Speedy's Cafe - General Chat about anything you like!

[Arcadia]

I don't consider him as a serious presidential candidate because he got less than 1% of the vote last time, and I don't see any indication that he or the Libertarian Party have done anything to change that dynamic. To do the same thing over again and expect a different result etc. etc.

 

On the other hand, I don't consider Trump a serious candidate either (for different reasons), and look how far he's gotten.

[Carol the Dabbler]

True, neither Johnson nor the LP have done anything to change the situation.  But Trump and Clinton have.  ;)

 

He's currently polling between 5 and 10 percent, even without any serious attention from the media.  As with last time, I doubt that most people have heard of him.  It'd be truly interesting to see what effect including him in this year's debates would have.

 

[Arcadia]

Are they going to? I'd like to see that. Or maybe I wouldn't ... the debates have become such a circus, not meaningful at all any more. I long for Kasich.

 

I dredged this up somewhere out of my memory last night. Are you familiar with this graphic?

 

I’ve seen it used in a number of ways to promote a number of ideas, but when I first encountered it, it was being used something like this: the first example is treating everyone the same. The second example is treating everyone equally. The third one is treating everyone fairly.

 

I’ve also seen it labelled as: 1. Libertarianism 2. Conservatism 3. Liberalism. By, if I recall correctly, a liberal.

 

A little later I saw this version, in which #4 is what happens “when all obstacles are removed.”

I will presume #4 is what the Nolan chart would refer to as “communism.”

 

And just recently I saw this alteration, which I will take to mean that a rising tide floats all boats.

 

 

What follows is strictly my personal opinion, influenced by my perception of what has happened in this country since I’ve been old enough to pay attention, and on what I have heard a variety of people state about their political views over the years.

[Arcadia]

If we stipulate that the ball field represents “the American Dream,” here’s the situation I think we have now:

 

Here’s what I think the Republicans say their policies will achieve:

 

Here’s what I think their policies have actually achieved:

 

Here’s what I think the Libertarians say their policies will achieve:

 

Here’s what I think their policies would actually achieve:

[Arcadia]

Here’s what I think the Democrats say their policies will achieve:

 

Here’s what I think their policies have actually achieved:

 

Here’s what I would like to see:

 

But because the world has never been, and never will be, as simple and straightforward as some people want to believe, or want the rest of us to believe, here is the best I think we can realistically hope for:

 

Which demonstrates, I believe, that my own views veer wildly between the yearning for Utopia and utter cyncism. At any rate, since both the Dems accomplishments and ideals (as I perceive them) are closest to my own, that’s how I vote.

 

YM, of course, MV.

[Arcadia]

BTW, I apologize for the quality of some of my image editing ... my Photoshop disk has disappeared so I had to download a freebie program (Paint.net) in order to be able to edit anything on my new computer. Supposedly Paint.net is "quite sophisticated", which just goes to show how very, very spoiled I have been by Photoshop.  And which explains why I am now off to do a thorough search of the house for the accursed disk. Laterz.

[T.o.b.y]

Arcadia, I had actually never seen these before! They're great and could be used to explain many different concepts. Man, I wish I had had these back when I was at uni and had to do a presentation on disability.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't think that any reasonable people (e.g., you and me) advocate taking from the poor to subsidize the rich. I suspect the people who advocate programs that end up having that effect are a] business executives intent on keeping the shareholders happy at the expense of the long-term health of the company, b] bureaucrats (government or corporate) blindly intent on achieving (or over-achieving) their stated departmental objectives, and others of that ilk.

 

I have no objection to the government helping people out of a jam. (Though I do object to helping people based on some arbitrary criterion such as ethnicity.). But I am opposed to any attempt to guarantee equal outcomes, simply because it removes the incentive to try. This means that the equal outcomes achieved will be at the lowest level.

 

Oddly enough, though, this might make some people happy. I read about a poll where they asked people something like this: Assuming that the buying power of the dollar remains the same, would you prefer to have [A] a $50,000 income in a neighborhood where everyone else earns $25,000, or a $100,000 income where your neighbors all earn $200,000. A clear majority of those polled chose [A]. I do not understand people.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Oddly enough, though, this might make some people happy. I read about a poll where they asked people something like this: Assuming that the buying power of the dollar remains the same, would you prefer to have [A] a $50,000 income in a neighborhood where everyone else earns $25,000, or a $100,000 income where your neighbors all earn $200,000. A clear majority of those polled chose [A]. I do not understand people.

Eventhough I don't understand people like you said, I understand their illogical behaviour driven by ego and pride. Some people choose to be 'the best of the worst' then 'the worst of the best'. The first means you secure the pride, the ego, least/no effort required. There are many areas where it is preferable, but I disagree if it's about income.

