Cynicism, IMO, is another form of shallowness.Not cynicism. This is backed by peer-reviewed literature. Conservatives do not think deeply about issues, they react out of fear.
Cynicism, IMO, is another form of shallowness.Not cynicism. This is backed by peer-reviewed literature. Conservatives do not think deeply about issues, they react out of fear. I am not suggesting that Repubs are not shallow. I am suggesting that cynicism is ALSO rather shallow, in that it is often spawned by a fear of being naïve, yet, ironically, I think, is also a kind of naivety. Cynicism may recognize certain realities, but in doing so, also, tends to claim that there is nothing to be done, except perhaps, to wait for, or contribute to, everything blowing apart. I prefer pragmatism.
There is something going on that is relevant to this repub political race. Hillary has very recently begun, pointedly, going after one particular repub: Jeb W. Bush. This, I think, is quite good for Jeb W.'s chances. He can be seen as the repub champion going head to head with Hillary, if he will just come out swinging. I am not sure whether Hillary’s tactic, in this regard, is due to her actually seeing Jeb W. as her most likely opponent in the general election, or if she WANTS Jeb W. to be her opponent in the general election.
Cynicism, IMO, is another form of shallowness.Not cynicism. This is backed by peer-reviewed literature. Conservatives do not think deeply about issues, they react out of fear. I am not suggesting that Repubs are not shallow. I am suggesting that cynicism is ALSO rather shallow, in that it is often spawned by a fear of being naïve, yet, ironically, I think, is also a kind of naivety. Cynicism may recognize certain realities, but in doing so, also, tends to claim that there is nothing to be done, except perhaps, to wait for, or contribute to, everything blowing apart. I prefer pragmatism. So why did you bring up cynicism when I am not being cynical?
So a couple of more predictions for the outcome of the unpredictable clown show debate:
- If Jeb W. does nothing but, effectively, hit hard on Hillary for most of his time in the debate, his stock will rise. (but since his erroneous middle initial is “W”, he probably doesn’t have enough sense to do that, or more likely, others in the debate will outshine him in Hillary bashing.)
- Kasich will likely improve his numbers, a bit, just by virtue of being a relatively reasonable person amongst a crew of unreasonable persons, and by virtue of, at last, becoming known to more people (but it probably will not lead to an eventual victory, because too much of the repub constituency is unreasonable).
Cynicism, IMO, is another form of shallowness.Not cynicism. This is backed by peer-reviewed literature. Conservatives do not think deeply about issues, they react out of fear. I am not suggesting that Repubs are not shallow. I am suggesting that cynicism is ALSO rather shallow, in that it is often spawned by a fear of being naïve, yet, ironically, I think, is also a kind of naivety. Cynicism may recognize certain realities, but in doing so, also, tends to claim that there is nothing to be done, except perhaps, to wait for, or contribute to, everything blowing apart. I prefer pragmatism. So why did you bring up cynicism when I am not being cynical? Darron, You are anything but cynical. I was thinking about Cuthbert. Sorry I inadvertently drug you into it.
Darron, You are anything but cynical. I was thinking about Cuthbert. Sorry I inadvertently drug you into it.Easy mistake to make. No problem.
4 days to go until the big clown debate. Maybe we'll know more about Trump's chances after that.As of right now, he has a double digit lead in the polls. http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/03/poll-trump-debate-format/ Good. You're back. The outcome of this debate, defies prediction, but I am not one to let that phase me. Trump, I am guessing will, I think, most likely, not go up in the national polling after the debate (at least not immediately). And this is why I think that: It is not because I am assuming that he will make some horrible "gaff". (I am not sure that he could say or do anything Trump-like that would turn off his supporters.) I think, though, that he will lose some percentage points to others in the debate who are successful in presenting themselves. Trump's support seems to be demographically broad based. But across the population of people who are drawn to the Republican shtick, there are many who don't know a lot of the candidates from "Joe Blow". Once, they start to recognize and remember some of the other candidates, I suspect that the one or two or three candidates that may distinguish themselves, in some way to the broad base of the constituency, will leach off some of the support from Trump, (who everybody already knows) moreso than from the candidates that are doing relatively well already, but are not well known. e.g., if Scott Walker, presents himself well (from a Republican perspective) he could leach off a bit of Trump support, because he is just not, yet, particularly well known among the constituency. (Not that I want him to. I would prefer that he and some of his fellow candidates burn in their own mythical hell.)You may be right. I was constantly amazed by the number of conservative types who were more than willing to weigh in on all kinds of issues, but who would also often say, "I don't know anything about Sarah Palin, but anyone who pisses off liberals so much automatically gets my vote!" One would hope that Americans would wake up to the kind of idiocy Trump spouts after the debate, but PT Barnum's famous quote does always nag at the back of my mind.
