Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaximumZero]

My favorite baseball team sucks. They've sucked for a long, long time, and that's never stopped me from watching them, but still. Why can't you be good for a while, Mariners?

They were good for "a while"!

This series is absolutely amazing and I recommend that everyone watch it. Jon Bois is a master narrator.

[Jopax]

Old headphones had their mic jack stop working yesterday (fucking shitty cables, you'd think they'd know how to make a single bend not completely ruin a cable, tho it was a dirt cheap pair so dunno what I was expecting tbh) so I went out to get a new one, opted or a wireless pair, not particularly cheap for these parts but probably on the no-name brand shitty scale of things. As it turns out, they're bluetooth wireless only (with no USB transmitter that I could use with my desktop PC) and the cable they come with is a one way thing only. So i can either use the built in mic or I can use the headphones but not both at the same time.

Fault is entirely mine because I could've studied the box a bit better but all of these cheap shitty ones have the same useless marketing blurbs on them it's hard to figure out what's what anymore :V

Guess I'll just use these for music and get a proper headset soonish or something :I

[heydude6]

Finally started reading Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and found this gem about a space president:

"The President in particular is very much a figurehead -- he has no real power whatsoever... the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership, but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from [those that do]. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had."

It's even better with context, but I wasn't expecting a humor book from 1979 to speak so much painful truth. I'd post this in things that made me laugh, but it's not funny anymore.

[Maximum Spin]

Finally started reading Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and found this gem about a space president:

"The President in particular is very much a figurehead -- he has no real power whatsoever... the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership, but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from [those that do]. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had."

It's even better with context, but I wasn't expecting a humor book from 1979 to speak so much painful truth. I'd post this in things that made me laugh, but it's not funny anymore.

It was just as true then too. In 1979, the last president had been Nixon and the current was the universally loathed Carter, so it was an entirely timely parody in its time.

[wierd]

Much like the Monty Python "election night special" skit never loses its magic.

We are always having the battle between "The sensible", "The silly", and "The very silly" political candidates.  It seems the more silly they are, the more people want them.

See also, Donald Trump, who somehow managed to get nearly 50% of the popular vote in 2016.

(To be specific, you had the "Sensible party" candidate as Bernie Sanders, "The silly party" candidate as Hillary Clinton, and "The VERY silly party" candidate, as Donald trump.  Much like the skit, we elected the silliest one.)

[Yoink]

the "Sensible party" candidate as Bernie Sanders

   



Edit: Hitchhiker's Guide is bloody fantastic, attempts at political commentary notwithstanding.   
I recently acquired a big hardcover omnibus of at least a few of the books, so I can finally give them another read after all these years. I remember having the first one recommended as a kid by someone who advised me not to bother with the other books, but I persevered and loved 'em.   
I wonder if they'll hold up.   

[TD1]

Your 'sensible' 'silly' and 'very silly' criteria are so subjective as to be nonsensical. As demonstrated by Yoink's reaction 

[scriver]

* scriver points to that time a literal clown was elected mayor of Rio de Janeiro

[wierd]

Your 'sensible' 'silly' and 'very silly' criteria are so subjective as to be nonsensical. As demonstrated by Yoink's reaction 

Building a platform around fixing the massive wealth disparity that exists in the USA is hardly nonsensical, and is actually quite sensible. (Which is what Sander's platform basically was.)
Building a platform around "How can I say exactly what will get me elected while having a history of being all over the place, and pretending that I have any real resolve for any stated objective in contradiction of objective reality of my past political performance" is silly, and is what Hillary's platform was.
Building a platform around "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" in a very Nazi-esque fashion, is Very Silly, and is exactly what Trump's platform was.

Yoink's reaction is mostly "Phhht! I disagree, LOL!" which is hardly constructive at all. 


That said, a "Truly Sensible" candidate has not been on offer for almost a century now. They are always either straight up charlatans out to enrich themselves, power hungry wanna-be dictators of various stripes, or buffoons.

[TD1]

And your reaction is: "I am right, this is sensible, everyone else is choosing stupid stuff because they're sheeple."

Your summation of each candidate's platforms only highlights your bias.

I'll not say which candidate I thought was sensible. It could be Sanders, it could be Clinton, it could be the Trump card. But each voter voted with their own values in mind. I wouldn't dare to presume that my values led me to a more 'sensible' choice than theirs.

