CDZ Obama, Hillary, Trump, Fake News, Mueller, The Swamp.....

[oldsoul]

I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:



I prefer people who know where our enemies are…also people who know who our enemies are; unlike the blob

You have got to be joking. You want me to believe that Jimmy Kimmel actually goes out and gives an accurate representation of the average american in these? It's called satire, look it up. He is doing it for comedic effect. It has little basis in fact. How many people do you thing he "interviewed" for that segment? 10? 20? 50? 100? Admittedly, I did not watch it, I don't have to, I am familiar with how these things work. This has been done for decades, anyone foolish enough to think it gives an accurate representation have their blinders on.

And you have the nerve to explicitly say that the average joe can't tell the difference between fact and edited drama. Wow.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Just reviewing the current news cycle, thinking about D.C., the press and threads here...

I wonder how many words have been spent, and how much time has been spent, over the last 10 years or so on conspiracy theories, "breaking news", shocking developments, they're-really-gonna-get-it-now, this-is-the-big-one, fantastical conjecture, gotcha news stories, fanciful hypotheses and shallow wishful thinking.

And then I wonder, by contrast, how many words have been spent, how much time and effort has been spent, on looking honestly and critically at the issues that challenge, threaten and divide us and collaborating to create new, dynamic and innovating ways to address them and improve things together.

Is this really what we want? Is this really the best we can do? It appears to be, since this is all we do. It sure is easier than doing the heavy lifting that's needed.

What happened to us? Is anyone else wondering this?
.

Internet anonymity. People are saying generally stupid, divisive shit on the innert00bs/social media because there's little to no accountability yet. This cancer is melting our brains, quickly dumbing down the masses. Gone are the days when we minded our own business. Nowadays someone always believes he/she knows better than you what you should be doing, and should you dare to disagree/go your own way, you deserve scorn. We applaud narcissism. This is apparent by who we elected to lead the country.

The current political environment is akin to most sporting events. The actual facts/issues/policies are much less important than whatever narrative the sports fans project to be important. These cliques of dumb ***** have dominated the national conversation, preventing any meaningful discourse. The extremists for both teams use the same schoolyard techniques to try and 'own' each other. With the internet, their bullhorns are miles wide.

Meanwhile, in the White House and Congress, nothing of substance gets done. MAGA!

 

[Mac1958]

Just reviewing the current news cycle, thinking about D.C., the press and threads here...

I wonder how many words have been spent, and how much time has been spent, over the last 10 years or so on conspiracy theories, "breaking news", shocking developments, they're-really-gonna-get-it-now, this-is-the-big-one, fantastical conjecture, gotcha news stories, fanciful hypotheses and shallow wishful thinking.

And then I wonder, by contrast, how many words have been spent, how much time and effort has been spent, on looking honestly and critically at the issues that challenge, threaten and divide us and collaborating to create new, dynamic and innovating ways to address them and improve things together.

Is this really what we want? Is this really the best we can do? It appears to be, since this is all we do. It sure is easier than doing the heavy lifting that's needed.

What happened to us? Is anyone else wondering this?
.

Internet anonymity. People are saying generally stupid, divisive shit on the innert00bs/social media because there's little to no accountability yet. This cancer is melting our brains, quickly dumbing down the masses. Gone are the days when we minded our own business. Nowadays someone always believes he/she knows better than you what you should be doing, and should you dare to disagree/go your own way, you deserve scorn. We applaud narcissism. This is apparent by who we elected to lead the country.

The current political environment is akin to most sporting events. The actual facts/issues/policies are much less important than whatever narrative the sports fans project to be important. These cliques of dumb ***** have dominated the national conversation, preventing any meaningful discourse. The extremists for both teams use the same schoolyard techniques to try and 'own' each other. With the internet, their bullhorns are miles wide.

Meanwhile, in the White House and Congress, nothing of substance gets done. MAGA!

.

 

[candycorn]

The fact that you seem to think that an elected official needs to be an expert on anything other than listening to experts and making a decision based on that, is part of the problem here. The sheer amount of study that it takes to become an expert on any given subject necessitates that one knows little, if anything on other subjects.

