It's not a theory, it's a truth - the point of a democracy is that you're qualified if the folk like you. Anything more is limited democracy. Nonqualified folk can do things successfully that they're not qualified for. Qualifications can only make this more likely that they do it successfully. I don't really like most American presidents, I guess someone in the early 1800s.

I'm not asking about perfection. Do you really believe that no president has done a decent job since the 1800s? Not one?

Clearly, if someone can do a decent job at something, they must have been, as a simple matter of fact, qualified for that job. I'm having a hard time seeing how that could *not* be the case. Perhaps they just got extremely lucky and things worked out okay, despite them being inept? I suppose, in principle; but in practice the job of a president has too many contingencies, too many decisions that have to be made, for mere blind luck to pass muster. In a sitcom, sure, but in real life? Nah.

Sarah Palin would have been disastrous as a president. Same for the vast majority of the Republican nominees. That's the whole point. Dancing around the choice of words to express that fact won't actually avoid or change that fact.

gosh that's crazy

No not at all, a bit anger-fueled but spot on. You were proven wrong on diversity and now you argue that Sarah Palin is awful, and therefore the Republican Party is not diverse. I guess that means that the Democratic Party is even less diverse when you only have two people with a chance and one is a flip-flopping Serb/Iraqi/Libyan killing whore.

gosh that's crazy

No not at all, a bit anger-fueled but spot on. You were proven wrong on diversity and now you argue that Sarah Palin is awful, and therefore the Republican Party is not diverse. I guess that means that the Democratic Party is even less diverse when you only have two people with a chance and one is a flip-flopping Serb/Iraqi/Libyan killing whore.

Hey everybody, check out this crazy shit over here! lol ;-D

I'd choose Sarah Palin any day over Hillary Clinton. She might not be the sharpest pen in the drawer, but at least she's not an enabler of a serial rapist, who simultaneously claims to be the defender of womens' rights. Tho I probably have no chance of convincing you of that, since you want more diversity in the oval office. It's the current year, so we need our first enabler president!

I'm gonna try to get us all back on topic :)

I agree. But I have news for you. Sarah Palin *was* their pick for 'diversity' when they knew they'd be facing Obama.

You keep referring to those choosing the candidates (either VP or Presidential) as one distinct entity with a collective mind, which is a false narrative. Again (I said this before so I don't know why I'm repeating this) - REPUBLICAN VOTERS DON'T CHOOSE THE VP. You may not understand that political phenomenon because in Europe, the Party Leadership has control of everything from who's on the ballot in which constituency to who is going to be in the Cabinet. Republican voters chose McCain in 2008. McCain chose Palin to be his VP. This is a very important distinction, the RNC and the voting base has little control over who is made the VP. McCain was using his own subjective judgement methods to choose a VP and nor the Republican leadership nor the voters had a decision in this. So you're wrong. Palin was not our pick for diversity. In fact, you have no way of knowing why McCain chose Palin unless he publicly stated which I doubt he did because politicians are not that honest.

You keep referring to those choosing the candidates (either VP or Presidential) as one distinct entity with a collective mind, which is a false narrative.

No. I don't. That's all in your imagination. You keep interpreting my words in bizarre ways and then insisting that I mean them the way you imagine them. But if you actually parse my sentences according to English grammar, you'd see your imagination has run wild.

I'd choose Sarah Palin any day over Hillary Clinton.

I rest my case in regards to craziness.

The 'diversity' people running for nomination this election are almost all just a bunch of Sarah Palins. They are the *best* the Republicans can come up with, and they all suck, about as much as Palin sucked. That's because the Republican party as a whole doesn't have a big enough pool of 'diverse' people to be able to pick the cream of the crop. There's not enough crop to have cream to begin with -- they have to make do with the dregs.

