Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/01/15 04:49:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Paul Ryan is now Speaker of the House, a thankless job that he now has to herd cats across the river to get gak done:
That's right, he's now speaker of the house. And before that he was a VP candidate. The guy has moved up very rapidly through the ranks of the Republican party, carrying this 'serious wonk' brand as he goes. But the dude is basically playing madlibs, just spouting whatever political sounding words suit the moment, with no interest in whether they contradict what said last time, or make any damn sense at all.
It was only a couple of years ago he was talking about intergenerational theft, currency debasement and financial collapse. Now he's claiming it was a driver behind the economic recovery. And he doesn't even seem to have noticed how much his lines have changed.
I'm beginning to suspect Paul Ryan actually may just be some small children standing feet on shoulders in a trenchcoat, saying whatever political things sound sufficiently politicky for the adults to not notice and send them back to school.
In a slightly more serious tone, yes, the speaker's job is horrible, especially right now. But I have no idea why having a horrible job means we should be okay with the person in the job speaking absolute total gibberish. Especially when the person speaking that gibberish isn't some extreme nutter, but is meant to be one of the mainstream, respectable leaders of the party.
I mean, here's another quote from Ryan when asked about monetary policy;
"I always go back to, you know, Francisco d’Anconia’s speech, at Bill Taggart’s wedding, on money when I think about monetary policy. Then I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end, and go back to a lot of other things that she did, to try and make sure that I can check my premises."
He cites fething Atlas Shrugged. Who needs technical knowledge when you've got ideology?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/15 04:56:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/01/15 05:02:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Aye... as someone who supported Ryan only a few years ago... he's taken it to elevenity seven and I don't really recognize him anymore.
If you're going to prop up Ryan as an indication to the decline of Republicans, where were you on Pelosi and Reid?
The stupidity burns between those two... But hey... one could argue that's 'par for the course' with politicians.
Yeah, Pelosi and Reid are par for the course for politicians, they’re fairly run of the mill mediocrity. They’re a millions miles away from the kinds of leaders a country should have, but they’re pretty typical for the kind of leaders almost all countries, including yours, tend to have.
But someone who wants to opine on technical economic matters, and just quotes Atlas Shrugged, well that is not within the normal levels of political mediocrity. That isn’t someone who just messes up on a technical issue like Reid or Pelosi will fairly regularly, but someone who actually rejects the entire field of study, and instead replaces it with ideology.
That’s a very different thing.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/01/15 09:10:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.”
hmmm ..
“And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.”
explains the syrup maybe eh ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/01/15 15:31:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
“Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.”
hmmm ..
“And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.”
explains the syrup maybe eh ?
I live like 15 miles from where the rally took place and Locally, not a lot of people were too terribly pleased with The Rally happening and there's been a lot of local hullabaloo over these girls.
2016/01/15 16:18:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kids should be playing, doing schoolwork, stealing their parents iDevice and running up a huge bill on the games, Not singing the praises of The Glorious Leader( Whomever they are)
2016/01/15 17:27:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
We have to find a balance. I remember in Elementary School, we "Voted" alongside the Presidential Election, but it pretty much boiled down to the Teachers telling us "Vote for who your parents like or who you think looks like he'd be the best Grandpa".
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
2016/01/15 18:23:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
It's tough though, because we had a mock election in my US Government class in high school, complete with in class "policy debate" based on what was published in local newspapers.... Honestly, I think high school is really the earliest age you can effectively teach "what is actually going on" and allow them to make those decisions on their own beyond "vote who you think your parents are, or who you think looks the best"
2016/01/15 18:29:17
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
It's tough though, because we had a mock election in my US Government class in high school, complete with in class "policy debate" based on what was published in local newspapers.... Honestly, I think high school is really the earliest age you can effectively teach "what is actually going on" and allow them to make those decisions on their own beyond "vote who you think your parents are, or who you think looks the best"
Younger classes could have their own mini elections with their own peers running on manifestos of changes they'd like to see in their classrooms/school (more colouring pencils, tastier glue, longer breaktimes etc.). You don't necessarily need to get them interested in national politics at younger ages, they'll do that anyway when they want to, but you can try to teach them to think about what parts of peoples campaign policies are actually possible and to approach it critically.
This serves to not only get them accustomed to taking part in the democratic process but also to get them accustomed to the fact that, at the end of the day, their votes are meaningless and those in power will just do things as they've always been done
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/15 18:30:50
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/01/15 18:36:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Iur_tae_mont wrote: We have to find a balance. I remember in Elementary School, we "Voted" alongside the Presidential Election, but it pretty much boiled down to the Teachers telling us "Vote for who your parents like or who you think looks like he'd be the best Grandpa".
If we want kids to get excited for voting, we need to actually TEACH them about the world around them and let them decide whether or not they care. You can't force people to get excited.
