The Political & Philosophy Thread

His one on one interviews show noticeable decline imo; it's not merely a public speaking issue. Now, again, that might be the nature of the conversation and competing inputs, but with his health behavior history and his age, he's a golden candidate for developing dementia.
 
1. Neocon war hawk except when it wasn't not immediately politically convenient
2. Got some random guy thrown under the bus over his wife's drug addiction
3. Pathetic military career propped up by having admirals as his father and grandfather
4. Attention whore that signed onto every new legal cause imaginable but generally failed at passing them through Congress
5. One of those was an act to amnesty over 10 million illegal immigrants
 
This could easily go in the Dak thread as well, but I figure it'd get more eyeballs here:

https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/08/tradition-is-smarter-than-you-are.html

The link name/title is misleading, and while providing some excellent selections of reasons why tradition shouldn't be so easily abandoned, the closing point is this:

Each stage in the model presents a different sort of society than that which came before it. Very basic social and economic questions—including subsistence strategy, family type, mechanisms for mate selection, and so forth—change substantially as societies move through one stage to the next. Customs and norms that are adaptive for individuals in stage two societies may not be adaptive for individuals in living in stage four societies.

If the transition between these stages was slow this would not matter much. But it is not. Once stage two begins, each stage is only two or three generations long. The children of Europeans, Japanese, Taiwanese, and South Koreans born today look forward to spending their teenage years in stage five societies. What traditions could their grandparents give them that might prepare them for this new world? By the time any new tradition might arise, the conditions that made it adaptive have already changed.

This may be why the rationalist impulse wrests so strong a hold on the modern mind. The traditions are gone; custom is dying. In the search for happiness, rationalism is the only tool we have left

I would like to tie in with Bakker's crash points here, that we may be rapidly approaching the limits of human capacity for broad successful adjustment to environmental changes outside our control; only this time it is of things of our own making rather than a meteor, volcano, etc. One way we have a crash episode is politically. Politics become erratic in history with crisis, but previously crises were often limited in scale/scope and politically generated as much as any other contributor. Now we have techonological advancement and information production and flows which are outstripping the ability of even the best and brightest to keep up with the whole thing.

What may survive are people who can either A. Adapt or B. Destroy it. The people who adapt to the environment would likely need to destroy the people who could destroy the environment, and the people who could destroy the environment would also need to destroy those who can adapt to it. The next 150 years are going to likely be an incredibly pivotal time in the timeline of the human civilizational progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zabu of nΩd
when people were saying "donald trump is going senile" was actually before he decided to run for president
so him looking kinda senile now shouldn't really be all that surprising to anyone
also, he's 72, so there's alot of people who are just assuming that his horrible public speaking is just "old age"
 
It's a tactic, thinking he's senile seems silly to me.
didn't necessarily say it wasn't "a tactic"
just pointing out that people were already accusing him of being senile before he decided to run for president
so now that he's become president, if he suddenly stopped looking senile, news reporters would be like "wtf?? crazy guy stopped being crazy??"
 
Was just watching Joe Rogan's episode with Tulsi Gabbard and they got onto the subject of super-delegates and how this impacted Bernie's chances (as a side-note; Rogan should absolutely have Bernie on his podcast sometime) and I realized I didn't actually know that the DNC and GOP have different rules regarding how their super-delegates can vote.

I don't know if it's accurate but here Tulsi says that unlike the GOP, the DNC have no rules in place that say super-delegates have to vote in a way that reflects their constituency (for example in Hawaii apparently 70% of voters wanted Bernie but the majority of super-delegates wanted Hillary, which I guess means Hillary won Hawaii) and also that super-delegates are allowed to get their votes in early before we even know which way the votes are swaying.



Does anybody know if any of this is accurate?
 
Well it may have been. I remember reading the DNC made a lot of delegate rule changes this past year because of the fiasco with Sanders/Clinton.