[Outcast_Searcher]

If we're going to use silly standards, how about pleasantness of voice? That would get Sanders and Warren thrown out RIGHT AWAY, if they couldn't learn to speak rationally vs. screeching.

There is nothing silly about voting based on your "gut feelings" about someone. As you noted, the tallest candidate usually wins (and Trump is taller then Hillary). Many voters pick the person they would like to have a beer with, and many more vote against the person they don't like rather then voting for someone at all.

Personally, I think Pete Buttigieg is the most interesting and intelligent candidate in the D field.....but the person I'd most like to have a beer with is Tulsi Gabbard.

Cheers!

Well, perhaps the issue is semantics, i.e. how one defines "silly".

I know that human nature is to vote gut feel. But we're not bacteria. We're not even house cats. Not engaging our brains and at least TRYING to vote on issues (regardless of whether the motivation is selfish, or altruistic, or idealistic, or whatever) is, I think, rather "absurd and foolish", which was the definition I was going for, re the word silly.

...

And look, I know we all tend to do lots of irrational things. It takes constant effort and vigilance not to, even when shopping. For example, when I used to drink and I'd buy whiskey I KNEW through reading that people put a HUGE weight in how the bottle looks. Even KNOWING that, I'd catch myself doing it if I didn't STOP and mentally give myself a slap to overcome that tendency, and focus on something like price or brand or experience or expected taste, etc.

With the thousands of everyday things we do almost automatically, it's hard to overcome that. But to me, some things like voting SHOULD be serious business and warrant more thought than "who looks better?", or "who would I prefer to have a beer with"?

That's how politicians get away with much of their nonsense, IMO, BTW. They KNOW a huge proportion of voters use criteria like "who do I find most likable?", and focus on being THAT instead of being in a sensible place on most issues. (Yes, yes. I'm becoming a grouchy old man. I sure hope I never start yelling at people for being in my yard).

[Plantagenet]

I know that human nature is to vote gut feel. But we're not bacteria. We're not even house cats. Not engaging our brains and at least TRYING to vote on issues (regardless of whether the motivation is selfish, or altruistic, or idealistic, or whatever) is, I think, rather "absurd and foolish", which was the definition I was going for, re the word silly.

I respectfully differ. You are assuming that a "gut feeling" or a strong emotion about a person or a political candidate is somehow irrational or somehow doesn't involve "engaging our brains."

Really, its quite the opposite. A "feeling in your gut" or a powerful emotional reaction to some situation or person or political candidate is actually happening in your brain. Your brain is synthesizing its impressions of the world all the time and your brain should sense if something is "wrong" or "inappropriate" in the word much more quickly then you could reason it out if you tried to make a list or a Venn diagram or something to help you think through and evaluate every situation. Its one of the amazing things about the human brain....its taking hugely more information then you are consciously aware of, and your brain synthesizing and reducing this information to simple, cogent thoughts and feelings.

I really try to "listen to my gut" and if I get a bad reaction to something then I quickly try to respond. I've been in some dicy situations traveling around the world in various 3rd world countries, and when my "spider sense" or my "gut" tells me something is wrong then I get the hell out of that place because things can go bad very quickly when you're in Zimbabwe or India or places like that.

Same thing with people. Your brain is forming impressions of people all the time, partly based on subliminal impressions that you never consciously are aware of.

I had a very negative "gut" reaction to Fiona Hill and some of the other witnesses during the impeachment hearings. Fiona Hill just creeped me out....she looked like Morticia Adams on the Adams Family. And then she started lecturing the panel...god what an egotistical jerk she is!


Morticia Addams or Fiona Hill?

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

I know that human nature is to vote gut feel. But we're not bacteria. We're not even house cats. Not engaging our brains and at least TRYING to vote on issues (regardless of whether the motivation is selfish, or altruistic, or idealistic, or whatever) is, I think, rather "absurd and foolish", which was the definition I was going for, re the word silly.

I respectfully differ. You are assuming that a "gut feeling" or a strong emotion about a person or a political candidate is somehow irrational or somehow doesn't involve "engaging our brains."

