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

[nonobaddog]

That teacher should be fired for scaring the hell out of those children. No. Scientists don’t say we have 12 years. That’s nonsense.

Right! That teacher is so horrible she makes feinstein look like the good guy. I would pull my kids out of a school like that in a heartbeat.

 

[jamil]

Of course Feinstein had to go all, “I’m the boss here.” She should have said,

“Look kids, I appreciate the work you put into that letter, and for coming down here to talk to me. I’m sorry to say though, that your teacher is a delusional lunatic and believes in things not true. She’s manipulating you to try to give herself more of a platform than she deserves. You should all go home and tell your parents that your teacher is trying to indoctrinate you by scaring you.”

“For now, you shouldn’t go anywhere near her. She’s too dangerous to be allowed to teach. I’m going to call your school and let them know that she’s scaring you into believing things that are untrue, and that she shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near children. I’ll also have my staff arange to take you back to school. But don’t go anywhere near her because she’s bat**** crazy.”

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Did anyone think, in a million years, that (almost) anyone on INGO would ever be calling Feinstein "sane"?

 

[jamil]

Did anyone think, in a million years, that (almost) anyone on INGO would ever be calling Feinstein "sane"?

Well. Not really sane. Saner than the useful idiot teacher and her indoctrinated students.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well. Not really sane. Saner than the useful idiot teacher and her indoctrinated students.

Kind of a "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" kinda thing?

 

[jamil]

Kind of a "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" kinda thing?

Yeah. kinda like that. Sanity is a spectum. DiFi is still on the insane end of the spectrum but not as insane as the useful idiot.

Or. Putting my thinking cap on...

What if DiFi is in on the plan to indoctrinate people into the cult of climate worship, so that Democrats can finally get their cap and trade system in and usher in the new age of uber crony, wealth confiscation scam. Busybodies like AOC are just going to **** up the plan. So that would explain why DiFi reacted the way she did. “I know what I’m doing. You stay out of it. We’re doing our own green new deal.”

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah. kinda like that. Sanity is a spectum. DiFi is still on the insane end of the spectrum but not as insane as the useful idiot.

Or. Putting my thinking cap on...

What if DiFi is in on the plan to indoctrinate people into the cult of climate worship, so that Democrats can finally get their cap and trade system in and usher in the new age of uber crony, wealth confiscation scam. Busybodies like AOC are just going to **** up the plan. So that would explain why DiFi reacted the way she did. “I know what I’m doing. You stay out of it. We’re doing our own green new deal.”

Hmmm... you may be on to something.

 

[Leadeye]

Yeah. kinda like that. Sanity is a spectum. DiFi is still on the insane end of the spectrum but not as insane as the useful idiot.

Or. Putting my thinking cap on...

What if DiFi is in on the plan to indoctrinate people into the cult of climate worship, so that Democrats can finally get their cap and trade system in and usher in the new age of uber crony, wealth confiscation scam. Busybodies like AOC are just going to **** up the plan. So that would explain why DiFi reacted the way she did. “I know what I’m doing. You stay out of it. We’re doing our own green new deal.”

Always follow the money.

 

[printcraft]

Yeah. kinda like that. Sanity is a spectum. DiFi is still on the insane end of the spectrum but not as insane as the useful idiot.

Or. Putting my thinking cap on...

What if DiFi is in on the plan to indoctrinate people into the cult of climate worship, so that Democrats can finally get their cap and trade system in and usher in the new age of uber crony, wealth confiscation scam. Busybodies like AOC are just going to **** up the plan. So that would explain why DiFi reacted the way she did. “I know what I’m doing. You stay out of it. We’re doing our own green new deal.”

 

[nonobaddog]

I certainly didn't mean to imply DiFi was sane. It is just that video shows the teacher is bat-s**t crazy so that would make DiFi only bat-fart crazy for that couple minutes.

 

[jamil]

I certainly didn't mean to imply DiFi was sane. It is just that video shows the teacher is bat-s**t crazy so that would make DiFi only bat-fart crazy for that couple minutes.

Probably a matter of issues. When she spews forth nonsense when she’s talking about guns, it’s not just stink-wind. It’s full bat **** crazy.

