The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 2 guests, and 27 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Newest Members
Xfile, Turge, AHappyOtter, Sabbyth, Ansalon
1,457 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,410
Posts120,495
Members1,457
Most Online228
Dec 19th, 2019
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Arkh 3
Vuldan 2
Goriom 1
Vyse 1
Top Posters(30 Days)
JetStar 22
Vuldan 14
Owain 12
Brommas 11
Exey 9
Sini 9
Arkh 5
Goriom 3
Mithus 1
Popular Topics(Views)
1,204,017 Trump card
941,489 Picture Thread
327,119 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 24 of 124 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 123 124
Owain #139299 12/16/16 09:28 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Owain
Let's suppose that as in Michigan, you get 100% of what you want Jill Stein as a candidate, 70% with Hillary Clinton, but only 10% (or less) with Donald Trump.

Even though Stein is the perfect candidate for you, if she cannot win, voting for her is useless. You are better off getting 70% of the policies you want with Hillary than you are with only 10% or less with Trump.

In warfare, there is a principle known as Divide and Conquer. Liberals allowed themselves to be divided, so they were conquered.

Let's say you have a football team that can win the Superbowl. If you take 11 men on the field, you are unbeatable. Why would you insist on playing two different games, one with 8 players and one with 3 players, guaranteeing defeat?

Seeking your ideal candidate is ok only to the extent that your goal is achievable. If trying for perfection guarantees failure and defeat, you are better off accepting less that perfection.


The problem is that the issue we face is not "lack of perfection", the problem is that the major party offerings are completely abhorrent, and actively harmful. Yet we accept it.

As long as people continue to accept this dynamic, it will continue. If it continues, our society will continue to devolve, taking much of Western civilization with it.

Food for thought: Rhaikh and I both supported the same candidate in the presidential primary. You know both of us, so you should already have a pretty good grasp on the fact that perfectionism is not what I am talking about here.

What I bemoan is how most people lack a line that they refuse to cross. Your team analogy is apt, as most people aren't civic minded in this day and age. Instead, they play for the "team." After seeing Hillary Trumpkin nominated, and the Trump half of the coin winning, I have to wonder if there even exists a line people won't cross, if there is anything or anyone people won't support, with a little cajoling from their respective echo chambers. I suspect that the answer to this is "no," and that future elections will prove that I'm right.

As long as people are caught in the two-party false dichotomy, to the point where they won't even protest when those parties go over the cliff into utter insanity, the political offerings will continue to worsen.

This isn't about getting 70% of "what you want"


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Derid #139300 12/16/16 09:38 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Offline
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
Originally Posted By: Derid


The problem is that the issue we face is not "lack of perfection", the problem is that the major party offerings are completely abhorrent, and actively harmful. Yet we accept it.


This is the problem people face when they fall into absolutist thinking like this. Hillary was by far not my first choice as a candidate, but really, she wasn't abhorrent. The country wouldn't have collapsed had she been elected, and the country won't collapse because Trump was elected.

Politics is the art of compromise, but both sides have declared the other side to be 'evil', which is a pathological approach. Collectively, voters have rejected that approach, which is among the factors that led to the election of Donald Trump.

Perhaps it's the engineer in me, but political strategies that lead to failure and defeat are of no interest. If you cannot compromise on your politics, get used to failure and defeat.


To the everlasting glory of the infantry...

Owain ab Arawn
KGB Senator
Owain #139301 12/16/16 10:13 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Owain
Originally Posted By: Derid


The problem is that the issue we face is not "lack of perfection", the problem is that the major party offerings are completely abhorrent, and actively harmful. Yet we accept it.


This is the problem people face when they fall into absolutist thinking like this. Hillary was by far not my first choice as a candidate, but really, she wasn't abhorrent. The country wouldn't have collapsed had she been elected, and the country won't collapse because Trump was elected.

Politics is the art of compromise, but both sides have declared the other side to be 'evil', which is a pathological approach. Collectively, voters have rejected that approach, which is among the factors that led to the election of Donald Trump.

Perhaps it's the engineer in me, but political strategies that lead to failure and defeat are of no interest. If you cannot compromise on your politics, get used to failure and defeat.


There is a difference between compromise, and abandonment of principles. Call it the engineer in me, but I don't see how affirming either of two losing strategies can work. Given two paths to failure, the rational option would seem to be figuring out a new path.

You are most likely correct that, in of themselves, neither Hillary nor Trump will harken immediate societal collapse. Rather, what we will get is continued weakening of the social fabric. What will bring collapse, in due time, is a continued willingness to support continuing strings of objectively worse politicians. If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening. We will have no one to blame but ourselves, for being willing to not just accept, but embrace it, in the name of party politics.

People have come to call the other side "evil" because they no longer share much, if any, specific values. There is no longer mutual faith in any institution, process, or philosophy. Even where some is claimed by one political tribe or another, their hypocrisy is almost always clearly evident.

