and say "I don't think I will be attending the debates.  Instead I will put up a thorough presentation on my website and offer myself to a neutral news agency to ask questions on my proposals."   The media would respond "Candidate Y is afraid of debates."  News program two "can we really elect somebody that is afraid of debates."  News program day 3 "they need to address this debate scandal."  News program day 4 "Clearly this person is unqualified."

I think the news agencies are perfectly capable of "changing the game" on the campaign process itself.  They don't have the will or even a reason to change it.

Money and media.  That's the problem.

I hit "reply" to you, but this is also in reply to @Tempusvox and @Lucien too.  Point fingers all you want, but at the end of the day, like el Barto said, it comes back to the people.   I have this discussion so often and it floors me every single time I have to have it:   corporations (and the "media" are "corporations" for the purposes of this discussion) are THE most predictable entities on the planet.   El Sol isn't as predictable as corporations.   They will whore out their mother, and her mother if need be, to make a buck, and - surprisingly - that's a GOOD thing.  That's what corporations are chartered to do, and it is the main way in which you control them.   So to say that it is "the media's fault" is to not be complete in your assessment of the chain of cause and effect.   If it does not grab eyeballs, you WILL NOT hear about it, FULL STOP.   We the people are the eyeballs.  I started watching a show called Allegiance about a month ago, and it was cancelled before I got through the five episodes on my DVR.  American Idol is still on, because people watch it.   Call them stupid or sheep or whatever, but there is no value jdugement on the part of the media; people watch = you get more of it; people do not watch = you will not see it again. 

Whether the public is apathetic or not is in my view subject to debate, because as the great Neil Peart once said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."  "Media" is not capable of making substantive determinations beyond "does this grab eyeballs"?  Whether they intend to or not, the "apathy" is read as "that's not relevant to me" and the "media" is responding accordingly.  In my opinion, this is not an absolute apathy, but rather a disinterest in anything that doesn't jive with what "feels right" (what people mean when they say "common sense", which is neither common, or, usually, sensical).  I think people are willing to contemplate new ideas, but the standard seems to be "does it sound like it makes sense" (which means there is no deep analysis, but just a reliance on gut for things that are far too complext for such glib analytics) or "does it benefit ME personally" (which means there is no appreciation for what is good long term or for the collective).   

I think Obama proves false the notion that "people are too small"; that was the essence of his rise to power, and had there been true apathy, he wouldn't have been nearly as successful as he has. 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 11:11:47 AM by Stadler »

Online hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40977
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2015, 08:43:31 AM »
Judging from how many times it's acutely accurate and I have to mention it, Take Me To Your Lizard must be one of the most profound things ever written. Seems to reflect the clusterfuck that is the society/media circle jerk quite well.
Yes, Douglas Adams was a prophet.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #58 on: March 31, 2015, 11:22:06 AM »
Judging from how many times it's acutely accurate and I have to mention it, Take Me To Your Lizard must be one of the most profound things ever written. Seems to reflect the clusterfuck that is the society/media circle jerk quite well.
Yes, Douglas Adams was a prophet.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing that.  I've read the original back in the day, and excerpts of the other four parts of the "trilogy" more recently, but to me a lot of it just smacks of slightly heavy-handed cynicism with no real deep insight.  Politicians as lizards?  Who'd'a guessed!?  It isn't as if "representative democracy" is the only form of government on the planet; there are other examples of the way things could be, and many choose alternatives under which they live.   The "least bad" candidate is a kind of relative thing, meaning with a small number of candidates, it happens almost by definition, but that doesn't make it the defining characteristic of the system, nor it's fatal flaw. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #59 on: March 31, 2015, 01:07:10 PM »
Judging from how many times it's acutely accurate and I have to mention it, Take Me To Your Lizard must be one of the most profound things ever written. Seems to reflect the clusterfuck that is the society/media circle jerk quite well.
Yes, Douglas Adams was a prophet.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing that.  I've read the original back in the day, and excerpts of the other four parts of the "trilogy" more recently, but to me a lot of it just smacks of slightly heavy-handed cynicism with no real deep insight.  Politicians as lizards?  Who'd'a guessed!?  It isn't as if "representative democracy" is the only form of government on the planet; there are other examples of the way things could be, and many choose alternatives under which they live.   The "least bad" candidate is a kind of relative thing, meaning with a small number of candidates, it happens almost by definition, but that doesn't make it the defining characteristic of the system, nor it's fatal flaw.
Not sure it needs to be insightful. It's a colorful representation of several sociopolitical problems which make them enjoyable to ponder (which, I suppose, might therefore lead to insight).

And for the record it's lizards as politicians, not politicians as lizards. That's kind of important.  :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40977
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2015, 10:43:53 AM »
Exactly.

Also, it was a sci-fi comedy novel, not a political science treatise.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #61 on: April 01, 2015, 10:57:16 AM »
Exactly.

Also, it was a sci-fi comedy novel, not a political science treatise.

That's fine; I read it, I know.  But I'm not really reacting to that.  I'm reacting to the notion that he is a "prophet" or that somehow what he said is universally profound.   You can't really have both, can you?  You can't say "well, it's not this or that, because it is only a sci-fi comedy novel", then actually try to pass it off as "this" or "that" through labeling. 

Online hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40977
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2015, 11:31:34 AM »
Exactly.

Also, it was a sci-fi comedy novel, not a political science treatise.

