How I Chose My Candidate; What Would Change My Mind

By -
Choice:

Candidate A: Marries a lot; has weird orange hair; says mean things and won't apologize for them.

Candidate B: Lies a lot; has weird "Paid for by Wall Street" stickers on everything; wrecks foreign countries, costing millions their lives, and won't apologize for it.

Hmm, let me see...

I'd Change If:

I will alter my choice if my candidate picks a mainstream, war-loving Republican for his running mate.

But given he doesn't want to be assassinated, I'm guessing he won't do that.

Comments

  1. Josiah Neeley9:20 PM

    So I guess Tom Cotton is right out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silas Barta3:28 PM

    Could you clarify how Candidate A's choice of a conventional Republican would make him more likely to be assassinated?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:57 AM

      If a warmonger is VP, assassinating the more peaceful president gets us more war. And that's what the MIC wants.

      Delete
  3. Lord6:22 PM

    Republicans have long been delusional about their party. Turning to an orange knight to save them from their past choices is just more of the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:56 AM

      This comment is very bizarre:
      1) The GOP leadership all rejected Trump, not "turned to him"!
      2) Trump did best in state's where Democrats and independents could vote: he was scoring big NOT with traditional GOP voters, but with people disillusioned with both parties.

      Delete
    2. Lord3:14 PM

      So Republicans are now the party? Don't mistake me. Trump is the best thing for the party, but when all your past choices have been wrong, maybe the thing to do is to do the opposite of what you believe.

      Delete
    3. gcallah6:30 PM

      "So Republicans are now the party? "

      ????????

      Delete
  4. Lord8:25 PM

    Yes, there are those people out there called voters. You know. The ones the elected all those politicians they hate. The ones that just can't help themselves. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:25 PM

      I think you comments are losing all coherence: I can't even disagree with them, because I have no idea what they mean.

      Delete
  5. Greg Pandatshang3:00 PM

    So, did Pence make you change your mind about Trump???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:36 AM

      Thinking about it... Once the convention is over, I'm going to look at the foreign policy statements coming from the campaign.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more