Really, its quite the opposite. A "feeling in your gut" or a powerful emotional reaction to some situation or person or political candidate is actually happening in your brain. Your brain is synthesizing its impressions of the world all the time and your brain should sense if something is "wrong" or "inappropriate" in the word much more quickly then you could reason it out if you tried to make a list or a Venn diagram or something to help you think through and evaluate every situation. Its one of the amazing things about the human brain....its taking hugely more information then you are consciously aware of, and your brain synthesizing and reducing this information to simple, cogent thoughts and feelings.

...

If you want to convince yourself that gut feelings are a good substitute for logic and reason, feel free.

I'm sure evolution denialists, AGW denialists, conspiracy theorists like flat earthers, etc. will appreciate the support for the veracity of their positions, since gut feel implies deep thinking and good answers.

Let's of course, ignore ALL the evidence that things like behavioral economics, science, math, etc. tells us about how "valid" human gut feelings actually are -- since your gut makes you feel that way.

I'll go with the evidence, such as good sources for the examples I gave above. (If you need a list, I can provide one, but given that you're on the internet, if you use some searches vs. gut feel, I'm sure you can find them).

[Plantagenet]

I'm sure evolution denialists, AGW denialists, conspiracy theorists like flat earthers, etc. will appreciate the support for the veracity of their positions, since gut feel implies deep thinking and good answers.

Let's of course, ignore ALL the evidence that things like behavioral economics, science, math, etc. tells us about how "valid" human gut feelings actually are -- since your gut makes you feel that way.

You completely misunderstood my post. If you go back and read what I actually posted I was talking about making judgements about PEOPLE, not about technical or scientific issues.

Perhaps you don’t form first impressions of people you meet, but most people do. And these judgements of other people are almost instinctive. People sometimes quickly feel comfortable and even trusting of other people after spending only a few minutes with them, while they are quickly uncomfortable about other people.

The same thing operates with politicians and other people you see on TV. There is an almost instinctive personal reaction to them.

For instance, I found Fiona Hill who was the last witness at the impeachment hearings to be almost insufferable. She rudely lectured instead of answering questions and had the demeanor of a cruel governmess. So I was delighted when Berkeley Breathed, the famous cartoonist, portrayed her the next day in his comic strip as an axe murderer. He obviously got the same kind of impression as I did. It was just a “Gut feeling” I had about her, but there is clearly some validity in it because Berkeley Breathed formed exactly the same kind of opinion, and it inspired him to satirize her in his comic strip in a very very very funny way so now millions of people are laughing at Fiona Hill just as I did when first seeing her.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

Joe BIden called out for threatening Lindsay Graham after Graham formally requested government documents and phone call transcripts relating to Biden's contacts with the Ukrainian President

did-joe-biden-just-threaten-lindsey-graham-investigating-him]

Biden told Sen. Graham he was going to "go down."

The urban dictionary defines this as: 1) A statement to express that you will destroy, bring down, beat-up, or otherwise eliminate somone or the effectiveness of something

Yup.....sounds like Biden did threaten him.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

I haven't read any of this thread YET, but, FYI:

2020 Democratic Debate - SNL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8EQFhj8ca4

ROTFLOL

I'm still watching it, but it's absolutely hilarious. But why?

[Outcast_Searcher]

I'm sure evolution denialists, AGW denialists, conspiracy theorists like flat earthers, etc. will appreciate the support for the veracity of their positions, since gut feel implies deep thinking and good answers.

Let's of course, ignore ALL the evidence that things like behavioral economics, science, math, etc. tells us about how "valid" human gut feelings actually are -- since your gut makes you feel that way.

You completely misunderstood my post. If you go back and read what I actually posted I was talking about making judgements about PEOPLE, not about technical or scientific issues.

Sigh. Round and round we go.

Look, it's one thing to form an offhand first-impression judgement about someone. It's ANOTHER thing, IMO, to vote for them for POTUS or congress, etc -- i.e. something deeper and far more rational, like a look at the issues, their platform, their history, their maturity, their integrity, etc is called for.

I think it's a completely different thing re a superficial first impression for whether you want to ask someone out on a date, or seek friendship with them, than to use such superficiality to try to make a key decision that affects citizens' lives, like whether or not to vote for them for a major position of power / high office.

