The Stupidity of the Average American Voter

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

...have you ever considered not doing this?

Not doing what? Was pointing that fact problematic or offensive? Certainly wasn't meant to be and I thought my acknowledgement that there is a demand and customer base for it was a hat tip.

[wildcat09 29256]

It wasn't really problematic or offensive, just really dumb in an otherwise thoughtful post. What is "public schools built on things like critical race theory" even supposed to mean?

[Brisketexan 104624]

4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What makes you think Trump was an outlier?

Seriously?  I just typed out a whole paragraph about how the strong majority of politicians are in public service for at least SOME purpose of public service.  That includes every past president of my lifetime.  A lifetime that includes Nixon, by the way.

All of those past presidents were egomaniacs and narcissists to some degree or another (damn near seems like a requirement of the position).  But they ALSO had some component of motivation to serve the country as a whole and act in its interests.  Some of them were manipulated by people with other goals.  Some of them let their narcissism and hubris overload their ass.  But all had as a material goal and purpose service to the interest of the nation.

Trump does not.  Not in even the smallest measurable quantity.  He is in it for him, only him, and literally everyone else be damned.  He is a pure, uncut narcissist and egomaniac.  In that respect, he represents a huge, and devastating, deviation from the norm.

[Dahobbs 17447]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously?  I just typed out a whole paragraph about how the strong majority of politicians are in public service for at least SOME purpose of public service.  That includes every past president of my lifetime.  A lifetime that includes Nixon, by the way.

All of those past presidents were egomaniacs and narcissists to some degree or another (damn near seems like a requirement of the position).  But they ALSO had some component of motivation to serve the country as a whole and act in its interests.  Some of them were manipulated by people with other goals.  Some of them let their narcissism and hubris overload their ass.  But all had as a material goal and purpose service to the interest of the nation.

Trump does not.  Not in even the smallest measurable quantity.  He is in it for him, only him, and literally everyone else be damned.  He is a pure, uncut narcissist and egomaniac.  In that respect, he represents a huge, and devastating, deviation from the norm.

Yeah, this. Trump is definitely an outlier, at least in American politics. The rest may all be assholes of some sort or another, but at least they were assholes trying to do something else besides enriching and worshiping themselves.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Dahobbs

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Right, because you don't want to lay any responsibility at the feet of those you worship. 

You have misjudged me and/or my disagreement. I laid out (and have laid out in the past with more detail) my opinion on technology and the lightspeed of the innovation along with the changing demographics and population explosion, has fundamentally changed the nature of America. America will never be a centralized model because the internet has enabled every person to have a sphere of influence and federated fiefdom because of the explosion and ease of sharing data (e.g. ideas, beliefs, thoughts and fears and hopes, etc.). There aren't just 3 flavors to choose from, or even 31 flavors, there is a near infinite number of ways to think and feel about things now.

It's a truly horrifying problem if you think about it.

And I'm not blaming technology-- technology is just a tool as you say. But it strikes me as the pro-gun folks saying "guns are just the tool, it's the people who use the tool!" in that not acknowledging the deep infection was because of the destructive effects of technology is short-sighted, or dare I say, one-sided.

[956 Worldwide 34443]

13 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What makes you think Trump was an outlier?

We have had politicians who lied before. Lord knows.  They lied to advance a policy. They lied to protect themselves.  They lied to advance their fortunes.

 

We have never had a president for whom lies were his base verbal currency. Who lied about anything and everything and nothing.  Who lied when it’s important and who lied for no reason at all.  Who lied simply because his mouth was moving. 
 

Other politicians’ lies were defined by their relationship to the truth and told with the understanding that truth existed but was inconvenient. Donald Trump is the first American politician who has attempted to destroy the concept of truth and reality as it exists apart from his own pronouncements. He has succeeded in this mission for many, many people. 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It wasn't really problematic or offensive, just really dumb in an otherwise thoughtful post. What is "public schools built on things like critical race theory" even supposed to mean?

I'm using that as an example of how education is not a monolith and the aims and desires for what you get out of school are different.

Critical Race Theory I thought was a good example to use because it's more or less polarizing, in that some really love it and it serves them and society and some think it's wrong-minded and foolish. Because the major demographics served by public education skew a certain direction (someone above mentioned "most kindergartners don't look like you [are white]") it makes sense why critical race theory or "culturally responsive teaching" is a framework that public education uses. Unlike higher ed, you can't really choose your track with a free, public education and so some folks then choose a private education. I was saying in both instances, depending on what they are trying to get from schooling, both sets of parents can be viewed as discerning.

