Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

As I mentioned earlier, I care. So I will actually offer some constructive criticism. Here is what I imagine when I see the words you wrote above. I imagine that I have accidentally stumbled across the Instagram page for a failed salesmen who is trying to re-cast himself as a motivational speaker. Under his screen name, where his bio info should be, is the following: "Student ~ Teacher ~ Speaker ~ Listener - Thinker." His latest post is a posed picture of the guy, whose name is Ryan, standing on stage with a wrap-around microphone on, pretending to speak to an audience. Behind him is a screen on which is displayed an oversize image of the wannabe-motivational speaker as he appears at that moment on stage, and this creates a kind of hall-of-mirrors, infinite douchebag effect. His loud checked shirt is open one too many buttons. And while he thinks his comically disheveled hair and two-day beard create the image of a man who is too hard at work to worry about appearances, they actually just betray his all-consuming cocaine addiction. His eyes are sunken and dull, and his smile is hollow. At the bottom of the post, superimposed over the picture, are the following words, in all-caps bold Helvetica: "Stupid and smart are measured in results. Nothing else counts."

Do better.

You are just bitter because sebby gets better results than you- you both get paid the exact same for your Political Lawyer chatting posts, but sebby rings the cash register more!

No offense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You are just bitter because sebby gets better results than you

Surely because of all the opposition to his posts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

As I mentioned earlier, I care. So I will actually offer some constructive criticism. Here is what I imagine when I see the words you wrote above. I imagine that I have accidentally stumbled across the Instagram page for a failed salesmen who is trying to re-cast himself as a motivational speaker. Under his screen name, where his bio info should be, is the following: "Student ~ Teacher ~ Speaker ~ Listener - Thinker." His latest post is a posed picture of the guy, whose name is Ryan, standing on stage with a wrap-around microphone on, pretending to speak to an audience. Behind him is a screen on which is displayed an oversize image of the wannabe-motivational speaker as he appears at that moment on stage, and this creates a kind of hall-of-mirrors, infinite douchebag effect. His loud checked shirt is open one too many buttons. And while he thinks his comically disheveled hair and two-day beard create the image of a man who is too hard at work to worry about appearances, they actually just betray his all-consuming cocaine addiction. His eyes are sunken and dull, and his smile is hollow. At the bottom of the post, superimposed over the picture, are the following words, in all-caps bold Helvetica: "Stupid and smart are measured in results. Nothing else counts."

Do better.

How is success measured in politics?

So if one succeeds by playing to the dumb, is he dumb? On the other hand, if one fancies himself smart but fails to connect and so loses to his opponent who plays to the dumb, is he still smart?

Try this. You’ve two options:

1. You get lots of what you want, but people don’t respect your intellect;
2. You get the satisfaction of having others tell you you’re smart, but you don’t get the material success you want.

Which would you pick?

Stated otherwise, are you the kind of person who values most what others think of their abilities? Because that’s how you seem to measure “smart.” And that is a valid measurement. But it’s also an insecure measurement.

Smart as you measure it is cheap. Millions of people shake their heads every month and wonder why they can’t pay the mortgage with it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure why you think Obama's opposition helped him, except for the fact that you love being a contrarian, but your assertions aren't helping.

Obama’s opposition was so unhinged, so similar to the current extreme left, and the extreme left under Bush II, and the extreme right under Clinton, that I suspect it drove a lot of moderate voters to show up and vote for him.

People were legitimately afraid of having the GOP gain control of the Presidency after four years of the party’s insane attacks on Obama.

Can I prove that more moderates voted for Obama in 2012 than otherwise might’ve because of his crazed opposition? No. But Romney was milquestoast, classic centrist. And the Tea Party was surging. I know lots of GOP operatives were alarmed by the tea party at that time. And if those people were freaked, I can only imagine how disturbed true moderates might have been. And the FIRE industries were totally afraid of the tea party. I suspect a quiet Obama increase among moderates appeared in 2012.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Obama’s opposition was so unhinged, so similar to the current extreme left, and the extreme left under Bush II, and the extreme right under Clinton, that I suspect it drove a lot of moderate voters to show up and vote for him. ... I suspect a quiet Obama increase among moderates appeared in 2012.

