The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners

[MT Treasurer]

This one's just to trigger RINO Tom

If you find yourself constantly having to ask why most conservatives and Republicans have a different worldview than you, maybe it's time to stop calling yourself a conservative or a Republican.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A party that ignored minority rights wouldn't exactly be class based.

[bagelman]

Context: Influence of the alt right on the 2020 election

As much as the Democrats choose to give them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah because nothing says respect like quotas.

Wouldn't even be talking about the idea of quotas if they didn't insist on keeping it a boys club term after term.

[Santander]

Tyranny.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Pot meet Kettle

Same goes for you.

Seriously, if saying that makes me a delusional hack, then fine, I am a delusional hack.

Did I say you were a hack because of that, no.  You, in general, are a damn hack who seems to think he isn't one.  Hence the comment.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Well he's not wrong, I'll give him that.

Actually, he isn't. Anti-Trump Republicans wants us to believe everything was awesome with the party before Trump "hijacked" it. But, in fact, Trump's GOP is a logical consequence of the direction Republicans were already following for years. I'm surprised a Democrat is picking up this garbage.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The post is largely ignorant of what actually works in disability services.

Although i dont take offence if people dont know what they are talking about when they write this dross, it is clearly unacceptable.

[Maxwell]

Best case scenario is that the election is canceled or thoroughly rigged (most likely scenario where a sham quisling ticket, likely led by Gabbard, is his opponent).

[Crumpets]

Not sure which thread this goes best in, but this seems as good as any.

So you would rather have a woman who, "qualified" by virtue of holding different offices, nevertheless had no accomplishments of her own to speak of; who took advantage of others for her own purposes; and who is known to be a heartless, repulsive woman concerned only about her own advancement? I would rather have a political rookie win the White House than someone marred by scandal, who is also untrustworthy and greedy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

This technocratic obsession with "competence" and "qualification" as the being most crucial criterion in choosing political leadership, as if politics is nothing but a managerial job - as opposed to, you know, a question of choosing between values, ideas and models of society. This is one of the most insidious ideological tools for the promotion of neoliberalism.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

This technocratic obsession with "competence" and "qualification" as the being most crucial criterion in choosing political leadership, as if politics is nothing but a managerial job - as opposed to, you know, a question of choosing between values, ideas and models of society. This is one of the most insidious ideological tools for the promotion of neoliberalism.

Competence(AKA knowing how to actually do the job) is important, and to dismiss it as an ideological tool for the promotion of some particular ideology is insane. It doesn't matter what your rough ideas of how society should function are if you don't get the details. Politics shouldn't be merely about electing someone who shares your values. It should be about electing someone who knows what they're talking about.

[Cassius]

Also, more to the point, political office is one of the very few 'professions' (if you can call it that) that requires absolutely no formal qualifications at all, so the comparison is absurd. I mean, whilst I'm in no way comparing Trump to Lincoln, it is worth noting that the sum total of Lincoln's experience of government consisted of 2 years in the House of Representatives, more than a decade prior to his Presidency. On the other end of the scale, the administration of George W. Bush was rammed with extremely experienced and 'well qualified' (going simply from their résumés) politicians and public servants, and the reputation of his administration isn't exactly high. I mean, it's quite odd that people on the left are falling back upon appeals to 'authority' as an argument for certain things - I mean the supposed experts (economists, businessmen, journalists, public servants and of course politicians) have frequently had egg all over their faces in the last decade, I think we'd all have learned not to take what people say at face value just because their entitled to the honorific 'prof'. or have served however many years in the government (this applies at any point in history, but now is a particularly applicable time).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

This technocratic obsession with "competence" and "qualification" as the being most crucial criterion in choosing political leadership, as if politics is nothing but a managerial job - as opposed to, you know, a question of choosing between values, ideas and models of society. This is one of the most insidious ideological tools for the promotion of neoliberalism.

Competence(AKA knowing how to actually do the job) is important, and to dismiss it as an ideological tool for the promotion of some particular ideology is insane. It doesn't matter what your rough ideas of how society should function are if you don't get the details. Politics shouldn't be merely about electing someone who shares your values. It should be about electing someone who knows what they're talking about.