You keep saying that everyone running for the GOP nomination are "Sarah Palins". What does that even mean? That's not an adjective or a noun last time I checked. This is just more evidence of you imposing subjective value-added judgement on the Republican Party because you fundamentally hate them. In fact, I would contend that NO minority candidate that runs as a Republican Candidate would get your seal of approval because they are inherently a "Sarah Palin" (which I assume is a euphemism for crazy) for supporting the Republicans. Would Condoleezza Rice get your approval? (Please answer the questions I ask, since you tend to evade them). Would Nikki Haley get your approval? How about Tim Scott? How about Neel Kashkari? How about Mia Love? Are any of these "minority" candidates not "Sarah Palins"?

Its actually quite insulting that you call Ted Cruz - a Princeton and Harvard graduate, a State Attorney General, and a Senator - part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Marco Rubio - a US Senator and former Speaker of the Florida Legislature, who's dad was a poor bartender - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Bobby Jindal - a US Governor, Rhodes Scholar, and Brown University Graduate - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Ben Carson - a world class Neurosurgeon and Yale University graduate - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party.

At the end of the day, numbers don't lie. The Republican field for the Presidency is at least two times more diverse than the Democrats. Not only do the Democrats have no problem voting for old white dudes and one old, white, and rich women they have no problem consistently attacking anybody who doesn't share a 100% of their ideological views. As I said before (which you selectively again avoided to comment on) the Democrats represent the most ideologically narrow group of opinions in the US and have no ounce of "diversity" where it really matters...in thoughts and opinions.

When the Democrats weren't even trying to come up with a 'diversity' candidate, they got Hillary Clinton

Of course the Democrats are trying to pick a diverse candidate!! What's wrong with you. Hillary Clinton has been trying to be the first women president since 2008. She's been playing the women card this whole election. Democrats purposefully try to appeal to minority groups by funding minority campaigns. The only problem they're facing now is that their party is more and more being led by old white dudes (Dick Durban, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer) and they have absolutely no "bench" that they can call upon to run for Senate and the Presidency. All their "diversity" is stuck in the House of Representatives and they have no chance of getting high enough up on the Democratic White Ladder to get a shot at being in a more powerful office.

Edited 2/16/2016 15:33:07

I rest my case in regards to craziness.

Yeah, not wanting an enabler of a serial rapist and an overall incompetent politician as president is crazy, isn't it?

"Have you really not understood the key point that America's political climate is a huge outlier? Way more right-wing than most of the rest of the developed world. Way more religious. Way more deluded."

Is that why we have the largest economy? The greatest military? The most freedom (not counting the anarchy kind)? The best movie industry? The best tech/pharma industry?

I'd choose Sarah Palin any day over Hillary Clinton.

I rest my case in regards to craziness.

Look at me. My opinion is so much better than yours I don't even have to back up my insults toward you.

I don't think he really cares. He's essentially at this point insulted the 1/3 of Americans in the Republican Party. Not to mention he's insulted minority candidates who vote for Republicans and minority candidates who decide to run as Republicans.

Let's go right now Bernie garbo Sanders!

You keep saying that everyone running for the GOP nomination are "Sarah Palins". What does that even mean?

"Sarah Palin", as a type, represents the attempts of the GOP to find candidates who a) they feel they can support, and b) are (in their view) potentially 'popular' enough in sufficient ways to be able to compete with the strengths of the Democratic party's candidate(s) (or, in the context of this conversation, 'diverse' enough), but c) fail to show much or any promise in terms of actual competency, because d) requirements a) and b) are generally incompatible in reality within the GOP's population of all possible candidates (i.e. the pool of candidates they have to choose from is too small or weak to produce enough viable, competent, 'potentially-popular-towards-Democrats-and-Independents'/'diverse' candidates to be able to allow 'the best' to rise to the top).

In 2008, they needed someone as VP who would complement McCain's strengths, and 'fill in the gaps': Someone young-ish, to compensate for his apparent age, someone who wasn't both white and male (either non-white or female; I agree with your suggestion of Condoleeza Rice but I wonder if perhaps she was unavailable for whatever reasons), someone who was energetic and good looking, to compensate for his physical stiffness (of no fault of his own), and to compete against Obama's traits in this category, etc.

They couldn't risk being 'two old white guys running against the possibility of the first Black US president'. They needed some 'diversity'.

But they had a problem: The GOP is *not* actually diverse. They only have *a few* 'diverse' looking people to choose from.

