mdk

The Political Thread

I'm actually okay with that too. Savvy/competent presidents give us NSA spy rings and Fast and Furious gunrunning ops and AGs who know how to smother such things. Donald Trump (whatever else he may be) is easy to scrutinize. If we were able to do so in a civilized manner (like maybe if we had more practice, say, another six years?) that might actually be a fantastic thing. Also if they weren't, you know, grabbing them by the bodyparts, that would probably help keep things civil, but you take what you can get, you live, you learn.

The Political Thread

<Snipped quote by PrinceAlexus>

Sad thing is people would actually vote for him, and I think he'd actually win. I swear to god, the last two elections I've been cognizant enough to really understand both felt like popularity contests. If Kanye-Dickhead seriously ran for president, I'd be seriously scared that he'd actually win. He'd win liberals over for the same reason Trump won conservatives over. He's an outsider, though arguably more dangerous than Trump because beyond having no basis in politics, he also has no real basis in economics or business. His advisers would have to be the best in their fields to keep him from making some really stupid fucking decisions.

@TheMadAsshatter

You should google how liberals think about Kanye now. I don't think he's winning them over. Then again the next election doesn't start for a year, that's like.... 50 new "worst outrage ever"s from now, maybe they'd forget by then.

Writing and Debate Experiment - The Criteria for Survival

@mdk

Unfortunately there is no knowing about any other tribes or examples of people and it appeared to be accepted the idea was that only the people with the writer are the ones who will survive; imagine a Noah's Ark sort of allusion. That said, Dr. Scott was one of the choices I personally sought after, but reasoned against him and his family because I could find no credible way to acquire him without raising an alarm if I wished to be particularly devious, or just in reality, able to convince him to leave his family alone. I personally assumed he would put a blade into my back the moment he could if we somehow separated him from them.

I admittedly do like Billy, despite the fact he is a gamble and a liability, perhaps more so than Michael. He at least is far more likely to survive and be useful to labor and exertion, but that is only a perhaps and only then in the long run. Given we have no idea about his condition other than him being permanently handicapped, it is safe to assume he might also fail to be a candidate for reproduction and species cultivation. That and he comes with the rest of his family, who are all varying degrees of liability; I would rather a Mr. Clark, Mr. White altercation that ends in two losses rather than two, maybe three.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Oh a NOAH'S ARC situation? That changes everything.

Save:

Mrs. Scott: 38, white, Jewish, obese, diabetic, psychologist (master's degree), mental health counselor, married (Dr. Scott), and has one child (Billy Scott).
Billy Scott: 10, white, Jewish, intellectual disability (IQ 70), good health, physically strong.
Ms. Perez: 23, Hispanic, Catholic, general education (9th grade), cocktail waitress, prostitute, divorced, has one child (Michael Perez).
Michael Perez: 3 (months), Hispanic, healthy.
Mr. White: 25, African-American, homosexual, medical student, musician, good health, political active (black power activist).
Mrs. Anthony: 28, African-American, Protestant (minister's daughter), electronics engineer (bachelor's degree), divorced, politically active (zero population growth).
Dr. (Ms.) Rita: 66, Hispanic, Catholic, general practitioner (doctorate), poor health (two heart attacks), highly literate (quotes extensively).

Kill:

Father Mark: 37, white, Catholic, priest, farming background, good health (former college athlete), politically active (civil rights, socially liberal).
Mr. Clark: 51, white, Mormon, mechanical engineer (bachelor's degree), construction consultant, handyman, outdoorsman, has four children (unaccompanied), politically active (anti-black sympathizer).
Dr. (Mr.) Scott: 37, white, historian (doctorate), college professor, good health (jogs daily), botanist, politically active (unspecified), married (Mrs. Scott), has one child (Billy Scott).

