I don't think of Ukraine as "developed".

Fair enough point. They deposed of a democratically elected leader with a coup just to get a corrupt candyman leading their country.

They deposed of a democratically elected leader with a coup just to get a corrupt candyman leading their country.

Neither was democratically picked.

Republicans *do* choose who gets to have a chance at the nomination, with dollars, support, and votes.

You're implying here that Republican voters and interest-groups and donors are wasting their money and votes on people they don't really support in order to change the national paradigm of the Republican Party and seem more diverse.

You really need to look up the word 'imply'. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

I'm implying nothing of the sort.

Wow that's one big conspiracy theory.

Wow, that's a flimsy straw man.

"Sarah Palin is a nut job. No need to say anything more. She and Trump share one thing in common - illiteracy when they speak. Worst VP candidate since Dan Quayle." - JaiBharat

I agree. But I have news for you. Sarah Palin *was* their pick for 'diversity' when they knew they'd be facing Obama.

In other words, she's the best they could come up with.

The 'diversity' people running for nomination this election are almost all just a bunch of Sarah Palins. They are the *best* the Republicans can come up with, and they all suck, about as much as Palin sucked. That's because the Republican party as a whole doesn't have a big enough pool of 'diverse' people to be able to pick the cream of the crop. There's not enough crop to have cream to begin with -- they have to make do with the dregs.

Lots of people *supported* Sarah Palin. They wanted her to win. Just like lots of people are supporting/supported Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, etc. They want/wanted them to win. But they are just Sarah Palins. Even Ted Cruz seems pretty much a Palin, but I could be wrong, I don't know much about him. I don't know a lot about Marco Rubio either, but from what I gather, he seems the least Palin-esque (i.e. the most *actually* serious/competent).

And that's it. That is the *best* the Republicans can do to come up with some 'diversity' in their candidate pool. In other words, this sorry bunch is the elite of the Republican 'diversity' contingency.

When the Democrats weren't even trying to come up with a 'diversity' candidate, they got Hillary Clinton, who had a serious shot at being the first woman president, and Barack Obama who unexpectedly defeated even her for the nomination, and who then became the first Black president.

The Democrats don't even have to *try* that hard. They've got a cornucopia of a crop, and just skim the cream off the top. (Not that they are 'all that' in terms of policy, just diversity, and only then in contrast with the Republicans.)

Edited 2/16/2016 10:36:48

Yes, she was the governor of Alaska and that automatically makes here "qualified" (since this is a subjective term that has no real definition in the political sphere).

I'm actually using the term to gauge *your* response, and *your* perception of 'qualified', so it being subjective is kinda the point.

So, you think she's a nutjob, but she's 'qualified'? Says a lot about your judgment, man.

I think Jai summed this one up pretty well. "Qualified" is heavily subjective when it comes to politics. Palin, by legal definition, was eligible for the job. However, you could have a 12 hour debate drawing arbitrary lines about what makes a politician truly qualified or not.

I don't need a 12 hour debate, I just need *your* response. It's not a question about *actual* qualifications, it's a question about whether *you* *believe* she's actually qualified.

For the record, no, I don't think Palin would have made a good leader.

Good. We're on the same page there then.

So, my point to you then, is the same point I made to Jai. Nearly all of the 'diversity' candidates you guys are going on about are *just* Sarah Palins. They are just about as qualified as she is. They are the bottom of the barrel. Their *only* redeeming features are their 'diversity'. Only a couple rise above that, and I'm not even sure about that.

Edited 2/16/2016 05:09:03

This thread isn't even worth calling out on its cancer.

Please define "real diversity".

I mean that when you survey the people who identify as Republicans, you would find that they *actually* come from various groups in proportion (or close to it) to the overall American public. I don't just mean the few candidates we have on offer, I mean the party as a whole. *That* group of people are *not* diverse. They are *heavily* skewed towards a few distinct demographics: 1) Rich old white dudes, 2) lower-middle class under-educated, religious-right white folks, 3, 4, etc.) maybe one or two other identifiable groups, like perhaps college educated libertarian white folks. But they tend to elect mostly men (Democrats too, but in lesser proportion), so even the 'folks' part is heavily skewed towards 'dudes'.

I mean 'real diversity' like they mean it when it's studied scientifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_diversity

Do only minority people who agree with your specific ideology count towards this magical definition of diversity?

No, definitely not. That's the opposite of diversity: uniformity.

I'm sorry, but your personal worldview does not substitute as reality.

You're right. That's why I constantly try to shape my worldview to match closer to reality. You should try it some time, it's great!

Edited 2/16/2016 05:21:16

Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I'm not even American. I'm far to the left of most Democrats.

Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.


I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. I'm not even American. I'm far to the left of most Democrats.

You clearly lean more to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and you're very smug. And just about noone should 100% match with the Democratic or Republican Party - doing so is just unnescessary all-or-nothing condone-genocide-if-they-do-it outlook, or justifiable, but very rare (I mean, what are the odds?).

Also, you talk about qualifications several times. Noone is qualified. Being a governor or senator or mayor helps, but that doesn't qualify you for running a country and making orders, against running bit of a provinz and mostly following orders. In true democracy, the only thing that qualifies you is how many votes you get, and that's it.