If that is what I thought, surely you could quote me as saying that an elected official needs to be an expert in subject matter. If they wish to effectively serve their constituents, they do need to be an expert in politics. Otherwise they are outmaneuvered by ones who are better; just like bad lawyers lose to good lawyers, bad tennis players lose to good ones, and restaurants with bad chefs don’t stay open longer in favor of places that have good chefs.

It’s fine to have good people around you. It’s better to have good people around you and have some chops yourself. We saw what happened with the blob. Essentially, the last person to talk to him has more influence than the other voices. When he has to operate on his own; you have him saluting Korean Generals, apologizing to foreign leaders, calling white nationalist “very fine people”.

That you want the “average” to be making your political decisions is puzzling. I want an expert because I know the other guys are sending their experts.

The “average joe” has zero idea of the range of a SLBM for example…how long subs can remain at sea, what parts of the government stay open during a government shutdown, etc. You hear it all the time that many Americans can’t find Iran on a map or something similarly outrageous. Would these people get elected? Well, they are the average people….You want the “average joe” to be spending our tax monies….and they likely couldn’t tell you about the importance of potential hotspots like Gaza, Golan Heights, Siani Peninsula, Chechnia (sp?)….

Do you think any of those in congress know those things? I doubt it.

I don’t. In fact, I’m positive that many do.

I am reminded of something Henry Ford once said, “If I should really WANT to answer the foolish question you have just asked, or any of the other questions you have been asking me, let me remind you that I have a row of electric push-buttons on my desk, and by pushing the right button, I can summon to my aid men who can answer ANY question I desire concerning the business to which I am devoting most of my efforts. Now, will you kindly tell me, WHY I should clutter up my mind with general knowledge, for the purpose of being able to answer questions, when I have men around me who can supply any knowledge I require?”
Not a stupid man, nor an uneducated man. He knew his business and knew it well, when he needed expertise, he pushed a button and got it. Why should our politicians be any different?

Knowing which buttons to push is helpful.
Knowing the type of men who would come when you push them is helpful.
Having some time in the water to know if the guy is bullshitting you is helpful.
Knowing if what the button boys are proposing is remotely feasible (see $15 minimum wage for an example) if helpful.

If you think it best to have politicians who are experts in foreign policy, tell me, how well will they know economics, constitutionality of policy, environmental issues, military concerns, etc.?

That is just the most glaring weakness of your “average joe”. The interior jungle is almost as treacherous to navigate because the “winners and losers” of what you are voting for will be your constituents not the major employers you’re helping or screwing.

The FACT is every politician, to be properly informed, must surround themselves with people who are experts on the various topics they will deal with. So, the question becomes, would you rather have someone who is an expert in one topic, and knows next to nothing about everything else, or someone who has a firm grasp of the basics of a wide range of topics and defers to experts as needed?

I would prefer someone with some time in the water who knows that everyone sitting in front of them is not there to lobby in the best interest of America and may have their own personal axe to grind, their own special interests, etc..

 

[candycorn]

I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:



I prefer people who know where our enemies are…also people who know who our enemies are; unlike the blob

You have got to be joking. You want me to believe that Jimmy Kimmel actually goes out and gives an accurate representation of the average american in these? It's called satire, look it up. He is doing it for comedic effect. It has little basis in fact. How many people do you thing he "interviewed" for that segment? 10? 20? 50? 100? Admittedly, I did not watch it, I don't have to, I am familiar with how these things work. This has been done for decades, anyone foolish enough to think it gives an accurate representation have their blinders on.

And you have the nerve to explicitly say that the average joe can't tell the difference between fact and edited drama. Wow.

Hence I wrote this:

“I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:” It would be helpful if you would read the entire thing before comment.

That being said….

These people are average. Sorry. That you want to send the “average” to represent you is puzzling.

 

[oldsoul]

The fact that you seem to think that an elected official needs to be an expert on anything other than listening to experts and making a decision based on that, is part of the problem here. The sheer amount of study that it takes to become an expert on any given subject necessitates that one knows little, if anything on other subjects.

