Talk Elections

We have a comedy institute. We have an "oh snap" center. I think we should have a place where we put those posts that just make us shake our head and ask ourselves if the person just seriously posted that.

Please leave debate out of this. If you really must argue over something, please do so in the original topic.

We needed this thread. I was considering doing one myself (calling it "stupidity sh*tmine") but forgot about it.

Absurdity and stupidity aren't the same thing, Antony.

I had made a thread like that but it didn't last very long.

The level has risen and will continue to arise as the election approaches......but let's not derail Mr. Kemp's brilliant thread.

Why do we need threads documenting J.J., krazen, pbrower, CARLHAYDEN and jfern's posting histories?

What is wrong with jfern?

Another entry!

So we can look back and see how right they were and how wrong we were of course.

Love it. ;D

Especially because the 1st guy would implement the opposite policies of the 2nd one...

You make no sense.

I think he wanted this so I will comply.

While it doesn't fit the description of this thread, pretty much any thread that jmfcst starts from his mobile turns into a deluge of absurdity.

that's because a certain pillsbury dough boy of ours has to go and wallow in my mobile threads as if they were his private mobile fecal pen.

If BRTD and Naso ever do a Vulcan mind meld together...it could really screw up the galaxy.

What would happen if Perry were President w/ 60 GOP Senate Seats?

I'm curious, but where did you ever hear Perry talk about the military?  I frankly have not heard the GOP talking about it.

I think the 60 senate seats would say more about it than Perry.

Aside from Graham and McCain, I have not heard anyone even suggest higher military spending/activity.

Nobody in the GOP has discussed a reduction, either.  Perry + 60 GOP seats sounds like the perfect combo for more defense spending.

I think the implication was that we would be bankrupt, but then again it's JJ...

Ah yes. The GOP: The Party of Defense Cuts.

::)

I would not be too sure about that.  The only two Republicans I've heard this year even hinting for more military spending were McCain and Graham.  There were Republicans (and yes, some Democrats) that complained about the cost of Libya (even though it was relatively inexpensive).*

The massive defense increase might exist in the minds of you, Opebo, and Paul Kemp, but not in anyone actually running.  It's east to create a straw man.

In all seriousness, I have yet to hear any of the R's talking about military increases; I have heard them say government spends too much.  If someone can find one of them talking about I'll be interested.

*Just for the record, I thought Obama handled Libya correctly.

Predicting that a Republican president and congress would cut military spending is equivalent to predicting that a Democratic president and congress would outlaw unions or withdraw from the UN.

No US President is going to [substantially] cut military spending, outlaw unions, or withdraw from the UN. That's not the way the world works.

Lief, things change, like this:

1.  There are new priorities.  The candidates are saying "The federal government is too big."  The tea party movement is saying that.  Part of that government is the military.  Not increasing it, or decreasing it, fits with that philosophy.  I really do not recall any R presidential candidate saying "More money for defense."

2.  Obama has shown that bigger is not necessarily better.  Bin Laden was not taken down by a large force; he was in a county where we did not have a combat presence.  Abd al-Rahman was taken out by a drone strike.  Libya is being fought without any troops on the ground, relatively inexpensively.

3.  The R's agreed to the debt ceiling deal that, at least potentially, includes defense cuts, to the point Panetta (D) is complaining about them.

We might be seeing a change in how both parties look at military spending.

Posting directly into the Deluge, I see. How PoMo.

Well, the topic might be more interesting in one of the categories.

The assumption that if the R's get in, there will be big defense expenditures, might not be accurate.  The thought that no president would at least limit further expenditures might not be either; potentially Obama has, with the support a Republican House. 

Because those Republicans didn't really care about the cost, they cared about opposing the President.  The Republicans are not serious about cutting defense spending.  Any mention of it was quickly silenced in the debt ceiling negotiations.

You assume they tell the truth.  How very foolish for a man as experienced as yourself.

You obviously missed this part:

3.  The R's agreed to the debt ceiling deal that, at least potentially, includes defense cuts, to the point Panetta (D) is complaining about them.

