12 ms·

Be that as it may (your sarcasm), what is a person like this doing in congress? He has no grasp on the ability to think twice about what he is saying or doing.

Be that as it may (your sarcasm), what is a person like this doing in congress? He has no grasp on the ability to think twice about what he is saying or doing. Any rational person would first try and understand the root cause of the issue rather than jumping to something as outlandish as "deep state" as the first conclusion. These people jump to stupid conclusions because it somehow validates their ignorant perspective of the world.

throwoutway 4y ago
He is not running for Congress, yeah, the article says he is running for Arizona Secretary of State
chrisseaton 4y ago
> what is a person like this doing in congress? There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive about it as possible, the idea is the representative sets direction and then civil servants, who are tested for aptitude, implement it. People don’t need to be smart to have a valid point of view worth representing. In the UK people mock ministers who don't have health experience running the NHS, or in Belgium an obese person running their health service, for two examples, but the point isn't that they represent the health service, the point is that they represent the users of the health service. (Sometimes that means representing the needs of the health service to the rest of the Government.)
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  In fact, I personally think one of the many reasons the US is less well-run than other rich democracies is that the professional civil service has a much lower level of responsibility (and prestige) compared to elected representatives.
  - NateEag 4y ago
    I think the US being the largest rich democracy might have something to do with that, too. The cultural history of valuing individual freedom above everything, so much so as to start a war rather than pay "unjust" taxes, also seems relevant to me. Society is all about giving up individual freedoms for the group's benefit, and the US's founding mythology is kind of the opposite.
    - batch12 4y ago
      When talking about a myth, do you mean the colonies taking issue with being taxed without having legislative representation? Is this something you disagree with when you finger-quote "unjust"?
      - NateEag 4y ago
        I think it _was_ unfair and illegitimate, from a procedural perspective. Practically, I think representation wouldn't have changed the outcome that much. I'm no historian, but my impression is that the taxes were in large part England trying to cover the bill from the French and Indian War, which was mostly incurred on behalf of the colonists. So, procedurally unfair? Yeah. Actually unjust? I dunno about that. Even if I'm wrong about the facts and the taxes were genuinely egregious abuse, I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people.
        throwoutway 4y ago
        > I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people. If you’re blaming the colonists for this, you have selective memory when it comes to the history.
        NateEag 4y ago
        From my perspective, both sides clearly chose to undertake massive amounts of killing to get what they wanted. In my view, neither was a good course of action. I have room for the concept of just wars, but I don't think the American Revolution was one for either side.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  >There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive about it as possible, the idea is the representative sets direction and then civil servants, who are tested for aptitude, implement it. Exactly, and the reason these people stand by unapologetically to their false accusations and lies and hypocrisy is because the real message they are sending to their “tribe” is that they are willing to screw others, no matter the truth, for the benefit of their tribe. And as long as you can believe you are part of their tribe, and hence you might receive their support, you might be willing to forego caring about the truth or what is right.
Xeoncross 4y ago
I think an erosion of trust is now widespread in the US helping spread misinformation. Fake news, bots and manipulation by foreign governments are things I see all sides complain about on a daily basis.
reaperducer 4y ago
what is a person like this doing in congress He's not. He's a candidate. And not for Congress, for the position of Secretary of State of Arizona. More to the root of the problem: People are elected by other people by popular vote, not by an intelligence or ability test. Democracy is — at its heart — a popularity contest. The theory is that the populace should be smart enough to recognize the unqualified and not vote for them. But that doesn't work as often as it should due to a number of reasons: - The influence of advertising - Political parties/political tribalism - Fear-mongering in various forms. None of these are new, and have been part of the nation's political life since its inception. But now we have new things: - People who think that education is not important - An entire industry trying to convince people that aspiring to higher education is a bad idea - The removal of foundational subjects like civics, geography, and social studies from schools The result is that the general population gets dumbed down, and is no longer able to discern who is a statesman and who is a court jester.
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  those aren't new things, either.
- Xeoncross 4y ago
  > The removal of foundational subjects So many ideas about improvement. I'll share one uncommon one: Simply reading books older than 100 years will reveal the depth of understanding lacking in modern society. I would trade any modern curriculum if students were made to read books from hundreds of years ago (they cover all subjects anyway). Even silly children's books like Pinocchio (1883) are incredibility apt at teaching proper communication and reason. Media these days is very shallow and lacking in character and understanding of the world.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    > Media these days is very shallow and lacking in character and understanding of the world. Correction: the media you’re exposing yourself to is lacking in character and understanding of the world. There is plenty of media being made now with depth and clarity that 1883 would be stunned by.
Barrin92 4y ago
>Any rational person would first try and understand the root cause of the issue rather than jumping to something as outlandish as "deep state" Conspiratorial thinking is now so widespread that virtually any act of incompetence, mere accident or random fluke is attributed to malice and collusion by 'deep' this or 'big' that or some shadowy foreign entity. Including here by the way, every thread on some Google ranking, de-platformed Facebook winemom or what have you is full of comments on how it's either some Machiavellian business move or some other grand plan.
- skilled 4y ago
  I wonder where this conscious disconnect happened. What was the catalyst for people to suddenly assume that everything is designed against their best interests? Was it social media in general? And if so, were people really this delusional before they got on social media?
  - krapp 4y ago
    The conspiracy theory that "Big Tech" and the "Deep State" are involved in an orchestrated conspiracy to deplatform Republicans and silence their views is literally just normalized Trumpist propaganda. Social media may have had a part in accelerating the normalization, but blaming it alone would be ignoring the root cause.
    - veltas 4y ago
      Donald Trump is banned from Twitter.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        Donald Trump was banned from Twitter after the sustained extreme outbursts after he lost, after Twitter fueled the rise of Trumpism by first ignoring their published rules when he violated them and then, as that drew increasing attention, changed the published rules to create arbitrary, subjective exceptions for government and major political figures.
batch12 4y ago
Congress is a popularity contest. The more outlandish you can get pandering to your base, the more you play in the news. It is universal. We have a government made of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho clones.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  We have a government made of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho clones That's the sort of patently false misinformation being propagated through the internet and social media these days that makes it difficult for us as a society to properly assess and deal with our problems. President Camacho believed in listening to the best experts he could lay his hands on to advise him. He was not at all anti-intellectual. He's nothing like many of the people in congress. He was better.
  - batch12 4y ago
    I stand corrected. Thank you for your applied wisdom. My only disagreement is your use of the qualifier "many".
KingOfCoders 4y ago
You assume the "noindex" was a mistake, it wasn't.
coinbasetwwa 4y ago
[dead]
- loonster 4y ago
  Or my personal favorite, Rep Hank Johnson thinks Guam will tip over if too many troops get deployed onto it. https://youtu.be/cesSRfXqS1Q https://youtu.be/cesSRfXqS1Q
IAmGraydon 4y ago
If you believe he jumped to conclusions, I have a bridge to sell you. One doesn’t accidentally request to block indexing of their site. This was an intentional effort to spread conspiracy theories and he was caught red handed. He deserves to be put on trial for attempting to disrupt the democratic process.
- batch12 4y ago
  Throwing shade at a tech company, even though the whole thing has been proven untrue, is now worthy of being "put on trial"?
  - gpm 4y ago
    I believe we call it "defamation"... (assuming, of course, that one can prove that on the balance of probabilities he knew that he had told Google not to index the site).
    - batch12 4y ago
      Good point. I read "put on trial" for hurting democracy as a criminal trial. A civil suit filed by Google and ending up in court-- sure, I could see that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

