Stupid Political Statements

[Lazyfaire]

Going to start this thread just because of people like this. He's been quiet for a while but if a conservative had said this they would call him a racist!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...egal-immigrants-in-country-to-pick-vegetables

I am sure there are plenty of stupid things other politicians blurt out.

Read More

 

[Ruger Rich]

I think it be easier to list the intelligent things a politician says.

The list would be much shorter.

 

[Lazyfaire]

I think it be easier to list the intelligent things a politician says.

The list would be much shorter.

But as much fun

 

[HiFi Magnetics]

I thought nadler is on his way to meet jesus. he should be repenting instead of lying...

 

[Stomper]

"I am NOT a crook"!


-Richard Nixon





"That depends on what the definition of 'is', is".

-William Jefferson Clinton

 

[HA556]

Beat me to it!

 

[HiFi Magnetics]

"A Threat to Democracy!"
(Meaning: The End of Corruption.)

 

[lucusloc]

"A Threat to Democracy!"
(Meaning: The End of Corruption.)

I find it hilarious that most politicians uttering this phrase today are doing so with the meaning of "the voters may elect someone I don't like, so we have to remove him from the ballot!"

Look, I get the argument that Hitler was elected to power, and that democracy can be the starting point to the legitimization of tyranny, but the solution is not to short-circuit the process and jump straight to tyranny. The solution is to educate voters, and encourage an intelligent and well reasoned electorate.

You want a hot take? The way to get a well reasoned and intelligent electorate is to not expend huge amounts of money on "get out to vote" campaigns that encourage the disinterested masses to cast ballots on topics that have little time or inclination to educate themselves on. The solution is to spend money on voter education campaigns for a specific subject and then let people self select to vote on topics they feel they have a suitable expertise on. To the extent that we want more people voting, it is only the people motivated enough to be well read and familiar with the issues up for debate that we want weighing in on the topic, not someone who got a bumper-sticker slogan stuck in their head and thinks they know everything there is to know on the issue.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to be well educated on matters of state, that is perfectly fine, and to be expected of people who have a much richer life to lead than getting sucked into the cesspit politics. I would highly encourage such people to just not bother to vote. You have better things to do, and (as far as you are aware) your vote is going to be somewhat random anyway. Maybe it will be exactly as you thought (given the 5 seconds you spent actually thinking about it) or maybe the issue is far more complex than you thought and you are casting your vote in a way that is antithetical to your principles, but politicians merely dressed it up to look like you agree with it. How are you going to know if you don't put in the time to find out?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

"I support the Second Amendment but...."
Too many political people have said this...or one of it's many variations .

With that said...
If this statement gets someone votes...then I guess it ain't stupid ...to them.
Andy

 

[Lazyfaire]

I find it hilarious that most politicians uttering this phrase today are doing so with the meaning of "the voters may elect someone I don't like, so we have to remove him from the ballot!"

Look, I get the argument that Hitler was elected to power, and that democracy can be the starting point to the legitimization of tyranny, but the solution is not to short-circuit the process and jump straight to tyranny. The solution is to educate voters, and encourage an intelligent and well reasoned electorate.

You want a hot take? The way to get a well reasoned and intelligent electorate is to not expend huge amounts of money on "get out to vote" campaigns that encourage the disinterested masses to cast ballots on topics that have little time or inclination to educate themselves on. The solution is to spend money on voter education campaigns for a specific subject and then let people self select to vote on topics they feel they have a suitable expertise on. To the extent that we want more people voting, it is only the people motivated enough to be well read and familiar with the issues up for debate that we want weighing in on the topic, not someone who got a bumper-sticker slogan stuck in their head and thinks they know everything there is to know on the issue.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to be well educated on matters of state, that is perfectly fine, and to be expected of people who have a much richer life to lead than getting sucked into the cesspit politics. I would highly encourage such people to just not bother to vote. You have better things to do, and (as far as you are aware) your vote is going to be somewhat random anyway. Maybe it will be exactly as you thought (given the 5 seconds you spent actually thinking about it) or maybe the issue is far more complex than you thought and you are casting your vote in a way that is antithetical to your principles, but politicians merely dressed it up to look like you agree with it. How are you going to know if you don't put in the time to find out?

I moved to Texas 3 years ago. One of the things I miss is the Oregon pamphlet put out on ballot measures and creatures running for office. Don't have anything like that down here. For instance, in my area there are 2 Repubs running for the same office and I get mailings and emails, and texts from them all excoriating the other guy. Like at the TV debates I hate being told the 'other guy' faults. Tell me why I should vote for YOU, not against HIM! Critical thinking is an outdated idea anymore I guess.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I hate being told the 'other guy' faults. Tell me why I should vote for YOU, not against HIM! Critical thinking is an outdated idea anymore I guess.