You might be surprised to hear that is far more often the case than we might like. Some time ago, I had seen the results of a study where people were randomly shown the campaign pictures of the two candidates from various local/state level elections (from other states, so the respondents would be very unlikely to actually recognize the pictures) and were simply asked who looked better (they weren't told that the pictures were of politicians, and they were told it was a survey regarding standards of appearances or something). Most of the time, the picture in each pair that the most people said looked better was the person who won the election.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/01/15 18:37:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
There's also that old story about the Nixon JFK debate (i think it was them) and that people who heard the event on radio thought Nixon won, but people who saw it on TV thought JFK won.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/15 18:38:30
LordofHats wrote: There's also that old story about the Nixon JFK debate (i think it was them) and that people who heard the event on radio thought Nixon won, but people who saw it on TV thought JFK won.
That's just because the people listening to it on radio were listening to the specially mixed and cut "Tricky Dick" tape of the debate
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/01/15 18:46:46
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You might be surprised to hear that is far more often the case than we might like. Some time ago, I had seen the results of a study where people were randomly shown the campaign pictures of the two candidates from various local/state level elections (from other states, so the respondents would be very unlikely to actually recognize the pictures) and were simply asked who looked better (they weren't told that the pictures were of politicians, and they were told it was a survey regarding standards of appearances or something). Most of the time, the picture in each pair that the most people said looked better was the person who won the election.
There's also a significant body of research indicating that attractive people have a statistically significant advantage when it comes to the hiring process, regardless of sex.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/01/15 21:19:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So... dat debate last night. The whole thing can be distilled by the rumbles between Trump / Cruz / Rubio here:
TRUMP: The fact is, there is a big overhang. There’s a big question mark on your head. And you can’t do that to the party. You really can’t. You can’t do that to the party. You have to have certainty. Even if it was a one percent chance, and it’s far greater than one percent…. I mean, you have great constitutional lawyers that say you can’t run. If there was a — and you know I’m not bringing a suit. I promise. But the Democrats are going to bring a lawsuit, and you have to have certainty. You can’t have a question. I can agree with you or not, but you can’t have a question over your head.
CAVUTO: Senator, do you want to respond?
CRUZ: Well, listen, I’ve spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the US Supreme Court. And I’ll tell you, I’m not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump. The chances of any litigation proceeding and succeeding on this are zero. And Mr. Trump is very focused on Larry Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is. He’s a left-wing judicial activist, Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore’s lawyer in Bush versus Gore. He’s a major Hillary Clinton supporter. And there’s a reason why Hillary’s supporters are echoing Donald’s attacks on me, because Hillary wants to face Donald Trump in the general election.
And I’ll tell you what, Donald, you — you very kindly just a moment ago offered me the VP slot. (Laughter.) I’ll tell you what. If this all works out, I’m happy to consider naming you as VP. So if you happen to be right, you could get the top job at the end of the day.
TRUMP: No — no…I think if it doesn’t… I like that. I like it. I’d consider it. But I think I’ll go back to building buildings if it doesn’t work out.
CRUZ: Actually, I’d love to get you to build a wall.
TRUMP: I have a feeling it’s going to work out, actually.
RUBIO: I was invoked in that question, so let me just say — in that answer — let me say, the real question here, I hate to interrupt this episode of Court TV. (Laughter.)
But the real — but I think we have to get back to what this election has to be about, OK? Listen, we — this is the greatest country in the history of mankind. But in 2008, we elected a president that didn’t want to fix America. He wants to change America. We elected a president that doesn’t believe in the Constitution. He undermines it. We elected a president that is weakening America on the global stage. We elected a president that doesn’t believe in the free enterprise system.
This election has to be about reversing all of that damage. That’s why I’m running for office because when I become president of the United States, on my first day in office we are going to repeal every single one of his unconstitutional executive orders. When I’m president of the United States we are getting rid of Obamacare and we are rebuilding our military. And when I’m president, we’re not just going to have a president that gives a State of the Union and says America is the greatest country in the world. When I’m president, we’re going to have a president that acts like it.
Trump held out on his own by taking no gak from anyone...
Rubio seemed caffeinated, but was spot on and cemented himself as a viable candidate...
Cruz did the best imo, as he's the only one who took on Trump and walked away unscathed (I don't buy that "NY Values" snit that big of a dealio).
The others were unmemorable, with the exception of Christie saying he'd can't wait to kick Obama out of office, or somesuch...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/01/15 21:22:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Honesty everything I've heard and seen of Rubio just makes me gag. The guy is a complete panderer whose only policy proposals have been a well covered "Thanks Obama" routine.
So yeah... if that's the bar we're setting for viable
LordofHats wrote: Honesty everything I've heard and seen of Rubio just makes me gag. The guy is a complete panderer whose only policy proposals have been a well covered "Thanks Obama" routine.
So yeah... if that's the bar we're setting for viable
whembly wrote: The others were unmemorable, with the exception of Christie saying he'd can't wait to kick Obama out of office, or somesuch...
Which is at least a little funny, in that a term-limited president who almost certainly would win a third term otherwise, leaving office could be characterized as "being kicked out of office".
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/01/15 21:52:44
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: The others were unmemorable, with the exception of Christie saying he'd can't wait to kick Obama out of office, or somesuch...
Which is at least a little funny, in that a term-limited president who almost certainly would win a third term otherwise, leaving office could be characterized as "being kicked out of office".
As a recovering NY'er, did that "New York Value" spiel by Cruz bother you?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/01/15 22:38:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Speaking of pandering, Ted Cruz has it down to a science:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/01/15 23:26:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
