You spell potatoe, I say tomatay, or: politicians and liars; is the former a strict <del>superset</del><ins>subset</ins> of the latter? Discuss.



  • Seriously, guys, isn't there at least some kind of requirement for your presidential candidates to have an IQ above that of the average potatoe?



  • That quote is amazing.

    The best part of this whole thing is that I'm fairly sure Trump will do well enough to cause some intense rage. If he manages to win, the meltdown it would cause in certain quarters would be worth it even if you discount the raw entertainment value and the novelty of having the most honest president in a shockingly long time.



  • If by "meltdown in certain quarters" you mean: Total meltdown of the economy and becoming a pariah in the world, okay.

    This guy would be an unfettered catastrophe as a president.



  • Nope. I mean something else.

    I also don't believe it would be anywhere near that bad.



  • I know what you meant. It's astoundingly naive that you're willing to cripple your country just for amusement.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Rhywden said:

    Seriously, guys, isn't there at least some kind of requirement for your presidential candidates to have an IQ above that of the average potatoe?

    If you think that's a real quote you're pretty dumb.



  • But... but... it has the Fox News bug right there! And no one could possibly fake that, could they? It must be true, because everything that Fox News says must be true!

    Filed under: There are too damn many people who think both of those things are true, going around doing dangerous stuff like driving, breeding, voting...



  • Well, considering her track record...

    ... I mean, she did compare Obama to Andreas Lubitz. Or that the Lion King is gay propaganda. Or pronounced Terri Schiavo as being healthy. And Iraq is just like the Mall of America.



  • @Rhywden said:

    > You don't see any illegal Mexicans in China.

    So we need a special task force to cope with invisible immigrants!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Tits or GTFO.



  • Point taken. Bachmann is almost as cray-cray as Palin, maybe even more. And Palin was so scary that I voted for Obama just to keep her from being vice-president.

    Then again, in 2008 I was figuring that, no matter which of the two candidates won the Presidency, their life expectancy could be measured in pico-seconds following their inauguration, because her followers were even crazier, and they were hardly the only nuts in the bowl.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Bachmann is almost as cray-cray as Palin, maybe even more.

    Newsflash: Palin didn't say she could see Russia from her house, either.



  • Oh, I know that; the fake quote was hardly what scared me about her.

    Note that I wouldn't have voted for Obama (or at all) if it weren't for Sarah Palin, and I know many other people who have said the same thing, so I'd say she's her own worst enemy.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Note that I wouldn't have voted for Obama (or at all) if it weren't for Sarah Palin,

    That is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.



  • Why? Obama, for all the sound and fury, is a run-of-the-mill politician, and in a sensible world would never have got further than being the assistant mayor of some small town. Palin, OTOH, is a dangerous religious nut who should be locked up.

    Then again, IMAO, the last competent president the US had was Eisenhower, mainly because he understood that he was supposed to administer the government, not run the country, and did a reasonably good job of it. In any case, the only politicians I respect in human history were Cinncinatus and Benjamin Franklin, and it is no accident that neither of them ever wanted political power, or deliberately sought it.

    Or that the stories told about both are more myth than reality, but anyway.



  • This is because the Mexicans have to get into America to earn the money to pay for the air flight to Mongolia.



  • @Rhywden said:

    And not because of any bursting cells.

    Did sir miss the hyperbole comment in that post?

    @abarker said:

    You'd have to drink a lot of pure H2O before that became a problem. And even then, you'd suffer the same problems from drinking too much standard tap water.

    I detect sockpuppets here...

    :rolleyes:

    @Rhywden said:

    presidential candidates to have an IQ above that of the average potatoe

    I do hope that was deliberate...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Point taken. Bachmann is almost as cray-cray as Palin, maybe even more. And Palin was so scary that I voted for Obama just to keep her from being vice-president.

    "The lesser of two evils" seems to be the main driving force in presidential elections lately. I know people who voted for W because they were afraid Gore would implement full-blown socialism.



  • @PJH said:

    I do hope that was deliberate...

    Of course! cough



  • Yeah, the saying "vote for the lesser of two evils" at that time drove me to this:



  • @Rhywden said:

    Seriously, guys, isn't there at least some kind of requirement for your presidential candidates to have an IQ above that of the average potatoe?

    If you like your IQ, you can keep it!



  • @Rhywden said:

    This guy would be an unfettered catastrophe as a president.

    I'm looking for something other than the status quo, so I certainly won't be voting for him.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    They had my vote.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    Note that I wouldn't have voted for Obama (or at all) if it weren't for Sarah Palin, and I know many other people who have said the same thing, so I'd say she's her own worst enemy.