@wtc, just stop arguing with these people, they are never going to accept your logic. At the end of the day, you can show them all the data and in the world, and if it contradicts their beliefs, they are not going to accept it.
Ex: Global warming

That's why I left this thread, and have left the others.

Oh fuck off, you half-assed excuses of vermin give us no evidence of man being responsible for global warming then tell us that scientists all agree on it like they're priests or imams and that disagreeing is blasphemy.

Wct continues to deny any chance of there being diversity in the RNC at all, when there is not just a diversity of ethnicity and gender but also a diversity of ideas. When presented with this, wct said that there was a women candidate who had ideas belonging to a sub-group in the party, which magically makes her not a women.

I would join the debate but I'm not sure what you guys are trying to argue over here...

America has always been different from Europe - and we have almost always been better in most aspects
that is a VERY debatable point, you could probably have a huge argument on that in the OT forum

You clearly lean more to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party,

Of course. I said I'm left of most Democrats. Why wouldn't I favour them as the lesser of two evils?

and you're very smug.

Not smug, bewildered. It boggles my mind how humans are so able to be deluded that they can literally see things diametrically opposite to how they are. If I had never seen it before I wouldn't have believed it. It's astonishing, really. Fascinating.

Also, you talk about qualifications several times. Noone is qualified. Being a governor or senator or mayor helps, but that doesn't qualify you for running a country and making orders, against running bit of a provinz and mostly following orders.

So, according to your theory, no one has ever done a decent job of being a president of the US? Can you not even think of one example? Who's your favourite president?

Not smug, bewildered. It boggles my mind how humans are so able to be deluded that they can literally see things diametrically opposite to how they are. If I had never seen it before I wouldn't have believed it. It's astonishing, really. Fascinating.

It boggles my mind on how a stupid monkey could type such a thing, but I shouldn't say it. That'd be very centrically smug. If you can't understand different ideas, fine, but have the decency to admit it, instead of saying that half the world is wrong. C'mon. That's the kind of thinking that got Earth to the universe's middle.

So, according to your theory, no one has ever done a decent job of being a president of the US? Can you not even think of one example? Who's your favourite president?

It's not a theory, it's a truth - the point of a democracy is that you're qualified if the folk like you. Anything more is limited democracy. Nonqualified folk can do things successfully that they're not qualified for. Qualifications can only make this more likely that they do it successfully. I don't really like most American presidents, I guess someone in the early 1800s.

Edited 2/16/2016 10:57:26

Noone is perfect, and you can only measure by what has happened. For example, 2 is the largest number a laptop would have ever seen, but to us its tiny.

@wtc, just stop arguing with these people, they are never going to accept your logic. At the end of the day, you can show them all the data and in the world, and if it contradicts their beliefs, they are not going to accept it.
Ex: Global warming

That's why I left this thread, and have left the others.

As I've said before in previous threads, I'm not primarily interested in changing the minds of whoever I'm responding to. I *am* interested in that, tangentially, but not primarily. Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous it all is. It's like doing my good deed for the day. I get a wee bit of satisfaction out of doing it. The more crazy they respond, the more interesting and compelling it is for me to point at it and say, "Gosh, that's crazy! Hey everybody, check out this crazy shit over here!"

I've spent years doing this kind of thing with creationists and all sorts of other believers in religions and conspiracy theories and whatnot. This OT forum is actually rather tame compared to that.

But, fundamentally, I do believe that peoples' beliefs influence how they behave, and behaviour has real-world consequences, and one type of such behaviour is how people vote. So I also see it as a kind of public service to illuminate the craziness. For too long people have tried to just ignore it. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually go away when you do that. Then you end up with George W. Bushes as presidents, Tea Parties, global warming denial and filibustering, obstruction of basic social services like health care, and all that. It's not something that should be ignored, IMHO.

If it's not your thing, I totally understand. It can be very frustrating and seem hopeless. But for myself, I've managed to get to a point where I don't expect too much and so I can enjoy the process a lot more.

And just like that....

Oh fuck off, you half-assed excuses of vermin give us no evidence of man being responsible for global warming then tell us that scientists all agree on it like they're priests or imams and that disagreeing is blasphemy.

Wct continues to deny any chance of there being diversity in the RNC at all, when there is not just a diversity of ethnicity and gender but also a diversity of ideas. When presented with this, wct said that there was a women candidate who had ideas belonging to a sub-group in the party, which magically makes her not a women.

Gosh, that's crazy! ;-)

Edited 2/16/2016 11:35:54

If you can't understand different ideas, fine, but have the decency to admit it, instead of saying that half the world is wrong.

Oh, I understand the ideas. That's why I find it hard to understand why people *believe* them.

And, "half the world"? You think Republicans are representative of half the world? Have you really not understood the key point that America's political climate is a huge outlier? Way more right-wing than most of the rest of the developed world. Way more religious. Way more deluded.

However, if I interpret your phrase more literally, then actually I do agree that "half the world is wrong". I'd say the majority of the world is wrong. Nearly all of it in fact. Myself included. It's by understanding this that I'm motivated to investigate reality and find out good ways to become 'less wrong' in my worldview. If only more people would do this.