A lot of moderates voted for Obama in 2008, and he won states like Indiana and North Carolina. (I didn't need to Google that -- I remember it!) In your view, then, he had a lot of Tea Party opposition over the next few years, and then in 2012 fewer of those moderates voted for him, he got a smaller share of the vote, and he did not win Indiana or North Carolina, and this somehow shows that the opposition to him helped him. Now it's possible that if you flesh this out a lot more, it will somehow make sense, but I think you have to acknowledge that the basic facts here make your view silly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A lot of moderates voted for Obama in 2008, and he won states like Indiana and North Carolina. (I didn't need to Google that -- I remember it!) In your view, then, he had a lot of Tea Party opposition over the next few years, and then in 2012 fewer of those moderates voted for him, he got a smaller share of the vote, and he did not win Indiana or North Carolina, and this somehow shows that the opposition to him helped him. Now it's possible that if you flesh this out a lot more, it will somehow make sense, but I think you have to acknowledge that the basic facts here make your view silly.

How do you assume the loss of certain states or overall lower vote share was attributable to loss of moderates? I think you're making assumptions that can't be proven.

Obama could have lost other categories of voters and actually increased the number of moderates. You'd have to break out all the different types of voters to prove or disprove your point or mine.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How do you assume the loss of certain states or overall lower vote share was attributable to loss of moderates? I think you're making assumptions that can't be proven.

Obama could have lost other categories of voters and actually increased the number of moderates. You'd have to break out all the different types of voters to prove or disprove your point or mine.

Yes, he could have, but you have pointed to nothing that supports that view. A priori, you can't point to Obama's results in 2012 as saying that opposition helped him when he did worse in 2012 than in 2008. Which is why I said that "it's possible that if you flesh this out a lot more, it will somehow make sense." It's conceivable that the opposition to Obama helped him win over moderates, and that for entirely unrelated reasons his support from his base weakened, but you haven't said anything that would prompt someone else to believe that. It's conceivable that Hank is a IOT Roomba with AI features who is pretending to be a lawyer and a storyteller on this board, but my pointing out that possibility is hardly going to persuade even a credulous onlooker like Adder that it's true.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Tax fraud? Who would have thought?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How is success measured in politics?

So if one succeeds by playing to the dumb, is he dumb? On the other hand, if one fancies himself smart but fails to connect and so loses to his opponent who plays to the dumb, is he still smart?

Try this. You’ve two options:

1. You get lots of what you want, but people don’t respect your intellect;
2. You get the satisfaction of having others tell you you’re smart, but you don’t get the material success you want.

Which would you pick?

Stated otherwise, are you the kind of person who values most what others think of their abilities? Because that’s how you seem to measure “smart.” And that is a valid measurement. But it’s also an insecure measurement.

Smart as you measure it is cheap. Millions of people shake their heads every month and wonder why they can’t pay the mortgage with it.

The fact that you seem to think the point of my post was to dispute the substance of your statement about how to "measure smart" only further strengthens my belief that you are completely phoning it in.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, he could have, but you have pointed to nothing that supports that view. A priori, you can't point to Obama's results in 2012 as saying that opposition helped him when he did worse in 2012 than in 2008. Which is why I said that "it's possible that if you flesh this out a lot more, it will somehow make sense." It's conceivable that the opposition to Obama helped him win over moderates, and that for entirely unrelated reasons his support from his base weakened, but you haven't said anything that would prompt someone else to believe that. It's conceivable that Hank is a IOT Roomba with AI features who is pretending to be a lawyer and a storyteller on this board, but my pointing out that possibility is hardly going to persuade even a credulous onlooker like Adder that it's true.

Wait, you're saying Hank isn't?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tax fraud? Who would have thought?

The least surprising reveal of potential criminality ever.

[Adder]

We need to be able to run against Trump’s corruption. Hunter means Biden can’t. Joe needs to drop out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

We need to be able to run against Trump’s corruption. Hunter means Biden can’t. Joe needs to drop out.

80% of them need to drop out, and their true motives are belied by the fact they haven’t. But Joe needs to drop out for reasons having nothing to do with his son. If you were the candidate Trump would come up with something you did that was criminal. Background noise. We need someone that can ignore his shit, and respond in a way that makes clear he is an idiot and crazy. And with Joe the q becomes which one is more insane?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

80% of them need to drop out, and their true motives are belied by the fact they haven’t. But Joe needs to drop out for reasons having nothing to do with his son. If you were the candidate Trump would come up with something you did that was criminal. Background noise. We need someone that can ignore his shit, and respond in a way that makes clear he is an idiot and crazy. And with Joe the q becomes which one is more insane?

Don’t even disagree.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Recently, Trump has repeatedly released things that he thought would make him look good that, uh, don't at all. Like the memo about the call with the Ukrainian President. And the letter he sent (allegedly) to Erdogan. And the tweet with the picture of Pelosi today. His judgment for such things seems seriously off, when it used to be so good. It feels like he is delaminating. Is it the brainworms?