The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners

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

It was one of KP's best posts.

Reported for personal attack against KP

Unless kids are getting hurt, people should mind their own business.

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

"The people who arranged the trip in Mexico have been forced out of government. That’s how well we did.” — Donald Trump

Republicans, WHY DID YOU NOMINATE THIS GUY.

He wasn't my choice. I still don't know why we did.

He's your choice now, so you've lost that moral high ground.

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

TL;DR: everyone makes 3 hackish predictions of his/her own party winning.

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

Pot meet Kettle

Same goes for you.

Seriously, if saying that makes me a delusional hack, then fine, I am a delusional hack.

Did I say you were a hack because of that, no.  You, in general, are a damn hack who seems to think he isn't one.  Hence the comment.

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

Well he's not wrong, I'll give him that.

Actually, he isn't. Anti-Trump Republicans wants us to believe everything was awesome with the party before Trump "hijacked" it. But, in fact, Trump's GOP is a logical consequence of the direction Republicans were already following for years. I'm surprised a Democrat is picking up this garbage.

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

The post is largely ignorant of what actually works in disability services.

Although i dont take offence if people dont know what they are talking about when they write this dross, it is clearly unacceptable.

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

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

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

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

This technocratic obsession with "competence" and "qualification" as the being most crucial criterion in choosing political leadership, as if politics is nothing but a managerial job - as opposed to, you know, a question of choosing between values, ideas and models of society. This is one of the most insidious ideological tools for the promotion of neoliberalism.

Competence(AKA knowing how to actually do the job) is important, and to dismiss it as an ideological tool for the promotion of some particular ideology is insane. It doesn't matter what your rough ideas of how society should function are if you don't get the details. Politics shouldn't be merely about electing someone who shares your values. It should be about electing someone who knows what they're talking about.

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

The way I see it, politics doesn't have any qualifications. Sure, a lawyer needs to have a law degree to practice, and a doctor needs a medical degree, but in those two professions, you need to be able to know basically everything about the specific task you are supposed to be performing, whereas there is no possible way that anyone could know everything about running a country, even ex-Presidents. It's much less of an exact science and much more of a set of good and bad choices.

Also, I've seen many posts on this forum where "moderate" Republicans, who are ever so concerned with respectability and competence (never mind the fact that they don't give a damn whether every poor person in this country goes without healthcare), are proposing "experience qualifications" for public office. For example, there was a thread which asked whether a Presidential candidate should be required to have served in government or the military before running for President.

You know what? Screw you guys. Seriously, screw you. The day that there is a list for who can run for public office, no matter how long, is the day we transition from a Republican form of government into a full oligarchy. I'd rather have an incompetent fool running this country than an elitist prick who has the traditional qualifications but doesn't give a damn about 95% of the people. At least the fool stops at mere stupidity and incompetence. The elitist, on the other hand, has no bounds to his corruption and avarice. He is smart and skilled enough to rob us all of our freedom, and to get away with it. The fool is easily stopped; he can't hide his tracks. The elitist knows how to cover it up, until the consequences come crashing down on the next President.

Competency and experience are two different things. Because of how politics work, time spent doing the job doesn't neccesarily grant competence(Bush II vs Lincoln). You need to know how to learn things, who knows what they're talking about, how to organize, the basic context needed to make the choices you have. Goals are important, but that's an assumed qualification(Tangent:A good qualification is doing something in a way that proves competency, not just doing things for years)

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

This technocratic obsession with "competence" and "qualification" as the being most crucial criterion in choosing political leadership, as if politics is nothing but a managerial job - as opposed to, you know, a question of choosing between values, ideas and models of society. This is one of the most insidious ideological tools for the promotion of neoliberalism.

Competence(AKA knowing how to actually do the job) is important, and to dismiss it as an ideological tool for the promotion of some particular ideology is insane. It doesn't matter what your rough ideas of how society should function are if you don't get the details. Politics shouldn't be merely about electing someone who shares your values. It should be about electing someone who knows what they're talking about.

That's ridiculous, and I'm sure even you know it. For one, political leaders have plenty of people who can advise them on the intricacies of policy. And more importantly, if someone has awful political values, what good does their being competent do? It just means they'll be more effective at carrying out their horrible agenda. If Margaret Thatcher had been "worse" at her "job", the world would be a better place today.

Of course, if a politician shares your values, the being competent can help. But that's only an added bonus. To claim that competency comes before ideological righteousness flies in the face of any serious understanding of what politics is about.

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.

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

The way I see it, politics doesn't have any qualifications. Sure, a lawyer needs to have a law degree to practice, and a doctor needs a medical degree, but in those two professions, you need to be able to know basically everything about the specific task you are supposed to be performing, whereas there is no possible way that anyone could know everything about running a country, even ex-Presidents. It's much less of an exact science and much more of a set of good and bad choices.

