Kansas Crimson

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 1:05 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:48 pm andrew yang was trending on the internet at one point in time, lobs

Yes I recall. Before the deep state suffocated his campaign beneath the weight of Hillary's that

Yang was intriguing for a moment

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:28 pm A star was born last night in vivek. He caught the attention of a lot of people who hadn't heard of him before

randylahey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 1:05 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:48 pm andrew yang was trending on the internet at one point in time, lobs

Yes I recall. Before the deep state suffocated his campaign beneath the weight of Hillary's that

Yang was intriguing for a moment

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:53 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:20 pm I don't care about IQ points. He has exhibited a consistent pattern of willful, deliberate ignorance on this site and I am inclined to believe him based on the evidence. Frankly, the decision to be willful ignorant is worse than just not beind smart. Not being smart is a physical state with it's own limitations that cannot be overcome beyond a point. CHOOSING to be stupid when you have the capacity not to be is truly head scratching.

Which is similar to the point I was trying to make.

People - not just those around here, but in all of political discourse - tend to conflate intelligence with the degree to which another person's viewpoints align with their own. I would venture a guess that no one here - even the ones I don't care for - is stupid. They simply disagree with me. Shirley's contention that Randy and I and others who see the world differently than he are stupid is just wrong.

If you want to say "I disagree with you" or "I don't like your views/they are offensive to me," that is absolutely acceptable. Saying "You're an idiot" or "You're stupid" when what you mean is the former is just mud-slinging and is, in my opinion, silly.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:48 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 11:24 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 10:20 am

No distortion is necessary. The standard statistical distribution bears it out as a very likely reality.

Certainly possible.

I apologize for objectifying you Psych, but I think the following is germane in light of the discussion.

True story:

Way, way back in the .com days, I had met several other .com people and at a small gathering we were, of course, talking about .com. It's hard to be sure, but for context, I'm almost certain this predated DC's arrival, and the end of Psych's marriage.

So, we're telling/reliving .com stories and Psych's name comes up. One of the spouses who didn't participate in .com asked "Who's Psych?"

Me: "He's this brilliant guy who...(interrupted)

.comer: Brilliant!? Brilliant!? Are you kidding, and then they launched into a recitation of things, much of which had occurred before I was on .com, which added up to - "He had a bad childhood that left him emotionally scared and with a pov...".

Which was pretty much what I was going to say, before they interrupted me.

The .comer was a bright person who had been around there longer than me, and could therefore likely make a more accurate judgement, I decided.

It's funny how my opinion has waxed and waned over the years.

It would be interesting to hear how the .comer remembers the episode.

I don't really care one way or the other who is smarter. You were the one who felt the need to call me (and Randy) stupid unprovoked and based primarily on the fact that you disagree with points of view expressed on these boreds. I don't personally think that is a valid basis for determining how intelligent or unintelligent one is, but I don't presume to have cornered the market on ways of judging others.

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 8:51 am

jfish26 wrote:...But, even setting politics aside, it’s an insult to compare him to Obama. He’s Diet Obama. Obama Zero. Obama Zero with 3x Caffeine...

True, but when you consider the group that the candidates were attempting to appeal to has the bigoted mentality and intelligence of Psych and Randy, it's likely 70-80% of "the base" still buys Trump's racist Birther lie that Obama wasn't born in the US, and makes perfect sense.

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 1:52 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 12:48 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 11:24 am

Certainly possible.

I apologize for objectifying you Psych, but I think the following is germane in light of the discussion.

True story:

Way, way back in the .com days, I had met several other .com people and at a small gathering we were, of course, talking about .com. It's hard to be sure, but for context, I'm almost certain this predated DC's arrival, and the end of Psych's marriage.

So, we're telling/reliving .com stories and Psych's name comes up. One of the spouses who didn't participate in .com asked "Who's Psych?"

Me: "He's this brilliant guy who...(interrupted)

.comer: Brilliant!? Brilliant!? Are you kidding, and then they launched into a recitation of things, much of which had occurred before I was on .com, which added up to - "He had a bad childhood that left him emotionally scared and with a pov...".

Which was pretty much what I was going to say, before they interrupted me.

The .comer was a bright person who had been around there longer than me, and could therefore likely make a more accurate judgement, I decided.

It's funny how my opinion has waxed and waned over the years.

It would be interesting to hear how the .comer remembers the episode.

I don't really care one way or the other who is smarter. You were the one who felt the need to call me (and Randy) stupid unprovoked and based primarily on the fact that you disagree with points of view expressed on these boreds. I don't personally think that is a valid basis for determining how intelligent or unintelligent one is, but I don't presume to have cornered the market on ways of judging others.

To be more precise:

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 8:51 am

jfish26 wrote:...But, even setting politics aside, it’s an insult to compare him to Obama. He’s Diet Obama. Obama Zero. Obama Zero with 3x Caffeine...

True, but when you consider the group that the candidates were attempting to appeal to has the bigoted mentality and intelligence of Psych and Randy, it's likely 70-80% of "the base" still buys Trump's racist Birther lie that Obama wasn't born in the US, and makes perfect sense.

I wouldn't necessarily change a word.

Having a high IQ and being "wise" are not the same. Wisdom implies judgement, the ability to respond sensibly or shrewdly to a particular situation.