You ain't alone in thinking this way.
Andy

 

[Lazyfaire]

You ain't alone in thinking this way.
Andy

I turn on the debates and hope things will be different, but I end up shutting it off and go mow the grass or pull weeds. Much more productive! Kinda like a blow out Super Bowl.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I turn on the debates and hope things will be different, but I end up shutting it off and go mow the grass or pull weeds. Much more productive! Kinda like a blow out Super Bowl.

I would like political types remember that they work for us.

Ideally at the end of the day the question they should ask themselves is :
"What have I done for the American people today ? "
Not :
"What have I done to stay in power or enrich myself ? "
Andy

 

[lucusloc]

I moved to Texas 3 years ago. One of the things I miss is the Oregon pamphlet put out on ballot measures and creatures running for office. Don't have anything like that down here. For instance, in my area there are 2 Repubs running for the same office and I get mailings and emails, and texts from them all excoriating the other guy. Like at the TV debates I hate being told the 'other guy' faults. Tell me why I should vote for YOU, not against HIM! Critical thinking is an outdated idea anymore I guess.

Yep, just like social media politicians have long know that negative reactions are far more motivating than positive ones. It's like the junk food of reason; it seems like a good argument, but when you evaluate it for actual substance it is found lacking.

People who are unaware of this phenomena often find themselves getting sucked into toxic thought processes, which is why social media (and by extension politics) has gotten so bad in the last decade or two. Negative reinforcement conditions people to be more accepting of yet more negative reinforcement. Shock value ads, "if it bleeds it leads" in the news, politicians never talking about themselves but always comparing themselves to the worst aspects of their competition (does not even matter if they will be running mates next term or are from opposite ends of the spectrum). . . it is all geared to take advantage of our natural over response to negative stimuli as a way to garner ever-yet higher levels of "engagement."

The only way out is to recognize the pattern and cut out the sources of the negative stimuli. Unfortunately with politics and the news it is almost impossible to do that and still maintain a decent level of awareness of the over-all goings-on in those spheres. If someone manages to crack that nut please let me know.

 

[Stomper]

I moved to Texas 3 years ago. One of the things I miss is the Oregon pamphlet put out on ballot measures and creatures running for office. Don't have anything like that down here. For instance, in my area there are 2 Repubs running for the same office and I get mailings and emails, and texts from them all excoriating the other guy. Like at the TV debates I hate being told the 'other guy' faults. Tell me why I should vote for YOU, not against HIM! Critical thinking is an outdated idea anymore I guess.

I know the two who you're referring to…. vote for Brandon Herrera, not that corksucker RINO POS who actually disparages gun owners to their faces.

 

[TTSX]

There was not one single person on my ballot worth voting for. Every option was either bad or an incumbent. I'm not giving my consent to an incumbent just because they're the only option, so I put "nobody" in the write in spot.

That said, I'm very glad to have had that voters pamphlet because the creatures themselves told me why I shouldn't vote for them. Otherwise, it's just a guessing game and checking the box with the most appealing sounding name

 

[Stomper]

Yep, just like social media politicians have long know that negative reactions are far more motivating than positive ones. It's like the junk food of reason; it seems like a good argument, but when you evaluate it for actual substance it is found lacking.

People who are unaware of this phenomena often find themselves getting sucked into toxic thought processes, which is why social media (and by extension politics) has gotten so bad in the last decade or two. Negative reinforcement conditions people to be more accepting of yet more negative reinforcement. Shock value ads, "if it bleeds it leads" in the news, politicians never talking about themselves but always comparing themselves to the worst aspects of their competition (does not even matter if they will be running mates next term or are from opposite ends of the spectrum). . . it is all geared to take advantage of our natural over response to negative stimuli as a way to garner ever-yet higher levels of "engagement."

The only way out is to recognize the pattern and cut out the sources of the negative stimuli. Unfortunately with politics and the news it is almost impossible to do that and still maintain a decent level of awareness of the over-all goings-on in those spheres. If someone manages to crack that nut please let me know.

I concur…

As a former drill sergeant I learned the three most powerful motivators (in general) of people are hunger, fear, and PAIN.

All three dwell in the physical and mental realm simultaneously.

 

[TTSX]

I concur…

As a former drill sergeant I learned the three most powerful motivators (in general) of people are hunger, fear, and PAIN.

All three dwell in the physical and mental realm simultaneously.

And puzzy

 

[Knobgoblin]

I thought nadler is on his way to meet jesus. he should be repenting instead of lying...

Uh , I reckon he's not on the guest list.

Joo know what I mean?

 

[bpyycpyy]

We need more politicians who think like this, where Ron Paul gave a speech why he voted against giving Mother Teresa an award. It's definitely worth the read and should be required reading for anyone who takes public office...

Ron Paul Voted Against Mother Theresa Award

Interesting: Statement of the Hon. Ron Paul of Texas in the House of Representatives Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R...

therepublicanmother.blogspot.com