[wierd]

Pointing out facts is not really a bias.

You can look through Sanders' and Clinton's political histories, and find they are vastly different fish, as regards to having a consistent message (vs hillary), and having consistent action plans. (Hilary can't even decide if she supports gay marriage or not, in an unambiguous, non-pandering-for-votes manner.)

Unless you want to explain how I am being "biased" in this matter, since the voting history point I just made is simply a matter of historical fact.  (Yes, this is a call for you to do exactly that. I have presented my case, you need to present yours.)

[hector13]

Pointing out facts is not really a bias.

When one of the candidates routinely avoids, obfuscates, or outright ignores facts, yes it is.

[wierd]

Pointing out facts is not really a bias.

When one of the candidates routinely avoids, obfuscates, or outright ignores facts, yes it is.

I do not believe that applies to Mr Sanders, unless you have specific examples.  Trump? Oh fuck yes-- He's a walking heap of "Contradicts Reality"-- His whole damn platform is built on it. (Then again, so was the Nazi Aryan Race bullshit narrative. Something I put a spotlight on when I mentioned his "Make America Great Again" platform, and why I said it was Very Silly.)

[Yoink]

Yoink's reaction is mostly "Phhht! I disagree, LOL!" which is hardly constructive at all.   

You expected me to be constructive in my response to your political rant in the Mild Sad thread?    
Maybe go back to Ameripol if you want constructive internet discussion of such topics. Well, assuming your definition of "constructive" is very, very broad, I suppose.       

[TD1]

Your 'sensible' 'silly' and 'very silly' criteria are so subjective as to be nonsensical. As demonstrated by Yoink's reaction 

Building a platform around fixing the massive wealth disparity that exists in the USA is hardly nonsensical, and is actually quite sensible. (Which is what Sander's platform basically was.)
Building a platform around "How can I say exactly what will get me elected while having a history of being all over the place, and pretending that I have any real resolve for any stated objective in contradiction of objective reality of my past political performance" is silly, and is what Hillary's platform was.
Building a platform around "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" in a very Nazi-esque fashion, is Very Silly, and is exactly what Trump's platform was.

Yoink's reaction is mostly "Phhht! I disagree, LOL!" which is hardly constructive at all. 


That said, a "Truly Sensible" candidate has not been on offer for almost a century now. They are always either straight up charlatans out to enrich themselves, power hungry wanna-be dictators of various stripes, or buffoons.

This is for 2020, but I assume there's overlap with past platforms, and honestly I can't be bothered hunting for past campaigns. Let me know if I make false assumptions.

Sanders:
End fossil fuel usage, make America 100% Green, 'hold accountable' fossil fuel companies.
Free at the point of service medicare.
Stop deportations until there's an audit. 'Dismantle' cruel deportation centres. Live up to the American ideal of the asylum nation.
Free public education, focusing on black colleges and minorities.
Stronger unions.

Trump:
Seems to be campaigning on 'Kept Promises.'
Lowered corporate tax rate, making America competitive on the world stage. Growing wages, less unemployment. Apprenticeships. Empowering women in global economics.
Built his wall. Stopped legal loopholes and chain migration. Enforces strong borders. Plans for merit-based immigration. Illegal immigrants 'a priority'.
International trade being 'fair' for America.
More drilling for oil. Focus on fossil fuels. Affordable Clean Energy Rule juggles clean electricity with maintaining jobs and profit.

Clinton (For 2016, not 2020)
Continuation of many of Obama's policies.
Eliminate university fees for poorer households, funded through grants and closing tax loop-holes used by the wealthy.
Give immigrants a path towards citizenship.
Slowly build on Obama's healthcare plans until universal health is possible.
Equal pay. Fair trade deals for America, protecting working families, while also not raising middle-class taxes. Increase minimum wage.
Slightly stricter gun laws.

Your condensation of policies:

Sanders: Fixing wealth disparity.
Trump: Nazi who wants to MAGA.
Clinton: Airhead lusting for power.

You understand how your biases may have eroded some of the nuance here? Further, do you see how each list of policies would appeal to different people, shifting who may be considered 'silly' and 'sensible'?