[careinke]

Wow, I've actually found a Dim Presidential candidate I would actually vote for over Trump. Don't get to excited, I still believe the rest of them are Loons. Anyway, my choice for 2020 is Yang.

I came to this conclusion serendipitously by watching Jedrider's SNL post (which was pretty funny). The Youtube recommendations, had some Yang Videos, on Yangs UBI proposal, which I had intended to check out. This one particularly peaked my interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHuRTvzMFw

It is an hour long Interview of Yang by Ben Shapiro. I thought, hey, this should at least be entertaining. Both are smart, good at debates, and seem to be critical thinkers. So I had a bowl, and sat down for some intellectual entertainment.

I was pleasantly surprised, enjoyed the discussion, and learned a lot more about Yang. I think both understood they were pretty well matched intellectually. So both chose not to attack each others ideas directly, rather they listened and considered each others responses.

I got to say it was amazingly pleasant to watch. Obviously Shapiro was the interviewer and got to choose the questions, but most of them were to ask Yang to further explain his proposals. It was also obvious that Shapiro had read Yang's book.

I like his Universal Basic Income proposal, especially after learning the funding details and other offsets. So Here it is in a nutshell:

1. Any US Adult can "Opt In" for a "Freedom dividend" of $1,000.00 per month with absolutely no strings attached to how you spend it. This works out on an annual bases, to be $700 below the poverty level.
2. The Freedom Dividend will be funded by a VAT at approximately 1/2 the amount of the current EU VAT. I didn't hear an actual percentage.
3. If you are on welfare, you get to choose whether to keep it, or give it up and Opt In to the Freedom dividend. Obviously, if your welfare is less, you would Opt In to the Freedom Dividend, which will reduce the welfare roles, and other benefits.

Yang implied this would be a first step in removing taxes on labor, because we want people working so why tax it. There are a lot of similarities to the "Fair Tax" supported by Pence.

They also went into some other policies, some which I don't agree with fully. But hey, I think Trump is an idiot on Climate Change...

I think the interview was very well done. While watching, I was thinking this is the kind of conversation Newfie seems to be searching for, and I would love to see more of it.

Anyway, I recommend the video, and if Yang by some miracle gets the Dim nomination, I'll vote for a Democratic President for the first time in my life.

[charmcitysking]

Hillary's too busy claiming everyone is a Russian spy. First she claimed Trump was a Russian spy supported by Russian bots, and now she's saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent of influence supported by Russian bots and last week Hillary was in the UK and sure enough Hillary said Brexit passed because of Russian spy bots on Facebook.

Personally, I like Pete and Tulsi on the D side. Especially Tulsi.


Tulsi Gabbard----Does she look like a Russian spy to you?

Hey Planty

Tulsi in that picture certainly doesn’t look like a Russian Spy!

That’s because that’s not Tulsi Gabbard - that’s Padma Lakshmi

Both are very beautiful women and both are certainly not Russian spies.

[Plantagenet]

Hey Planty

Tulsi in that picture certainly doesn’t look like a Russian Spy!

That’s because that’s not Tulsi Gabbard - that’s Padma Lakshmi

Both are very beautiful women and both are certainly not Russian spies.

Hey chary

Appreciate the clarification.

But my point still stands.

Tulsi Gabbard is not a Russian spy.

The Ds have turned into 50s style paranoids seeing Russians under the bed when they claim Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian spy.


Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

Obama stick a fork in Biden

Its been surprising that Obama hasn't endorsed Biden. After Joe, was his VP and supposedly his close partner. But Obama has been claiming he wouldn't interfere in the 2020 D nomination process.

No more. Obama has twice now spoken out to bash the D candidates. First, Obama bashed the D candidates who were "too far left", i.e. Sanders and Warren. Sure enough...Warren fell dramatically in national polls this week, as Ds turned against her after Obama's speech.

Now Obama is denouncing Joe Biden. Obama just said Joe "does't have it anymore" when it comes to attracting voters.

joe-biden-doesnt-have-it-obama-tells-it-straight-2020-candidates

Presumably Joe's poll numbers will now crash as the D voters all turn against Biden now that Obama has stabbed Joe in the back spoken out against Biden..