    You people are the crazy ones.



  • Palin is what tipped my vote, but then I'm from AK so her on the campaign trail wasn't really surprising.



  • It was fascinating watching the elitism and misogyny of the left on display during the campaign. I also never understood how anyone could believe that she was too inexperienced to be VP while maintaining that Obama had the chops for the number one slot.



  • I agree on both points, but the fact that she was selected worried me just enough to cost McCain the vote.



  • I was more upset that McCain got selected. Aside from her relative lack of experience / over qualification, I generally agree with her.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I also never understood how anyone could believe that she was too inexperienced to be VP while maintaining that Obama had the chops for the number one slot.

    Why? Both sides thought their opponents were idiots. Both sides were right. And that's the only thing either side has ever been right about.

    In the end, it really isn't as if either Congress or the President matter all that much, so long as we can keep the wingnuts out of places where they can do damage; after all, the overwhelming majority of both legislation and executive orders are nothing more than giving some bureaucrat permission to do what they would have done without that permission anyway.

    What you need to see is that politics at the national level is 90% a way of keeping rich idiots busy so they don't hurt themselves; 8% a way of giving Alpha-personality types a way of feeling that they are in charge so that they don't hurt others; 1% a way for slightly more clever Alphas to manipulate the other Alphas; and 1% deranged lunatics who think the rest of it matters worth a damn.

    Palin is in the last category. This is neither misogyny nor conservative-bashing, nor anti-religious bashing: I never thought this about Hilary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, or Corazon Aquino. Indira Gandhi I was never sure about, but so it goes. I never even thought that about Jean Kirkpatrick, though she desperately wanted people to think she was, much like Kissinger (who was power-hungry, but not the mad bomber he made himself out as) did.

    I never thought Pat Buchanan was insane, but I did think Pat Robertson was. I didn't think Reagan was, but I did think James Watt and Alexander Haig were. I didn't think G. H. Bush was; I did think G. W. Bush was (or at the very least, too easily led around by his staff), and Donald Rumsfeld too, but I thought Dick Chaney was cagey enough to keep them in check if either one slipped a cog. I don't think Nixon was insane - a grade-A-prime dyed-in-the-wool sonofabitch, perhaps, but not crazy - but I am pretty sure Johnson was towards the end of his term, and I know that the JCOS thought so at the time, too - they had given a standing order to ignore any launch orders coming from the Oval Office from March 1968 to January 1969.

    I think al Baghdadi is, but I also think that what really makes him dangerous is that some of his advisors aren't but fake it well enough to convince him they are. I think the entire Kim family is, but I'm pretty sure everyone outside of North Korea other than Dennis Rodman thinks so, too.

    Ye, do many things come to pass. Fnord.


  • mod

    @ScholRLEA said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I also never understood how anyone could believe that she was too inexperienced to be VP while maintaining that Obama had the chops for the number one slot.

    Why?

    They were questioning whether Palin had enough experience to be President when Obama had less or equivalent (depending on your viewpoint) experience. At the time Palin had served 4 years on a city council, 6 years as a mayor, 1 year as Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and 2 years as Governor of Alaska. Obama had 7 years as a state senator and 3 years as a US senator. If Palin was too inexperienced to be President, then so was Obama. The reverse was not necessarily true.



  • @Rhywden said:

    your presidential candidates to have an IQ above that of the average potatoe?

    Deez Nuts has been consistently polling at 9%.



  • I understood that; I was asking why he was surprised. I mean, really, this is pretty softball stuff as politics is concerned, I'd have been more surprised if either side hadn't said that. Their actual experience is more or less irrelevant when it comes to political mudslinging.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    Why? Both sides thought their opponents were idiots.

    What's that got to do with it? I said "inexperienced."

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Both sides were right. And that's the only thing either side has ever been right about.

    Bah.

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Palin is in the last category.

    Eh. Uh huh.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    I'd have been more surprised if either side hadn't said that.

    I just assumed they were lying because they thought she was crazy or something like you did. Or maybe all that noise about men being threatened by strong women was really just projecting.

    No, the truth is that in Progressivism the ends justify the means. So you do what you think will work because it will work, not because it's right or nice or any other reason.



  • @boomzilla said:

    No, the truth is that in Progressivism the ends justify the means. So you do what you think will work because it will work, not because it's right or nice or any other reason.

    The ends don't justify the means. They necessitate them.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Why? Obama, for all the sound and fury, is a run-of-the-mill politician, and in a sensible world would never have got further than being the assistant mayor of some small town. Palin, OTOH, is a dangerous religious nut who should be locked up.