I don't have a Doctorate in Education from U of Delaware though (just a timely joke!), so I'd be over my skis getting into the details, but I was just trying to give an example to bring to life my point...and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 144]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, this. Trump is definitely an outlier, at least in American politics. The rest may all be assholes of some sort or another, but at least they were assholes trying to do something else besides enriching and worshiping themselves.

 

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously?  I just typed out a whole paragraph about how the strong majority of politicians are in public service for at least SOME purpose of public service.  That includes every past president of my lifetime.  A lifetime that includes Nixon, by the way.

All of those past presidents were egomaniacs and narcissists to some degree or another (damn near seems like a requirement of the position).  But they ALSO had some component of motivation to serve the country as a whole and act in its interests.  Some of them were manipulated by people with other goals.  Some of them let their narcissism and hubris overload their ass.  But all had as a material goal and purpose service to the interest of the nation.

Trump does not.  Not in even the smallest measurable quantity.  He is in it for him, only him, and literally everyone else be damned.  He is a pure, uncut narcissist and egomaniac.  In that respect, he represents a huge, and devastating, deviation from the norm.

Trump may be an outlier as you two suggest.

But he could also just be the harbinger. The natural, necessary and inevitable outcome of the fundamental shattering of our central ideals. The only output that could arise from a calculation which involves unfiltered and unadulterated individualism and low-effort data and information gathering (e.g. in a past life, called learning) via the Facebook and Twitter (and TikTok) aesthetic. 

Only time will really tell if Trump was an outlier or the new normal of pendulum swinging to an extreme. Biden being a pretty strong character and centrist could have been the one to break that dynamic though, and that's what I want to believe (and hope for).

[alincoln 2364]

1 hour ago, GreenspointTexas said:

This is absolutely 100000% correct and the root basis for most of white americans political “outrage”

 

 

Its sad and hilarious. Most whites dont realize that there will be very few white people in power in 100 years, regardless of how they vote

Ever heard of Brazil?

[babysdaddy 2718]

Paycheck to Paycheck

Article is good but specifically this image.  The wealth gap is growing because everything costs a lot more relative to how fast incomes are rising.  This is driven by the Federal Reserve's policies combined with how we actually measure inflation.  People are literally getting poorer. The gap is growing and jumping across that gap is becoming more difficult.  In general, people don't understand how the below graph happens and what its effect is but they know something isn't right.  That's how Trump got elected and, had Jim Clyburn not endorsed Biden, how Bernie would've gotten elected.  Both are attempting to assign blame to the below issue to various 'others' (Trump blames immigrants and China, Bernie attacked the wealthy).  Combine that along with the infotainment/social media aspect constantly shoving extreme wealth in people's faces, envy eventually turns to anger. There is zero easy way out at this point.   

 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

8 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Paycheck to Paycheck

Article is good but specifically this image.  The wealth gap is growing because everything costs a lot more relative to how fast incomes are rising.  This is driven by the Federal Reserve's policies combined with how we actually measure inflation.  People are literally getting poorer. The gap is growing and jumping across that gap is becoming more difficult.  In general, people don't understand how the below graph happens and what its effect is but they know something isn't right.  That's how Trump got elected and, had Jim Clyburn not endorsed Biden, how Bernie would've gotten elected.  Both are attempting to assign blame to the below issue to various 'others' (Trump blames immigrants and China, Bernie attacked the wealthy).  Combine that along with the infotainment/social media aspect constantly shoving extreme wealth in people's faces, envy eventually turns to anger. There is zero easy way out at this point.   

 

Bernie never, ever, ever would have gotten election. Just to be clear. But yeah, we're fuuuucked.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Remind me of the times GWB spewed racist shit from his pulpit, encouraged white nationalism, spouted conspiracy theories, lied to Americans more than 20k times about literally stupid shit that didn’t even serve a purpose, had multiple members of his inner circle indicted for theft and/or obstruction of justice, refused to divest from his financial interests therefore making him open to foreign manipulation, called our soldiers losers and suckers, used his office to force other nations to dig up dirt on his political opponents, refused to a peaceful transfer of power after his terms were up and generally just normalized hate. Oh, and speaking of a more benign foreign policy, let’s talk about putting kids in cages and separating families as a deterrent for immigration as a national policy. Yeah, basically the same, amirite? And by basically the same I mean go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself with a tree axe and then i hope you get fucked by pack of rabid proud boys. 
 