That's fine; I read it, I know.  But I'm not really reacting to that.  I'm reacting to the notion that he is a "prophet" or that somehow what he said is universally profound.   You can't really have both, can you?  You can't say "well, it's not this or that, because it is only a sci-fi comedy novel", then actually try to pass it off as "this" or "that" through labeling.
He's not really a prophet.  But that was an insightful commentary on the concept of popular elections, and is therefore profound, in a way.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17629
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #63 on: April 02, 2015, 06:53:22 AM »
Exactly.

Also, it was a sci-fi comedy novel, not a political science treatise.

That's fine; I read it, I know.  But I'm not really reacting to that.  I'm reacting to the notion that he is a "prophet" or that somehow what he said is universally profound.   You can't really have both, can you?  You can't say "well, it's not this or that, because it is only a sci-fi comedy novel", then actually try to pass it off as "this" or "that" through labeling.
He's not really a prophet.  But that was an insightful commentary on the concept of popular elections, and is therefore profound, in a way.

I see your point.   No argument with what you wrote.

Online kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43140
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #64 on: April 04, 2015, 03:47:19 PM »
I don't even pay attention yet.  I like to see a few apples fall of the tree before I begin to look at picking apples.
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #65 on: April 06, 2015, 01:24:20 PM »
I have a true W. story to tell.  As many of you know my wife has long been involved in U.S. politics. First as an intern for various members of Congress, to Legislative Director, Chief of Staff, Policy Director, then Chief Lobbyist, and now runs her own political/ election consulting firm.

We lived many years in DC, then split our time between homes there; before finally getting away from the "Beltway" on a daily basis a few years ago. I've met many dignitaries, and three Presidents and first ladies  (Clinton's, Bushes, Obamas), as a result of my wifes career. In 2004 while she was a lobbyist, she drug me to an event where Bush was going to speak. At the conclusion of the event we were near the end of the receiving line; and as people do when the President is present, they were jokeying for position to shake his hand; while the Secret Service dispersed throughout the crowd did their own pushing for position as well. This, despite the fact that everyone had already been vetted. Post 9/11 their presence was always strongly seen and felt. Needless to say, it was controlled chaos near the front.

W. made his way down the line as quickly as he could before being whisked away; as dozens of people clamored to shake his hand. Some he briefly chatted with who had a comment or question, or others he knew or recognized and he paused momentarily to say, "Hey!" or to offer more than just a handshake and a quick hello. I had met him twice before, and he recognized both me, and especially my wife. So when he took my hand and I said what everyone else said, ("Hello Mr. President") a hint of recognition came over his face and he paused to say, "Hey! Glad to see you." Which makes you feel like the most important person in the world, and is very impressive considering the people he comes into contact with each day. He mentioned my wife by name, and I swelled further with pride; and then he was gone in an instant. About five or six people down from us at the very end was a Sikh (a very large man, with a very large beard, and a very large turban atop his very large head) and his adorable little daughter who was probably no more than 6 or 7 years old. As W. made his way down the line, the little girls smile grew wider and wider. Her turbaned father stood behind her, his bear paw-like hands on her shoulders. Bush got to them at the end and shook the fathers hand, then bent at the waist slightly, and gracefully shook the little girls outstretched hand and smiled as he offered, "¿Como esta?" before he turned, pivoted, and hurried away with his entourage in tow. The little girl looked up over her shoulder at her father and said, "What did he say daddy?" And in his thick Indian accent he replied, "I don't know!"

 :facepalm:

I know he was in a hurry, and I know it was chaotic, and I know he's "from" Texas; but not all brown people are Hispanic. Especially ones who wear turbans. I remember after instantly and briefly feeling bad for the little girl, my next thought was, "Damn, if there are video cameras around, John Stewarts gonna have a field day with that one!"

 :lol
Damn, must be a genetic thing. His brother's got it worse.  :lol
https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/06/politics/jeb-bush-hispanic-voter-registration/
Quote
(CNN)Likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush owned up to his "mistake" Monday on an unearthed 2009 voter registration form on which he listed his ethnicity as "Hispanic."Despite his claim on the voter registration form, obtained and published by the New York Times, Bush is white. His wife Columba, who was born in Mexico, and children are Hispanic.
"My mistake! Don't think I've fooled anyone!" Bush tweeted Monday morning.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21363
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2015, 07:59:42 AM »
Rand is officially in. No realy surprise there.

I don't hate Rand. I kind of like the guy and I agree with him on a lot of issues. I predict he's not going to be able to pick a side and he's goilg to contradict himself a lot. I think he'll do well in the primaries though.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22462
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #67 on: April 07, 2015, 08:07:46 AM »
I kind of figure it's the primaries that'll do him in; far too sane. He seems like a guy that'd do better in the general election. And while he's nowhere near as loony as his old man, he's also nowhere near the lone wolf, either. I probably would have voted for Dr. Scramblebrains solely on the basis that he's a person and would behave as such. At the end of the day Rand is still just a GOP shill, even if he does differ with them from time to time.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40977
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #68 on: April 07, 2015, 08:12:08 AM »
I don't agree with all of of Paul's ideas, but a lot of them are very compelling, as well.  And I like him.

I doubt he will get the nomination.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21363
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #69 on: April 07, 2015, 08:13:43 AM »
I kind of figure it's the primaries that'll do him in; far too sane. He seems like a guy that'd do better in the general election. And while he's nowhere near as loony as his old man, he's also nowhere near the lone wolf, either. I probably would have voted for Dr. Scramblebrains solely on the basis that he's a person and would behave as such. At the end of the day Rand is still just a GOP shill, even if he does differ with them from time to time.

I thought that might play to his advantage. We know full well that the majority of the GOP candidates are going to go full retard during the primaries. Rand could have the upper hand if he doesn't go along with them.