So their selection was very limited. The *best* they could come up with was Sarah Palin, whom you admit is a nut job. There simply were not any other 'diverse' people within the party who were simultaneously *competent* and available.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_presidential_candidacy_of_Sarah_Palin. Here's the part that most closely resembles what I'm talking about (bolded part especially):

Selection

Senator John McCain began a search for a running mate to join the Republican ticket after clinching the Republican nomination. Former candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were mentioned as possibilities, as were many other leaders in the Republican Party and the business world.[1][2][3][4][5] Over Memorial Day weekend, McCain invited Romney, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to his Sedona, Arizona ranch for informal get-togethers intended to assess personal chemistry for possible running mate selection.[6]

McCain then announced plans to reveal his running mate the day following the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, and just a few days before the start of the Republican National Convention. During the running mate deliberations, McCain had favored Joe Lieberman,[7] who shared his romantic sense of righteousness and honor.[8] But the opposition from social conservatives, who objected to Lieberman's pro-choice views, was too strong,[7] and a Lieberman pick might have caused a floor fight at the upcoming convention.[8] McCain wanted someone who would shake up the race and reinforce his image as a maverick, so he decided against more conventional choices on his short list including Romney and Governor Tim Pawlenty.[7]

McCain had only talked to her a few times, and the campaign's vetting operation had mostly relied on Internet searches to check her background.[9] Palin's career in Alaska had shown maverick tendencies similar to McCain's,[9] and McCain hoped that Palin's youth, reformist record, appeal to social conservatives, and appeal to disaffected Hillary Clinton voters would outweigh her lack of national and international visibility and experience.[7]

So, in fact, I forgot about the whole "disaffected Hillary Clinton voters" thing, which just further reinforces my point. Palin was selected partially because they thought being female (i.e. 'diverse') would help their chances in the general election against Barack Obama. Nearly all the other candidates, who were white and male, could not fill that 'diversity' role the way they hoped Palin would.

After the whole Palin thing backfired in the most ridiculous (but entirely predictable) way, the Republicans are coming at this election trying to learn their lesson from that mistake: Instead of waiting until the VP selection to fill their 'diversity' quota, they *started* by trying to find the most viable 'diversity' candidate they could find (someone who could compete against Hillary, and challenge Obama's legacy). So they tended to support all the possible 'diverse' seeming candidates they could find within their ranks. They are trying to sort out the best one(s) out of their pool of candidates through these primaries, but nearly all of them are turning out to be duds -- because the initial pool wasn't *actually* that big to begin with. And, at the end of the day, they seem to be supporting the *least* 'diverse' (in terms of physical and financial characteristics, anyway) candidate, Donald Trump, anyway. Nearly all the rest of the 'diversity' candidates are "Sarah Palin" types, only popular because they've got some 'diverse' characteristic that can appeal to voters who put value on 'diversity' (who tend to be more leftist/centrist, i.e. swing voters, voters who might possibly switch to vote Republican if the candidate was 'diverse' enough). I'll tentatively give Marco Rubio the benefit of the doubt -- with the caveat that I actually know very little about him except some brief stuff I read recently during/after the Iowa caucus -- and say that he may be the one significant exception to my general claim here. He may actually be competent; I can't give a confident opinion that he's not.

For the record, although I admit I know very little of *any* of the GOP candidates, I know more about Jeb Bush than any of the others (and that's not saying much! I know little about him too), and based solely on what I've heard and read about him, he appears to be someone who would *actually* probably be pretty decently competent as a president. Probably far more competent than his brother, if what I heard is true about his governorship of Florida.

I still think he would be a disastrous president, but that's because I suspect he'd support the same kinds of policies that W. and their father did, policies which I think would be disastrous for the US and its people. But I can still admit that he would probably be *competent* as a president, just competent in passing policies I disagree with.

And I bet Jeb Bush would be more competent than Trump (though my certainty on that is not so strong). Trump would also be disastrous, for different reasons than Jeb, but Trump would also probably be at least decently competent. He has run several businesses after all, very successfully. I just think he's a jackass and will try to pass some jackass policies that will hurt the US (and probably Canada too, not to mention the rest of the world) and the American people. (For the record, I think Trump would also be miles ahead of W.)