If that is what I thought, surely you could quote me as saying that an elected official needs to be an expert in subject matter. If they wish to effectively serve their constituents, they do need to be an expert in politics. Otherwise they are outmaneuvered by ones who are better; just like bad lawyers lose to good lawyers, bad tennis players lose to good ones, and restaurants with bad chefs don’t stay open longer in favor of places that have good chefs.

It’s fine to have good people around you. It’s better to have good people around you and have some chops yourself. We saw what happened with the blob. Essentially, the last person to talk to him has more influence than the other voices. When he has to operate on his own; you have him saluting Korean Generals, apologizing to foreign leaders, calling white nationalist “very fine people”.

That you want the “average” to be making your political decisions is puzzling. I want an expert because I know the other guys are sending their experts.

The “average joe” has zero idea of the range of a SLBM for example…how long subs can remain at sea, what parts of the government stay open during a government shutdown, etc. You hear it all the time that many Americans can’t find Iran on a map or something similarly outrageous. Would these people get elected? Well, they are the average people….You want the “average joe” to be spending our tax monies….and they likely couldn’t tell you about the importance of potential hotspots like Gaza, Golan Heights, Siani Peninsula, Chechnia (sp?)….

Do you think any of those in congress know those things? I doubt it.

I don’t. In fact, I’m positive that many do.

I am reminded of something Henry Ford once said, “If I should really WANT to answer the foolish question you have just asked, or any of the other questions you have been asking me, let me remind you that I have a row of electric push-buttons on my desk, and by pushing the right button, I can summon to my aid men who can answer ANY question I desire concerning the business to which I am devoting most of my efforts. Now, will you kindly tell me, WHY I should clutter up my mind with general knowledge, for the purpose of being able to answer questions, when I have men around me who can supply any knowledge I require?”
Not a stupid man, nor an uneducated man. He knew his business and knew it well, when he needed expertise, he pushed a button and got it. Why should our politicians be any different?

Knowing which buttons to push is helpful.
Knowing the type of men who would come when you push them is helpful.
Having some time in the water to know if the guy is bullshitting you is helpful.
Knowing if what the button boys are proposing is remotely feasible (see $15 minimum wage for an example) if helpful.

If you think it best to have politicians who are experts in foreign policy, tell me, how well will they know economics, constitutionality of policy, environmental issues, military concerns, etc.?

That is just the most glaring weakness of your “average joe”. The interior jungle is almost as treacherous to navigate because the “winners and losers” of what you are voting for will be your constituents not the major employers you’re helping or screwing.

The FACT is every politician, to be properly informed, must surround themselves with people who are experts on the various topics they will deal with. So, the question becomes, would you rather have someone who is an expert in one topic, and knows next to nothing about everything else, or someone who has a firm grasp of the basics of a wide range of topics and defers to experts as needed?

I would prefer someone with some time in the water who knows that everyone sitting in front of them is not there to lobby in the best interest of America and may have their own personal axe to grind, their own special interests, etc..

I think we generally agree then. We need people who are capable of discerning good advice from bad; good/truthful/complete information from bad/untruthful/incomplete. Where we seem to have the disagreement is what level of "expertise" one must have to be able to be effective as a legislator. For me, the "rookie" is not optimal, nor is the person who has little to no "real world" experience in recent years. Somewhere in the middle is best. If pressed to put numbers on it I might say: From someone with at least one term in state level government (or equivalent) up to three terms in the House and/or two terms in the Senate (or any combination of the two). Beyond that, it seems as though people get too entrenched in the "Washington culture/swamp", and their objective becomes getting re-elected instead of serving their constituents and their best interests/desires.

I also believe that any pay increase for congress should be ratified by a 2/3 majority of State legislative bodies. I seriously doubt this will happen, but I think it would go a long way towards taking the money out of national politics. Of course there is the lobbyist issue as well, but I think that is best left for another time.

