The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners

[MT Treasurer]

what this really is is a lesson to never elect a Republican, no matter how moderate they may seem.

Tbh, moderate Democrats aren't really a thing either, especially in the Senate. Electing the candidate who says that they're the most "moderate" one is always a stupid idea.

Ah, but the criteria to be a moderate Republican is to literally have zero right-of-center views and bow to whatever your Democratic legislature wants ... the criteria for being a moderate Democrat is to have a Southern accent and kind of be pro-life on paper, while towing the party line on everything else.

LOL, I agree. I always find it hilarious when people like Wulfric call every random swing state Senator or red state Democrat (say, Johnson and McCaskill) "moderate". It's a really stupid term these days.

[Figueira]

Maine is a very idiosyncratic place (perhaps the most that way on the Fruited Plain), that elects folks who have next to nothing in common with each other. In other words, as Maine goes, so goes next to nothing.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Competency is the ability to make smart choices. Considering what say, the president of the united states has to do just to maintain the current balances of the world (as opposed to making things worse), yes, competency should come before ideology To say that competency is merely a bonus for a politician and not a requirement for the job is to say that an unstable buffoon at the nuclear button is fine as long as they share your ideology.

It's amazing how confident you always sound when asserting your unbelievably sloppy logic.

Being an "unstable buffoon" and being incompetent are not the same thing. It's not even a matter of degree. You can be a very reasonable, level-headed person and still lack any knowledge and skill relating to a particular task. You can also be temperamentally unstable, even have very serious psychological issues, and still be extremely skilled at something (in fact, there are quite a few psychological conditions that tend to make you very good at specific tasks). Of course a good political leader needs to display certain personality traits, and equanimity is one of them (not as important as honesty and selflessness, but important still). This has absolutely nothing to do with being "competent", however.

Yeah. You know who was undeniably very "competent "? Nixon the probably-insane shyster.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Competency is the ability to make smart choices. Considering what say, the president of the united states has to do just to maintain the current balances of the world (as opposed to making things worse), yes, competency should come before ideology To say that competency is merely a bonus for a politician and not a requirement for the job is to say that an unstable buffoon at the nuclear button is fine as long as they share your ideology.

It's amazing how confident you always sound when asserting your unbelievably sloppy logic.

Being an "unstable buffoon" and being incompetent are not the same thing. It's not even a matter of degree. You can be a very reasonable, level-headed person and still lack any knowledge and skill relating to a particular task. You can also be temperamentally unstable, even have very serious psychological issues, and still be extremely skilled at something (in fact, there are quite a few psychological conditions that tend to make you very good at specific tasks). Of course a good political leader needs to display certain personality traits, and equanimity is one of them (not as important as honesty and selflessness, but important still). This has absolutely nothing to do with being "competent", however.

Yeah. You know who was undeniably very "competent "? Nixon the probably-insane shyster.

Insane tends to be a disqualifier.

Being an "unstable buffoon" and being incompetent are not the same thing. It's not even a matter of degree. You can be a very reasonable, level-headed person and still lack any knowledge and skill relating to a particular task. You can also be temperamentally unstable, even have very serious psychological issues, and still be extremely skilled at something

Unstable buffoons tend to be incompetent in government. I wouldn't call someone who might press the nuke button over nothing a qualified, competent statesperson. I never said all people not skilled in government are unstable buffoons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what happens when a person who fits these traits but doesn't have skill in government is elected? Ulysses S. Grant. A pretty bad presidency marred by scandals and ineffective governance. And he was a general. He had some experience as a leader. But that experience was in the military, where, among other things, incompetent lower officers are weeded out so Grant wouldn't have to know how to find good people, they'd already be there. He didn't have the skills to be president. Its ridiculous to say that competency isn't required for the presidency. There's a pretty dramatic line between "competent psychopaths are good" and "competency is necessary to be president".

Also, is telling the truth all the time really more important then being mentally composed? I'd rather have someone with good intentions who is level headed but willing to lie then an unstable, always honest person.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I never said all people not skilled in government are unstable buffoons.

Your previous post clearly implied that one of the reasons for having a requirement of competency for political leaders is to avoid having "an unstable buffoon at the nuclear button". I pointed out that a competency requirement is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve that - all you need is a "not being an unstable buffoon" requirement. Hence your prior argument is invalid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue with Grant wasn't just that he lacked experience in government - it's that he lacked experience in government, and the people he chose to advise him (people who, by the nature of their jobs, had a lot of experience in government) were greedy, self-interested, and often held wrongheaded ideologies. I'll grant (pun intended) you that this means that relatively incompetent leaders must be particularly careful in choosing their advisors, but it still doesn't mean that incompetence is the absolute dealbreaker that you claim it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a person is utterly untrustworthy, then how can you tell if their intentions are good? In cases like these, it's usually safe to assume that they aren't. Obviously it's a matter of degree: I'm well aware that some degree of machiavellism is necessary to achieve major political outcomes (I still have a personal fondness of LBJ, just to cite one). But that doesn't mean you can entirely disregard honesty.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he failed to hire good advisers because he didn't have the skills to do it. Hiring is a skill requiring Ability and Knowledge, and of course, enough basic knowledge of the job you're hiring for to know if someone is qualified to do it. And politicians who don't know what they're talking about practically never adopt all the right policies and often adopt absolutely insane ones. Would a competent, knowledgeable congressperson have said they could build a wall and make mexico pay for it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lying doesn't mean ones intentions are completely obscured. And of course, I question the validity of assuming they are dangerous. And my origional point was about honesty being more important then basic mental stability.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In most well-functioning democracies, the selection of political "middle-managers" in charge of elaborating policy is achieved through two channels: 1. An impartial civil service subordinated to political authorities and 2. a collective party leadership where people with a specificl expertise self-select into the positions where they can be most helpful to the cause they have chosen to serve. America is severely lacking in both structures, and this is probably why you have this idea that the President is the guy who "hires" the people who craft policy. Still, it's silly to assume that the President is the only player in the process: Congress plays a role, and so do ideological networks that connect like-minded PACs, think tanks, foundations, etc. Those resources can help a relatively inexperienced President find the right people to put their agenda into practice.