One would hope that Americans would wake up to the kind of idiocy Trump spouts after the debate, but PT Barnum's famous quote does always nag at the back of my mind.Actually, HL Mencken said that about PT Barnum.
One would hope that Americans would wake up to the kind of idiocy Trump spouts after the debate, but PT Barnum's famous quote does always nag at the back of my mind.Actually, HL Mencken said that about PT Barnum.There are at least two, which are applicable in this instance, and so far as I know, only one of them could belong to Mencken.....
One would hope that Americans would wake up to the kind of idiocy Trump spouts after the debate, but PT Barnum's famous quote does always nag at the back of my mind.Actually, HL Mencken said that about PT Barnum.There are at least two, which are applicable in this instance, and so far as I know, only one of them could belong to Mencken..... Quite right. I was thinking of the "No one ever went broke..." quote.
The one thing Trump does prove, and really others before him who were considered "uncouth", is that Americans, left right center, are sick of the usual well mannered politician who appears to say all the right things in all the right ways. The smooth operator, and Obama and Hillary are the best, but Jubba, Walker, and all the rest of the non-clowns, too. When I ask someone "Do you like hotdogs" I want the candidate to reply "shit ya, they're delicious" or "shit no, horrible". What I don't want is "In terms of nutrition, texture, and viability of a food substance, one can argue that hotdogs are both...." blah blah blah. Just tell us what you think. That's what people are responding to in Trump, not his ideas or even what'll happen to the country.In other words, most people are shallow thinkers.Exactly! And if you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. Another part of the problem is, Liberals want to believe people aren't shallow, and we treat them as not shallow by appealing to logic, reason, etc, and get effed almost every time. Conservatives OTOH realize they are, i.e. know their audience, act on it, and clobber us. It's really Idiocracy played out for real. Cynicism, IMO, is another form of shallowness.You're totally wrong. From one of the smartest, and UN-shallow, people who ever lived, Bertrand Russell: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." He was expressing his cynicism with society. Unfortunately nothing has changed since he said that.
The one thing Trump does prove, and really others before him who were considered "uncouth", is that Americans, left right center, are sick of the usual well mannered politician who appears to say all the right things in all the right ways. The smooth operator, and Obama and Hillary are the best, but Jubba, Walker, and all the rest of the non-clowns, too. When I ask someone "Do you like hotdogs" I want the candidate to reply "shit ya, they're delicious" or "shit no, horrible". What I don't want is "In terms of nutrition, texture, and viability of a food substance, one can argue that hotdogs are both...." blah blah blah. Just tell us what you think. That's what people are responding to in Trump, not his ideas or even what'll happen to the country.In other words, most people are shallow thinkers.Exactly! And if you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. Another part of the problem is, Liberals want to believe people aren't shallow, and we treat them as not shallow by appealing to logic, reason, etc, and get effed almost every time. Conservatives OTOH realize they are, i.e. know their audience, act on it, and clobber us. It's really Idiocracy played out for real. Cynicism, IMO, is another form of shallowness.You're totally wrong. From one of the smartest, and UN-shallow, people who ever lived, Bertrand Russell: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." He was expressing his cynicism with society. Unfortunately nothing has changed since he said that. Are you cocksure that I am "totally wrong"? Given how our world is, I think that everyone, including Bertrand, has a right to be cynical, at times. But as a persistent life-view, I suggest that it is rather shallow, if it becomes an end-point, and an excuse for giving up on efforts to address the things that are not going right in the world. Or worse, if it becomes and excuse for blowing things up and starting over. I think that Bertrand was being a bit hyperbolic, and clever in his wording, in order to make a point. If he had wanted to be more accurate (though less artistic), the statement would have been more to the effect of "One of the troubles with the world is that most of the stupid are often cocksure and most of the intelligent are often full of doubt." Also, given that Bertrand was, no doubt, intelligent, his statement as he gave it, means that he was full of doubt, possibly even, about his own assertion. But the statement, in itself, and by itself, I would say, does not equate to cynicism. It simply identifies a particular persistent problem. Cynicism, as a persistent life-view, would also require that one also believe that because such a problem exists, and will likely continue to exist, then one should not bother trying to address it or work around it.
