*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[wufwugy]

I think the jury of neuroscientists is still out on that. There are certainly convincing arguments for it.

I should clarify that I'm speaking in the terms used in economics. They may not be the only terms, but I think they are the only terms with any credibility.

but I think it just boils down to them having a right to practice their beliefs, which would perhaps restrict you from obstructing that.

I think this is one of the main reasons why the issue is so hard to solve. I think the solution comes from two components: (1) governments not infringing on rights, and (2) governments protecting private property. Through this, we can have a situation where individuals aren't forced to do something like respect another person's religion, YET if those individuals try to impose upon private property, then the government is duty bound to uphold property rights. In an indirect way, this keeps government out of the space of speech, religion, etc., while also stopping undue aggression from some individuals to other individuals.

I don't think John Locke had in mind the government enforcing equal opportunity to all, that would certainly not be reasonable. I think he meant ensuring that the government treats everyone equally, not favoring anyone, thereby defending equal opportunity.

Yes, that's it. I don't think most Americans who call themselves liberals today agree with this.

I think if I had posted that list under the heading the tenets of free market capitalism or something, you would have found far less to criticize in them. It seems like you're more trying to attack some idea of liberalism you have than what is actually written.

My sense of the list is that it's mostly classic liberalism (which is stuff I like) mixed with the neo twist of social justice (which I don't like).

You're right about liberal roots. "Liberalism" used to mean something very different than what it does today. I think it is correct to say that today most people who identify as liberal are closer to socialist than classic liberal, and that conservatism and classic liberalism have more in common today than classic liberalism and modern liberalism do.

[BananaStand]

So in other words you have no idea what the meeting is about.

It was suggested in the article that they are meeting to discuss arrangements for future diplomatic summits.

Well is she meeting a diplomat from a foreign country in a non-diplomatic meeting then?

Seems so

And if so, why have her do it, why not send a secretary?

You said yourself...the state department is understaffed.

Then don't toss it. I asked on what basis you think she can be trusted?

It's unlikely that a party-planning task would present her with an opportunity to act unethically.

Apparently whoever does the official security clearance stuff disagrees with you on that

There are other reasons a security clearance might be denied.

Nice spin job.

You made it really easy

So first the meeting wasn't important enough that it mattered that Ivanka was doing it.

Right

Now, it's a good thing she's around to do this important task for the president who's failed to fill a number of important posts

Why did you use the word "important" there. It's not an important task. It's an inconsequential but necessary task. The kind that an understaffed state department would be eager to delegate.

Which is it?

Both

[wufwugy]

False. Conservatism upholds traditional values, so what it supports depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time.

In a way. Conservatism is an offshoot of liberalism. They're like two sides of the same coin, where liberalism is saying faster faster must go faster and conservatism is saying slow ya roll there hoss, let's not mess something up here.

It's "the left" that is the odd one out. Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism -- those are the guys that hold totally different principles than that which encapsulates both liberalism and conservatism.

[Poopadoop]

...

Ok as long as you're happy with how things are being run.

[wufwugy]

No-one prepared to defend the idea of having Ivanka sit in for Tillerson as Sec. State in the meeting with S. Korea?

I've seen Pakman lead people astray by using his economics degree as an authority while claiming an economics truth that ain't an economics truth. So I don't take his word on anything.

[wufwugy]

I should clarify that I'm speaking in the terms used in economics. They may not be the only terms, but I think they are the only terms with any credibility.

I should add that this may or may not be what an economist would say, depending on which economist and how you follow up with questions.

"Behavioral economics" has gained a lot of traction in the field of economics. Only problem is that "behavioral economics" changes definitions of basic economics then argues against those definitions. It also doesn't result in any different models in a meaningful way.

Overall, economics is half a mess, because of embracing stuff like behavioral economics, because of bad math, because of holding up politics over economics, because of a lack of focus on economics history and history of economic thought.

[wufwugy]

It's "the left" that is the odd one out. Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism -- those are the guys that hold totally different principles than that which encapsulates both liberalism and conservatism.

Here's an example:

Both conservatives and liberals historically thought that people should generally be free to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. Where they disagree is on what that line of hurting others is and what "hurting others" even means. Everything from tax policy to abortion policy has a great deal of this dynamic going on.