Also, I've seen many posts on this forum where "moderate" Republicans, who are ever so concerned with respectability and competence (never mind the fact that they don't give a damn whether every poor person in this country goes without healthcare), are proposing "experience qualifications" for public office. For example, there was a thread which asked whether a Presidential candidate should be required to have served in government or the military before running for President.

You know what? Screw you guys. Seriously, screw you. The day that there is a list for who can run for public office, no matter how long, is the day we transition from a Republican form of government into a full oligarchy. I'd rather have an incompetent fool running this country than an elitist prick who has the traditional qualifications but doesn't give a damn about 95% of the people. At least the fool stops at mere stupidity and incompetence. The elitist, on the other hand, has no bounds to his corruption and avarice. He is smart and skilled enough to rob us all of our freedom, and to get away with it. The fool is easily stopped; he can't hide his tracks. The elitist knows how to cover it up, until the consequences come crashing down on the next President.

Competency and experience are two different things. Because of how politics work, time spent doing the job doesn't neccesarily grant competence(Bush II vs Lincoln). You need to know how to learn things, who knows what they're talking about, how to organize, the basic context needed to make the choices you have. Goals are important, but that's an assumed qualification(Tangent:A good qualification is doing something in a way that proves competency, not just doing things for years)

Invariably, the people that harp on the most about competency are the same ones that thing that someone needs to have been in government for years to be qualified. The bad thing about Trump isn't that has lacks experience in government; he is able to overcome that with other knowledge, such as in his businesses. The bad part is that the priorities that he has set for his administration are frankly dangerous to many of the people living in this country. They would lead to trade war and internal strife.

The problem is that he doesn't know s**t and goes with his gut on everything due to a lack of proper mental facilities to think intelligently. Setting good priorities is a matter of competence, it turns out.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

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

Better than people who generalize large groups of the electorate as FF/HP.

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

Welp, this thread is certainly a beautiful demonstration of gender's role in politics.

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

It's always worth remembering that Bannon really is scary, but I can't help laughing at how his media image is outright demonic while Paul Ryan's intentions, which are just as radical in their own fashion, have been treated by DC journalists as the height of serious, urbane wonkery for years.

Came here to post this

I mean, ryan is completely awful, but he isn't as bad as a f**king neo-nazi.

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

If she is vulgar and hyperpartisan, so what?  She still isn't the left's equivalent of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.  It's not that level of vitriol.  Not that the left shouldn't have that equivalent.

Especially now that the Republicans have a man in the White House who is overtly vulgar and vitriolic--and is determined to squash anyone who gets under his skin--the left needs people who are not afraid to mock and ridicule the lunatic and his enablers who causing the country and the world so much destruction.

I still haven't heard liberal comedians like Bee mock the small children of politicians who don't ask for attention.  Fox News and freerepublic, on the other hand, can go after the Obama kids, and Rush Limbaugh infamously called Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog".  Yet, in this thread, we have Democrats and left-leaning independents eager to criticize the "smugness" or whatever of left-of-center comedians.  Republicans, however, are not so inclined to call out the crudeness of people like Limbaugh.  Enough double standards.

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

^ Uh, didn't a liberal comedian literally just get fired for tweeting something completely classless about the President's young kid?

Rush Limbaugh didn't get fired when he did it. Who was that anyway?

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

while women are socialized from a creepily young age to not think much about sex (at best) or view it as something they owe to men (at worst).

But even women who grew in open minded places, where the values are modern, and were not socialized to not think much about sex or view it as something they owe to men, don't want to pay for the services of male sex workers.

The idea that nice modern educated open-minded social circles are devoid of sexist norms is ludicrous. If anything, this forum is the ultimate proof that you can be very "modern" and still hold on to sexist notions.

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

The PRC is pretty touchy about being confused with the ROC, so...

To be fair, the PRC are pretty touchy about everything.

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

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

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

But these are actual human beings we are talking about, not political talking points. I'm not sure what the point is of making armchair sociological observations about where non-binary people exist, when it's much easier to just accept them as who they are. The harm done to them by not accepting them is far greater than the harm to society by upsetting Breitbart.

And stop bringing hoop earrings and dreadlocks into this; nobody in this thread mentioned them until you did.

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

Context:

Can we all stop talking about her? She's the least interesting person in the world, perhaps in history. She's like one of those kids that regurgitates what they've heard but doesn't quite understand what they're saying. She hasn't thought anything through and she hasn't processed it.

Not to mention her whole brand is based on sex appeal and angry speeches about how great the troops are (she's not exactly wrong, but do teh libtards really hate the army? Come on!) or how Godless we are as a country apparently. She was hired directly out of an internship, probably by some Walmart brand Roger Ailes who's still bragging about it in the control room.

Actually, she was never even an intern. She applied for an internship and got her own show.

Damn Male privilege.

One woman getting a job easy magically invalidates all societal biases.

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

Someone should let Dave know he can't stop people from posting hardcore pornography over the forum per the Constitution.

Also in Atlas hilarity.