And this:

The assumption that if the R's get in, there will be big defense expenditures, might not be accurate.  The thought that no president would at least limit further expenditures might not be either; potentially Obama has, with the support a Republican House.

We may be seeing a different approach to military spending, no matter who gets elected. 

When you sit a hole watching Hannity, it's possible to believe you live a world without any prosperity.

Exhibit A

I suppose J. J. posting directly into here is like when Naso posts directly into the Goldmine, it's against standard protocol but appropriate in this case.

Stop spamming the thread with your angry rabbling, and post a quote that is absurdly stupid. 

     So, what differences would exist in their foreign policies?

Ah, I just did, King's post.

This is his method of personal attack. It doesn't matter to him whether or not he makes a fool out of himself in the process.

So you actually think Kucinich and Paul would implement the same policies ? ???

Still waiting for for Paul Kemp to explain the difference.

What? I didn't say they would be different. I posted it in here based on the idea that their policies would completely solve our foreign policy problems.

This wouldn't be that absurd if it came from almost anyone else . . .

Ah, now eventually you do plan to have absurdity on your, on your absurdity tour, right?...Hello?

()

You're welcome to contribute it if you wish. The people shall determine its value.

but haven't I...

     Once again, you ignore the specific kind of policies that Napoleon was referring to. I know the English word is completely different from the French word, but I assume you still know it. :)

Surely, someone speaking foreign would be expected to understand the word?

     I was trying to give him credit here, albeit in a rather idiosyncratic fashion. I'm not seriously suggesting that he wouldn't know the meaning of the word "foreign".

So you also failed to understand my post...

OK, my bad. I misread. I'm not an expert on Kucinich and Paul's foreign policy planks, but if there is an issue where they aren't necessarily diametrally opposed, it might be foreign policy.

     I suspected as much. For what it matters, they are both ardent opponents of foreign wars. Given Napoleon's proposal of the End to Imperialism Act, I am pretty sure that's what he was getting at.

There's not much to fail to understand there. Your statement was pretty simple, no matter how you want to spin it.

Fixing our mistakes would in no way completely solve our foreign policy problems. It would be a good first step, sure, but for you to equate the two leads me to believe you failed to understand my post. The other option would be a failure to understand how foreign policy works.

Uhh...

Couching an accusation of racism qualifies, eh? 

Actually that is a funny post. I should take him off of ignore

I was about to post it. ;D

I did.......he's much funnier than I thought.  He had to dig deep to troll that post of mine since it was so early on in the thread.  I'm honored!  :)

Oh absolutely!

Thanks for posting that Link quote, Gramps.

This thread had deluged into awful tedium.

Thanks for posting that Link quote, Gramps.

This thread had deluged into absurd tedium.

(Corrected your post, King.)

(whisper with me now, kids, Grumpy is a racist!  shhhh. quietly, please)

from the same post:

Naso's post and htmldon's response . . .

Wait, wait, wait. In the same post, the guy accuses a poster of being racist and describes what he considers to be "races" ?

An Australian friend of mine told me yesterday that the thinks sarcasm in Sweden is more subtle than in many other countries leading to frequent misunderstandings. I think this supports that theory. ;)

First post:


Second series, a page later:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140412.0

DaNile isn't just a river in Egypt.

This one actually hurts my eyes...

It is hilarious, especially considering the target of his accusation.

Then again, coming from the King of Self-Righteous Land it shouldn't be surprising.

That, and he considers both "Asian" and "Asia" to be races.

I'm embarassed I didn't even catch that.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140643.0

Not everyone on that site is American. Although if he's referencing baseball, he probably is.

Yes, milhouse24 watches too much Hannity.

The D's have not led on the generic ballot for more than two years.

Grow up Antonio. Find someone else to pick on for no reason.

You kinda had it coming, considering you started the "exchange" with this insult: (FYI, I personally don't find calling someone a socially conservative a bad thing, but I could certainly see why someone like Antonio would take it as one)

Another gem from the Master of Absurdity.

Considering this is the day after Turner winning NY-9, this take the award for the absurdity and cluelessness.

My post was not childish, insulting, or inaccurate as an assessment of his leanings.