    If you think that you are pretty dumb. Here's a long list of things that wouldn't have happened if Palin were VP instead of Biden:

    1. We wouldn't be giving Iran nukes.

    Oh, wait, that's enough.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    she was too inexperienced to be VP while maintaining that Obama had the chops for the number one slot.

    Racism and other tribalism.

    If Obama were white, he would never have gotten any farther than other white socialists like him, like Gore or Kucinich.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Both sides thought their opponents were idiots. Both sides were right.

    Actually, they were absolutely wrong. None of the four were idiots. Even Slow Joe Biden isn't as dumb as people like to say.



  • Feh. Anyone who intentionally seeks power over others is either stupid or insane, and personally I'll take stupid any day.

    Authority, in any form, is a monkey's paw, a trap that pulls you in with the force of a black hole. No sensible person will have anything to do with it. However, at the same time, a working society needs that particular form of insanity to operate, as well as the form of insanity that drives opposition to power. It is an unfortunate legacy of our evolution, but there's not much that can be done about it.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Seriously, guys, isn't there at least some kind of requirement for your presidential candidates to have an IQ above that of the average potatoe?

    The majority party wants to do away with government, because government is incompetent. Electing a leader with a high IQ would lead to competence, which would undercut the argument. Therefore, IQ below a potato is a desirable goal.

    Or that's my best guess.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Yeah, the saying "vote for the lesser of two evils" at that time drove me to this:

    I nearly missed this was an animated GIF.



  • 2 posts were merged into an existing topic: 🎉 The Funny Stuff Thread



  • I doubt that the set of politicians is a strict superset of the set of liars. Any lie is told for political (in a wider sense) raisins.

    Btw, what is a Pot-a-Toe or a Tom-a-Toy?



  • Imagine Trump vs Putin in a game of "global thermonuclear war".

    I'll be in my bunker.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    Or that's my best guess.

    I think P.J. O'Rourke said it the best:

    The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    game of "global thermonuclear war"

    I suppose "game" is exactly what they'd see it as.



  • This seems like an appropriate place to dump this, which has been making the rounds:

    I'm running for Parliament! (Official Video) – 01:04
    — WyattScott_MMFC



  • A post was merged into an existing topic: The bad jokes topic 🐴🍹👨


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ScholRLEA said:

    In the end, it really isn't as if either Congress or the President matter all that much, so long as we can keep the wingnuts out of places where they can do damage; after all, the overwhelming majority of both legislation and executive orders are nothing more than giving some bureaucrat permission to do what they would have done without that permission anyway.

    All true, and probably necessary given the size and scope of government. There's simply too much for one person (or even a small group of people) to keep track of.

    @ScholRLEA said:

    What you need to see is that politics at the national level is 90% a way of keeping rich idiots busy so they don't hurt themselves; 8% a way of giving Alpha-personality types a way of feeling that they are in charge so that they don't hurt others; 1% a way for slightly more clever Alphas to manipulate the other Alphas; and 1% deranged lunatics who think the rest of it matters worth a damn.

    You forgot: 1% busybodies who are there because they think they know what's best for you and want to make sure you get it good and hard. Or are they a subset of the deranged lunatics?

    @boomzilla said:

    No, the truth is that in Progressivism the ends justify the means. So you do what you think will work because it will work, not because it's right or nice or any other reason.

    YMBNH. A policy actually working is optional. It just has to give the appearance of intending to do something to solve the problem.

    @ScholRLEA said:

    Authority, in any form, is a monkey's paw, a trap that pulls you in with the force of a black hole. No sensible person will have anything to do with it. However, at the same time, a working society needs that particular form of insanity to operate, as well as the form of insanity that drives opposition to power. It is an unfortunate legacy of our evolution, but there's not much that can be done about it.

    IMO there are better forms of government, for example democracy as practiced in ancient Athens. There wasn't the problem of people making decisions who didn't have to deal with the results. When people back then voted to go to war, they were voting to go fight themselves or send their sons. Unfortunately, that form of government doesn't scale up to our kind of population.

    @PWolff said:

    I doubt that the set of politicians is a strict superset of the set of liars.

    I think whoever titled this thread is unclear on the definition of superset. The title implies that there are some politicians who aren't liars.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @antiquarian said:

    You forgot: 1% busybodies who are there because they think they know what's best for you and want to make sure you get it good and hard. Or are they a subset of the deranged lunatics?

    I do not think there's much need to distinguish them.

    @antiquarian said:

    I think whoever titled this thread is unclear on the definition of superset. The title implies that there are some politicians who aren't liars.

    Not all politicians are liars (some are deluded, some small fraction are even honest) and not all liars are politicians. Life's only rarely convenient that way.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.