Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A conclusion which you drew.   You don't know if or how many others drew that conclusion.   You probably can't read the minds of other people.   I know that I can't.  I am mind blind.  (Please forgive my passive-aggressive surliness, or don't forgive it).

If someone asked you what color as that car parked across  the street.  You would probably answer  blue or green or some such. If I were asked that question I would say blue or green or whatever  -on the side facing me-.    You appear to jump to conclusions.  I don't.

Bob,

Dayaamm!

Are you trying to read my mind?

:evil:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4549

  • Peter

    1421

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

That is astonishing. Thanks Jon. Behaviors that can cause a kid, later in life to be screwed up enough to become addicts or to kill themselves, needs a remedy and if the answer is chemical or physical

Posted Images

Nate Silver is finally starting to correct his bias.

NATE SILVER: Donald Trump would most likely win the election if it were held today

I'm also glad to see that Silver is cleaning out the bugs in his methodology and becoming more objective. Imagine what his life is going to be like in future elections after, in this cycle, he predicts all the states that will go to Trump during Trump's election. He will get his mantle of poll guru back.

(I'm just posting this in this way to mess with William, our dear WSS. :) )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Dayaamm!

Are you trying to read my mind?

:evil:

Michael

no.  futile quests are not my thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whodda thunk Mike Pence had this kind of stuff in him?

Go for it, Mike.

Let's see if you can boogie out on social media like The Donald.

You're actually looking good in this one...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Maybe not this guy (Robby Mook).

The Russians did it! The Russians did it! 

:) 

[CNN video]

This doofus doesn't realize that telling people the Russians got these emails to use in a dastardly manner to help elect Trump not only sounds dumb, it also prompts people to think the Russians got all the emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, all thirty-some thousand that were deleted. And that makes her look stupid, not cunning.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Yeah, these is a lot of "blank-out" going around.  But one of the most prevalent errors I see in looking at politics is mistaken something for binary when it isn't.  There may only be a tiny fraction of the 'faithful' that believe those leaks, but there will be a decrease in enthusiasm, blank-out or not, and as a result some will stay home.  Too often people argue a point back and forth, like will former Bernie fans go to Trump or will they go to Hillary.  I'd say that some will stay home - politics isn't all binary.

And those people who stay home after learning what the consequences are will have no basis to complain for the next 4 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If someone asked you what color as that car parked across  the street.  You would probably answer  blue or green or some such. If I were asked that question I would say blue or green or whatever  -on the side facing me-.    You appear to jump to conclusions.  I don't. 

Yes, but what you can say is you both knew the car had some color X..

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

And those people who stay home after learning what the consequences are will have no basis to complain for the next 4 years.

They can complain that there was no one worth voting for and that for four years they will have to put up with someone who wasn't worth voting for. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

They can complain that there was no one worth voting for and that for four years they will have to put up with someone who wasn't worth voting for. :)

And I say to them they don't have to vote on value, they can vote against who they learned would be the biggest disvalue to the country..

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Hillary or Trump will be president.

If the election was between 80% taxation rate or 20% taxation, what exactly would be the point of ignoring the fact that one or the other would come to be? Pretend that "no taxation" is expressed by staying home and watching 80% win? The pleasure of paying 80% taxes with the shallow pride that "other people voted for that, not me. I am pure, I have never voted for taxes"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Either Hillary or Trump will be president.

If the election was between 80% taxation rate or 20% taxation, what exactly would be the point of ignoring the fact that one or the other would come to be? Pretend that "no taxation" is expressed by staying home and watching 80% win? The pleasure of paying 80% taxes with the shallow pride that "other people voted for that, not me. I am pure, I have never voted for taxes"?

Excellent.  I don't think the point can be made any clearer than that.  Not that it will make a difference...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you say it, Steve, no, I do not think of this election as two evils, Trump the lesser. But I am speaking to people who think of it that way.

Other election methods would be neat. For a year we could listen to people who want to be in government and then vote. First place gets to be president, second place gets sec. of state, third place gets to be X, ... 23rd place, director of the IRS. In that system, you vote for whoever most closely reflects your values. You could vote for yourself every time. Maybe become elected junior ranger of a park somewhere after everyone on OL votes for you.

But we live in a system where votes for yourself or for whoever most closely reflects your values are not effective, cannot be effective, because we live in a system that practically guarantees two dominant parties, whereby either

Hillary or Trump will be president. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Either Hillary or Trump will be president.

If the election was between 80% taxation rate or 20% taxation, what exactly would be the point of ignoring the fact that one or the other would come to be? Pretend that "no taxation" is expressed by staying home and watching 80% win? The pleasure of paying 80% taxes with the shallow pride that "other people voted for that, not me. I am pure, I have never voted for taxes"?

I think this is an excellent argument, if there were only a single issue in play in the election.   Alas, that is not what we have.    We have foreign policy to be concerned about, for instance. 

This morning President Obama complained of Trump's lack of understanding of foreign policy.   I will say this:  it would be very difficult to for a president to screw up foreign policy any worse than Obama has--whatever his level of knowledge.   

A cold-eyed recognition of this fact blunts many concerns that I would otherwise have about Trump's lack of foreign policy knowledge, his instincts, or his jarring thin-skinnedness (assuming this is a word...). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If someone asked you what color as that car parked across  the street.  You would probably answer  blue or green or some such. If I were asked that question I would say blue or green or whatever  -on the side facing me-.    You appear to jump to conclusions.  I don't. 

A psychologist and a chemist and a mathematician were riding in a train in France. Thru the window they saw a black sheep in a farmer's field.

The psychologist said:  All sheep in France are black.

The chemist said:  Some sheep in France are black.

The mathematician said:  There exists in France at least one field in which there is at least one sheep at least one side of which is black.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a vote were between "We poke out your right eye with a sharp stick, or we poke out your left eye with a sharp stick," I wouldn't vote - at a certain point, a vote becomes a sanction. 

Unless I feel confident that Trump will stand by that list of supreme court nominees, I'll vote for Gary Johnson.  Will Gary Johnson become president (with or without my vote)?   No.  Not a chance.  Then why vote for him?  Because if the other two choices are too awful, I'd prefer to add a tiny bit to the presence of the Libertarian party.  Maybe in this election cycle, where the unfavorables are unbelievably high, the Libertarian party will break 10% in the popular vote.  That would be something significant - not in terms of the next 4 years, but maybe down the road if these two corrupt and disgusting political parties continue their downward spiral of unpalatable offerings.

Please remember, that most of what encourages you to vote for Trump rests upon the judgment that he probably isn't really going to be a fascist, or that he isn't really a progressive, or that he really isn't just a con-man, or that he isn't narcissistic enough to be truly dangerous.  Not much we can do but look, listen, and make our best guess.  What doesn't make any sense is to pretend that guess is something we can be as certain of as tomorrow's sunrise.

If, at the last minute, it turns out that Hillary is going to cream Donald in this election, then I'll probably vote Johnson.  If I'm going to throw my vote away, I'll do it on someone representing mostly good political principles.

If, at the last minute, it turns out that Trump is going to cream Hillary and doesn't need my vote at all, then I might vote Johnson.  If my vote isn't needed in selecting the next president, then why not add that tiny bit to the popularity of the Libertarian party.

If, at the last minute, it might be close, then it goes back to my judgement of whether or not Trump would honor that list of supreme court choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Either Hillary or Trump will be president.

If the election was between 80% taxation rate or 20% taxation, what exactly would be the point of ignoring the fact that one or the other would come to be? Pretend that "no taxation" is expressed by staying home and watching 80% win? The pleasure of paying 80% taxes with the shallow pride that "other people voted for that, not me. I am pure, I have never voted for taxes"?

Jon,

I agree with the others. This is one of the best ways of framing this argument I have seen.

Ayn Rand had this kind of clarity. Here is a quote from her:

Quote

I would like to start this Letter by saying "Good Morning" -- even though I know that it is premature. It may take a long while before we learn whether the event of November 7 was a beautiful morning or the last glow of a beautiful sunset. It is up to men's volition, i.e., up to every one of us, to determine which it will be -- depending on the course we take. But, in either case, it was beautiful.

Do you know who and what Rand was talking about?

She was talking about Richard Nixon and him winning the election.

Richard Nixon!

This quote is the start of The Ayn Rand Letter called "The American Spirit" and dated November 20, 1972. (I read that while I was still at Boston University, shortly before going to Brazil.)

Back then she essentially saw Nixon as a half-assed individualist and McGovern as a full-fledged altruistic statist.

I would not mind if that got transposed to today for ideological purists so they see Trump as a half-assed individualist and Clinton as a full-fledged altruistic statist (with an Alinsky bite and power-lust added for spice).

I don't believe that characterization of Trump, I believe he is a highly moral man, but I don't mind if they do. I can see a case for them thinking this way.

It's hard for me to see any case (other than giving up on America itself in disgust) where a Clinton presidency can be justified ideologically as the lesser of two evils by anyone who loves freedom, and I don't mean that in the normal sense. According to what I mean:

Evil No. 1 (for them) = Voting for Trump.
Evil No. 2 (for them) = Not voting at all or voting for a hopeless candidate and letting Clinton win.

Notice that Rand not only bit the bullet, she was ecstatic with McGovern's defeat. She wasn't thrilled with Nixon's victory (she bitched about him all the time), but she was ringing the bells and singing hallelujah over McGovern's defeat.

Here is what she had said earlier at the Ford Hall Forum in 1972 about voting Libertarian in that same election (the quote is online here).

Quote

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Hillary Clinton is George McGovern on steroids because she will have Supreme Court nominations at her disposal and lots of political competence to manipulate Congress.

Clinton is not just bad. She's worse because she's seasoned.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

If a vote were between "We poke out your right eye with a sharp stick, or we poke out your left eye with a sharp stick," I wouldn't vote - at a certain point, a vote becomes a sanction. 

Unless I feel confident that Trump will stand by that list of supreme court nominees, I'll vote for Gary Johnson.  Will Gary Johnson become president (with or without my vote)?   No.  Not a chance.  Then why vote for him?  Because if the other two choices are too awful, I'd prefer to add a tiny bit to the presence of the Libertarian party.  Maybe in this election cycle, where the unfavorables are unbelievably high, the Libertarian party will break 10% in the popular vote.  That would be something significant - not in terms of the next 4 years, but maybe down the road if these two corrupt and disgusting political parties continue their downward spiral of unpalatable offerings.

Please remember, that most of what encourages you to vote for Trump rests upon the judgment that he probably isn't really going to be a fascist, or that he isn't really a progressive, or that he really isn't just a con-man, or that he isn't narcissistic enough to be truly dangerous.  Not much we can do but look, listen, and make our best guess.  What doesn't make any sense is to pretend that guess is something we can be as certain of as tomorrow's sunrise.

If, at the last minute, it turns out that Hillary is going to cream Donald in this election, then I'll probably vote Johnson.  If I'm going to throw my vote away, I'll do it on someone representing mostly good political principles.

If, at the last minute, it turns out that Trump is going to cream Hillary and doesn't need my vote at all, then I might vote Johnson.  If my vote isn't needed in selecting the next president, then why not add that tiny bit to the popularity of the Libertarian party.

If, at the last minute, it might be close, then it goes back to my judgement of whether or not Trump would honor that list of supreme court choices.

In 2008 your reasoning for not voting against Obama was [paraphrasing] "we haven't hit the bottom yet, people won't wake up 'til we hit bottom".  Same old holier than thou (the entire population of the world) crap.  When you have a goal it takes baby steps, anything else is fantasy.  To you the whole of humanity is an ass you want to see smacked over the head with a 2x4.

Jon: What I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Please remember, that most of what encourages you to vote for Trump rests upon the judgment that he probably isn't really going to be a fascist, or that he isn't really a progressive, or that he really isn't just a con-man, or that he isn't narcissistic enough to be truly dangerous.  Not much we can do but look, listen, and make our best guess.  What doesn't make any sense is to pretend that guess is something we can be as certain of as tomorrow's sunrise.

Steve, when did you stop beating your wife?  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following may not look like an important tweet, but for party unity, I think it is very important. This is the future president singling out Priebus for public praise of a very specific competitive kind--one that reflects directly on his profession.

Priebus already endorsed Trump, but now I think he's going to be burning the midnight oil calling all the Bush folks (read donors) and other former establishment types. I think he's starting to see that Trump will do far more for him than the former party bosses and he's going to do his damnedest to make sure Trump wins.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now