 

[Ojo Rojo 1905]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I’ve beat this drum before, but the genie is out of the bottle, the toothpaste is out of the tube, or whatever analogy you want to use to express the idea that there has been an inflection point and an unrecoverable shift, in that short of a) WWIII or b) Censorship of Internet a la China, American’s are never going to have a shared understanding and culture and ethic again.

The internet has shattered that mirror that is America and there are too many individual shards with their own world views and agendas and beliefs and desires for themselves and their pod of humans (family/friends), to ever be a singular pane of glass again.

That's certainly the way it feels at this moment. I'd contend that it felt more like that before November 3rd. The realization that a strong majority of Americans voted to unfuck ourselves has set in slowly, in part because there's this distracting static that has been coming out of the White House, still.  Anyway, as I've gotten older I've gotten some perspective on the moment and on change itself.  I've much more easily adopted the mantra, "This, too, shall pass."  Trump will fade away; MAGAts too.  We'll find equilibrium again, and cross over it again in the future many times over until the sun explodes or we blow ourselves up.

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

We can’t depend on people on power to do anything that’s outside of what benefits them. This is something that we have to fix ourselves.

Democracy depends on politics serving the needs of the populace.  There are many politicians who are trying to work for the greater good, or at least the good of their constituents.  The proportion of them who are out to serve themselves or win at all costs is too high for the true needs of the people to be served.  The first, and biggest, step should be to get the money out of politics.  The Citizens United case was a damaging blow to our political system.  Congress isn't likely to pass meaningful campaign finance reform because they'd be cutting their own throats.  But that is exactly what the country needs them to do right now.  The good of the country has no relation to how much money special interests can funnel to politicians.

12 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Paycheck to Paycheck

Article is good but specifically this image.  The wealth gap is growing because everything costs a lot more relative to how fast incomes are rising.  This is driven by the Federal Reserve's policies combined with how we actually measure inflation.  People are literally getting poorer. The gap is growing and jumping across that gap is becoming more difficult.  In general, people don't understand how the below graph happens and what its effect is but they know something isn't right.  That's how Trump got elected and, had Jim Clyburn not endorsed Biden, how Bernie would've gotten elected.  Both are attempting to assign blame to the below issue to various 'others' (Trump blames immigrants and China, Bernie attacked the wealthy).  Combine that along with the infotainment/social media aspect constantly shoving extreme wealth in people's faces, envy eventually turns to anger. There is zero easy way out at this point.   

 

Yes. Income and wealth inequality is a huge driver of the current political situation.  Not sure how to address it - increase minimum wage?  Increase cap gains/estate taxes? Lower taxes on lower and middle income people?  Invest in education systems that serve poor and middle class to increase their earning potential? 

I'd be curious to know how we measure inflation versus how it should be measured.  If the government is purposefully under-counting inflation to make themselves look good that's....bad.

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

That's certainly the way it feels at this moment. I'd contend that it felt more like that before November 3rd. The realization that a strong majority of Americans voted to unfuck ourselves has set in slowly, in part because there's this distracting static that has been coming out of the White House, still.  Anyway, as I've gotten older I've gotten some perspective on the moment and on change itself.  I've much more easily adopted the mantra, "This, too, shall pass."  Trump will fade away; MAGAts too.  We'll find equilibrium again, and cross over it again in the future many times over until the sun explodes or we blow ourselves up.

Democracy depends on politics serving the needs of the populace.  There are many politicians who are trying to work for the greater good, or at least the good of their constituents.  The proportion of them who are out to serve themselves or win at all costs is too high for the true needs of the people to be served.  The first, and biggest, step should be to get the money out of politics.  The Citizens United case was a damaging blow to our political system.  Congress isn't likely to pass meaningful campaign finance reform because they'd be cutting their own throats.  But that is exactly what the country needs them to do right now.  The good of the country has no relation to how much money special interests can funnel to politicians.

Yes. Income and wealth inequality is a huge driver of the current political situation.  Not sure how to address it - increase minimum wage?  Increase cap gains/estate taxes? Lower taxes on lower and middle income people?  Invest in education systems that serve poor and middle class to increase their earning potential? 

I'd be curious to know how we measure inflation versus how it should be measured.  If the government is purposefully under-counting inflation to make themselves look good that's....bad.

The way to address the growing wealth and income gap is simple. Never ever vote for another republican for as long as you live. 

