The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too.

Plus, unless something changed overnight that I missed, the MSM is now saying that Pelosi basically said "no" to the SOTU. That wasn't in the letter that was released yesterday. Instead, it was a watered down "oh this looks bad" polemic.

As I understand it, the Speaker of the House traditionally "invites" the President to deliver the SOTU. As of yesterday, Pelosi had not rescinded her invitation, but had suggested rescheduling.

 

[T.Lex]

As I understand it, the Speaker of the House traditionally "invites" the President to deliver the SOTU. As of yesterday, Pelosi had not rescinded her invitation, but had suggested rescheduling.

Exactly. Maybe she's milking news cycles and will uninvite him between now and then, but it hasn't happened yet (that I've seen).

ETA:
On a related note, that's the kind of thing that I usually associate with Dems overplaying their hand. Really, there's no need for her to do this. Trump's popularity is dropping by his own actions; all they need to do is get out of the way.

 

[BugI02]

Exactly. Maybe she's milking news cycles and will uninvite him between now and then, but it hasn't happened yet (that I've seen).

ETA:
On a related note, that's the kind of thing that I usually associate with Dems overplaying their hand. Really, there's no need for her to do this. Trump's popularity is dropping by his own actions; all they need to do is get out of the way.

Oh, really. A quick check of his job approve/disapprove numbers over at RCP (which I thought was the agreed proxy for this) still show approve little changed at 41.1. His disapprove numbers are increasing, which is widening the spread; but he has plumbed similar heights of disapprove with even lower approval numbers (37.1/58.1 on 16 Dec 17) and rumors of his demise were 'greatly exaggerated'

As Conrad Black said "His support is irreducible and his enemies are inexhaustible, so, in the worst imaginable application of the tired phrase, the show must go on."


ETA: A check on the same source tells me

Congressional approval 19.3 approve, 70 disapprove

methinks congress would love to have his spread

 

[jamil]

Generalization is a logic flaw. It is also flawed logic to assume all old people are racist based on some ex post facto standard. The terms used today may be considered racist some day, maybe tomorrow. That does not change the people - it merely changes the vernacular.

All racist? No. The vast majority with archaic views concerning people who aren't like themselves (ie religion, region, race, culture, national origin, sex)? Yes, most certainly. The same will be said of us in 50 or 60 years.

Kut is rrrr.....um. rrrrri... Okay, just like a band-aid, just rip it off. Kut is right. Whew. There. I said it.

Racism is an awful lot like tribalism. It's unfortunately a human feature, not a bug. We've evolved socially beyond the usefulness of the feature, but it's still part of our instinctive wiring.

So society has deemed that tribalism based on physical features is immoral. And rightfully so. We can override that feature by teaching our kids to see past physical differences. Socially, as the world becomes more populated, it's morally necessary to override the traits that cause human suffering. If we stopped there, probably there'd be less negative impact long term. If the instinctive tendency towards tribalism is no longer a thing that helps pass one's DNA on, it'll die out eventually. That seems good. But who knows what the consequences are long term?

So this is just a stream of thought. Don't take it too seriously. I know a lot of folks here likely don't think there's anything to evolution, but it sure explains a lot. It's not even that we've socially evolved past the usefulness of tribalism. It's not clear that there is no longer an evolutionary benefit to tribalism. It's clearer that there are kinds of tribalism that are socially harmful. Like racism. So it's not so much that it's socially obsolete. More that socially we've destroyed the mechanisms by which success comes from excluding from passing down other groups of DNA from our own.

It may be harmful to humanity long term to override some instincts. If we override the wiring which leads us to do harm to other humans, I don't think that would harm our long term success as a species. That seems helpful. However, just thinking about the DNA most likely to be passed on today, it's probably dangerous to our long term success to learn how to override conservative instincts, which is what progressive society wants to do with a passion.

I can't help but suspect that the ability to override instinctive programming is what drives social entropy because socially we're not as equipped to choose which traits are useful for long term success. We're choosing not to care which DNA is most successfully reproduced. It makes us a weaker species.

We're way past the discussion of tribalism at this point, and more towards our future evolution as a species. For example, the problem with society favoring the left over the right (or the right over the left for that matter), is that we're choosing to select out what may be very important instincts for our long term success. For example, if our tendency is now to favor benevolence over caution, it's less likely that traits which might protect us from harmful behaviors will be passed on. It's far from clear that the need for caution is obsolete. It's far from clear that many of the traits found in thinking on the right is obsolete. But progressives are working hard to eliminate them all.

If we continue, our future as a species will be beta-male snowflakes and purple-haired lesbians, and then humanity dies because there are no sane people left. Maybe the cure for social entropy is for the sanest people, most competent people to get busy ****ing and reproduce the hell out of their DNA. Crank that DNA out like Big Macs. Or, maybe this is a self-correcting problem. The sane people **** and reproduce their good DNA. Meanwhile the beta males can't get laid to reproduce, and the purple-haired feminists all become lesbians and therefore mostly fail to reproduce. Moral of the story. If you're sane and competent, have lots of babies, and encourage your kids to have lots of babies. And the ones who grow up tinting their hair purple and sitting in the middle of streets, screaming at caution itself,then maybe encourage them to get sterilized and join a cult somewhere far from the rest of society.

 

[mmpsteve]

Wow. Someone's in a reflective mood this morning. I do like the sane people ****ing part, though. I hope I can make the grade. I'm going to consult the wife on this.

.