All of this.....including his obsession with being inferior to J.J. (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=3373;sa=showPosts)

I feel for Sanchez.  He obviously has even more extreme relatives who have made this kind of impression on him.

Our new source of comedy from Oklahoma :

It's interesting that this Nazi has a red avatar.

He has BushOK's avatar, no less.

Anyway, it's been a while since we had a bona fide Nazi around these parts.

The interesting thing is that, aside from that post, there's no indication that he's a Nazi. Indeed, his only other remotely interesting post is this one:

I would call Stark sock, but he does seem to have a genuine interest in Germany. 

The way he writes suggests that he's an actual German speaker.

I didn't see some of those posts (or didn't read them). Well, rules is rules (especially when I wrote them). And they'll remain here, in this thread, even when, you know.

I feel for him. There's no brown avatar available after all.

This one should be good:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=141022.0

Topic: "2008: John F. Kennedy, Jr runs for president."

Yes, it is absurd that Ben would make a post that adds some value to the forum by stating a correct truth.

Classic Naso

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=141194.0

     A classic example of assuming too much:

you've been blubbed.

How so?

It was Giovanni, not real officepark.

I don't know who that is either way.

The phrase "blubbed" refers to Van Der Blubb actually imitating the member. For example, Phil has been "blubbed."

Context needed

I'm not really sure where this goes, so I'll just put it here:

Context:

This belongs in more of a self-parody goldmine or whatever but I guess this is closest:

Guess who's talking!

That's rich coming from a confederate.

Lots of Sanchez posts!

Oh, you disagree ? You'd better remember this next time you post there : https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34903.0

Yeah it's totally the same thing dude.

Your comparison is so absurd I don't even know how to respond. I suppose it's like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu.

Yeah, I don't think Hitler played golf :P

Regarding housing

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=141886.0

And I stand by this.

Did you mean to say illegal, instead of legal? Or else your statement doesn't make sense.

This guy is so annoying.

You're free not to read my posts (ignore).

Yes, anyone with at least half a brain knows that the Supreme Court will be the last stand for democracy in the United States.

Yeah I definitely meant to say illegal. Whoops.

Why do you post here?

I'd like to know what it was I bought that was a dollar more expensive than the one BigSkyBob bought.

Well first, I meant to say illegal in the original post. Second, because I'm a 15 year old kid who wants to know more about politics. Thanks.

Phil isn't an extremist.

I believe this is the official Deluge™ that J.J. had predicted all along.

Statistics are fun.  Apt for abuse on what they mean

Rio de Janeiro state: population 16million
Iraq population: 34 million

Murder rate in rate in Rio de Janeiro state: 39 out of 100,000¹
Approximate murders in 2010: 6240

Civilian deaths in Iraq in 2010: 4045²

QED: Iraq is much safer than Rio de Janeiro state

1. http://www.economist.com/node/11975437

2. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Every thing Sanchez posts here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142279.0

Please.  This doesn't even compare to his Ron Paul fetish on debate commentary threads.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142080.msg3052554#msg3052554

J. J. on black people:

I'm 12 years old and what is this

that was a prescient insight, not absurd, ignorant, or bad.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142582.0

True story

What an awful thread. Can we get a mod to delete that?

EDIT: Oh, no, we can't, because it's on that board. Too bad.

I removed it.

Certainly the worst thread I've seen since I started here.  I'm almost embarrassed that my name is even mentioned in it :P

     What was that thread, if no one minds telling me?

Yeah, I'm curious about that as well. :P

What board? Nym can delete threads on any board now, doncha'know.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's not even worth reading. It was a screenshot of a portion of the IRC chat followed by 20-odd posts forming a stream of nonsense that appeared to be an inside joke or something. Apparently the topic was Conservatarian actually being Hamilton, but it was just a train wreck of a thread. I'm dumber for having seen it. It was in The Atlas board.

I'm not going to even bother quoting it, but just refer to BigSkyBob's proposal in the Ohio redistricting thread and his straight-faced defense of it. I mean that makes pbrower's airhub theory, "age wave" and "approval plus six" stuff look like top notch quality political analysis.

Basically the thread was just me and whoever Conservatarian was (Roachambeau, Kyle, Jewcon, whoever) exchanging...insults? Not exactly sure what to call them.

