The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[jamil]

That's because Jindal makes the Tea Party look like Harvard scholars.

Why, because he turned down Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School to go to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar? You may think his politics are poopy, I'm not fond of his politics either. But he's not stupid. Believing so would make me ignorant, if not trendy. Stop following the crowd. The crowd is usually wrong.

 

[mrjarrell]

That's because Jindal makes the Tea Party look like Harvard scholars.

Yeah, but he says all the right jeebus things. And that's what most of them are all about these days, not taxed enough already.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why, because he turned down Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School to go to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar? You may think his politics are poopy, I'm not fond of his politics either. But he's not stupid. Believing so would make me ignorant, if not trendy. Stop following the crowd. The crowd is usually wrong.

He may well be educated, but looking at the results of his intelligence and what it has done to Louisiana paints a compelling picture that he isn't very smart.

 

[MisterChester]

Why, because he turned down Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School to go to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar? You may think his politics are poopy, I'm not fond of his politics either. But he's not stupid. Believing so would make me ignorant, if not trendy. Stop following the crowd. The crowd is usually wrong.

Just because you're book smart doesn't mean you're not a chump. Jindal is one.

 

[jamil]

He may well be educated, but looking at the results of his intelligence and what it has done to Louisiana paints a compelling picture that he isn't very smart.

Ah geez. Do you progressives have anything in your arsenal but snark? It's like, "You can have my pejorative when you pry it from my cold dead hands".

Jindal's failure isn't an issue of intelligence. It's an issue of blindly following an ideology.

Snark works among the mindless mob. It's not very useful for identifying reality.

Just because you're book smart doesn't mean you're not a chump. Jindal is one.

See?

 

[mrjarrell]

Wasn't engaging in snark at all. Jindal, and intellect, have ruined Louisiana. If he's not smart enough to not adhere to a failed ideology, then he really isn't very bright, is he? And quit with the "progressive" BS. It's tiring and apparently all you have in your arsenal.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, but he says all the right jeebus things. And that's what most of them are all about these days, not taxed enough already.

You were saying?

Wasn't engaging in snark at all. Jindal, and intellect, have ruined Louisiana. If he's not smart enough to not adhere to a failed ideology, then he really isn't very bright, is he? And quit with the "progressive" BS. It's tiring and apparently all you have in your arsenal.

If Louisiana is "ruined" it wasn't intellect that did it. It was ideology.

Would you be smart enough not to adhere to your failed ideology?

 

[mrjarrell]

You were saying?



If Louisiana is "ruined" it wasn't intellect that did it. It was ideology.

Would you be smart enough not to adhere to your failed ideology?

If something doesn't work you move onto something that does. He's not smart enough to do that, ergo he's not very bright.

 

[MisterChester]

Wasn't engaging in snark at all. Jindal, and intellect, have ruined Louisiana. If he's not smart enough to not adhere to a failed ideology, then he really isn't very bright, is he? And quit with the "progressive" BS. It's tiring and apparently all you have in your arsenal.

Yeah, this is starting to become the go-to name to call around here. If you have a different opinion from most INGOers then you're automatically a progressive-socialist-communist. I'm not conservative, I'm not progressive, I've got my own opinions that butt heads with the typical ideologues plenty.

 

[MisterChester]

Ah geez. Do you progressives have anything in your arsenal but snark? It's like, "You can have my pejorative when you pry it from my cold dead hands".

Jindal's failure isn't an issue of intelligence. It's an issue of blindly following an ideology.

Snark works among the mindless mob. It's not very useful for identifying reality.



See?

Like I said, he can have degrees up the wazoo but it only means so much. He's got quite a few loose screws especially since he has a great academic background. There's always a fair share of those who've got no academic background and sound exactly the same as him. Blindly following an ideology helps nobody.

 

[MisterChester]

You were saying?



If Louisiana is "ruined" it wasn't intellect that did it. It was ideology.

Would you be smart enough not to adhere to your failed ideology?