But Sarah frickin' Palin??? Fuck no. She's just a friggin mess. Your country would have become a constant laughing stock for 4 years (hopefully less, obviously) had she somehow become president.

So, on a scale between W. and Palin, I would wager that very likely Carson, Fiorina, Jindal, and Rand Paul (being ideologically 'diverse') would have been worse than W., but probably better than Palin. Next, somewhat less confidently, I suspect Cruz would be slightly better than W. (only because W. was so bad), but worse than Jeb or Trump, and so thus still somewhat "Palin-esque". And finally, even less confidently, I would guess that Rubio would be better than Trump, and perhaps better than Jeb, but FAR far below Clinton or Sanders (or Obama for that matter). And I'm not that impressed by Clinton (or Obama for that matter). Sanders is my top pick in terms of competence (and again, I actually know very little about him, too, so of course I could be wrong; but from what little I've heard, that's my guess). It's definitely possible that my distaste for Hillary makes me underestimate her competence, so it's possible she'd be more competent than Sanders. But I doubt I would like her policies that much (especially compared to Sanders').

"Have you really not understood the key point that America's political climate is a huge outlier? Way more right-wing than most of the rest of the developed world. Way more religious. Way more deluded."

Is that why we have the largest economy? The greatest military? The most freedom (not counting the anarchy kind)? The best movie industry? The best tech/pharma industry?

No. That's why I said it's a huge outlier.

http://thefreedictionary.com/outlier

out·li·er (out′lī′ər)
n.
1. One that lives or is located outside or at the edge of a given area: outliers of the forest standing in the field.
2. One that exists outside or at an extreme of a category, pattern, or expectation; an extreme case or exception: "those egg-laying outliers of mammaldom, the duck-billed platypus and the anteating echidna" (Natalie Angier).
3. A value far from most others in a set of data: "Outliers make statistical analyses difficult" (Harvey Motulsky).
4. A portion of stratified rock separated from a main formation by erosion.

See also: https://baldscientist.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/outliers1.jpg

Palin is probably not half as bad as her reputation. The progressive press always talks about wanting "diversity" (ie women) in politics. But they don't want diversity of opinion. So when they see a non-progressive Republican woman run for high office, they do everything they can to smear her as a crazy bitch. But ofc it isn't sexism when Good People (ie progressives) do it.

Dr. Ben Carson is a great example. He's very smart and charismatic, and looks back to a career of doing groundbreaking research. He's just as accomplished as any, but according to you and other gullible progressive fanboys, he's just a token candidate and nothing more. The only reason Democrats have managed to establish themselves as the party of diversity in the public eye is because they have used the media to silence and smear all dissenters. They have done a huge disservice to minority candidates that actually have something to say other than how oppressed they are and how racist and sexist all Americans are.

(Please answer the questions I ask, since you tend to evade them)

Fair enough, if you make an effort to do the same, and also refrain from your usual practice of throwing around baseless accusations rather than asking for clarification first.

Would Nikki Haley get your approval? How about Tim Scott? How about Neel Kashkari? How about Mia Love? Are any of these "minority" candidates not "Sarah Palins"?

I don't know any of those names. Did they run for president? I'm only (somewhat) familiar with Jindal, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Rand Paul (ideological diversity). These were the ones who made it far enough to make recent news, get on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016), and enter the forum discussions that I happen to have read. Based on these 'diversity' elites, I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of them are "Sarah Palin" types, who would probably not make competent presidents, and are largely only in the running because of their apparent 'diversity' cred. I've said nothing about people who *have not* made it past the first few hurdles of the GOP's initial race nor of anyone who *isn't* running for president (or VP).

Its actually quite insulting that you call Ted Cruz - a Princeton and Harvard graduate, a State Attorney General, and a Senator - part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Marco Rubio - a US Senator and former Speaker of the Florida Legislature, who's dad was a poor bartender - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Bobby Jindal - a US Governor, Rhodes Scholar, and Brown University Graduate - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party. Its actually quite insulting that you call Ben Carson - a world class Neurosurgeon and Yale University graduate - a part of the "dregs" of the Republican Party.