 

[rob63]

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

This video just came across my Facebook feed. Good golly, we are screwed. I must have read through close to a hundred responses to it, and not one single person agreed with Feinstein that what the kids want is crazy. It was all "we should respect and listen to the children," "we have destroyed the planet," "it's time to quit listening to the rich and enact the new green deal," etc.

It is entirely possible that very few people actually think this way, but that those of us who are still sane simply don't care to comment in order to not have to deal with all of the grief you get back. Unfortunately, I think that is a huge downside to social media, it only serves to reinforce the influence of the craziest among us because the sane just get shouted down and eventually quit trying. That certainly applies to me as well, and I don't have any idea how to fix it.

 

[jamil]

This video just came across my Facebook feed. Good golly, we are screwed. I must have read through close to a hundred responses to it, and not one single person agreed with Feinstein that what the kids want is crazy. It was all "we should respect and listen to the children," "we have destroyed the planet," "it's time to quit listening to the rich and enact the new green deal," etc.

It is entirely possible that very few people actually think this way, but that those of us who are still sane simply don't care to comment in order to not have to deal with all of the grief you get back. Unfortunately, I think that is a huge downside to social media, it only serves to reinforce the influence of the craziest among us because the sane just get shouted down and eventually quit trying. That certainly applies to me as well, and I don't have any idea how to fix it.

The insane part of this is the setup. "We" indoctrinate children to say the things "we" believe then praise them as insightful and wise beyond their years when they do. It was the same thing with David Hogg and the rest of the indoctrinated young anti-gun zealots. If one kid in that pack truly showed insight and wisdom beyond his or her years, like, "um, you people are crazy, this stuff can't possibly work, it's impractical, and it seems to me that it's dangerous to spend other people's resources to chase impractical solutions," those people wouldn't be praising the child for insightful or wise thinking. It's only insightful or wise when it mimics their own thinking.

As far as the sane ratio, keep in mind it's USA Today. It's likely sane:insane is pretty low, so I'm not gonna start panicking yet. But, I do think that the overall number of sane people outnumber the insane, and I think it's starting to shift. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the poll Tim Pool is talking about in the following video, but if true, it's encouraging. I think the bat-**** craziness does tend to turn people off, and I think I'd tend to agree with the video that the people turning to the right are really just turning to the middle. I don't think those liberals will see the light, for example, on issues like pro-life vs pro-choice, or large vs small government. But they can see that the left is losing its sanity and maybe they're starting to run as far from it as they can until they hit resistance on their core beliefs from the other side.

[video=youtube;bcI5ZeJKECs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcI5ZeJKECs[/video]

 

[BugI02]

This video just came across my Facebook feed. Good golly, we are screwed. I must have read through close to a hundred responses to it, and not one single person agreed with Feinstein that what the kids want is crazy. It was all "we should respect and listen to the children," "we have destroyed the planet," "it's time to quit listening to the rich and enact the new green deal," etc.

It is entirely possible that very few people actually think this way, but that those of us who are still sane simply don't care to comment in order to not have to deal with all of the grief you get back. Unfortunately, I think that is a huge downside to social media, it only serves to reinforce the influence of the craziest among us because the sane just get shouted down and eventually quit trying. That certainly applies to me as well, and I don't have any idea how to fix it.

I kind of ignore comments except for their amusement value. I liken it to reviews on the internet. You've probably noticed that reviews are mostly comprised of people who either love something or hate it, there are few thoughtful middle-of-the-road ratings. That seems to be because the thoughtful middle-of-the-road people have better things to do with their time than review purchases on the internet (like narrate their own life on Facebook)

Notice that comments follow the same pattern. How often have you ever scrolled through the comments on a column or video, or read the responses to a tweet, and encountered a thoughtful cogent analysis of the original viewpoint either pro or con. That would be your for realz internet unicorn if you found one; most light the solids and lift straight up off the crazy pad or go with the sophomoric, class clown snark

I've read that the internet will be the death of us all, or the savior of civil society. 5 stars!