For any politician to do so would get the label of flip-flopper. It's not okay for one today to say "I used to believe this, but after thought, consideration, experience, facts, etc. I now believe that."

For example, if there was some major discovery with proof and evidence that disproves something that was widely believed, then it's okay to regard that as valid in place of the old fact. Anyone who changes their political opinion and it's like trying to convince the old Catholic Church that the Earth is the center of the solar system.

 

[rambone]

What is this rigid ideology that has ruined Louisiana?

 

[BugI02]

If something doesn't work you move onto something that does. He's not smart enough to do that, ergo he's not very bright.

So if, say, trolling wasn't working for someone; but they failed to move on to something effective, would that mean that they weren't very bright?

 

[BugI02]

Like I said, he can have degrees up the wazoo but it only means so much. He's got quite a few loose screws especially since he has a great academic background. There's always a fair share of those who've got no academic background and sound exactly the same as him. Blindly following an ideology helps nobody.

I will support MrC on this point. One word. McNamara

 

[BugI02]

I know some folks on here don't like Mitch very well, but I think he would add legitimacy to the Republican Party that no candidate so far has provided. Daniels isn't a perfect candidate. I didn't always agree with him on things. But he is well rounded enough to appeal to conservatives and moderate Republicans, and most importantly, independents. I also think the establishment understands that and would likely drop Bush and Rubio like used rubbers if Daniels ran.

This rationale is what bothers me, Jamil. I'm actually starting to lean a little Libertarian. I think a run of the mill, poll driven Repub, if he succeeds in attaining the white house, will fall into that same trap of not doing very much substantive - because he's already gaming the next house election and then the next senate election and his own re-election. I'm starting to entertain the notion that a Libertarian would be less beholden to these concerns and may just be more likely to take an axe to the same old same old. I crave some creative destruction.

 

[mrjarrell]

So if, say, trolling wasn't working for someone; but they failed to move on to something effective, would that mean that they weren't very bright?

Trolls, by and large aren't very bright. Unfortunately, here on INGO and many other places, people use the word to simply describe people who hold a different viewpoint than themselves. And that's not the definition of a troll.

 

[jamil]

If something doesn't work you move onto something that does. He's not smart enough to do that, ergo he's not very bright.

Perhaps he's incompetent. I wouldn't rule that out either. But he's smart. If I want to call him names, I'm not going to call a Rhodes scholar stupid. There are plenty of applicable pejoratives available that fit.

Yeah, this is starting to become the go-to name to call around here. If you have a different opinion from most INGOers then you're automatically a progressive-socialist-communist. I'm not conservative, I'm not progressive, I've got my own opinions that butt heads with the typical ideologues plenty.

Nah. It's not really a thing, per se. MRJ seems to be a peculiar libertarian because he often posts in support of progressive policies that other libertarians don't support. And it's amusing to see him cling to that particular pejorative as if anything important depended on it. And, also

Like I said, he can have degrees up the wazoo but it only means so much. He's got quite a few loose screws especially since he has a great academic background. There's always a fair share of those who've got no academic background and sound exactly the same as him. Blindly following an ideology helps nobody.

Screws loose. Sure. And as I said, probably incompetent. Not all smart people are cut out to be "the man".

For any politician to do so would get the label of flip-flopper. It's not okay for one today to say "I used to believe this, but after thought, consideration, experience, facts, etc. I now believe that."

For example, if there was some major discovery with proof and evidence that disproves something that was widely believed, then it's okay to regard that as valid in place of the old fact. Anyone who changes their political opinion and it's like trying to convince the old Catholic Church that the Earth is the center of the solar system.

There's nothing wrong with a politician believing something and having that belief evolve over time, or having new information impact that belief. That doesn't bother me at all. I've done that myself. My beliefs about things were much different 30 years ago from what they are now for both reasons.