Once again, surprise surprise, you've misinterpreted me. (Remember when I misinterpreted you, and came right out and immediately admitted it and corrected myself? You might want to think about that.)

I didn't say they are the dregs of the Republican party. They are the 'dregs' of the 'diversity' contingent as opposed to the 'cream of the crop' that you would expect if there was so much abundant diversity in the Republican party. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dregs:

dreg (drĕg)
n. often dregs
1. The sediment in a liquid, such as wine or coffee.
2. The basest or least desirable portion: the dregs of humanity.
3. A small amount; a residue: "She would head straight for the kitchen, clinging to the dregs of her energy, not allowing herself to relax before getting the supper on" (Lynn Coady).

Like when you go to pour a cup of coffee, and all that's left is that last little portion which sucks because all the good coffee has already been poured out. In other words, the Republican party is so short on 'diversity', they have very little to choose from in terms of being 'diverse' *and* competent enough to be a president.

All of those folks might be perfectly talented in whatever capacity they now serve. But they would be incompetent presidents.

Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence."

See also https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Peters_principle.svg/756px-Peters_principle.svg.png

At the end of the day, numbers don't lie. The Republican field for the Presidency is at least two times more diverse than the Democrats.

I don't think you know how to measure diversity. Remember that article on cultural diversity I linked to, in reference to how scientists define diversity? There's a reason I linked to it. You may be right about that measure for the candidates, but if the numbers don't lie, then what *are* those actual numbers? Why don't you try actually calculating them? Might be a fun exercise and you might learn a bit about how diversity is actually measured, too.

Not only do the Democrats have no problem voting for old white dudes and one old, white, and rich women

Obviously, the Democrats are not under the same pressures as the Republicans to produce a 'diversity' candidate because a) the party itself already has way more diversity than the Republican party, and b) they *represent* the interests of people who already value 'diversity'; they don't need to put on some fake front like the Republicans do.

Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous it all is. It's like doing my good deed for the day. I get a wee bit of satisfaction out of doing it. The more crazy they respond, the more interesting and compelling it is for me to point at it and say, "Gosh, that's crazy! Hey everybody, check out this crazy shit over here!"

Stuff like this is why nearly everyone else here thinks of you as an arrogant snake and has called you such at one point.

You think that you're somehow superior by belittling and ridiculing those who think differently than you. You think that it makes your position look stronger by acting this way, but it doesn't. It makes you look like an ignorant person who can't see past the visor of their bias. Those who agree with you might look the other way, but this kind of attitude will never convince a single person who's watching.

TL,DR: You aren't persuading anyone with this, only those who already are on your side will find any amusement of it and those who are against you will just become more hostile in response to the arrogance.

All of those folks might be perfectly talented in whatever capacity they now serve. But they would be incompetent presidents.

Why don't you tell us why they would be bad presidents? Provide us with some evidence as to how Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would be a horrible president aside from "I personally don't like their ideology".

they don't need to put on some fake front like the Republicans do.

Once again this exposes your bias towards the Democrats. They aren't anymore diverse than the Republicans, they simply act like it in order to gain votes. Politics in the U.S is a superficial game of pandering to various portions of the populace. The Democrats pander and sell-out to minority groups, meanwhile the Republicans pander and sell out to corporations.

I'd choose Sarah Palin any day over Hillary Clinton.

I rest my case in regards to craziness.

Look at me. My opinion is so much better than yours I don't even have to back up my insults toward you.

If you agree that you'd "choose Sarah Palin any day over Hillary Clinton", then yeah, basically. Except that I didn't insult anyone, just their opinion. Lots of good people have crazy opinions on things.

Once again this exposes your bias towards the Democrats. They aren't anymore diverse than the Republicans, they simply act like it in order to gain votes. Politics in the U.S is a superficial game of pandering to various portions of the populace. The Democrats pander and sell-out to minority groups, meanwhile the Republicans pander and sell out to corporations.

+1 Eklipse.