Reasons: first of all, ratio baby! I will spawn SO MANY BABIES. The only other male in the first generation being gay, we're G2G. Eventually we may give Billy a shot, but I don't think that's likely to be a priority for the kid, so *shrug* maybe not. The main thing is that all these babbies (well the majority anyway, depending) will be of no relation to little Michael, so when he grows up he's free to nail each and every one of my daughters, and most of my wives as well. As for my sons..... Anyway if we can talk White into taking one for the team, or a few, or whatever, we can get a third patriarch somewhere down the line who can then likewise bang most of the wimmins. That should give us a pretty genetically diverse population and eventually when the population of women is large enough that one patriarch can't keep them all pregnant at once, they can start letting some males live to serve as seed bodies (should probably mutilate them as infants to prevent conflicts though -- don't need none of that Cain and Abel shit). Mostly though the non-pregnant people will do all the actual work and be basically the whole civilization.

It'll basically be like the Gerudo from Zelda, except instead of one man being born every however-many years, we'll just allow one to live about that often. The population will be almost entirely female, the hunters female, the farmers female, the army female. Their soundtrack will be a spanish guitar and a trumpet and they'll all have glaives, you know the deal.

Writing and Debate Experiment - The Criteria for Survival

Since we're keeping 7/10 of these folks, the question is REALLY about "which three are you gonna kill/abandon." Which is an easy choice for me -- the Scotts are smart, healthy, active, and a family unit of three. In a group of 8, they constitute nearly half, and represent a threat to my authority. BUT, of everyone, they have the best odds of making it on their own as a unit. I gently encourage them to follow us around and start their own group and we'll have friendly relations -- but I insist that they leave. Unless I can be certain of their loyalty to the pack (and the pack leader!) and let's just assume I can be, since that makes the question more compelling.

Assuming the Scotts are all aboard and I don't have to worry about them in the future (which is a stretch, but let's go with it), I will abandon the following:

Dr. (Ms.) Rita: 66, Hispanic, Catholic, general practitioner (doctorate), poor health (two heart attacks), highly literate (quotes extensively)

Normally I'm all about less mouths to feed down the road, and a GP would be handy for as long as she's alive, but also I figure I can kidnap a doctor later. I'm not roping the group into scavenging for heart meds every time we pass a pharmacy; sorry lady, get a cat maybe?

Mr. Clark: 51, white, Mormon, mechanical engineer (bachelor's degree), construction consultant, handyman, outdoorsman, has four children (unaccompanied), politically active (anti-black sympathizer).

Mr. White: 25, African-American, homosexual, medical student, musician, good health, political active (black power activist).

These two can fight for it, I'll keep the winner. Each represents a skilled and valuable member, particularly Clark (construction? That's worth the racism in an apocalypse!). Together they represent a future conflict and we're gonna get that out of the way now. Winner advances and gets to live. My money's on the young buck -- he's gotta kill for me though. Doing so will earn him great respect and a position of authority, and I want great things for Mr. White -- but if it doesn't go that way, I'll utilize Clark.

Then I'm left in a quandry.... I don't wanna kill a kid, and I don't wanna break up a family, and Ms. Anthony is gonna be my TEOTWAKI girl, so... I dunno maybe I kill the winner too? Someone's gonna go. Probably Billy Scott. He's a distraction for the parents in a way that probably outweighs what I can coerce them to do with Billy as leverage. Clearly they can make another one, plus, being forced to abandon their child after a decade of struggling to raise him would probably help drive a wedge between them and seed future discord in that family, making them more reliable to the group as individuals. Yeah. Yeah call me Uma Thurman, I'm gonna Kill Billy.

EDIT: RIGHT! Mrs Clark is a diabetic. I'll kill her instead, if I can do so in a way that keeps Daddy around.