throwoutway 4y ago

He is not running for Congress, yeah, the article says he is running for Arizona Secretary of State

chrisseaton 4y ago

> what is a person like this doing in congress? There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive about it as possible, the idea is the representative sets direction and then civil servants, who are tested for aptitude, implement it. People don’t need to be smart to have a valid point of view worth representing. In the UK people mock ministers who don't have health experience running the NHS, or in Belgium an obese person running their health service, for two examples, but the point isn't that they represent the health service, the point is that they represent the users of the health service. (Sometimes that means representing the needs of the health service to the rest of the Government.)

School-Cotton 4y ago
In fact, I personally think one of the many reasons the US is less well-run than other rich democracies is that the professional civil service has a much lower level of responsibility (and prestige) compared to elected representatives.
- NateEag 4y ago
  I think the US being the largest rich democracy might have something to do with that, too. The cultural history of valuing individual freedom above everything, so much so as to start a war rather than pay "unjust" taxes, also seems relevant to me. Society is all about giving up individual freedoms for the group's benefit, and the US's founding mythology is kind of the opposite.
  - batch12 4y ago
    When talking about a myth, do you mean the colonies taking issue with being taxed without having legislative representation? Is this something you disagree with when you finger-quote "unjust"?
    - NateEag 4y ago
      I think it _was_ unfair and illegitimate, from a procedural perspective. Practically, I think representation wouldn't have changed the outcome that much. I'm no historian, but my impression is that the taxes were in large part England trying to cover the bill from the French and Indian War, which was mostly incurred on behalf of the colonists. So, procedurally unfair? Yeah. Actually unjust? I dunno about that. Even if I'm wrong about the facts and the taxes were genuinely egregious abuse, I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people.
      - throwoutway 4y ago
        > I don't think that's good grounds for killing a bunch of people. If you’re blaming the colonists for this, you have selective memory when it comes to the history.
        NateEag 4y ago
        From my perspective, both sides clearly chose to undertake massive amounts of killing to get what they wanted. In my view, neither was a good course of action. I have room for the concept of just wars, but I don't think the American Revolution was one for either side.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
>There's no aptitude test for Congress. People vote for people who represent their views. Being as positive about it as possible, the idea is the representative sets direction and then civil servants, who are tested for aptitude, implement it. Exactly, and the reason these people stand by unapologetically to their false accusations and lies and hypocrisy is because the real message they are sending to their “tribe” is that they are willing to screw others, no matter the truth, for the benefit of their tribe. And as long as you can believe you are part of their tribe, and hence you might receive their support, you might be willing to forego caring about the truth or what is right.