I won't insult you by claiming our differing points of view don't influence my opinion. But, I'm not sure if I would have recalled the above incident where I referred to you as "brilliant", if you hadn't posted what you did about Alex Jones yesterday. In terms of my years-long formation of an opinion about you, learning that you buy into the memes and conspiracy theories Alex Jones promote$ was a paradigm shift. We all suffer from confirmation bias, but imo, your susceptibility is so off the charts that it's impossible not to question how in the world someone as smart as you could be so credulous.

Not that you care, but apparently there's a limit to what I'm willing to overlook or attribute to a difficult upbringing and life, that I wasn't previously aware of.

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 1:49 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 2:11 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 1:49 pm

maybe your the one down the rabbit hole. did you ever think of that.

if you're convinced he is down a rabbit hole. and he is convinced you are down a rabbit hole. then what.

It was something, but it wasn't a debate. Not in any sense Cicero would recognize anyway, and not in any way they might recognize in Cicero, nor in Fond du Lac, or Pewaukee, or Luck, Freedom, or Independence, either. It was in no sense a debate because the Republican Party is in no sense a political party any more. It is an incoherent rolling ball of negative energy that feeds on grievance and victimhood and political punchlines, most of which are not funny, except for the initiates. Hence, we got what we got Wednesday night, which was in no sense a debate, but which also was...something.

[...]

The serious part of the evening's exercises was incoherent babble as the candidates lashed themselves to their talking points to protect themselves from the chaos of independent thought. This very often required them not merely to deny the premise of the questions asked, but to drop-kick that premise into Lake Michigan. The most vivid example was the long, pointless wrangle that was set off when moderator Martha MacCallum cued in a high school student named Alexander Diaz, who pointed out that people his age are concerned about the climate crisis because Canada was burning down, Arizona was melting, and California was drowning and, therefore, maybe they all should talk about the climate crisis for a bit.

“How will you as both president and leader of the Republican Party calm the fear that the Republican party doesn’t care about climate change?”

It was as though Diaz had sent 10,000 volts through the entire array of candidates. Then the moderators asked for a show of hands on which of the candidates believed that the climate crisis is largely man-made. Ah, said Ron DeSantis, a diversion.

“We’re not schoolchildren, let’s have the debate.”

DeSantis proceeded to answer Diaz's quite simple question about the Republican position on the climate crisis by blaming Joe Biden for going to the beach. Also, the media.

“First of all, one of the reasons our country has declined is because of the way the corporate media treats Republicans versus Democrats. Biden was on the beach while those people were suffering. He was asked about it and said no comment. Are you kidding me? As someone who has handled disasters in Florida, you’ve gotta be activated. You’ve gotta be there. You’ve gotta be present. You’ve gotta be helping people who are doing this."

Nikki Haley copped to the human origins of the crisis, but quickly pivoted to talking about India and China. Tim Scott also talked about India and China, and also Africa, which accounts for a whopping three percent of greenhouse gas emissions. But it was Ramaswamy who really blew up what was left of the discussion. He has a clear position on the issue. He is, in fact, completely nuts.

“Let us be honest as Republicans — I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for, so I can say this — the climate change agenda is a hoax...And so the reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.”

This caused a general uproar, not because what Ramaswamy said was a bowl of crackers, but because he dared imply that the rest of them were creatures of the donor class. But Ramaswamy wasn't done.

“This isn’t that complicated, guys— unlock American energy, drill, frack, burn coal, embrace nuclear.”

So Ramaswamy's solution to the climate crisis is to make it worse. This was too much for Chris Christie, who didn't have much to say about the climate, but was not going to take any guff from an uppity rookie.

“I’ve had enough already tonight of a guy who sounds like ChatGPT standing up here. And the last person in one of these debates, Bret, who stood in the middle of the stage and said, ‘What’s a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here?’ was Barack Obama...And I’m afraid we’re dealing with the same type of amateur."

So, among the eight Republican candidates attending the debate, the only clean answer to poor Alexander Diaz was the one given by Vivek Ramaswamy, who doesn't think the problem exists at all. The postgame consensus among the pudding-eaters was that Ramaswamy "won" the debate because his insane responses were at least consistent. And that's all you need to know about the debate that wasn't and the party that isn't. Get out while you can, Alexander Diaz. They don't care.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 3:39 pm Of course, people who find themselves currently aligned with Bill Kristol and Rick Wilson might consider that party dissolution (and alignment based on "values" rather than interests) is the spirit of the moment.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 3:59 pm but wait…randy says you’re an extreme lefty

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 3:57 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 3:39 pm Of course, people who find themselves currently aligned with Bill Kristol and Rick Wilson might consider that party dissolution (and alignment based on "values" rather than interests) is the spirit of the moment.

Ok.

I don't know about "dissolution".

I do know the party never even bothered adopting a platform in 2020, and that last night, the candidates who expressed adult views of policy issues were roundly shouted down by the audience's clamor for culture war stoking.

I could be proven wrong, but I don't think there's a path to winning that way. And I don't see that path opening up in 2026 or 2028, either; young voters (who HATE the culture war stuff) are only growing in number/importance.

And, big picture, it shouldn't be ignored that party and party-adjacent operatives are going to prison in droves.

So, "dissolve"? I dunno.

But as someone who voted R in just about every election until 2016...it sure seems like the options here are (1) recalibrate AWAY from culture wars, or (2) die (and accept an outcome where it's the DNC that breaks into two, which will pull EVERYTHING to the left).

And the party does not seem ready to accept #1.