It's different with Marxism. Under that, you're not free to do fucking anything. You're a cog in a machine. You're a part of a collective. Your duty is to the collective, which means that your duty is to the state since the state is what relegates duty to the collective.

Marxism might be really great as a religion, because maybe then it wouldn't naturally need a state and maybe it would be about people framing themselves as groups (things religions already do). Though as a political ideal, it seems to need an all-powerful state and seems to eradicate individualism and liberty.

[wufwugy]

No-one prepared to defend the idea of having Ivanka sit in for Tillerson as Sec. State in the meeting with S. Korea?

From a strategic perspective, that might be really smart. I'd be even more impressed if Ivanka could (legally) be in talks with Kim. She's for sure the hottest chick he would have ever experienced in those kinds of settings and it would make him more agreeable. Far more agreeable.

[wufwugy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Trump have history of using his daughter when dealing with Asian statesmen? A tall, statuesque bombshell in a role that men not experienced with can be a game changer. Say it ain't pretty, but it's true that a tall hot white woman with parallel (or greater) status than short Asian men will throw them off their game big time.

[BananaStand]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Trump have history of using his daughter when dealing with Asian statesmen? A tall, statuesque bombshell in a role that men not experienced with can be a game changer. Say it ain't pretty, but it's true that a tall hot white woman with parallel (or greater) status than short Asian men will throw them off their game big time.

I need a cigarette after that post.

[wufwugy]

Or maybe it's just because Asians fucking adore Ivanka. They adore Trump yet adore Ivanka even more. She might be the most adored person in Asia.

[wufwugy]

I re-watched the Pakman video. I knew something was off....

It was weird how he avoided using language that would confirm that Ivanka was being substituted for Tillerson at a specific meeting.

What ACTUALLY happened....

http://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trump...h-korea-849409

The South Korean minister had planned two meetings, one with Ivanka, and one with Tillerson. Now that Tillerson is out....it's just Ivanka.

They had the meeting with Ivanka planned LONG BEFORE Tillerson was fired.

Heh.

[CoccoBill]

In a way. Conservatism is an offshoot of liberalism. They're like two sides of the same coin, where liberalism is saying faster faster must go faster and conservatism is saying slow ya roll there hoss, let's not mess something up here.

Originally liberalism was the movement in 18th century France to give power to the people from the monarchs (or I guess already before that in Spain, but I think France is usually considered the start). In the French parliament, the liberals sat on the left of the isle, conservatives on the right (that's where political left-right comes from). Conservatives were the ones supporting monarchy and traditional values, and has always been the main opposition of liberalism. In the American revolution classical liberalism won over the English monarchy, so you're right in the sense that there conservatism (republicanism) has tried to uphold those roots, against the rising social liberalism. Still, conservatism as an ideology typically isn't liberal, rather it's opposite. The common values they typically hold are support of free markets and property rights.

I think it's more like

Liberals: Let's try to change things for the better
Conservatives: Nah, we're good

[CoccoBill]

It's different with Marxism. Under that, you're not free to do fucking anything. You're a cog in a machine. You're a part of a collective. Your duty is to the collective, which means that your duty is to the state since the state is what relegates duty to the collective.

Marxism might be really great as a religion, because maybe then it wouldn't naturally need a state and maybe it would be about people framing themselves as groups (things religions already do). Though as a political ideal, it seems to need an all-powerful state and seems to eradicate individualism and liberty.

That's true only if you look at communist regimes. Marx's view of socialism was that when there's enough production and prosperity to comfortably take care of everyone, it is the key to ensure everyone a good life. Of course, this requires there to be enough production and prosperity, and that's why Marx saw capitalism as the necessary step towards socialism. Soviet Union, for example, tried to take a shortcut straight to communism, and with poverty and rampant corruption that didn't end so well. They were all intents and purposes dictatorships, not liberal in any way. The countries that most closely follow social liberalism's principles nowadays are probably the Nordic states, which seem to be doing pretty well in most metrics. I guess in the US the most notable social liberal was FDR with his New Deal.