 

I also quite sure that majority of the people who took the pool don't belong to the 'poor' category. They are beyond the struggle to fulfill their primary needs and maybe secondary, therefore they put more appreciation in tertiary needs, I guess.

 

 

Another things about US that I am curious about, if you guys know.. something I unfortunately came across that can't be unseen, argh... what is up with people dressing grossly.. I mean really gross.. in Walmart? Is it common?

[T.o.b.y]

Oddly enough, though, this might make some people happy. I read about a poll where they asked people something like this: Assuming that the buying power of the dollar remains the same, would you prefer to have [A] a $50,000 income in a neighborhood where everyone else earns $25,000, or a $100,000 income where your neighbors all earn $200,000. A clear majority of those polled chose [A]. I do not understand people.

 

I don't quite understand this either... Unless people thought that in the rich neighborhood, the cost of living would be so high that in the end, they'd be better off in the cheap one even if they had a lower income?

 

Of course "rich" and "poor" are largely comparative categories. So maybe, if the goal is to feel rich, option A is the better one after all. Even though I would not choose it intuitively.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I unfortunately came across that can't be unseen, argh... what is up with people dressing grossly.. I mean really gross.. in Walmart? Is it common?

Depends on what you mean by "gross" -- and I'm not sure I'd care to see it! Maybe you could just describe what you saw, in general terms?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't quite understand this either... Unless people thought that in the rich neighborhood, the cost of living would be so high that in the end, they'd be better off in the cheap one even if they had a lower income?

 

Well, the poll question explicitly stated that costs remained constant. But of course that never stops people from assuming the opposite (especially since that's usually the case in real life).

[Arcadia]

Arcadia, I had actually never seen these before! They're great and could be used to explain many different concepts. Man, I wish I had had these back when I was at uni and had to do a presentation on disability.

 

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure that's another area where I've seen them used to illustrate the point.

 

Oops, there's my boat, gotta run ... hope there's wifi on the island soon (borrowing from the ferry terminal at the moment.)

 

Quick PS -- VBS, I've seen the videos you're talking about, it happens but it's not THAT common.

 

Bye!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Depends on what you mean by "gross" -- and I'm not sure I'd care to see it! Maybe you could just describe what you saw, in general terms?

If you haven't, don't, god no.

Okay, in general term, there are people wearing skimpy/barely-there/transparent/exposed clothing, and really not in complimentary way, not at all! Well I don't mean it to be insult, if it sounds like it, let it be it. You will probably understand when you see it but don't see it XD.

 

And there are those who purposely dress weirdly to draw attention with overwhelming accessories and unnecessary setups, yep, attention bloody seekers, the type I wouldn't care to dignify with a glance if I encountered one.

 

And the grossest when they purposely (I believe so) having stains. Yah, stains. Gross stains.

Ugh.

 

Oops, there's my boat, gotta run ... hope there's wifi on the island soon (borrowing from the ferry terminal at the moment.)

Boat! Sounds like a holiday.

(Follow Arcadia and tag along)

I am on second part of going home 'holiday' and on airport flying to family home I haven't visited for more than five, eight years? Don't feel good as it's more likely I would be trapped for unwanted social interaction with extended family. That's why I always prefer to meet my main family somewhere else all these year.

 

Boat...!!!

[Arcadia]

Island!

[Shadow Dweller]

This is the current craze on this part of world :lol:

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/amid-frenzy-pokemon-go-leads-to-robberies-and-injuries

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I have a friend whose posts on Facebook the last few days have been predominantly that game until today's severe weather came in.

[Arcadia]

I don't think that any reasonable people (e.g., you and me) advocate taking from the poor to subsidize the rich. I suspect the people who advocate programs that end up having that effect are a] business executives intent on keeping the shareholders happy at the expense of the long-term health of the company, b] bureaucrats (government or corporate) blindly intent on achieving (or over-achieving) their stated departmental objectives, and others of that ilk.

I don't think the graphic means to imply "taking from the poor to give to the rich" -- I think the boxes just mean the resources to achieve want you want (in my examples, the "American Dream.") I.e., the wealthy (tall people) already have everything they need to achieve their goal. Anything else they acquire/are given/retain is just gravy.

 

I have no objection to the government helping people out of a jam. (Though I do object to helping people based on some arbitrary criterion such as ethnicity.)

If you're referring to programs like Affirmative Action: unfortunately, as recent events have demonstrated, the playing field is still not level for "people of color." I used to work in personnel, and I can confirm that the average middle-aged white men who ran the departments were overwhelmingly inclined to hire other middle-aged white men. Not due to prejudice, exactly, but because they naturally wanted to hire the someone they were most comfortable with; which usually meant the people who were most like them. It was our job in personnel to put forward candidates who met all the qualifications but might be overlooked due to age, gender or ethnicity. It wasn't a perfect system, but the workplace did indeed become more diverse over time. Of course, that presumes that diversity is a worthwhile goal.