So who does Obama want? My guess is Obama is trying to help out his old buddy Deval Patrick who currently is polling under 1% in the polls.

CHEERS!

[Cog]

Obama has been very quiet about Ukraine and Joe Biden's involvement with corruption. I think he is worried this is going to splash back on him. Otherwise Obama would make a public statement of support.

[yellowcanoe]

Its been surprising that Obama hasn't endorsed Biden. After Joe, was his VP and supposedly his close partner. But Obama has been claiming he wouldn't interfere in the 2020 D nomination process.

CHEERS!

Sounds like he is a hypocrite as he interfered in our recent federal election in Canada and helped ensure that the Liberal party retained power.

[Plantagenet]

Obama has been very quiet about Ukraine and Joe Biden's involvement with corruption. I think he is worried this is going to splash back on him. Otherwise Obama would make a public statement of support.

Apparently in past administrations someone in the White House...usually the White House lawyer....would've told Biden that having his son work for Burisma was a conflict of interest since Biden was overseeing US policy in Ukraine.

But since Obama was the chosen one, the MSM wouldn't report on anything negative like Biden's conflict of interest and Biden and the rest of the BO people probably just figured they could get away with it, just like they got away with running guns to Mexican drug cartels and sending the US military to fight in wars in Libya and Syria and doing nothing while our ambassador was besieged and killed in Benghazi and other crazy, criminal stuff.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

Billionaire Bloomberg opens at 6% in the D primary poll

bloomberg-at-6%-in-new-poll

Who says Ds don't like Billionaires?

I heard an extended interview with Bloomberg on PBS on sunday. I must say the man is smart but an idiot at the same time. For instance, the interviewer was incredulous as Bloomberg-the-idiot repeatedly claimed that the leader of China is not a dictator!!!!!

Bloomberg-the-idiot also claimed China was doing lots to reduce their CO2 emissions because they were moving all their coal-fired power plants away from Beijing and out in the country. Apparently Bloomberg-the-idiot doesn't understand that the amount of CO2 emitted by a coal-fired power plant into the atmosphere doesn't change just because you move it farther away from Beijing.


Bloomberg's solution to climate change? Move the coal-fired power plants farther from the cities. And 6% of Ds support him for president!!!

Cheers!

[Cog]

Joe Biden begins his No Malarkey bus tour. I hate to inform Joe of this but it's 2019 not 1919. Millenials are mocking him as completely out of touch.

[Tanada]

Joe Biden begins his No Malarkey bus tour. I hate to inform Joe of this but it's 2019 not 1919. Millenials are mocking him as completely out of touch.

Millenials are actually still a small part of the voter base, they are just so vocal about their feelings they sound like a significant population.

As for Bloomberg, outside of the state of New York I just don't see him as appealing to the D base voter population. For one thing he is a Billionaire which puts a dent in his bonnefides. For another thing he is the worst sort of busy body that annoys mature adults with things like his tax on sweetened beverages.

[vtsnowedin]

Joe Biden begins his No Malarkey bus tour. I hate to inform Joe of this but it's 2019 not 1919. Millenials are mocking him as completely out of touch.

Millenials are actually still a small part of the voter base, they are just so vocal about their feelings they sound like a significant population.

As for Bloomberg, outside of the state of New York I just don't see him as appealing to the D base voter population. For one thing he is a Billionaire which puts a dent in his bonnefides. For another thing he is the worst sort of busy body that annoys mature adults with things like his tax on sweetened beverages.

I agree with you about his annoying mature adults but we are talking about the majority of the Democrat party so he might well win the nomination. I think it would be a close race between Trump and Bloomberg with the advantage Bloomberg.

[Newfie]

I think the situation as it stands points to how dysfunctional the current selection process has become.

[careinke]

I think the situation as it stands points to how dysfunctional the current selection process has become.

I Would like to see a 2024 election, (after Trump wins), between Andrew Yang (D), and Candice Owens (R).

For me, it would feel like a win regardless of who won.