[Poopadoop]

Or maybe it's just because Asians fucking adore Ivanka. They adore Trump yet adore Ivanka even more. She might be the most adored person in Asia.

haha.

[OngBonga]

Are you going to argue again that no-one but Trump is qualified to decide if Ivanka the fashion designer is qualified to act as Sec. State? Do you not see the absurdity of that argument?

I'm going to argue that until she fucks up, she as qualified as anyone else to do the job and I'm really not bothered who Trump hires. I've said before that trust (in integrity, sincerity and honesty) is an imprtant factor for a leader when appointing people, and you should be able to trust your family more than anyone.

I really don't see why this is an issue for you. Has she fucked up?

[CoccoBill]

^Google nepotism. Bob's your uncle.

[OngBonga]

Is nepotism by default a bad thing?

[Poopadoop]

Yes it is.

Next question?

[OngBonga]

I must say cocco I'm impressed with your knowledge of the history of British phrases. I didn't know they origin of "Bob's your uncle" but I obviously know the phrase.

[OngBonga]

Yes it is.

Next question?

Thank you for your in depth analysis of why this is.

I'm going to counter by saying... I disagree.

[Poopadoop]

It's illegal for a reason.

So, she has no official job and no official security clearance but she's attending official meetings and meeting foreign diplomats. And lol you guys are all 'no it's ok, they like her'. Well, no it's not ok.

Maybe a better question is why he's reduced to relying on family for what should be the most sought after positions in the US government. When 6/9 top positions in the state department are vacant and your excuse for diplomacy is to send your daughter, how is that not a problem?

[CoccoBill]

I'll assume that's a serious question. I would say almost unequivocally yes. The only benefit I can think of is what you mentioned, maybe it's easier for the leader himself to trust the person. What it generally means though is that the relative is favored over a more competent one, and whether the appointment is made with good intentions or not, it's sure to sow distrust and likely affect the motivation and performance of others.

[CoccoBill]

I must say cocco I'm impressed with your wikipedia-fu. I didn't know they origin of "Bob's your uncle" but I obviously know the phrase.

Thanks.

[Poopadoop]

Thank you for your in depth analysis of why this is.

I'm going to counter by saying... I disagree.

If you need a list of what's wrong with nepotism, they're not hard to find

https://bizfluent.com/info-12115748-...-nepotism.html

[OngBonga]

So if it sows mistrust, in a democratic nation it is a HUGE gamble. So you'd have to have some pretty high confidence that the relative is up to the job, or at the very least be ruthless enough to weild the axe if needs be.

Trust is a BIG issue for a leader.

Is it illegal? I don't imagine Trump is appointing his relatives in flagrant breach of law.

[Poopadoop]

The last case of nepotism I can think of involving a president was when Kennedy made his brother Attorney General. Thing is, RFK was a lawyer, a senator and had a lot of experience in government. And people still (rightly) questioned it at the time. If RFK had been a male model I'm sure it would have a) never happened; and b) been completely denounced as bullshit.

[OngBonga]

If you need a list of what's wrong with nepotism, they're not hard to find

I don't need a list. It's pretty obvious that if you're giving important jobs to people who are less competent than others, then the results won't be so good.

However, if trust is the key aspect of the job, then that's the measure of competency... how much do I trust you?

[OngBonga]

The last case of nepotism I can think of involving a president was when Kennedy made his brother Attorney General. Thing is, RFK was a lawyer, a senator and had a lot of experience in government. And people still (rightly) questioned it at the time. If RFK had been a male model I'm sure it would have a) never happened; and b) been completely denounced as bullshit.

Has he given Ivanka a job that is beyond her competency?

[Poopadoop]

So if it sows mistrust, in a democratic nation it is a HUGE gamble. So you'd have to have some pretty high confidence that the relative is up to the job,

Or just not give a shit because you're a narcissist and think you can do whatever you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it.

or at the very least be ruthless enough to weild the axe if needs be.

Ya, I think the chance of Trump firing his daughter is next to nil.

[OngBonga]

Nepotism has its flaws, obviously, and some heavy ones. I would be very cautious of someone who was hiring family to do the actually running of government. But going to Asia to talk to people? What level of "competency" does one need? It's for Donald to decide what qualities will be most appreciated by the hosts.