 

[oldsoul]

I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:



I prefer people who know where our enemies are…also people who know who our enemies are; unlike the blob

You have got to be joking. You want me to believe that Jimmy Kimmel actually goes out and gives an accurate representation of the average american in these? It's called satire, look it up. He is doing it for comedic effect. It has little basis in fact. How many people do you thing he "interviewed" for that segment? 10? 20? 50? 100? Admittedly, I did not watch it, I don't have to, I am familiar with how these things work. This has been done for decades, anyone foolish enough to think it gives an accurate representation have their blinders on.

And you have the nerve to explicitly say that the average joe can't tell the difference between fact and edited drama. Wow.

Hence I wrote this:

“I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:” It would be helpful if you would read the entire thing before comment.

That being said….

These people are average. Sorry. That you want to send the “average” to represent you is puzzling.

Actually, I did read the entire post before commenting, twice. I wanted to be sure I did not misread anything. Admitting it was "edited for effect" is different from acknowledging that this is not an accurate representation of reality. True, these are "average" people in that area. However, if I were to do a poll of income levels in Compton, it would be disingenuous for me to then say it is in any way an accurate representation of the whole of the LA metro, let alone the State of California, or the nation. This is essentially what you are doing, it seems.

 

[candycorn]

I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:



I prefer people who know where our enemies are…also people who know who our enemies are; unlike the blob

You have got to be joking. You want me to believe that Jimmy Kimmel actually goes out and gives an accurate representation of the average american in these? It's called satire, look it up. He is doing it for comedic effect. It has little basis in fact. How many people do you thing he "interviewed" for that segment? 10? 20? 50? 100? Admittedly, I did not watch it, I don't have to, I am familiar with how these things work. This has been done for decades, anyone foolish enough to think it gives an accurate representation have their blinders on.

And you have the nerve to explicitly say that the average joe can't tell the difference between fact and edited drama. Wow.

Hence I wrote this:

“I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:” It would be helpful if you would read the entire thing before comment.

That being said….

These people are average. Sorry. That you want to send the “average” to represent you is puzzling.

Actually, I did read the entire post before commenting, twice. I wanted to be sure I did not misread anything. Admitting it was "edited for effect" is different from acknowledging that this is not an accurate representation of reality. True, these are "average" people in that area. However, if I were to do a poll of income levels in Compton, it would be disingenuous for me to then say it is in any way an accurate representation of the whole of the LA metro, let alone the State of California, or the nation. This is essentially what you are doing, it seems.

Fair enough.

Do you think that Kimmel and his segment producers interviewed 535 people? I doubt it. Now, if you took the same camera, the same segment producers and put it in the Halls of the Capitol, and interviewed all of our elected officials, they would all know where Korea was--and knew it before they got elected. That is just one of many differences between the "average" and advanced citizenry.

 

[oldsoul]

I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:



I prefer people who know where our enemies are…also people who know who our enemies are; unlike the blob

You have got to be joking. You want me to believe that Jimmy Kimmel actually goes out and gives an accurate representation of the average american in these? It's called satire, look it up. He is doing it for comedic effect. It has little basis in fact. How many people do you thing he "interviewed" for that segment? 10? 20? 50? 100? Admittedly, I did not watch it, I don't have to, I am familiar with how these things work. This has been done for decades, anyone foolish enough to think it gives an accurate representation have their blinders on.

And you have the nerve to explicitly say that the average joe can't tell the difference between fact and edited drama. Wow.

Hence I wrote this:

“I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:” It would be helpful if you would read the entire thing before comment.

That being said….

These people are average. Sorry. That you want to send the “average” to represent you is puzzling.

Actually, I did read the entire post before commenting, twice. I wanted to be sure I did not misread anything. Admitting it was "edited for effect" is different from acknowledging that this is not an accurate representation of reality. True, these are "average" people in that area. However, if I were to do a poll of income levels in Compton, it would be disingenuous for me to then say it is in any way an accurate representation of the whole of the LA metro, let alone the State of California, or the nation. This is essentially what you are doing, it seems.

Fair enough.

Do you think that Kimmel and his segment producers interviewed 535 people? I doubt it. Now, if you took the same camera, the same segment producers and put it in the Halls of the Capitol, and interviewed all of our elected officials, they would all know where Korea was--and knew it before they got elected. That is just one of many differences between the "average" and advanced citizenry.