Any chance of a synopsis? Because if it's crazy enough I must just read it...

He proposed that if the current hideous gerrymander gets challenged in a referendum the GOP should try to pass a new map that consists of a majority black district around Cleveland/Akron and the rest of the state being a huge 15-member multi-seat district and then continued to argue with a straight face that this is no different from multi-member State House districts in states like New Hampshire and West Virginia and that it would not violate federal law.

ROFLMAO

I have no idea how this connection is made:

I can't believe that people actually think like this.

Really? Where have you been the last decade?

he's been enjoying the freedom of Sharia law...and each Tuesday, he gets together with his Christian neighbors and together they run a local food bank

Really, everything that jmfcst has said in that thread has struck me as absurd and ignorant, though to be fair I know that he feels the same about what I've said.

as I said, arguments for waiting out Iran are viable, but claiming [SWAT teams are a "sin" but that sin is sometimes justifiable] is pure deception.  Once thing you'll discover about me is that I HATE attempts to distort language in an blatant attempt to piss down my back.

And when it comes from Christians, it is ALWAYS wrapped in some smiley face “why can’t we be friends” BS.  And when I say ALWAYS, I mean always.  The atheist don’t do it, rather it is always some Christian attempting to peddle BS that thinks wrappering their BS in “love” somehow is going to fool me.  It just makes it more sickening.

Deception is the antithesis of love.  Many have attempted it in the past and I’ve always called them out for it, and you are no exception.

People who think that only slightly unconventional uses of language are 'distortions' have only their own simplistic view of language to blame. I never said that sin is 'justifiable' (I used words like 'understandable', 'tragic', 'forgivable', and even 'necessary' in response to an absurdly extreme hypothetical that nobody asked you about, always conditioning this by trying to point out the fallenness of the world only to realise that you think that this excuses your own love of crudeness and cruelty, but at no point 'justifiable', a word that you insisted on using after I tried repeatedly to clarify this point) and if you keep saying that I did I'm seriously considering reporting you.


If you find it half as sickening as I find your aggressively ignorant, arrogant, in-group out-group stupidity and complacency in the face of a sick and fallen world, then that's more sickeningness than anybody should have to deal with.


Gee, I would've thought that the antithesis of love involved things like demonizing entire populations and describing atomic strikes against civilian targets as completely acceptable and decent.

Calling people out for deception when they weren't trying to deceive anyone and kept trying to steer you in directions that explained the points they were trying to make better than they could, to no avail because of the predetermined remorselessness of your own assumptions and obsessions, is called bullying, sweetie.

Northern California

Thankfully, "understand" can be used in the sense of "believe to know", rendering the sentence (though not the sentiment) sensible.

It's more the second part of that statement (after the "and") that makes it so ridiculous.

1) saying sin is necessary and understandable and justifiable is NOT "unconventional uses of language", rather it is a clear and direct statement
2) and I havent been using absurd extreme hypotheticals, the examples I used are every day occurances in the world of law enforcement

if you want to defend your view that sin is justifiable, then go on the religion board and start a thread and give us some examples where scripture justifies sin...otherwise shut up, because until you can show me some examples, I'm not going to listen to it for it is contrary to everything I have read in my bible

Why would I want to start a thread to defend a view that I don't hold and never said I held, you blithering idiot?

It's amazing to me that somebody who's apparently intelligent enough to run an IT company and teach kids about astronomy is simultaneously mouth-breathingly moronic enough to be somehow completely unaware of 'necessary evils', a concept which is so ubiquitous as for the phrase to be a cliche, morally craven enough to deal with his unfamiliarity with this basic concept by gleefully embracing the way a world that he himself believes is fallen, ruined, and dishonored operates, uncurious enough to completely ignore repeated exhortations to actually read up on an idea that he doesn't understand, and intellectually dishonest enough to continue to misrepresent and demonize a debating opponent's position after it's been made clear to him over and over again that that's what he is doing. Have you even heard of the principle of double effect, or do you just not care about any form of theory or reason other than your own sophomoric, defanged interpretation of the Bible?