[Virginiá]

So we're at 2 pages now of nothing but paragraphs and paragraphs of text out of line with the thread topic.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So we're at 2 pages now of nothing but paragraphs and paragraphs of text out of line with the thread topic.

Welcome to Atlas.

[Santander]

So we're at 2 pages now of nothing but paragraphs and paragraphs of text out of line with the thread topic.

You posted in the right thread.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

In most well-functioning democracies, the selection of political "middle-managers" in charge of elaborating policy is achieved through two channels: 1. An impartial civil service subordinated to political authorities and 2. a collective party leadership where people with a specificl expertise self-select into the positions where they can be most helpful to the cause they have chosen to serve. America is severely lacking in both structures, and this is probably why you have this idea that the President is the guy who "hires" the people who craft policy. Still, it's silly to assume that the President is the only player in the process: Congress plays a role, and so do ideological networks that connect like-minded PACs, think tanks, foundations, etc. Those resources can help a relatively inexperienced President find the right people to put their agenda into practice.

You're not actually addressing my points. I asked why you put honesty above basic sanity. You conveniently skipped over that. Plus as Virginia said, this tangent is heavily off topic.(and none of that infrastructure matters if the president won't listen, not that I think such a system is guaranteed to work anyway).

[Figueira]

A lot of college kids are brainwashed to hate Republicans.

Brainwashing =/= thinking things you don't like.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If anybody wants to here my rationale for south Africa.

Both parties are led by a party that used to fight for freedom, had a period led by a paranoid unlikable weirdo and has now devolved to being led by a fat corrupt rapist who was initially cheered on by the idealogical wing, until they immediately came to regret it. Gets its support from rural areas and the dominant ethnic group. Opposed by a Woke party of urban diverse neoliberals that has an uncomfortable alliance of convince with leftists from the dominant ethnic group.

[RINO Tom]

Maine, but Rhode Island is much more socon than one would expect from such a Democratic state.

If atlas was a state, it would be Rhode Island.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Are you vegan?

That's kind of a good question.

No because human life is different than the lives or other animals.

An octopus has more sentience than an embryo.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The idea that we can't call people immoral is going to lead to the end of Western civilization if it isn't nipped in the bud. There really are people who need to be condemned, even if they "really believe in their ideals".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Remember that in Atlas, elections are only fair when liberal candidates win.

[they don't love you like i love you]

There is no such thing as "Russia", they are just imperialist Muscovite colonists.

[Antonio the Sixth]

We get it, BRTD.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

At this point BRTD is obviously intentionally trolling. However, his trolling is painfully one-dimensional.

Why can't you be an entertaining and original troll like Lief?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There is no such thing as "Russia", they are just imperialist Muscovite colonists.

A friend of a friend is a Ukrainian-Canadian girl who genuinely believes this. You wouldn't like her. She's culturally Ukrainian Orthodox and goes to Ukrainian culture festivals.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

There is no such thing as "Russia", they are just imperialist Muscovite colonists.

A friend of a friend is a Ukrainian-Canadian girl who genuinely believes this. You wouldn't like her. She's culturally Ukrainian Orthodox and goes to Ukrainian culture festivals.

"There is no such thing as 'America', they are just imperialist European colonists."

Uh, okay, sure. What does believing that even mean, beyond the obvious? People move, people conquer, nations grow and shrink and change. If this is true, then one might as well assert that there are no nations, or countries, at all.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There is no such thing as "Russia", they are just imperialist Muscovite colonists.

A friend of a friend is a Ukrainian-Canadian girl who genuinely believes this. You wouldn't like her. She's culturally Ukrainian Orthodox and goes to Ukrainian culture festivals.

"There is no such thing as 'America', they are just imperialist European colonists."

Uh, okay, sure. What does believing that even mean, beyond the obvious? People move, people conquer, nations grow and shrink and change. If this is true, then one might as well assert that there are no nations, or countries, at all.

I don't know, some #discourse about Ukraine being the Only True Legitimate Successor of Kievan Rus' and Russian culture all being "appropriated" from Ukrainian culture or something. Real "Who Said It? Herderian Nationalist or Tumblr Critical Race Theorist?"-type stuff.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I prefer cities where you don't have to pay three grand a month for a sh!tty small studio apartment, so I voted Denver.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Even if you don't like the fact that she's trans, Chelsea is legally her first name now, so calling her Bradley is incorrect. Why be incorrect on purpose?