That's ridiculous, and I'm sure even you know it. For one, political leaders have plenty of people who can advise them on the intricacies of policy. And more importantly, if someone has awful political values, what good does their being competent do? It just means they'll be more effective at carrying out their horrible agenda. If Margaret Thatcher had been "worse" at her "job", the world would be a better place today.

Of course, if a politician shares your values, the being competent can help. But that's only an added bonus. To claim that competency comes before ideological righteousness flies in the face of any serious understanding of what politics is about.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Of course "competence" and managerialism is itself an appeal to a different form of ideology.  

EDIT: Ah, I see Anthony already made my point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The way I see it, politics doesn't have any qualifications. Sure, a lawyer needs to have a law degree to practice, and a doctor needs a medical degree, but in those two professions, you need to be able to know basically everything about the specific task you are supposed to be performing, whereas there is no possible way that anyone could know everything about running a country, even ex-Presidents. It's much less of an exact science and much more of a set of good and bad choices.

Also, I've seen many posts on this forum where "moderate" Republicans, who are ever so concerned with respectability and competence (never mind the fact that they don't give a damn whether every poor person in this country goes without healthcare), are proposing "experience qualifications" for public office. For example, there was a thread which asked whether a Presidential candidate should be required to have served in government or the military before running for President.

You know what? Screw you guys. Seriously, screw you. The day that there is a list for who can run for public office, no matter how long, is the day we transition from a Republican form of government into a full oligarchy. I'd rather have an incompetent fool running this country than an elitist prick who has the traditional qualifications but doesn't give a damn about 95% of the people. At least the fool stops at mere stupidity and incompetence. The elitist, on the other hand, has no bounds to his corruption and avarice. He is smart and skilled enough to rob us all of our freedom, and to get away with it. The fool is easily stopped; he can't hide his tracks. The elitist knows how to cover it up, until the consequences come crashing down on the next President.

Thanks for posting directly in the appropriate thread (and for once, that's not an insult! ).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The way I see it, politics doesn't have any qualifications. Sure, a lawyer needs to have a law degree to practice, and a doctor needs a medical degree, but in those two professions, you need to be able to know basically everything about the specific task you are supposed to be performing, whereas there is no possible way that anyone could know everything about running a country, even ex-Presidents. It's much less of an exact science and much more of a set of good and bad choices.

Also, I've seen many posts on this forum where "moderate" Republicans, who are ever so concerned with respectability and competence (never mind the fact that they don't give a damn whether every poor person in this country goes without healthcare), are proposing "experience qualifications" for public office. For example, there was a thread which asked whether a Presidential candidate should be required to have served in government or the military before running for President.

You know what? Screw you guys. Seriously, screw you. The day that there is a list for who can run for public office, no matter how long, is the day we transition from a Republican form of government into a full oligarchy. I'd rather have an incompetent fool running this country than an elitist prick who has the traditional qualifications but doesn't give a damn about 95% of the people. At least the fool stops at mere stupidity and incompetence. The elitist, on the other hand, has no bounds to his corruption and avarice. He is smart and skilled enough to rob us all of our freedom, and to get away with it. The fool is easily stopped; he can't hide his tracks. The elitist knows how to cover it up, until the consequences come crashing down on the next President.

Competency and experience are two different things. Because of how politics work, time spent doing the job doesn't neccesarily grant competence(Bush II vs Lincoln). You need to know how to learn things, who knows what they're talking about, how to organize, the basic context needed to make the choices you have. Goals are important, but that's an assumed qualification(Tangent:A good qualification is doing something in a way that proves competency, not just doing things for years)

Ugh, there would have been so many rebuttals much better that wouldn't have the problematic implications this cartoon has.

What "problematic implications"?

This technocratic obsession with "competence" and "qualification" as the being most crucial criterion in choosing political leadership, as if politics is nothing but a managerial job - as opposed to, you know, a question of choosing between values, ideas and models of society. This is one of the most insidious ideological tools for the promotion of neoliberalism.

Competence(AKA knowing how to actually do the job) is important, and to dismiss it as an ideological tool for the promotion of some particular ideology is insane. It doesn't matter what your rough ideas of how society should function are if you don't get the details. Politics shouldn't be merely about electing someone who shares your values. It should be about electing someone who knows what they're talking about.