The Political Thread

<Snipped quote by Gwynbleidd>

Granted, the American conservative movement has always more or less been the Coolidge/Reagan/Ben Shapiro type. The point I was trying to make was that Democrats are synonymous to liberal, and that Republicans are synonymous to conservative. I do agree that American conservatism is based on values similar to those of the classical liberal movement as a whole, and it's interesting to see the honest shift Trump is making. While I don't agree with every facet of his policy, it really is interesting to see how he's led to the polarized left and right to expose themselves (although he isn't really bringing them together by any means). It's refreshing to see CNN criticize everything he says and FOX circlejerk everything he does, because at least you know to trust both equally low.

@HachiRoku

I think what we're finding is that "Conservative = Republican" and "Liberal = Democrat" has been a fraud and the conservatives (and liberals) are done with it. Republicans did not want Trump; Trump spanked them. Democrats did not want Bernie (so they rigged the primary and bought him off); the establishment is losing its control though.

It's easy to overplay the significance while we're in the moment though. Ocasio-Cortez could be a ripple. Trump could be a ripple. Will any of it (beyond the SCOTUS picks) last? Is there still an establishment (on either side of the aisle) in six years? That's what I wanna know. Hopefully the answer is "no, and term limits in Congress will prevent another one from rising ever again." But that's awfully optimistic.

The Political Thread

Anthony Kennedy is retiring. I suspect Trump will select a "conservative" judge as the Democrats seem to point out, and the funny thing is is that the Constitution of the United States is a conservative document by its nature and by the nature of those who wrote it. After the travel ban ruling, which I find Constitutionally legal and absolutely necessary, this is another great step forward to ending the regression our country has had and hopefully prevents us from making the same mistake with irresponsible mass refugee admissions or illegal alien amnesties that have plagued the EU.

It should be noted I'm unaware of whether the EU has granted amnesties to illegal border crossers or not, I'm more connecting the refugees and illegals as similar problems EU countries and the United States currently confront.

@Gwynbleidd

There's a lot of SCOTUS drama this week which is making me raise eyebrows. There was a ruling against federal employee union dues (basically allowing people to opt out) and the left (or rather, the left on Reddit) lost their absolute SHIT over "the backbone of their funding" being struck down.... meanwhile I'm like, "how is there a law on the books that funds the democrat party?" But I'm union-dumb, if anyone has the inside track on what's up with that, I'm interested in a take.

Trump getting a second SCOTUS nominee is better than Clinton getting a SCOTUS nominee, so I say we're all winning. Once again, the Reddit left is imploding with catastrophic terror -- over (I think?) a judge who's going to, like, enforce the law. I'm, uh.... yeah. I think that's.... what a judge is... supposed to, um.... do.... Anyway Trump is Trump so the nominee could be anyone from a Neil Gorsuch lookalike (win) to Peppa Pig, I guess I'll reserve judgment until I see who we actually get, but so far the track record pleases me. 1/1 on picks to date. I like this.

Remember if Clinton won, there would be no more second amendment the minute Kennedy stepped down (unless Hillary was able to sell the seat to a higher bidder).

Article 13

pssst

The Political Thread

Tariffs, anyone?

(I'm starting to think Canadians don't give a whit about politics...)

@Sanctus Spooki

In principle, I don't like.

But as long as they're levied against us, I don't see why we shouldn't level the playing field. Level is fair, fair is good. I can see some value to the (I think) current strategy -- propose and/or enact some really painful tariffs that nobody wants, just to strong-arm Justin to the negotiating table and ultimately reach something closer to "free and fair" like Trump keeps talking about. I'm not crazy about the means here, but I like the ends, and this way beats doing nothing.

The Political Thread

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

If you can’t communicate with the rest of the country you have no business living there. In other words all the frakkin immigrants need to learn the frakkin English language.

I work retail, some stupid customer came up to me rattling off in Spanish. I very politely said no habla and walked away. I don’t help those who don’t help themselves or don’t even make an effort.

@Burning Kitty

they said, making no effort

Just sayin'

The Political Thread

In the last 24 hours, Donald Trump has left the G7 crying in a heap to fly halfway around the world and solve the North Korea crisis. Here's a complete list of everybody else in the world with balls that big and/or results that powerful: