Oh fuck off, you half-assed excuses of vermin give us no evidence of man being responsible for global warming then tell us that scientists all agree on it like they're priests or imams and that disagreeing is blasphemy.

Wct continues to deny any chance of there being diversity in the RNC at all, when there is not just a diversity of ethnicity and gender but also a diversity of ideas. When presented with this, wct said that there was a women candidate who had ideas belonging to a sub-group in the party, which magically makes her not a women.

I would join the debate but I'm not sure what you guys are trying to argue over here...

America has always been different from Europe - and we have almost always been better in most aspects
that is a VERY debatable point, you could probably have a huge argument on that in the OT forum

You clearly lean more to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party,

Of course. I said I'm left of most Democrats. Why wouldn't I favour them as the lesser of two evils?

and you're very smug.

Not smug, bewildered. It boggles my mind how humans are so able to be deluded that they can literally see things diametrically opposite to how they are. If I had never seen it before I wouldn't have believed it. It's astonishing, really. Fascinating.

Also, you talk about qualifications several times. Noone is qualified. Being a governor or senator or mayor helps, but that doesn't qualify you for running a country and making orders, against running bit of a provinz and mostly following orders.

So, according to your theory, no one has ever done a decent job of being a president of the US? Can you not even think of one example? Who's your favourite president?

Not smug, bewildered. It boggles my mind how humans are so able to be deluded that they can literally see things diametrically opposite to how they are. If I had never seen it before I wouldn't have believed it. It's astonishing, really. Fascinating.

It boggles my mind on how a stupid monkey could type such a thing, but I shouldn't say it. That'd be very centrically smug. If you can't understand different ideas, fine, but have the decency to admit it, instead of saying that half the world is wrong. C'mon. That's the kind of thinking that got Earth to the universe's middle.

So, according to your theory, no one has ever done a decent job of being a president of the US? Can you not even think of one example? Who's your favourite president?

It's not a theory, it's a truth - the point of a democracy is that you're qualified if the folk like you. Anything more is limited democracy. Nonqualified folk can do things successfully that they're not qualified for. Qualifications can only make this more likely that they do it successfully. I don't really like most American presidents, I guess someone in the early 1800s.

Edited 2/16/2016 10:57:26

Noone is perfect, and you can only measure by what has happened. For example, 2 is the largest number a laptop would have ever seen, but to us its tiny.

@wtc, just stop arguing with these people, they are never going to accept your logic. At the end of the day, you can show them all the data and in the world, and if it contradicts their beliefs, they are not going to accept it.
Ex: Global warming

That's why I left this thread, and have left the others.

As I've said before in previous threads, I'm not primarily interested in changing the minds of whoever I'm responding to. I *am* interested in that, tangentially, but not primarily. Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous it all is. It's like doing my good deed for the day. I get a wee bit of satisfaction out of doing it. The more crazy they respond, the more interesting and compelling it is for me to point at it and say, "Gosh, that's crazy! Hey everybody, check out this crazy shit over here!"

I've spent years doing this kind of thing with creationists and all sorts of other believers in religions and conspiracy theories and whatnot. This OT forum is actually rather tame compared to that.

But, fundamentally, I do believe that peoples' beliefs influence how they behave, and behaviour has real-world consequences, and one type of such behaviour is how people vote. So I also see it as a kind of public service to illuminate the craziness. For too long people have tried to just ignore it. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually go away when you do that. Then you end up with George W. Bushes as presidents, Tea Parties, global warming denial and filibustering, obstruction of basic social services like health care, and all that. It's not something that should be ignored, IMHO.

If it's not your thing, I totally understand. It can be very frustrating and seem hopeless. But for myself, I've managed to get to a point where I don't expect too much and so I can enjoy the process a lot more.

And just like that....

Oh fuck off, you half-assed excuses of vermin give us no evidence of man being responsible for global warming then tell us that scientists all agree on it like they're priests or imams and that disagreeing is blasphemy.

Wct continues to deny any chance of there being diversity in the RNC at all, when there is not just a diversity of ethnicity and gender but also a diversity of ideas. When presented with this, wct said that there was a women candidate who had ideas belonging to a sub-group in the party, which magically makes her not a women.

Gosh, that's crazy! ;-)

Edited 2/16/2016 11:35:54

If you can't understand different ideas, fine, but have the decency to admit it, instead of saying that half the world is wrong.

Oh, I understand the ideas. That's why I find it hard to understand why people *believe* them.

And, "half the world"? You think Republicans are representative of half the world? Have you really not understood the key point that America's political climate is a huge outlier? Way more right-wing than most of the rest of the developed world. Way more religious. Way more deluded.

However, if I interpret your phrase more literally, then actually I do agree that "half the world is wrong". I'd say the majority of the world is wrong. Nearly all of it in fact. Myself included. It's by understanding this that I'm motivated to investigate reality and find out good ways to become 'less wrong' in my worldview. If only more people would do this.

It's not a theory, it's a truth - the point of a democracy is that you're qualified if the folk like you. Anything more is limited democracy. Nonqualified folk can do things successfully that they're not qualified for. Qualifications can only make this more likely that they do it successfully. I don't really like most American presidents, I guess someone in the early 1800s.

I'm not asking about perfection. Do you really believe that no president has done a decent job since the 1800s? Not one?

Clearly, if someone can do a decent job at something, they must have been, as a simple matter of fact, qualified for that job. I'm having a hard time seeing how that could *not* be the case. Perhaps they just got extremely lucky and things worked out okay, despite them being inept? I suppose, in principle; but in practice the job of a president has too many contingencies, too many decisions that have to be made, for mere blind luck to pass muster. In a sitcom, sure, but in real life? Nah.

Sarah Palin would have been disastrous as a president. Same for the vast majority of the Republican nominees. That's the whole point. Dancing around the choice of words to express that fact won't actually avoid or change that fact.

gosh that's crazy

No not at all, a bit anger-fueled but spot on. You were proven wrong on diversity and now you argue that Sarah Palin is awful, and therefore the Republican Party is not diverse. I guess that means that the Democratic Party is even less diverse when you only have two people with a chance and one is a flip-flopping Serb/Iraqi/Libyan killing whore.

gosh that's crazy

No not at all, a bit anger-fueled but spot on. You were proven wrong on diversity and now you argue that Sarah Palin is awful, and therefore the Republican Party is not diverse. I guess that means that the Democratic Party is even less diverse when you only have two people with a chance and one is a flip-flopping Serb/Iraqi/Libyan killing whore.

Hey everybody, check out this crazy shit over here! lol ;-D

I'd choose Sarah Palin any day over Hillary Clinton. She might not be the sharpest pen in the drawer, but at least she's not an enabler of a serial rapist, who simultaneously claims to be the defender of womens' rights. Tho I probably have no chance of convincing you of that, since you want more diversity in the oval office. It's the current year, so we need our first enabler president!

I'm gonna try to get us all back on topic :)

I agree. But I have news for you. Sarah Palin *was* their pick for 'diversity' when they knew they'd be facing Obama.

You keep referring to those choosing the candidates (either VP or Presidential) as one distinct entity with a collective mind, which is a false narrative. Again (I said this before so I don't know why I'm repeating this) - REPUBLICAN VOTERS DON'T CHOOSE THE VP. You may not understand that political phenomenon because in Europe, the Party Leadership has control of everything from who's on the ballot in which constituency to who is going to be in the Cabinet. Republican voters chose McCain in 2008. McCain chose Palin to be his VP. This is a very important distinction, the RNC and the voting base has little control over who is made the VP. McCain was using his own subjective judgement methods to choose a VP and nor the Republican leadership nor the voters had a decision in this. So you're wrong. Palin was not our pick for diversity. In fact, you have no way of knowing why McCain chose Palin unless he publicly stated which I doubt he did because politicians are not that honest.

You keep referring to those choosing the candidates (either VP or Presidential) as one distinct entity with a collective mind, which is a false narrative.

No. I don't. That's all in your imagination. You keep interpreting my words in bizarre ways and then insisting that I mean them the way you imagine them. But if you actually parse my sentences according to English grammar, you'd see your imagination has run wild.

I'd choose Sarah Palin any day over Hillary Clinton.

I rest my case in regards to craziness.

The 'diversity' people running for nomination this election are almost all just a bunch of Sarah Palins. They are the *best* the Republicans can come up with, and they all suck, about as much as Palin sucked. That's because the Republican party as a whole doesn't have a big enough pool of 'diverse' people to be able to pick the cream of the crop. There's not enough crop to have cream to begin with -- they have to make do with the dregs.

You keep saying that everyone running for the GOP nomination are "Sarah Palins". What does that even mean? That's not an adjective or a noun last time I checked. This is just more evidence of you imposing subjective value-added judgement on the Republican Party because you fundamentally hate them. In fact, I would contend that NO minority candidate that runs as a Republican Candidate would get your seal of approval because they are inherently a "Sarah Palin" (which I assume is a euphemism for crazy) for supporting the Republicans. Would Condoleezza Rice get your approval? (Please answer the questions I ask, since you tend to evade them). Would Nikki Haley get your approval? How about Tim Scott? How about Neel Kashkari? How about Mia Love? Are any of these "minority" candidates not "Sarah Palins"?

Its actually quite insulting that you call Ted Cruz - a Princeton and Harvard graduate, a State Attorney General, and a Senator - part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Marco Rubio - a US Senator and former Speaker of the Florida Legislature, who's dad was a poor bartender - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Bobby Jindal - a US Governor, Rhodes Scholar, and Brown University Graduate - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Ben Carson - a world class Neurosurgeon and Yale University graduate - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party.

At the end of the day, numbers don't lie. The Republican field for the Presidency is at least two times more diverse than the Democrats. Not only do the Democrats have no problem voting for old white dudes and one old, white, and rich women they have no problem consistently attacking anybody who doesn't share a 100% of their ideological views. As I said before (which you selectively again avoided to comment on) the Democrats represent the most ideologically narrow group of opinions in the US and have no ounce of "diversity" where it really matters...in thoughts and opinions.

When the Democrats weren't even trying to come up with a 'diversity' candidate, they got Hillary Clinton

Of course the Democrats are trying to pick a diverse candidate!! What's wrong with you. Hillary Clinton has been trying to be the first women president since 2008. She's been playing the women card this whole election. Democrats purposefully try to appeal to minority groups by funding minority campaigns. The only problem they're facing now is that their party is more and more being led by old white dudes (Dick Durban, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer) and they have absolutely no "bench" that they can call upon to run for Senate and the Presidency. All their "diversity" is stuck in the House of Representatives and they have no chance of getting high enough up on the Democratic White Ladder to get a shot at being in a more powerful office.

Edited 2/16/2016 15:33:07

I rest my case in regards to craziness.

Yeah, not wanting an enabler of a serial rapist and an overall incompetent politician as president is crazy, isn't it?

"Have you really not understood the key point that America's political climate is a huge outlier? Way more right-wing than most of the rest of the developed world. Way more religious. Way more deluded."

Is that why we have the largest economy? The greatest military? The most freedom (not counting the anarchy kind)? The best movie industry? The best tech/pharma industry?