There are only tribes that people are willing to follow, seemingly out of fandom more than anything. Your team analogies earlier were apt, on multiple levels.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Derid #139302 12/16/16 10:56 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Offline
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
Originally Posted By: Derid

There is a difference between compromise, and abandonment of principles. Call it the engineer in me, but I don't see how affirming either of two losing strategies can work. Given two paths to failure, the rational option would seem to be figuring out a new path.


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy. It may not have been your strategy, but adhering to your strategy only resulted in failure and defeat (assuming you didn't support Trump).

If a strategy yields only failure and defeat, no matter how principled that strategy might be it's time to consider a new strategy.


To the everlasting glory of the infantry...

Owain ab Arawn
KGB Senator
Sini #139303 12/16/16 11:02 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Offline
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
Quote:
If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening.


This is most certainly not true. If this is what you actually believe, then as Yoda might say, "That is why you failed."

Last edited by Owain; 12/16/16 11:02 AM.

To the everlasting glory of the infantry...

Owain ab Arawn
KGB Senator
Owain #139304 12/16/16 11:57 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Owain


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy.



Trump won. You lost. I lost. We all lost.

With the "help" of everyone who supported Trump. And by support I mean voted for. That so many supported Trump, while recognizing that, but simply fearing they would somehow lose worse with Hillary, is the problem here. We all would have lost with Hillary as well.


Don't confuse a winning electoral strategy with a winning governing strategy that is successful in improving the human condition, or, even maintaining the status quo.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Owain #139305 12/16/16 12:02 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Owain
Quote:
If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening.


This is most certainly not true. If this is what you actually believe, then as Yoda might say, "That is why you failed."


So on one hand, we had a corrupt pol who was bad at every job she ever had, whose claim to fame was leveraging her husband's connections to raise big money and get media access.

On the other hand, we have a reality TV star with the gravitas of a circus clown and the attention span of a gerbil who has no philosophical underpinnings or moral fiber, and is demonstrably a pathological liar. His money is about where it should be, given average rate of return on his inheritance.

So which part of my statement do you disagree with, that they are garbage people, or that having them at the top of our govt will result in worsening of our social state?


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Derid #139306 12/16/16 12:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Offline
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy.



Trump won. You lost. I lost. We all lost.


This is most certainly not a true statement, either.

You may not like that Trump was elected, but really, that is about all that can be said with certainty. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. Let's compare notes at the end of his administration.


To the everlasting glory of the infantry...

Owain ab Arawn
KGB Senator
Derid #139307 12/16/16 12:10 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Offline
KGB Senator
KGB Supreme Knight
**
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,377
Likes: 9
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain
Quote:
If we continue trotting out the worst our species has to offer, expect our social conditions to continue worsening.


This is most certainly not true. If this is what you actually believe, then as Yoda might say, "That is why you failed."


So on one hand, we had a corrupt pol who was bad at every job she ever had, whose claim to fame was leveraging her husband's connections to raise big money and get media access.

On the other hand, we have a reality TV star with the gravitas of a circus clown and the attention span of a gerbil who has no philosophical underpinnings or moral fiber, and is demonstrably a pathological liar. His money is about where it should be, given average rate of return on his inheritance.

So which part of my statement do you disagree with, that they are garbage people, or that having them at the top of our govt will result in worsening of our social state?

People are imperfect beings. What matters are the policies that will result from Trump's administration. Policies endure long after individuals leave office. Regardless of Trump's personal qualities, I am of the opinion that he will enact effective policies. That is all I am interested in.

Joe Biden is an embarrassing buffoon, but that is not why I opposed the Obama administration. I opposed the Obama administration based upon its failed policies. By itself, my opposition doesn't mean much, but collectively, the voters thought so as well, which resulted in Trump's election.

Trump will be reelected, or not, based primarily upon the policies he enacts and the success or failure of those policies, not upon his personality.

Last edited by Owain; 12/16/16 12:13 PM.

To the everlasting glory of the infantry...

Owain ab Arawn
KGB Senator
Owain #139308 12/16/16 01:03 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,595
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Owain
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: Owain


Since Trump won the election, his can hardly be considered a losing strategy.



Trump won. You lost. I lost. We all lost.


This is most certainly not a true statement, either.

You may not like that Trump was elected, but really, that is about all that can be said with certainty. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. Let's compare notes at the end of his administration.


At the level of rigor you are implicitly asking for, we aren't certain the sun will rise in the morning either. We'll just have to check tomorrow.

Also, speaking of comparing notes in the future, take a moment to think back to discussions of years past. Particularly pre-Iraq war, where enough time has passed to clearly see how events played out. You might recall that my prognostications back then have turned out to have been mostly spot-on. Not just what would happen, but why.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Page 24 of 124 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 123 124

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5