However, there is a valid stigma with being a "flip-flopper". When politicians change their positions, are they just trying to say what's popular to win election, or did their position really change? Did it change from political necessity? The Donald comes to mind here. Also, does the politician's convictions change with the wind? Certainly I want politicians to recognize when their ideology is proven harmful and change course. But also, there's a balance to be struck in terms of fortitude that is important.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This rationale is what bothers me, Jamil. I'm actually starting to lean a little Libertarian. I think a run of the mill, poll driven Repub, if he succeeds in attaining the white house, will fall into that same trap of not doing very much substantive - because he's already gaming the next house election and then the next senate election and his own re-election. I'm starting to entertain the notion that a Libertarian would be less beholden to these concerns and may just be more likely to take an axe to the same old same old. I crave some creative destruction.

To believe this, you have to believe these people posses some super human traits that people that claim to support smaller government, fiscal restraint, etc. that join other parties don't...that their genetic code is written with something that will prevent them from falling prey to the same temptations that dems and reps do. I'm cyncial enough that I believe that if the LP ever ensconced itself in the seats of power, it would be milliseconds before they began letting their theoretical, governance perfection slip right down the toilet like any other party. For one, they would find they have to find a way to govern along side other people that get an equal vote and secondly, they'd start attracting their fair share of Trumps--those that want power and will mouth the right things just to get their nomination.

 

[BugI02]

I don't think it would be an ideological thing. I think they would have damn small (or non-existent) coattails and wouldn't worry about their parties other electees because the (almost) wouldn't be any. I think that might give them the freedom of action to really shake things up (I'm thinking primarily of a Libertarian POTUS). I'm not holding my breath but I do think the chance exists.

 

[jamil]

I will support MrC on this point. One word. McNamara

McNamara was brilliant. Just ask him. Brilliant people can do foolish things. And I think the issue here, in our quest to disparage the poopy side, we're confusing "stupid" with "foolish" or "incompetent" .

This rationale is what bothers me, Jamil. I'm actually starting to lean a little Libertarian. I think a run of the mill, poll driven Repub, if he succeeds in attaining the white house, will fall into that same trap of not doing very much substantive - because he's already gaming the next house election and then the next senate election and his own re-election. I'm starting to entertain the notion that a Libertarian would be less beholden to these concerns and may just be more likely to take an axe to the same old same old. I crave some creative destruction.

I like to jab MRJ sometimes, because, you know, it's just so damn easy. And not that I view him as the foremost opinion on libertarianism, but consider that a card carrying, big 'L' Libertarian, who generally despises Republicans, actually endorsed Mitch Daniels. You just can't tell who will succumb to DC politics and who won't. Daniels chose not to run, and maybe that's why. Maybe he's afraid it would change who he wants to be. But I think out of the candidates we have so far from any party, we could do much worse than Daniels.

Trolls, by and large aren't very bright. Unfortunately, here on INGO and many other places, people use the word to simply describe people who hold a different viewpoint than themselves. And that's not the definition of a troll.

I don't think we really have trolls on INGO--at the moment. One might drop back in after a few weeks though. Intent makes the troll.

To believe this, you have to believe these people posses some super human traits that people that claim to support smaller government, fiscal restraint, etc. that join other parties don't...that their genetic code is written with something that will prevent them from falling prey to the same temptations that dems and reps do. I'm cyncial enough that I believe that if the LP ever ensconced itself in the seats of power, it would be milliseconds before they began letting their theoretical, governance perfection slip right down the toilet like any other party. For one, they would find they have to find a way to govern along side other people that get an equal vote and secondly, they'd start attracting their fair share of Trumps--those that want power and will mouth the right things just to get their nomination.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GodFearinGunTotin again.

I don't think it would be an ideological thing. I think they would have damn small (or non-existent) coattails and wouldn't worry about their parties other electees because the (almost) wouldn't be any. I think that might give them the freedom of action to really shake things up (I'm thinking primarily of a Libertarian POTUS). I'm not holding my breath but I do think the chance exists.

I'm not sure I could vote for a big 'L' Libertarian candidate. It would depend on the person and my judgment of his or her character, and of course the real issues and their practical IQ.