Xeoncross 4y ago

I think an erosion of trust is now widespread in the US helping spread misinformation. Fake news, bots and manipulation by foreign governments are things I see all sides complain about on a daily basis.

reaperducer 4y ago

what is a person like this doing in congress He's not. He's a candidate. And not for Congress, for the position of Secretary of State of Arizona. More to the root of the problem: People are elected by other people by popular vote, not by an intelligence or ability test. Democracy is — at its heart — a popularity contest. The theory is that the populace should be smart enough to recognize the unqualified and not vote for them. But that doesn't work as often as it should due to a number of reasons: - The influence of advertising - Political parties/political tribalism - Fear-mongering in various forms. None of these are new, and have been part of the nation's political life since its inception. But now we have new things: - People who think that education is not important - An entire industry trying to convince people that aspiring to higher education is a bad idea - The removal of foundational subjects like civics, geography, and social studies from schools The result is that the general population gets dumbed down, and is no longer able to discern who is a statesman and who is a court jester.

hprotagonist 4y ago
those aren't new things, either.
Xeoncross 4y ago
> The removal of foundational subjects So many ideas about improvement. I'll share one uncommon one: Simply reading books older than 100 years will reveal the depth of understanding lacking in modern society. I would trade any modern curriculum if students were made to read books from hundreds of years ago (they cover all subjects anyway). Even silly children's books like Pinocchio (1883) are incredibility apt at teaching proper communication and reason. Media these days is very shallow and lacking in character and understanding of the world.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  > Media these days is very shallow and lacking in character and understanding of the world. Correction: the media you’re exposing yourself to is lacking in character and understanding of the world. There is plenty of media being made now with depth and clarity that 1883 would be stunned by.

Barrin92 4y ago

>Any rational person would first try and understand the root cause of the issue rather than jumping to something as outlandish as "deep state" Conspiratorial thinking is now so widespread that virtually any act of incompetence, mere accident or random fluke is attributed to malice and collusion by 'deep' this or 'big' that or some shadowy foreign entity. Including here by the way, every thread on some Google ranking, de-platformed Facebook winemom or what have you is full of comments on how it's either some Machiavellian business move or some other grand plan.

skilled 4y ago
I wonder where this conscious disconnect happened. What was the catalyst for people to suddenly assume that everything is designed against their best interests? Was it social media in general? And if so, were people really this delusional before they got on social media?
- krapp 4y ago
  The conspiracy theory that "Big Tech" and the "Deep State" are involved in an orchestrated conspiracy to deplatform Republicans and silence their views is literally just normalized Trumpist propaganda. Social media may have had a part in accelerating the normalization, but blaming it alone would be ignoring the root cause.
  - veltas 4y ago
    Donald Trump is banned from Twitter.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Donald Trump was banned from Twitter after the sustained extreme outbursts after he lost, after Twitter fueled the rise of Trumpism by first ignoring their published rules when he violated them and then, as that drew increasing attention, changed the published rules to create arbitrary, subjective exceptions for government and major political figures.

batch12 4y ago

Congress is a popularity contest. The more outlandish you can get pandering to your base, the more you play in the news. It is universal. We have a government made of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho clones.

bilbo0s 4y ago
We have a government made of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho clones That's the sort of patently false misinformation being propagated through the internet and social media these days that makes it difficult for us as a society to properly assess and deal with our problems. President Camacho believed in listening to the best experts he could lay his hands on to advise him. He was not at all anti-intellectual. He's nothing like many of the people in congress. He was better.
- batch12 4y ago
  I stand corrected. Thank you for your applied wisdom. My only disagreement is your use of the qualifier "many".

KingOfCoders 4y ago

You assume the "noindex" was a mistake, it wasn't.

coinbasetwwa 4y ago

[dead]

loonster 4y ago
Or my personal favorite, Rep Hank Johnson thinks Guam will tip over if too many troops get deployed onto it. https://youtu.be/cesSRfXqS1Q https://youtu.be/cesSRfXqS1Q

IAmGraydon 4y ago

If you believe he jumped to conclusions, I have a bridge to sell you. One doesn’t accidentally request to block indexing of their site. This was an intentional effort to spread conspiracy theories and he was caught red handed. He deserves to be put on trial for attempting to disrupt the democratic process.

batch12 4y ago
Throwing shade at a tech company, even though the whole thing has been proven untrue, is now worthy of being "put on trial"?
- gpm 4y ago
  I believe we call it "defamation"... (assuming, of course, that one can prove that on the balance of probabilities he knew that he had told Google not to index the site).
  - batch12 4y ago
    Good point. I read "put on trial" for hurting democracy as a criminal trial. A civil suit filed by Google and ending up in court-- sure, I could see that.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]