Ok, I'll give you that. One question though. In your opinion, who should determine whether or not a person is advanced enough to be a part of congress? No right or wrong answer, I am asking for your opinion.

 

[candycorn]

I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:



I prefer people who know where our enemies are…also people who know who our enemies are; unlike the blob

You have got to be joking. You want me to believe that Jimmy Kimmel actually goes out and gives an accurate representation of the average american in these? It's called satire, look it up. He is doing it for comedic effect. It has little basis in fact. How many people do you thing he "interviewed" for that segment? 10? 20? 50? 100? Admittedly, I did not watch it, I don't have to, I am familiar with how these things work. This has been done for decades, anyone foolish enough to think it gives an accurate representation have their blinders on.

And you have the nerve to explicitly say that the average joe can't tell the difference between fact and edited drama. Wow.

Hence I wrote this:

“I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:” It would be helpful if you would read the entire thing before comment.

That being said….

These people are average. Sorry. That you want to send the “average” to represent you is puzzling.

Actually, I did read the entire post before commenting, twice. I wanted to be sure I did not misread anything. Admitting it was "edited for effect" is different from acknowledging that this is not an accurate representation of reality. True, these are "average" people in that area. However, if I were to do a poll of income levels in Compton, it would be disingenuous for me to then say it is in any way an accurate representation of the whole of the LA metro, let alone the State of California, or the nation. This is essentially what you are doing, it seems.

Fair enough.

Do you think that Kimmel and his segment producers interviewed 535 people? I doubt it. Now, if you took the same camera, the same segment producers and put it in the Halls of the Capitol, and interviewed all of our elected officials, they would all know where Korea was--and knew it before they got elected. That is just one of many differences between the "average" and advanced citizenry.

Ok, I'll give you that. One question though. In your opinion, who should determine whether or not a person is advanced enough to be a part of congress? No right or wrong answer, I am asking for your opinion.

There is no difinitive answer to that question.

 

[oldsoul]

You have got to be joking. You want me to believe that Jimmy Kimmel actually goes out and gives an accurate representation of the average american in these? It's called satire, look it up. He is doing it for comedic effect. It has little basis in fact. How many people do you thing he "interviewed" for that segment? 10? 20? 50? 100? Admittedly, I did not watch it, I don't have to, I am familiar with how these things work. This has been done for decades, anyone foolish enough to think it gives an accurate representation have their blinders on.

And you have the nerve to explicitly say that the average joe can't tell the difference between fact and edited drama. Wow.

Hence I wrote this:

“I know this is edited for effect but here is evidence of the “average joes” at work:” It would be helpful if you would read the entire thing before comment.

That being said….

These people are average. Sorry. That you want to send the “average” to represent you is puzzling.

Actually, I did read the entire post before commenting, twice. I wanted to be sure I did not misread anything. Admitting it was "edited for effect" is different from acknowledging that this is not an accurate representation of reality. True, these are "average" people in that area. However, if I were to do a poll of income levels in Compton, it would be disingenuous for me to then say it is in any way an accurate representation of the whole of the LA metro, let alone the State of California, or the nation. This is essentially what you are doing, it seems.

Fair enough.

Do you think that Kimmel and his segment producers interviewed 535 people? I doubt it. Now, if you took the same camera, the same segment producers and put it in the Halls of the Capitol, and interviewed all of our elected officials, they would all know where Korea was--and knew it before they got elected. That is just one of many differences between the "average" and advanced citizenry.

Ok, I'll give you that. One question though. In your opinion, who should determine whether or not a person is advanced enough to be a part of congress? No right or wrong answer, I am asking for your opinion.

There is no difinitive answer to that question.

Actually, according to the COTUS, there is a quite definitive answer. The COTUS spells out the minimum qualifications, and the voters (AKA the people) decide who is "advanced" enough to represent them. No one will satisfy everyone, and that is the beauty of our system, every few years all who meet the qualifications set forth in the COTUS can "throw their hat in the ring" and run for office. Then the people decide who will represent them. One time it may be a career politician, and the next it could be the plumber who fixed your toilet last week.