Lets provide context:

Where is all of this coming from?  Weren’t you the one who said “killing in self-defense is a sin, but sometimes sin is justifiable”?

I’m simply stating four clear facts:
1)   Sin is clearly defined in the bible:  “sin is lawlessness”…meaning sin is acting in a way that is contrary to God’s laws
2)   No where in the bible is sin ever justified
3)   No where in the bible is killing in self defense remotely considered sin
4)   No where in the bible is repentance remotely necessary for soldiers who kill others during war (and there are a lot of examples of killing during war in the bible)

Killing in self-defense is NOT contrary to God’s laws…therefore it is NOT a sin…therefore repentance isn’t remotely necessary.  If you don’t like people disagreeing with your twisted definitions, then use proper definitions.

There's not a single kill in the history of the world that wasn't in "self-defense." Even an insane man like Manson and the gang had to frame justification before they did what they did.

I wasn't using the Manson definition of self-defense...rather I used the example of an every day SWAT mission, and he still believed SWAT members sin and needed to repent after killing someone.  It would seem to me that if your occupation included activity you know ahead of time is defined as sin, then repentance would mean finding another occupation.

But there is no resolution to this argument because his definition are contradictory.

Stop.

One of my favorite contributors and a surefire first ballot Atlas Deluge Hall of Famer:

If you know you are about to commit an act that is sinful, the correct response is to not act, not prepare a canned, disingenious "I'm sorry" speech to God for when after you're done.

Please stop.  You're making too much sense.

Oh, don't worry, I know that. He was throwing extreme situations at me to see what would stick and my point, which didn't change even after he moved the goalposts repeatedly and started selectively misinterpreting what I was saying, was that the only situation in which killing is remotely acceptable by any stretch of the imagination was when it's an unintended consequence of trying to accomplish something else, because as you said if you're using 'self-defense' however defined as your lodestar for when ending a human life suddenly is magically not wrong any more you have to deal with the twisted definitions of 'self-defense' that everybody has used to rationalize their pointlessly cruel actions.

Only when it's an unintended consequence is it understandable (a word which has a different meaning to 'justifiable', which is a word that he, not I, is insisting on using), and even then if it's a foreseen consequence it's still a venal thing to do. Sin isn't solely limited to planned-out, malicious acts. It's much more insidious than that. This is a completely normal and received interpretation and I'm frankly amazed that jmfcst seems entirely and willfully unaware of it.

Also there is more to any religion than the plaintext of a scripture, particularly if it's being interpreted by a buffoonish idiot.

ok, this is moving to the Religion Board

Probably a good idea, though I've created a separate thread for the part of the discussion that I'm more interested in if that's okay with you.

I haven't read a single word of what you guys are talking about but I'm sure it doesn't belong here.

Ditto.
Then again I've not read any other posts in this entire thread either.

my posts NEVER belong here  ;)

All of jmfcst's posts obviously belong in here.

sorry, didn't catch that, you're breaking up....can you call back using a land line?  :P

Out, both of you.

Context (of course opebo is a context)

Just when you thought wormyguy couldn't get dumber.

I love this new guy.

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be funny in it's stupidity.  The funny might not have worked. 

(though I did giggle a little at the PEW PEW PEW part because it reminded me of Troy and Abed on Community last week)

I could easily put it in the Goldmine too.

Community hasn't really been working for me since last December, but the Inspector Spacetime bits are still pretty great.

Inspector Spacetime is always hillarious, but yeah, this season hasn't been as good as the first two.....last couple of weeks have been getting better though.  Still it's streets ahead of Big Bang Theory, which has turned from "meh" to "suck" this season.

Inspector Spacetime is maybe my favorite running joke in anything ever.

Has this nonsense been posted here? Because wtf...

That argument doesn't help Wonkish... because he is no longer a patient of stupid.  He is a willing consumer of stupid.

This post seems like the best place to share some stories...I'll tell you fellas about aguy I used to supervise when we were building a subdivision.  His name was Peter McCloud but we all just called him Queefy Pete.......don't ask why! Well one day Queefy Pete goes in to a new construciton to inspect the master bath plumbing. Turns out he went into the house and some gal who was touring the community thought it was the model house and was in there doing her business!!!  Well half an hour later Queefy Pete comes back to the office where I was and turns out he railed her bare ass on the bathroom sink!  More later, time for some politics.