[OngBonga]

Or just not give a shit because you're a narcissist and think you can do whatever you want and fuck anybody who doesn't like it.

I'm not a narcissist. You're shit at psychoanalysing.

[Poopadoop]

Has he given Ivanka a job that is beyond her competency?

Well since she doesn't actually have a "job" there, then obviously not. The question is on what basis is she attending official meetings then?

[Poopadoop]

I'm not a narcissist. You're shit at psychoanalysing.

reductio ad bananum.

I was referring to Trump here bud.

[OngBonga]

reductio ad bananum.

I was referring to Trump here bud.

ha well that makes me shit at reading context.

Well since she doesn't actually have a "job" there, then obviously not. The question is on what basis is she attending official meetings then?

So... how is this nepotism? Maybe she's there as a representative of the President, and her hosts are more than happy to welcome her.

[Poopadoop]

So... how is this nepotism? Maybe she's there as a representative of the President

You just answered your own question.

[OngBonga]

But if we're talking about competency, who is more competent, other than the President himself, to represent the President? His daughter is perfect if the only task is to represent the President. She's there for the cameras, to shake hands with people and say how lovely their country is. She's not there to negotiate the release of American hostages, or to lobby for military action. At least I would hope not. That would be a problem, obviously. But smiling and say hello in their language? What do you think she's doing there?

[Poopadoop]

But if we're talking about competency, who is more competent, other than the President himself, to represent the President? His daughter is perfect if the only task is to represent the President. She's there for the cameras, to shake hands with people and say how lovely their country is. She's not there to negotiate the release of American hostages, or to lobby for military action. At least I would hope not. That would be a problem, obviously. But smiling and say hello in their language? What do you think she's doing there?

Well first, she's representing the country, not the president. And by having her represent the country the message being sent is that nepotism is a-ok with this govt, that they can't be bothered or are incapable of finding an experienced diplomat to do what is clearly a diplomat's job, and that they don't think enough of your country to find one. It's at best inappropriate and at worst insulting to S. Korea.

Moreover, it's symptomatic of a larger problem. By all accounts, Jarvanka have been involved in plenty of high level meetings for which neither has the proper security clearance, nor any real justification for being there. Just saying 'i trust them not to use this inside knowledge of how the government works for their own personal gain' doesn't cut it.

Either they have jobs there (which is illegal) and have been properly vetted for (which they haven't, or at least not enough to pass the security clearances), or they shouldn't be there. It's really that simple. This is the top echelon of the US government, it's not take your daughter to work day at Maccy D's.

I just don't understand why the standards that any other world leader would be held up to somehow seem to get excused away by some people when it comes to Trump.

[BananaStand]

Give it up Ong. You're trying to argue with someone in the throws of a toddler-like tantrum. In fact, I'm naming this phenomenon: Tantrumium et Poopicus

The whole impetus behind this complaint was the erroneous premise that Ivanka was pinch-hitting for Tillerson. That's what that incompetent nincompoop David Pakman presented as "the problem". At best, it's disingenuous click-bait. At worst, it's the rantings of a hopelessly uninformed and misguided cut-rate demagogue.

Can you just admit that much Poop? This meeting was set weeks ago, when Rex still had a job. Please tell me that you understand that Ivanka is not acting in place of the secretary of state. She is not substituting or pinch-hitting for Tillerson in any diplomatic capacity. That was the whole premise if your original outrage, and the main complaint in the Pakman video. Do we all agree now that it was bogus?

If not, fuck you. But if so, then WHY are you continuing to beat this drum about Ivanka?? She's not doing anything wrong. She's not doing anything for which she does not have a security clearance. She's not working in any official capacity. She's not benefiting from nepotism.
She's helping out her dad.

Look, I realize that you thought Pakman was on to something and you got excited. I realize that if it were true that there was a diplomatic meeting that required the Secretary of State, but instead Ivanka would be taking Rex's place, that's bad. You would have been SOOOO right to be outraged and infuriated. You could have credibly scoffed at the stupidity of it all.

However...that's not what's happening. Not even close. That narrative is an invention of the imagination of a cut-rate, no-talent, youtube demagogue.