[wildcat09 29256]

24 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And to think, he didn’t even mention intentionally infecting millions of Americans with covid.

[Brisketexan 104624]

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

And to think, he didn’t even mention intentionally infecting millions of Americans with covid.

Bolded for emphasis.

For fuck's sake, it has come out that this was the INTENTIONAL POLICY OF THE ADMIN.

The OFFICIAL policy of Trump admin was "let every American get sick and get it over with.  If they die, they die."  Sure, they didn't come out and say it as a written policy statement, but it's damned clear that's what they followed through on.

Worst.  President.  Ever.   He's blown them all away.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Mole 4320]

Honestly, this past month alone probably qualifies him for worst president ever. This past month has been the 2000 Pedro Martinez of bad presidencies.

[TwiceHorn 31282]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously?  I just typed out a whole paragraph about how the strong majority of politicians are in public service for at least SOME purpose of public service.  That includes every past president of my lifetime.  A lifetime that includes Nixon, by the way.

All of those past presidents were egomaniacs and narcissists to some degree or another (damn near seems like a requirement of the position).  But they ALSO had some component of motivation to serve the country as a whole and act in its interests.  Some of them were manipulated by people with other goals.  Some of them let their narcissism and hubris overload their ass.  But all had as a material goal and purpose service to the interest of the nation.

Trump does not.  Not in even the smallest measurable quantity.  He is in it for him, only him, and literally everyone else be damned.  He is a pure, uncut narcissist and egomaniac.  In that respect, he represents a huge, and devastating, deviation from the norm.

Trump is an outlier vis a vis humanity.  Not as rare as we'd like to think, but certainly not common.

He is certainly an outlier as to those who have held the office.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The OFFICIAL policy of Trump admin was "If they die, they die."  

Worst.  President.  Ever.   He's blown them all away.

That is his philosophy in any event, not just COVID.

Seeking asylum?

Seeking employment?

Seeking healthcare?

Protesting in DC?

Allies assisting US military in Syria?

Journalist exposing corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia?

[babysdaddy 2718]

30 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes. Income and wealth inequality is a huge driver of the current political situation.  Not sure how to address it - increase minimum wage?  Increase cap gains/estate taxes? Lower taxes on lower and middle income people?  Invest in education systems that serve poor and middle class to increase their earning potential? 

I'd be curious to know how we measure inflation versus how it should be measured.  If the government is purposefully under-counting inflation to make themselves look good that's....bad.

I don't have a good answer on how to fix it or if it even can be fixed.  Your first 3 ideas can temporarily address the widening but I don't believe it would ultimately work.  Education is obviously one way that sets up a better long term potential for an individual's earning power however that is based on historical precedent. Once a college degree becomes ubiquitous, its value and the holders earning power diminishes. 

Inflation, traditionally measured via CPI, uses a concept called substitution which is explained below

"What is substitution and substitution bias? And does the C-CPI-U eliminate it?

Traditionally, the CPI was considered an upper bound on a cost-of-living index in that the CPI did not reflect the changes in consumption patterns that consumers make in response to changes in relative prices.

Since January 1999, a geometric mean formula has been used to calculate most basic indexes within the CPI; this formula allows for a modest amount of substitution within item categories as relative price changes.

The geometric mean formula, though, does not account for consumer substitution taking place between CPI item categories. For example, pork and beef are two separate CPI item categories. If the price of pork increases while the price of beef does not, consumers might shift away from pork to beef. The C-CPI-U is designed to account for this type of consumer substitution between CPI item categories. In this example, the C-CPI-U would rise, but not by as much as an index that was based on fixed purchase patterns.

With the geometric mean formula in place to account for consumer substitution within item categories, and the C-CPI-U designed to account for consumer substitution between item categories, any remaining substitution bias would be quite small."

 

The government uses cost of living adjustments based on CPI to increase social security payments annually.  It is beneficial for the government to undercount inflation because otherwise SS would be in even worse shape than it is currently. 

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Worst.  President.  Ever.   He's blown them all away.

For a couple of years there, I tried to equivocate between him and Andrew Jackson. But... yeah, no. Worst ever, and #2 is not even in the same fucking quartile. He has set the bar so fucking low, they serve bat soup where it is, because it's on the other side of the fucking globe.

[TwiceHorn 31282]

It is true that we haven't had the 24 hour news cycle, TV, video and fucking twitter to document the personality disorders of other candidates for worst President ever.

It will be interesting to see if the history "books," or whatever medium reports Trump and the Trump Administration as an historical matter, manages to capture the the full breadth of his malevolence.