The one thing Trump does prove, and really others before him who were considered "uncouth", is that Americans, left right center, are sick of the usual well mannered politician who appears to say all the right things in all the right ways. The smooth operator, and Obama and Hillary are the best, but Jubba, Walker, and all the rest of the non-clowns, too. When I ask someone "Do you like hotdogs" I want the candidate to reply "shit ya, they're delicious" or "shit no, horrible". What I don't want is "In terms of nutrition, texture, and viability of a food substance, one can argue that hotdogs are both...." blah blah blah. Just tell us what you think. That's what people are responding to in Trump, not his ideas or even what'll happen to the country.In other words, most people are shallow thinkers.Exactly! And if you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself. Another part of the problem is, Liberals want to believe people aren't shallow, and we treat them as not shallow by appealing to logic, reason, etc, and get effed almost every time. Conservatives OTOH realize they are, i.e. know their audience, act on it, and clobber us. It's really Idiocracy played out for real. Cynicism, IMO, is another form of shallowness.You're totally wrong. From one of the smartest, and UN-shallow, people who ever lived, Bertrand Russell: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." He was expressing his cynicism with society. Unfortunately nothing has changed since he said that. Only the intelligent have enough sense to be in doubt. The stupid ARE cocksure, an no one is as cocksure as a Republican. Lois
Let’s roll this thread back to the Trumpster. I think the smartest thing he could do tonight at the debate is a) show up, then b) walk off stage the moment one of the moderators asks even a marginally “attack” oriented question, even if it’s to another candidate. Can you imagine how that’d play with not only his base, but just about everyone else? Trump walking out in DEFENSE of his cohorts! And I’d guess the debate would come to a screeching halt.
Let's roll this thread back to the Trumpster. I think the smartest thing he could do tonight at the debate is a) show up, then b) walk off stage the moment one of the moderators asks even a marginally "attack" oriented question, even if it's to another candidate. Can you imagine how that'd play with not only his base, but just about everyone else? Trump walking out in DEFENSE of his cohorts! And I'd guess the debate would come to a screeching halt.Not a bad idea, and Donald is liable to do anything. I think it would have to be after he has had the bulk of his 7 minutes, however, as I can't see him giving up his fair share of attention. My guess, however, is that he will be VERY polite to his fellow debaters, unless one or more lobs an attack at him (e.g., Chrisitie), and then, I just cannot see him refraining from retaliating. Unfortunately, my guess is, also, that the RNC will have used all of its influence to keep the group in check and to utilize the debate as one giant, somewhat unified attack add against Democratic ideals, and particularly against Hillary, Obama, and the Iran Nuke Deal. And as usual they will get out the message that they will create jobs and lower taxes, without giving any credible ideas about how they will do that. But, on the positive side, there will be (a) gaff/s, by someone/s. There always is/are. I hoping that this field of nightmares will be thinned out sooner, rather than later.
As a sincere despiser of all things that the Republican Party has become, and as a loyal citizen of the USA, I am torn about one particular outcome of this debate that could occur: John Kasich may very well rise in popularity. I really don’t want this, as it is, I believe, the Republicans’ best chance for getting a POTUS in office. OTOH, it would be so much worse, IMO, if anyone else in this field of nightmares, actually became POTUS.
Fox News seems to be declaring Carly Fiorina the winner of the pre-debate debate.] Given that one tech reporter once described her as “the dumbest person I have ever met” that doesn’t speak well of the bottom tier candidates.
Just got Windows10 up. Looked at a few minutes of the first round of the debate. Scared the hell out of me. Wow! Vladimir Putin could have easily won this debate. Seemed like a lot of want to be Republicans. Not real sure what they were. I hope there is a Republican in the next group.
Fox News seems to be declaring Carly Fiorina the winner of the pre-debate debate.] Given that one tech reporter once described her as "the dumbest person I have ever met" that doesn't speak well of the bottom tier candidates.He obviously never met Trump. Lois