 

I'm trying to think of other programs that are based on ethnicity, but drawing a blank at the moment. I'm sure there must be others; inequality due to race (or other arbitrary criterion such as gender) is still a big factor in our society.

 

But I am opposed to any attempt to guarantee equal outcomes, simply because it removes the incentive to try. This means that the equal outcomes achieved will be at the lowest level

I have never found this to be true, but I understand the logic behind it. But I think it oversimplifies what drives humans to achieve. Some people strive for excellence simply because it's there, I think. Others are happy to achieve a minimal outcome, whether they're assisted to that point or not. I don't really know, it could make an interesting study. Already has, probably!

 

Oddly enough, though, this might make some people happy. I read about a poll where they asked people something like this: Assuming that the buying power of the dollar remains the same, would you prefer to have [A] a $50,000 income in a neighborhood where everyone else earns $25,000, or a $100,000 income where your neighbors all earn $200,000. A clear majority of those polled chose [A]. I do not understand people.

The optimist in me wonders if this is because most people think $50000 is enough for anybody, and they don't want to be burdened with more. The pessimist in me wonders if it's because they'd rather be top dog, even in a poor neighborhood, than to always be behind the Joneses. I relate to that, actually ... when I look at my own life, I have very few wants and needs, and am quite satisfied to live on a lower economic scale than my peers (putting aside, for a moment, the fears about affording health care). But everytime I have to turn down going to lunch with my friends because they can afford to eat out every day, and I can't ... ah, that can get the self-pity party going. In other words, in relationship to myself, I'm happy with less; but in relationship to the larger society, it's easy to feel left out. Human nature to want everything both ways, I suspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oops, there's my boat, gotta run ... hope there's wifi on the island soon (borrowing from the ferry terminal at the moment.)

Boat! Sounds like a holiday.

(Follow Arcadia and tag along)

I am on second part of going home 'holiday' and on airport flying to family home I haven't visited for more than five, eight years? Don't feel good as it's more likely I would be trapped for unwanted social interaction with extended family. That's why I always prefer to meet my main family somewhere else all these year.

 

Boat...!!!

 

Good deduction! Yes, vacation. On an island. I can hear foghorns. Bliss.

[J.P.]

Tell me - is there something in the water in London?

Boris J. as Foreign Secretary? 

 

I really should have chosen a career in politics...

[Shadow Dweller]

That's a form of political assassination from Theresa May's side. Lets prepare enough chips and dips, we are about to be entertained. :lol:

[Shadow Dweller]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160712-you-are-surprisingly-likely-to-have-a-living-doppelganger?

 

Have you ever meet yours? I have :lol: She was my senior in uni. She was in the Electrical Engineering and since we were largely moving around in the more or less same building complex, I lost count how often I was mistaken as her.

 

One of my senior high school physics teachers looks a lot like Shania Twain, the main difference is their voice.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I haven't met mine, but a lot of different people said I look like some known actresses (!!! multiple actresses and none of them look alike and definitely I don't look like them), maybe there is certain feature or body language but sometimes the comparison is too laughable eventhough they were not joking. I can't really make fun of them because I also thought it's Kitty Rilley when they first showed Mary.

 

But I had met two pair of friends from different states, even different countries, at different stage of my life but only few years apart, and they look exactly the same without any relation.

 

First pair is amazing, up to their hair color, body shape and height, even their voice and squeaky way of talking were the same.

Second pair is male and female version, they have exact same face and way of smile, even their teeth-arragement (it's visible!) look alike.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I've never met my true lookalike, but one year when I got to summer camp, people kept telling me "I already met your sister." They were sure that's who she was. I pointed out that my sister wasn't there that week because I don't have a sister.. But as I went up the steps to the dining hall, darned if she wasn't sitting on the porch. I mean, there was no doubt that's who they were talking about. Autograph books were popular then, and she signed my book, so I had her name and hometown.

 

Forty years later I got to wondering if we still looked alike, and tracked her down. No, we don't -- at least no more than maybe random cousins. But our lives have been amazingly similar (e.g., we both have master's degrees from the same university, even though it's about a thousand miles from here), and we've stayed in touch.

 

Looking at our school photos, I think our resemblance was more in our similar hair styles and glasses, plus similar coloring and demeanor. Sort of like Sherlock and Tom!

[Arcadia]

I don't recall meeting mine, but since I'm not very good at recognizing people I'm not sure I'd know it if I did.

 

I remember in college I used to get a lot of people running up behind me calling someone else's name. Then I'd turn around and they'd realize their mistake. Apparently I had a common body type?

[Shadow Dweller]

*peering toward Arcadia's profile picture* That must be because your shadow greatly resembles someone they knew. Your shadow have a second life as a disguise-artist.