Now that narrative has been debunked, you're STILL trying to manufacture outrage out of this situation, and it's kinda sad.

Honestly, if this is the biggest complaint you have about Trump right now....then he's probably having a pretty good week.

[Poopadoop]

Actually I'd like to hear Ong's thoughts, not the thoughts of a toxic idiot. But thanks anyways.

[BananaStand]

Actually I'd like to hear Ong's thoughts,

I get it. Talking to me causes you to have painful cognitive dissonance

not the thoughts of a toxic idiot

Then why do you watch Pakman videos?

[BananaStand]

C'mon Brits....what the fucking hell here???

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...te-to-dog.html

[Poopadoop]

Talking to me causes you to have pain

fyp.

Also the fact that I wasn't asking you so told you to fuck off. I know it's hard for you to fathom that not everyone is as fascinated in your opinions as you are, but it's true.

[BananaStand]

fyp.

Also the fact that I wasn't asking you so told you to fuck off. I know it's hard for you to fathom that not everyone is as fascinated in your opinions as you are, but it's true.

Tantrumium et Poopicus

WAAAAAHHHHH, MY FAVORITE YOUTUBE DEMAGOGUE FOOLED ME. NOW I CAN'T SHIT ON TRUMP AS MUCH AS I WANT TO WAAAAAHHHH

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Originally Posted by BananaStand"

Fake news. Nanners hasn't posted in the past 2 days, and it's been amazing.


At this point, if you don't have him on your ignore list, you tacitly admit that you are choosing to expose yourself to his vitriol.
Might as well accept that you're fascinated by his opinions, too.

[BananaStand]

Might as well accept that you're fascinated by his opinions, too.

Pretty sure this is a guilty pleasure of at least 2/3 of people here.

For the other 1/3, it's just a pleasure.

[Poopadoop]

But telling him to fuck off is fun.

Not reading any post of his longer than a sentence is also fun.

You can have the best of both worlds.

[BananaStand]

But telling him to fuck off is fun.

LOL, and MMM thinks I am the source of vitriol and toxicity.....hilarious.

[Poopadoop]

LOL, and MMM thinks I am the source of vitriol and toxicity.....hilarious.

Poor baby, such a victim.

Go cry on your howitzer, snowflake.

[BananaStand]

Poor baby, such a victim.

Go cry on your howitzer, snowflake.

Lol, I'm not complaining. This is not the occasion to dust off my howitzer. I just think mental gymnastics that you guys use to fool yourselves are pretty funny to watch.

[Poopadoop]

No, it's the fact that you cry when you get some of it back.

That's what's funny.

[BananaStand]

No, it's the fact that you cry when you get some of it back.

Identifying hypocrisy is not the same is "crying".

If I was really butt-hurt by any of the complaints about me, why would I still be here?

I think it's fun to educate you snowflake libtards. It's really fun to pummel you with facts and logic that destroys your misguided ideological demagoguery.

And the real fun comes when you throw spastic tantrums to defend your fading positions. For example...this Ivanka stuff. Pakman lied to you, and rather than be upset at him...you decided to try and find a new reason why he could be right.

Honestly Poop, don't ever leave. Because the amusement at your stubborn insistence to remain misguided really makes my day sometimes.

[Poopadoop]

tl;dr

[BananaStand]

tl;dr

Liar

Funny how that little chestnut always seems to pop up when facts and logic pin you into a corner.

all you have to do, little snowflake, is admit that Pakman is full of shit, and just this once, you fell for it. Be glad that you were corrected here, in this obscure corner of the internet, before you went out in public and made a total fool of yourself.

Now say "thank you for setting me straight Mr. Banana" and we can all move on.

[Poopadoop]

Liar

You're right. I read everything you say with abject fascination.

That point you made about astrology not being real science and therefore liberals are wrong about everything was spot on.

Well played sir.

[BananaStand]

You're right. I read everything you say with abject fascination.

Finally some truth

That point you made about astrology not being real science and therefore liberals are wrong about everything was spot on

I don't recall mentioning anything about astrology. I probably said psychology isn't real science. You misunderstood.

Well played sir.

I know

[OngBonga]

I just don't understand why the standards that any other world leader would be held up to somehow seem to get excused away by some people when it comes to Trump.