That's ridiculous, and I'm sure even you know it. For one, political leaders have plenty of people who can advise them on the intricacies of policy. And more importantly, if someone has awful political values, what good does their being competent do? It just means they'll be more effective at carrying out their horrible agenda. If Margaret Thatcher had been "worse" at her "job", the world would be a better place today.

Of course, if a politician shares your values, the being competent can help. But that's only an added bonus. To claim that competency comes before ideological righteousness flies in the face of any serious understanding of what politics is about.

Competency is the ability to make smart choices. Considering what say, the president of the united states has to do just to maintain the current balances of the world (as opposed to making things worse), yes, competency should come before ideology To say that competency is merely a bonus for a politician and not a requirement for the job is to say that an unstable buffoon at the nuclear button is fine as long as they share your ideology.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The way I see it, politics doesn't have any qualifications. Sure, a lawyer needs to have a law degree to practice, and a doctor needs a medical degree, but in those two professions, you need to be able to know basically everything about the specific task you are supposed to be performing, whereas there is no possible way that anyone could know everything about running a country, even ex-Presidents. It's much less of an exact science and much more of a set of good and bad choices.

Also, I've seen many posts on this forum where "moderate" Republicans, who are ever so concerned with respectability and competence (never mind the fact that they don't give a damn whether every poor person in this country goes without healthcare), are proposing "experience qualifications" for public office. For example, there was a thread which asked whether a Presidential candidate should be required to have served in government or the military before running for President.

You know what? Screw you guys. Seriously, screw you. The day that there is a list for who can run for public office, no matter how long, is the day we transition from a Republican form of government into a full oligarchy. I'd rather have an incompetent fool running this country than an elitist prick who has the traditional qualifications but doesn't give a damn about 95% of the people. At least the fool stops at mere stupidity and incompetence. The elitist, on the other hand, has no bounds to his corruption and avarice. He is smart and skilled enough to rob us all of our freedom, and to get away with it. The fool is easily stopped; he can't hide his tracks. The elitist knows how to cover it up, until the consequences come crashing down on the next President.

Competency and experience are two different things. Because of how politics work, time spent doing the job doesn't neccesarily grant competence(Bush II vs Lincoln). You need to know how to learn things, who knows what they're talking about, how to organize, the basic context needed to make the choices you have. Goals are important, but that's an assumed qualification(Tangent:A good qualification is doing something in a way that proves competency, not just doing things for years)

Invariably, the people that harp on the most about competency are the same ones that thing that someone needs to have been in government for years to be qualified. The bad thing about Trump isn't that has lacks experience in government; he is able to overcome that with other knowledge, such as in his businesses. The bad part is that the priorities that he has set for his administration are frankly dangerous to many of the people living in this country. They would lead to trade war and internal strife.

The problem is that he doesn't know s**t and goes with his gut on everything due to a lack of proper mental facilities to think intelligently. Setting good priorities is a matter of competence, it turns out.

[muon2]

The way I see it, politics doesn't have any qualifications. Sure, a lawyer needs to have a law degree to practice, and a doctor needs a medical degree, but in those two professions, you need to be able to know basically everything about the specific task you are supposed to be performing, whereas there is no possible way that anyone could know everything about running a country, even ex-Presidents. It's much less of an exact science and much more of a set of good and bad choices.

Also, more to the point, political office is one of the very few 'professions' (if you can call it that) that requires absolutely no formal qualifications at all, so the comparison is absurd.

Since the thread has gone for many posts now debating one posting of a "simple truth", I'll put my thoughts in, too.

Political office has one very important qualification - getting elected.

Getting elected is not easy and requires definite skills. A successful candidate for office has to be able to convince a majority of the electorate to give them their vote. Just as lawyers may succeed by different skills, such as excelling at trials or in crafting strong contracts, politicians can succeed with different skills, too. Some may succeed by being well known and trusted from their resume. Some can craft and deliver a message that matches the political views of the voters. Some rely on their ability to connect with voters on a personal level. Most succeed with a blend of skills like these, but tend to lean on just one or two primary skills to make their case.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Competency is the ability to make smart choices. Considering what say, the president of the united states has to do just to maintain the current balances of the world (as opposed to making things worse), yes, competency should come before ideology To say that competency is merely a bonus for a politician and not a requirement for the job is to say that an unstable buffoon at the nuclear button is fine as long as they share your ideology.