It seems we no longer have the need to mine from elsewhere on the forum for purposes of this thread.

We're through the looking-glass here, people.

Love the irony :

Very nice.

I remember a time when this could have gone in a comedy goldmine.  Alas, any act will grow stale if maintained too long without being changed.

Dude, its just basic strategy.

Well, that's certainly in contention for dumbest thing ever posted on this forum.

I seriously thought it was sarcastic when I saw it, and apparently so did Al.  I just can't imagine thinking that way.

Politico on Obama's 2012 prospects -

CaDan can read your mind! Also, he doesn't know how to quote.

This is how Wonkish1 convinces people.

He's like a combination of CARLHAYDEN and Libertas.

Your way of convincing people is...my subjective opinion is fact. No my subjective opinion is fact. My subjective opinion is fact, damn it!

What do you expect someone to say after its very clear that not only is your subjective opinion not fact it is very far off from someone that literally doesn't have a clue!


Now I'm actually going to quote your statement calling Prime Minister Martin an economic conservative as a great example of the ignorance mentioned in this threads title.

That is hilariously ignorant and perfect for this thread.

So now you're just self-archiving them directly in here, then?

Has the Deluge thread officially gone PoMo?

It's true though.

Just because you say it does not make it true. Nothing said before the age of 18 is true.

Nothing I say is true because I'm under 18? Okay.

You're a valuable poster and you make this forum so much more enjoyable.

This back and forth might just rival the Keystone Phil-Flyers arguments in terms of stupidity. Carry on.

Here's one from Badger doesn't even realize that he completely contradicted himself within a couple sentences.

'Vent my spleen' is a common figure of speech, Gustaf.

I think you missed the absurdity.

No, misdirection is a form of retort, and there you have it!

Opebo and Gustaf are like the two church ladies who can't stand each other and are always bickering over whose jello salad is better (Opebo's cuz it has fruits and mayonnaise in it... Gustaf just made plain gelatin and put hunks of soured fish in it).

Every post CARLHAYDEN has made in this thread from about this page on: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=139461.90

Fixed

Silly rabbit....  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=144222.msg3106183#msg3106183

This is why it annoys me when dead0man calls everyone who disagrees with him an anti-Semite; real anti-Semitism exists, and it's really weird.

Really?  Everyone....that disagrees with me...I call an anti-Semite....really?  This crush you have is getting creepy again.

I didn't choose to click "show" on that post and missed the turn into explicit wingnuttery.

It's amazing, isn't? Not only does he believe that the War On Christmas is real, he also thinks that it is the result of a Jewish Conspiracy.

Yikes!

Oh dear. He should really keep himself to the Redistricting board.

Hackish and spinnish as he is, he has valuable contributions there occasionally.

And there was also this:

I don't see any issue with the first paragraph of that...

"I would think Jewish Economists would recognize the importance of Christmas." has some issues.

This man's ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.

Congratulations soon to be Subscriber number 3.

You think they wouldn't?

The sentence would belong into any rebuttal of the bizarro theory the thread this is from (which I shall not venture into) appears to be about.

Also:
happens to be plain fact, too. :P

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145092.0

It would have avoided having W as President.

That thread is the most fun I've had in a while. Sad, isn't it?

Kevin undercovers Gingrich victory strategy!

This guy's brain performs its tasks poorly.

Damn your fast ;).

Got another one:

I just can't believe he said that.

Click for context.

Just what

 

The brilliant thing about this is that not only is there someone who thinks that Barack Obama is more left-wing than Dilma Rousseff, but that he doesn't even consider it close.

Well, it's Wonkish.

Fox News has really done a number on the poor kid...

precisely my point in another thread where the self-satisfied little enpty-heads are enjoying poo-pooing poor old North Korea (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=144914.msg3129691#msg3129691) - most americans are just as 'mind-controlled' as any North Korean.  This Wonk is a great example.