[Brisketexan 104624]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

It is true that we haven't had the 24 hour news cycle, TV, video and fucking twitter to document the personality disorders of other candidates for worst President ever.

It will be interesting to see if the history "books," or whatever medium reports Trump and the Trump Administration as an historical matter, manages to capture the the full breadth of his malevolence.

No medium is sufficient.

Especially the one we're likely to be left with.....

[hpslugga 4044]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously?  I just typed out a whole paragraph about how the strong majority of politicians are in public service for at least SOME purpose of public service.  That includes every past president of my lifetime.  A lifetime that includes Nixon, by the way.

All of those past presidents were egomaniacs and narcissists to some degree or another (damn near seems like a requirement of the position).  But they ALSO had some component of motivation to serve the country as a whole and act in its interests. 

I'm sorry but that feeds right into what you said about Andrea Yates. Yeah, I'm sure the things they did "served the country as a whole" in "its best interests" as they saw it, but by and large they either really were self-serving or at least responsive to big money donors, which isn't a huge surprise. There are too many examples to go into, but I'm open to discussing them.

Yes, Trump is an outlier in his personality. There's no question about that. But policy-wise? He's right there with the rest of that stupid "party." Tell me, what policy difference (and I mean policies of real importance, not fringe crap like prayer in school) does he have with the rest of that lot? That's what I was getting at when I posed that question. Personality-wise, yes, he's a malignant, narcissistic sociopath. On that we agree.

Quote

Some of them were manipulated by people with other goals.  Some of them let their narcissism and hubris overload their ass.  But all had as a material goal and purpose service to the interest of the nation.

Again, I'm sure that they told themselves that, but for everything that every post-WWII president did that you might think was in servility to the greater good of the country, I could name at least 10 that most certainly were not.

Quote

Trump does not.  Not in even the smallest measurable quantity.  He is in it for him, only him, and literally everyone else be damned.  He is a pure, uncut narcissist and egomaniac.  In that respect, he represents a huge, and devastating, deviation from the norm.

Yes, in THAT respect.

Edited December 17, 2020 by hpslugga

[UpperWestside 6136]

5 hours ago, hpslugga said:

That's narcissism mixed with tribalism. You can't correct a narcissist on a previously held belief, because that would mean the person was wrong, and they're "never wrong." And in this particular case, the narcissism is rooted in tribalism. Most Americans don't view politics in the classical sense, which is when one acts on their best understanding of what's right vs. what's wrong. Americans, by and large, view politics as a team sport and that it's all about winning and losing. And it's hard to break that cycle because the greatest beneficiaries of that are the two big political parties. They've been able to accumulate large swaths of voters who they absolutely can count on to vote for their candidates no matter what. I mean for fuck's sake, Trump actually had a better turnout than he did in 2016, even though he proved himself to be the absolute worst president in US history.

Well that's Dunning-Kruger. There, a person with no professional background on the topic is asserting he knows more than a much more qualified professional. I would also suggest such a person is a fool. A fool is defined as a person who too readily accepts dubious claims from questionable sources based on insufficient information.

Again, back to narcissism. Complete inability to recognize when someone is wrong, which inevitably yields a person unable to learn anything. But that is an important example you illustrate because what it also shows is a person using apologetics, which is when someone perpetually lies in defense of something that's indefensible. Some will also tell you that this is confirmation bias, but that's really just a means to an end. The big question in those instances isn't THAT it's confirmation bias, it's why the person is using it.

Yes it is, and that Antrim County audit nonsense is a perfect example of it. Seriously read what actually did happen with that whole thing, then observe the pro-Sidney Powell commentary on it and you will notice that it's no exaggeration to say that she and her idiot followers are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything that they said. But the point is that they just run with it...then someone like you might try to explain it to them...then they still believe, maybe even more fervently than they did before you spoke, in the lie. 

This is a fantastic explanation that covers so much of what we are witnessing in society. Thanks for taking the time to post this.

[UpperWestside 6136]

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Yes we are fucked. Education is sorely lacking in this country, and not just that but the culture against higher learning. Throw in the propaganda networks and social media, and this will be a long long battle. 