 

[jamil]

I kind of ignore comments except for their amusement value. I liken it to reviews on the internet. You've probably noticed that reviews are mostly comprised of people who either love something or hate it, there are few thoughtful middle-of-the-road ratings. That seems to be because the thoughtful middle-of-the-road people have better things to do with their time than review purchases on the internet (like narrate their own life on Facebook)

Notice that comments follow the same pattern. How often have you ever scrolled through the comments on a column or video, or read the responses to a tweet, and encountered a thoughtful cogent analysis of the original viewpoint either pro or con. That would be your for realz internet unicorn if you found one; most light the solids and lift straight up off the crazy pad or go with the sophomoric, class clown snark

I've read that the internet will be the death of us all, or the savior of civil society. 5 stars!

Yeah, like I said, it's not really a fair representation of everyone. It's also very platform dependent. There are some platforms where progressive nonsense is regularly ratioed.

So here's a platform that spouts some out of touch nonsense. It's the New Yorker, so don't click through if you don't want to give them the clicks.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...with-the-young-green-new-deal-activists-video

Here's an excerpt which contains the basic thesis:

"But Feinstein was, in fact, demonstrating why climate change exemplifies an issue on which older people should listen to the young. Because—to put it bluntly—older generations will be dead before the worst of it hits. The kids whom Feinstein was talking to are going to be dealing with climate chaos for the rest of their lives, as any Californian who has lived through the past few years of drought, flood, and fire must recognize.

This means that youth carry the moral authority here, and, at the very least, should be treated with the solicitousness due a generation that older ones have managed to screw over. "


​

So because these kids have the "moral authority" we should just listen uncritically to what they have to say? WTF? Do people seriously NOT realize that what these kids have to say were put into their heads by insane ideologues? I will say it again. THESE KIDS AREN'T SAYING THEIR OWN THOUGHTS! They're mimicking the thoughts of the people who are teaching them! And about the moral authority, that's nonsense for the same reason. They're assuming that what AOC said is true. AOC's plan can't be paid for. And these adults filling these kids head full of nonsense have a childlike sense of logic themselves, thinking that, well, just do it anyway. I suppose if there were a clear and present danger that could reach a point where the end of humanity is manifest, yeah, at that point we might start talking about screw the cost.

There is nothing but the word of a bat-**** crazy, power hungry communist wannabe, saying that we're at that point. We need dots connected which irrefutably lead to the conclusion that we're at that point. So Feiinstein was right to tell them that the plan is stupid. Not her words, but she put it diplomatically. But where Feinstein went wrong, was where she appeared to assert her power in a condescending way. She should have attacked AOC for being stupid, and she should have scorned the teacher for indoctrinating those kids and scaring the **** out of them without connecting those dots. "Some scientists say" is not a justification for "**** the cost". It's not a justification for this far fetched utopian plan.

Feinstein could have dealt AOC a big blow, but if she had, it's doubtful the video would have gone viral because Feinstein condescended to woke 1st graders. At least that's the gist of the article.

 

[T.Lex]

I've seen it mentioned here, and out in the real world, about how Manafort's sharing polling data with the Russians is no big deal.

However, in terms of the ethereal "collusion" it offers a link between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to influence the election. The documented Russian efforts would have been more effective with metrics on their results. That is, with the demographic data provided by polling, the Russian influencing would have objectively better targeting information.

Now, the Russians certainly could have paid for their own polling or use other mechanism to quantify how successful they were. But, internal campaign polling would be helpful for providing a triangulation on what was most effective in the groups the campaign was trying to win over.

Manafort is and was bad news. While Trump, or the people around him, should have known that, I will reflexively concede that this doesn't link Trump directly. But, it does justify the investigation of his campaign. It is also consistent with Guiliani's backtracking* on whether there were communications that there may have been communications between the campaign and the Russians.

* To the extent "consistent" can be correctly used in any sentence dealing with Giuliani, that's the best word I could find.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah, like I said, it's not really a fair representation of everyone. It's also very platform dependent. There are some platforms where progressive nonsense is regularly ratioed.