 

[jamil]

[video=youtube;BAlig2jW7SA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAlig2jW7SA[/video]

I disagree with Webb that there's no such thing as white privilege. There is. The problem is that the left treats it as more prevalent and intense than it is. They also mischaracterize the nature of it. Being white does carry a non-zero privilege in limited contexts. It's not as universal as they claim, and it's not as impacting as they claim. For example, coming from a middle-class or above home, with two parents who care about the quality of the children they produce, carries far more privilege than white skin does in most contexts. Being pretty or handsome, well spoken, and intelligent, carries far more privilege than having white skin does in most contexts.

Having white skin when pulled over by police in certain demographic areas does mean you'll likely be afforded some favorable assumptions that people with black skin won't get. And that's the same kind of privilege a person with black skin gets in certain contexts. Privilege exists for many reasons. Whatever privilege one has for no other reason than skin color is only true in a very narrow context. Most of those contexts for white people have more to do with past societal norms for black people. And they won't overcome that by whining about white privilege and claiming it's orders of magnitude more important than it is. They'll overcome it by escaping the narrow contexts in which they're underprivileged.

 

[jbombelli]

Well, I'm not sane so there you go. But I already have kids.

That's why I'm not sane.

 

[jamil]

Well, I'm not sane so there you go. But I already have kids.

That's why I'm not sane.

It's too late to worry about your own sanity. Are your kids sane? That's the important thing you need to decide, whether you should encourage them to have lots of babies, or encourage them to get sterilized and join a cult. Imma go out on a limb and guess the former in your case.

 

[Phase2]

Some organization with credibility with the non-ideological left and independents needs to get out the word that that 70% won't be nearly enough. Because the truly wealthy have many strategies to reduce and shift their tax burden, the estimated additional tax revenues would only be at best $720 billion. The price tag for single payer, free college and student loan forgiveness is north of $40 trillion (over ten years). That's a doubling of current tax revenues

People should have their noses rubbed in the truth about where that extra revenue would come from

Hint:It won't be just from the 'rich' (which too many define simply as 'has more than I do')

"Soak the rich" tax plans are pure political theater and has minimal impact on actual tax collections:

 

[jamil]

It's dickish, not towards Warren, but to the people (Sioux Nation) that event effected. Anytime one makes light of such a solemn event, it kinda makes you a dick. And for the record, I've done it before too, so I'm not on any high horse. If someone claimed to be Jewish, and wasn't, making jokes about them wearing a Star of David, and taking a shower, would probably fall on the dickish end of the spectrum.

It’s a subjective judgement where it falls in the spectrum of offense. If there is any objective aspect to how people will judge the position in the spectrum, it’s probably proximity of time combined with proximity of application. So if you’re a jew, and you survived the holocaust, and you had loved ones who didn’t survive, it’s fair to say you might be more offended than someone 200 years from now, who isn’t jewish, and has never heard of the holocaust.

So when is it okay? Is wounded knee perpetually off limits? Or, are there some circumstances where it’s not dickish to joke about it? I think the thing that puts this on the dickish end of the spectrum, if that’s what me must call it, I’d say it’s unbecoming of the POTUS to engage in that. Maybe that makes him a dick.

But one must take offense to be offended. The comment had nothing to do with native Americans. Had nothing to do with Wounded Knee. It was all about Warren. I can see why people would be offended who are close to it. Human nature is predictable. It’s insensitive at most. Not sure I’d say it’s in dickish territory just for saying it.

It’s very similar to the idea behind banning words. If I say banning words is retarded, some of the less sane people will try to apply that to their own situation, or on behalf of people in a situation, where a loved one has autism or some other learning disability.

That’s absurd. They’re projecting. My use of that word has nothing to do with them. My nephew is an awsome little boy who happens to have autism. My use of a word like retarded will never be directed towards people to disparage people who have that. Like the fauxahauntas situation, it has nothing to do with disparaging people who are close proximity to the words used.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't know that it is necessary to either be punch or a turd to be able to recognize a turd in a punch bowl.

 

[nonobaddog]

Plus some people just go out of their way to look for reasons to call the President dickish, or motherf****r or whatever. They will take offense at anything whether it is valid or not just to have their own opportunity to be dickish.

 

[jamil]

I don't know that it is necessary to either be punch or a turd to be able to recognize a turd in a punch bowl.

How long you save that up waiting for an opportunity?

 

[jamil]

Plus some people just go out of their way to look for reasons to call the President dickish, or motherf****r or whatever. They will take offense at anything whether it is valid or not just to have their own opportunity to be dickish.

He's probably a dick. I mean ****ing a porn star when your wife is pregnant with your child is a literal dick move. I hope his wife called him more than a mother****er.

 

[bwframe]

Trump denies Pelosi aircraft

Lawmakers were on the bus to go on this overseas flight, while the government is in shutdown.

 

[T.Lex]

How long you save that up waiting for an opportunity?

hahaha

Actually, your post inspired it. A light appeared above me, the heavens opened up, and that line was delivered unto me. I had to tweak the original delivery a bit, and the grammatical timing isn't ideal, but I think it works.

 

[nonobaddog]

We're gonna need bigger boots.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Trump denies Pelosi aircraft

Lawmakers were on the bus to go on this overseas flight, while the government is in shutdown.

this is absolutely freaking hilarious. I love everything about it.

 

[91FXRS]

this is absolutely freaking hilarious. I love everything about it.

I couldn't agree more. Just wish I could have been there when Pelosi got the news

 

[T.Lex]

Trump and Pelosi both suck for fomenting divisions in our society. They both exist purely to pursue their own benefit and offer nothing of lasting value to society.

But yeah, that little tit-for-tat is pretty funny. Totally petty, but I, too, would've liked to see her reaction.