Maybe it's because some people find it refreshing to do things a different way. Maybe it comes across as more human, more sincere. "I'm sorry I can't personally come to South Korea, I'm a busy man, but please, meet my lovely daughter." South Korea will be delighted to host the President's daughter, more so that some boring politician. Don't pretend it's insulting to SK, not unless you can actually show me them complaining.

[OngBonga]

So I'm assuming you antinepotists oppose family businesses?

[BananaStand]

You're playing the wrong game Ong. your response there presumes that Poop's original premise -- that Trump is held to a different standard -- is true.

It isn't.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe it's because some people find it refreshing to do things a different way. Maybe it comes across as more human, more sincere. "I'm sorry I can't personally come to South Korea, I'm a busy man, but please, meet my lovely daughter." South Korea will be delighted to host the President's daughter, more so that some boring politician. Don't pretend it's insulting to SK, not unless you can actually show me them complaining.

Well first, they're not going to complain publicly because that's not how diplomacy is done.

Second, you can try to spin it into something positive all you want, it's still nepotism.

[Poopadoop]

So I'm assuming you antinepotists oppose family businesses?

Why would they care if it's a mom and pop store that hires their kid as stock boy? That's on a completely different level than a government that affects everyone's lives.

[BananaStand]

it's still nepotism.

No it isn't.

[Poopadoop]

You can't have it both ways.

Either

1. She is working for the US gov't and thus violating anti-nepotism laws.

or

2. She isn't working for the US gov't and shouldn't be meeting foreign diplomats or attending high level meetings that require security clearance she doesn't have.

You take your pick. I'm going with 2.

[Poopadoop]

And by the way, how S. Korea or any other country might feel about it is irrelevant. It's US law that they work under in the US gov't.

[BananaStand]

You can't have it both ways..

Not trying to.

Either

1. She is working for the US gov't and thus violating anti-nepotism laws

It's not that.

2. She isn't working for the US gov't

Right

and shouldn't be meeting foreign diplomats

She's not allowed to have friends?

or attending high level meetings

It's not a "high level" meeting. How many strawmen are you gonna cram into this post??

that require security clearance she doesn't have.

The meeting obviously doesn't require security clearance. That's just another strawman you invented for seemingly no other reason than to protect your pristine perception of Pakman.

You take your pick. I'm going with 2.

So we're agreed then....it's not nepotism?

[OngBonga]

Why would they care if it's a mom and pop store that hires their kid as stock boy? That's on a completely different level than a government that affects everyone's lives.

It's still nepotism. Maybe I'm better at stocking shelves, and want that job.

[Poopadoop]

It's still nepotism. Maybe I'm better at stocking shelves, and want that job.

Right then you should complain to the labour board (or UK equivalent). But if you're not after that stock boy job you probably don't give a shit.

[OngBonga]

I'd totally be a nepotist if I were in charge. I'd surround myself with trusted people... family and friends. Anyone else is an outsider and potentially a double agent working for the Russians.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I'd be all like 'yeah my Uncle Joe the butcher would make an awesome head of the CIA...oh wait, no he wouldn't.'

[BananaStand]

Every single time I've voted, I've written-in my brother for county sherriff

[BananaStand]

Ruh Roh!!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...gn-did-it.html

[OngBonga]

Yeah, I'd be all like 'yeah my Uncle Joe the butcher would make an awesome head of the CIA...oh wait, no he wouldn't.'

My friend is an accountant and I think she might even have Jew in her, she can be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[OngBonga]

Foreign secretary can be my friend Abbi because she can speak French and is very racist.

My cousin speaks German, so that's that ambassador sorted. My brother likes football, he can be Sports Minister, and if we haven't got one of those, I'll create the post for him.

My Mother can be Charity Minister, which is probably another post I'll have to invent, but who's going to argue with that one?

And Craig Murray can be my Scottish Minister, because obviously I trust him.

[OngBonga]

My best mate can be my deputy. And by deputy I mean the guy who rolls my spliffs and makes my tea. That's the most important job of them all. That's definitely not going to an outsider.

[OngBonga]

banana, you want a job as press secretary when I rule the world?