There absolutely is a culture in our country in certain areas where being educated is looked at as shameful. Just as someone is not born a racist, no one is born with a hatred or disgust of being educated. We are all blank slates when we show up in this world. The propaganda people grew up hearing in their corner of the world, what they saw on TV and now the internet definitely has pushed many of our fellow citizens into an alternate reality that exists in their mind. That alternate reality feels good and brings them comfort. Attempting to tell them otherwise, especially right now with the fresh wounds of seeing their cult leader being removed from the White House after one term, is a tough row to hoe. I still believe it is worth it to engage with our fellow citizens, even those who are part of the cult. I am 100 percent against racism and those who further such beliefs, but even some of them can be reached. This is going to be a really long uphill climb for us as a country, but trying is worth it. Sitting idly by is just not an option anymore. We have to take responsibility ourselves and not rely on anyone else to change things.

[Brisketexan 104624]

24 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Again, I'm sure that they told themselves that, but for everything that every post-WWII president did that you might think was in servility to the greater good of the country, I could name at least 10 that most certainly were not.

I'm not arguing about the actual effect of their policies, or even how they might have been formulated in order to accomplish a goal of some interested party.  I'm talking about the core motivations of the people in the office.

I've seen sausage being made at relatively high levels (again, local, but high level).  While "special interests" are almost always an inherent part of the process, and policies often serve one or more special interests, that's not WHY the policymakers are taking the action.  They are generally trying to serve their idea of the common good.  That may be all out of whack with how you and I would do so, but it's a question of how, not what, they are trying to serve.

To look at it on a high level, Policymaker Brisket may consider an environmental protection policy.  I like protecting the environment, and think that serves the greater good.  I ALSO like making sure we don't cripple employment, because jobs also serve the greater good.  So, I'm going to strike a balance.  If I go too far one way, I'm serving the special interest of the  Sierra Club.  If I go too far the other way, I'm serving the special interest of the timber industry or whatnot.  Hell, no matter WHAT I do, one side or the other (and maybe both) are going to claim that I'm beholden to the other side.

And maybe I AM influenced by my life, connections, etc.  If I grew up in a logging family, I'm going to have sympathy for the timber industry.  If I just listen to the viewpoints of the interested parties, I bet the timber industry has some really slick and persuasive lobbyists who are going to show me some devastating financial effects if I do what the Sierra Club wants.

Maybe I strike a compromise, because I know I can't pass everything I might like to, so I pass the best thing I can get.

Don't mistake "giving too much credence and weight to the opinions of one side" for "beholden to that side."  Again, that doesn't mean that plenty of politicians don't get it way wrong, and fall way out of balance.  Just realize that for a large chunk of them, they really are trying to serve the public as they see it best done.

CAVEAT -- I think that the fact that politics has become a career for many, particular Congress, they end up serving the goal of "get re-elected" more than they do the common good.  The god of re-election can supplant all other gods, and fuck up the entire system, and even fuck up people who may have gotten into public service for the right reason.  But I digress.

[HillaryFan420 121]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously?  I just typed out a whole paragraph about how the strong majority of politicians are in public service for at least SOME purpose of public service.  That includes every past president of my lifetime.  A lifetime that includes Nixon, by the way.

All of those past presidents were egomaniacs and narcissists to some degree or another (damn near seems like a requirement of the position).  But they ALSO had some component of motivation to serve the country as a whole and act in its interests.  Some of them were manipulated by people with other goals.  Some of them let their narcissism and hubris overload their ass.  But all had as a material goal and purpose service to the interest of the nation.

Trump does not.  Not in even the smallest measurable quantity.  He is in it for him, only him, and literally everyone else be damned.  He is a pure, uncut narcissist and egomaniac.  In that respect, he represents a huge, and devastating, deviation from the norm.

And people say Trump voters are deluded. 

[UpperWestside 6136]

1 hour ago, Walden Ponderer said:

For a couple of years there, I tried to equivocate between him and Andrew Jackson. But... yeah, no. Worst ever, and #2 is not even in the same fucking quartile. He has set the bar so fucking low, they serve bat soup where it is, because it's on the other side of the fucking globe.

There really is not even a close 2nd. It's like Stephen Miller sat him down and read to him a list of character traits of past presidents that most of us would consider to be horrific and Trump thought it just sounded amazingly good. I hope that as a country we never see someone in the Oval Office like this ever again. 

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

9 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

There really is not even a close 2nd. It's like Stephen Miller sat him down and read to him a list of character traits of past presidents that most of us would consider to be horrific and Trump thought it just sounded amazingly good. I hope that as a country we never see someone in the Oval Office like this ever again. 

Well, maybe as a book character. Because it makes for a good plot device to have Satan as your president.