LOL the hilarious part is that you completely gave up any attempt to defend your position. Again don't expect a 11 year old kid(like you) to ever go into any detail.

Way to give up and then broadcast it to more people, LOL!

Opebo its quite easy for me to use "mind control"(I mean how stupid of a notion is that) on you given how much I can get you to run around in circles and argue with yourself. If I ever want to screw with you for my own amusement its pretty easy.

Obama's socialism is just as real as Wonkish1's intelligence.

Look Wonkish, if you make a post that's just plain silly there's no real point in anyone trying to refute it. Clearly you've decided that Obama's a socialist - more left-wing than the socialist President of Brazil, even - and nothing's going to change your mind. I lack the bug that drives some people to attempt arguing with you, and don't have the time or energy to engage with this third-rate hackery even if I did.

Incidentally, I may be ten years old (or whatever age you've decided I am) but at least I don't post elaborate fantasies in which I'm employed as a highly-paid financial wizard. *cough*


I know, I can't believe it. I'm so embarassed. Truely this is an episode of self-immolation for the ages.

EDIT: From weeks of observation - a template for every single Wonkish post, for public use:

That's great little buddy, but the mind control I was talking about isn't one exersized by one insignificant nobody over another, but one exersized by the whole society from the hour of our birth - you and I have both been subjected to quite similar brain washing.

LOL! Oh okay, buddy!

No you just don't know much about the subject so that is why you aren't going to try to refute it. To do so would just show even more people how clueless you are.

So what makes Dilma a socialist and Obama not then? Because I think the facts posted above make a pretty strong case that Dilma is to the right of Obama today. Or do just prefer to talk in platitudes without any real points to make?

Ask Beet, Gustaf, and Clarence whether or not they believe I work in finance. They will laugh at your wishful thinking bull$hit given the conversations we've had.


Well you didn't defend a position so yeah your just advertising to folks that you gave up. You can do that if you want. Just pointing it out!

And my posts on here have carried a hell of a lot more factual information than yours have. My tone aside I wouldn't try to criticize because it would make it even more clear how little you contribute.

Thanks for proving my point once again :)

We are in fact aware that there's a different historical, cultural, and economic situation, just in general, in Brazil to the one in the United States, right?

That's ridiculous. Every country is exactly the same as America.

Very much so.

If we are going to look at every country politics with narrow glasses of American politics, like nothing else exists, then I suspect an typical European Social Democrat is, in fact, a baby-eating Khmer Rouge?

Cute! Funny how I legitimately wonder about your intelligence enough to ponder whether you even picked up on the sarcasm.

You need to develop an ability to make sacrastic remark first. Then we'll talk, buddy.

I for one believe Wonkish works in Finance. He seems both stupid and smug enough for that sort of background.

I don't dispute that and we have to also add political situation as well. Obama is limited on what he can pass. So do you judge a person based on what they can pass or what they want to pass.

Right now Dilma is in the process of bringing her party considerably more to the center. Obama gets ticked because 60 Dem senators weren't liberal enough for him.

Dilma has proclivities towards allowing the free market to take a greater chunk of the economy while increasing or keeping stable the amount of transfer payments by utilizing the private sector deliver on them. Obama prefers using the public sector to administer, manage, and control the transfer payments and to even in a few instances(student loans, automakers, to some extent banking, to some extent healthcare, etc.) take over parts or all of an industry.

In this particular case "Workers Party" and "Democratic Party" are deceiving. The labels don't point to who is more left than the other, but the records, beliefs, positions, etc. do!

Oh $hit I was right to wonder if you did. Wow, admitting your to slow to pick up on it isn't helping your case!

Gee there's another personal attack. I say that word directed at a person directly and I get points, yet look at how much you aren't even worried about getting mod'ed.

This comes off of being called a d*ck just a couple days ago.

So Wonkish "doesn't understand the culture" of Brazil when he states that Obama's positions are to the left of Dilma Rouseff's (factually accurate), but when certain types compare US politics to foreign countries and say sh!t like "Obama would be a Tory and Michelle Bachmann would be a BNP supporter!" (which are, actually in this case, laughably false), they clearly have a wonderful understanding of the respective cultures of both America and whatever country they are comparing it too.