It's amazing how confident you always sound when asserting your unbelievably sloppy logic.

Being an "unstable buffoon" and being incompetent are not the same thing. It's not even a matter of degree. You can be a very reasonable, level-headed person and still lack any knowledge and skill relating to a particular task. You can also be temperamentally unstable, even have very serious psychological issues, and still be extremely skilled at something (in fact, there are quite a few psychological conditions that tend to make you very good at specific tasks). Of course a good political leader needs to display certain personality traits, and equanimity is one of them (not as important as honesty and selflessness, but important still). This has absolutely nothing to do with being "competent", however.

[muon2]

Political office has one very important qualification - getting elected.

Getting elected is not easy and requires definite skills. A successful candidate for office has to be able to convince a majority of the electorate to give them their vote. Just as lawyers may succeed by different skills, such as excelling at trials or in crafting strong contracts, politicians can succeed with different skills, too. Some may succeed by being well known and trusted from their resume. Some can craft and deliver a message that matches the political views of the voters. Some rely on their ability to connect with voters on a personal level. Most succeed with a blend of skills like these, but tend to lean on just one or two primary skills to make their case.

"A job has one very important qualification - getting a job offer."

"Getting a job offer is not easy and requires definite skills. A successful applicant for a job has to be able to convince an employer to hire him or her. Just as lawyers may succeed by different skills, such as excelling at trials or in crafting strong contracts, job applicants can succeed with different skills, too. Some may succeed by being well known and trusted from their resume. Some can craft and deliver a mission statement that matches the work plan of prospective employers. Some rely on their ability to connect in job interviews on a personal level. Most succeed with a blend of skills like these, but tend to lean on just one or two primary skills to make their case."

None of this tells me anything about who should do a job, or how I should match job applicants with job openings.

It's in the nature of simple truths to be trivial when taken from another perspective, but your post seems like a very good description of how things are - of how things must be in any real democracy - that says nothing about what Antonio and others are disputing, which is how things ought to be, and how our actions as participants in democracy ought to reflect those prescriptions.

If elective office were by appointment only, then your analogy would work. In that case there would be one or small group of interviewers to make an offer. That offer would be made in significant part by the interviewers comparing the applicant to the job description and the duties involved. As a member of a job search committee, I'm expected to make my hiring decision one of my top, if not my top priority during that process.

Appealing to an electorate is a very different matter. In any real democracy the large fraction of voters have and arguably should have other matters on their minds that are higher priority than whom they will vote for - issues of family, work, health, etc. How to reach those voters is entirely different than applying for a job.

So to the other point about how voters should act as part of a democracy, I'll start by referring to the previous paragraph. Each individual voter's life has issues that may or may not coincide with an election cycle. If a voter has the time and inclination as part of their life's priorities, then by all means they should try to be well informed to vote. But there's nothing wrong with noting that there are many others whose lives will not pause to consider all the information as an election approaches. Yet they still have every right to vote as participants in a democracy, and no less than those whose lives permit them to be better informed. For those voters there may be other reasons like party loyalty and the opinions of family and friends that drive their decisions at an election.

[muon2]

I think that a coerced vote would certainly be a bad answer. I also think that a vote cast and later regretted by the voter could be perceived as a bad answer, but I would also claim that the later regret wouldn't necessarily change the views when the vote was cast. I think my point is that the resources available to a voter must necessarily differ, since the voters attention to an election must differ. I don't think that elections should demand voters reprioritize their attention, though they may choose to. Voters who cannot use a wider set of information are still making a valid decision given their life at the time.

And having been on both ends of both job searches and campaigns, I can only say from my experience that they are nothing alike.

[RINO Tom]

what this really is is a lesson to never elect a Republican, no matter how moderate they may seem.

Tbh, moderate Democrats aren't really a thing either, especially in the Senate. Electing the candidate who says that they're the most "moderate" one is always a stupid idea.

Ah, but the criteria to be a moderate Republican is to literally have zero right-of-center views and bow to whatever your Democratic legislature wants ... the criteria for being a moderate Democrat is to have a Southern accent and kind of be pro-life on paper, while towing the party line on everything else.