So here's a platform that spouts some out of touch nonsense. It's the New Yorker, so don't click through if you don't want to give them the clicks.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...with-the-young-green-new-deal-activists-video

Here's an excerpt which contains the basic thesis:

"But Feinstein was, in fact, demonstrating why climate change exemplifies an issue on which older people should listen to the young. Because—to put it bluntly—older generations will be dead before the worst of it hits. The kids whom Feinstein was talking to are going to be dealing with climate chaos for the rest of their lives, as any Californian who has lived through the past few years of drought, flood, and fire must recognize.

This means that youth carry the moral authority here, and, at the very least, should be treated with the solicitousness due a generation that older ones have managed to screw over. "


​

So because these kids have the "moral authority" we should just listen uncritically to what they have to say? WTF? Do people seriously NOT realize that what these kids have to say were put into their heads by insane ideologues? I will say it again. THESE KIDS AREN'T SAYING THEIR OWN THOUGHTS! They're mimicking the thoughts of the people who are teaching them! And about the moral authority, that's nonsense for the same reason. They're assuming that what AOC said is true. AOC's plan can't be paid for. And these adults filling these kids head full of nonsense have a childlike sense of logic themselves, thinking that, well, just do it anyway. I suppose if there were a clear and present danger that could reach a point where the end of humanity is manifest, yeah, at that point we might start talking about screw the cost.

There is nothing but the word of a bat-**** crazy, power hungry communist wannabe, saying that we're at that point. We need dots connected which irrefutably lead to the conclusion that we're at that point. So Feiinstein was right to tell them that the plan is stupid. Not her words, but she put it diplomatically. But where Feinstein went wrong, was where she appeared to assert her power in a condescending way. She should have attacked AOC for being stupid, and she should have scorned the teacher for indoctrinating those kids and scaring the **** out of them without connecting those dots. "Some scientists say" is not a justification for "**** the cost". It's not a justification for this far fetched utopian plan.

Feinstein could have dealt AOC a big blow, but if she had, it's doubtful the video would have gone viral because Feinstein condescended to woke 1st graders. At least that's the gist of the article.

Drought, flood and fire brought on largely by "environmentalists" wanting to protect some obscure little fish or bug and not allowing sound land and resource management methods. California has reaped what it has sown in its misguided efforts to "save the earth". Now these wackos want the whole world to suffer from drought, flood and fire? No. No **** you very much.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, jamil, I get the same feeling talking to 'kids' (which these days, for me, is anyone under 40 it seems) when they say "If we have to wait until we can afford it, then we'll never have [universal health care, UBI, free college - whatever the latest redistributionist fad is] as if that is some kind of an argument

I try to explain to them that, similarly, the same limitations apply to my desire to live in a architecturally interesting custom house on Highway 1 on the Lost Coast - I can't afford it - and that sane people either develop a plan to gather the resources over time to facilitate their desires or "I can't afford it" is the end of the story. They don't go build it anyway, expenses be damned - or if they would, no one in their right mind would give them (or loan them) the resources to do so without some viable plan for reimbursement

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah, jamil, I get the same feeling talking to 'kids' (which these days, for me, is anyone under 40 it seems) when they say "If we have to wait until we can afford it, then we'll never have [universal health care, UBI, free college - whatever the latest redistributionist fad is] as if that is some kind of an argument

I try to explain to them that, similarly, the same limitations apply to my desire to live in a architecturally interesting custom house on Highway 1 on the Lost Coast - I can't afford it - and that sane people either develop a plan to gather the resources over time to facilitate their desires or "I can't afford it" is the end of the story. They don't go build it anyway, expenses be damned - or if they would, no one in their right mind would give them (or loan them) the resources to do so without some viable plan for reimbursement

But AOC said that if you can't afford your apartment, "you just pay for it."

 

[jamil]

Drought, flood and fire brought on largely by "environmentalists" wanting to protect some obscure little fish or bug and not allowing sound land and resource management methods. California has reaped what it has sown in its misguided efforts to "save the earth". Now these wackos want the whole world to suffer from drought, flood and fire? No. No **** you very much.

Yes. That's another example of the leftitics creating their own problem then calling it out as the fault of broader society. I think they're fine to act to prevent corporate interests from harming our air and water. But when they start imposing insane actions to keep things pristine and natural, yeah, **** them. I think they're so crazy they'd sacrifice a million people to save one amoeba cell. Which is kinda pointless.