Feel free to report me if you really feel insulted.

(Though strictly speaking I said 'seem', so really that's only about your online persona, not about 'you yourself', and all that stuff, you know, but yeah seriously, feel free to report me.)

Maybe I'm not as pathetic as some people on here in reporting every time someone tries to "hurt my feelings." And "seem" or not I've been infracted for much less. I've twice got nailed for it being "implied".

Posting directly into the Deluge, I see. Good work. Saves time for the rest of us.

I'm not particularly interested in either the original discussion or the ensuing bitchfest, but I'll note that I always considered it poor form to exit a discussion to post the opponent's replies in one of the mines.

Records and positions don't necessarily perfectly reflect beliefs, though. Dilma's strategy is similar to that pursued by various European socialist parties in the 1960s, and I sincerely hope you wouldn't consider Obama to the left of them. Brazil's economy has also been, relative to expectations, outperforming that of the United States for some time now; Obama's policies are those of somebody in charge of a country that's been in more-or-less-permanent crisis mode for years (hence the bailouts if nothing else). Dilma's aren't.

Dilma isn't a socialist technocrat. She is a welfare capitalist. They are different things. Socialist technocrats believed that they could deduce all of economic behavior down to a single formula that rested primarily on government spending. A welfare capitalist would prefer to just put as much as they can in the hands of private enterprise(including the administration of welfare itself), but make sure that transfer payments to the underprivileged stay the same or rise.

You can tell the reason why she is this way today is because she got a reputation in Lula's administration as someone who could get things done. When others came up short she delivered. And the reason why she got things done was because she relied on private firms instead of government bureaucrats to carry out the things she wanted. It has been out of that experience that has formed a lot of her views.

In the case of Obama there is no way he would ever let any state function be privatized. Its antithetical to his belief system. And that is regardless of the way the economy is doing here or there.

Lastly, Brazil isn't just kicking our a$$ in growth "relative to expectations" they are in fact just literally kicking our a$$ regardless of expectations. The reason of course has been the 'China bid' for iron ore of which is now slowing down. Brazil's situation is about to change and we'll see pretty quickly whether or not Dilma will start acting like Barack. I wouldn't hold your breath though.

Somehow I doubt that any serious theorist on the left has ever done this.

I agree.  I do find it quite believable, though I had always heard that such people 'worked 18 hour days'; thus his presence here casts doubt on either the 'hard working' myth about the financier, or his claim to be one.

Then again isn't he in Wisconsin?  I think the only 'finance' people in a state like that are insurance salesmen.

Well you doubted wrong! To the extent that the politicians just listened to those people instead of were those people is a different matter. But it is in fact true.

could you name one instance of these socialist technocrats and their single formula and etc.?  because it sounds awesome to me.  reminds me of the last paragraph or so of Part I of Brothers Karamazov, where Father Paissy tells Alyosha that scientists have only studied the parts but ignored the whole..

I don't work in I-Banking(those are your consistent 18 hour day people) which is sell side. I work on the buy side which is very different. When I showed up at my firm, which is a small boutique firm, I consistently put in about 70 hour weeks. After the first couple years things calmed down considerably and now it usually averages about ~40 territory, but for the last several months my workload has dropped off a cliff. Its starting to pick up a little bit now though. And there are a few events we are looking to and when they happen you probably wont be seeing much of me on here really at all.

I'm not commenting on where I live as it relates to Wisconsin or not. I can assure you the city I work in has more than 1 boutique financial firm.

Here's one! ()

He's just trolling at this stage...

Everything posted by J. J. in this thread from this page on:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145685.30

Thank you for you admiration or Workish1's intelligence, and admitting to Obama's socialism.

Convenient this was posted directly into the Deluge.

Convenient that you even type in this thread because practically everything you type on here belongs in this thread.

()

I contribute a hell of a lot more useful and factually based information here than you do, buddy! Look on the econ sub forum and then point to me anything you've posted that even comes close.

If you can't I would probably suggest you can it!

Exclamation marks mean me win!

I think Wonkish should continue to post directly in this thread. Exclusively.

Stop it, all of you.