Lol at the American Black Vote

[thegreekdog]

99.1% of camo wearing bigots will vote for Drumpf

I'm not sure about that. There are a lot of camo-wearing bigots who aren't white.

[Phatscotty]

96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

Funny how I bet there would be a major problem if 93-96% of whites vote for Trump.

White people got it worse than anyone

[/]

96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

Funny how I bet there would be a major problem if 93-96% of whites vote for Trump.

White people got it worse than anyone

I don't know, I heard that upwards of 100% of white voters are planning to vote for a white person this upcoming election. Sounds pretty fishy to me.

[william18]

96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

Funny how I bet there would be a major problem if 93-96% of whites vote for Trump.

White people got it worse than anyone

Trump wont be getting such numbers from such a large demographic, which includes white women, and Caucasian millennials.

[mrswdk]

What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

I don't know, but let's keep track over the next few years and find out! It could be anything! He could exert pressure on local, state, or the federal government to benefit his donators. He could chair a committee relevant to his donators. He could help block legislation that would be harmful to his donators. Maybe his donators care about something other than business and money, like abortion or same sex marriages or transgender bathrooms.

And I don't think you mean $15 million, I think you mean 0.4% of the income they earned on selling one of their businesses (or, $200 to a $50,000 a year income earner). You're thinking too much like a poor person. $200 may be a good price to make sure transgender bathrooms aren't whatever.

Well if Ted Cruz is one day instrumental in helping them earn more than $15 million, or in realizing some un-monetizable result such as preventing rape victims from getting abortions, and Cruz was instrumental in achieving that result, and he would have been unwilling/unable to get into that position and pass that law without the donation, then I will concede that theirs was a worthwhile investment. But until then, it doesn't matter how small that amount of money is in proportion to their overall wealth, it's still money pissed up the wall for no good reason.

[Dukasaur]

What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

I don't know, but let's keep track over the next few years and find out! It could be anything! He could exert pressure on local, state, or the federal government to benefit his donators. He could chair a committee relevant to his donators. He could help block legislation that would be harmful to his donators. Maybe his donators care about something other than business and money, like abortion or same sex marriages or transgender bathrooms.

And I don't think you mean $15 million, I think you mean 0.4% of the income they earned on selling one of their businesses (or, $200 to a $50,000 a year income earner). You're thinking too much like a poor person. $200 may be a good price to make sure transgender bathrooms aren't whatever.

Well if Ted Cruz is one day instrumental in helping them earn more than $15 million, or in realizing some un-monetizable result such as preventing rape victims from getting abortions, and Cruz was instrumental in achieving that result, and he would have been unwilling/unable to get into that position and pass that law without the donation, then I will concede that theirs was a worthwhile investment. But until then, it doesn't matter how small that amount of money is in proportion to their overall wealth, it's still money pissed up the wall for no good reason.

+1

The rich act from the same set of dumb visceral motives that the poor do. They decide, based on nothing but their gut instinct, that Candidate A is an asshole, and they will support Candidate B. Once they've given money to Candidate B, they become blinded. Cognitive dissonance prevents them from acknowledging that B is just as much of an asshole as A. Avoidance of cognitive dissonance becomes a positive feedback loop. The more they give to B, the more "certain" they are that A must be stopped, at all costs.

[Phatscotty]

96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 93% in 2012. No matter what group you look at, I don't believe 93%+ of people share the same political views.

Funny how I bet there would be a major problem if 93-96% of whites vote for Trump.

White people got it worse than anyone

I don't know, I heard that upwards of 100% of white voters are planning to vote for a white person this upcoming election. Sounds pretty fishy to me.

Too bad there are PLENTY of tolerant white female Democrat white voters who are making their decision based on a vagina/refuse to vote for a penis.

STAND AGAINST SEXISM!!!

Oh wait, cuz the all candidates are white. okies Just goes to show the racism in America!!!

[mrswdk]

What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

I don't know, but let's keep track over the next few years and find out! It could be anything! He could exert pressure on local, state, or the federal government to benefit his donators. He could chair a committee relevant to his donators. He could help block legislation that would be harmful to his donators. Maybe his donators care about something other than business and money, like abortion or same sex marriages or transgender bathrooms.

And I don't think you mean $15 million, I think you mean 0.4% of the income they earned on selling one of their businesses (or, $200 to a $50,000 a year income earner). You're thinking too much like a poor person. $200 may be a good price to make sure transgender bathrooms aren't whatever.

Well if Ted Cruz is one day instrumental in helping them earn more than $15 million, or in realizing some un-monetizable result such as preventing rape victims from getting abortions, and Cruz was instrumental in achieving that result, and he would have been unwilling/unable to get into that position and pass that law without the donation, then I will concede that theirs was a worthwhile investment. But until then, it doesn't matter how small that amount of money is in proportion to their overall wealth, it's still money pissed up the wall for no good reason.

+1

The rich act from the same set of dumb visceral motives that the poor do. They decide, based on nothing but their gut instinct, that Candidate A is an asshole, and they will support Candidate B. Once they've given money to Candidate B, they become blinded. Cognitive dissonance prevents them from acknowledging that B is just as much of an asshole as A. Avoidance of cognitive dissonance becomes a positive feedback loop. The more they give to B, the more "certain" they are that A must be stopped, at all costs.

This is why I don't understand people stating that a lack of empathy is a bad thing. No empathy = one less irrational impulse to have to clean up after.

[Dukasaur]

What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

I don't know, but let's keep track over the next few years and find out! It could be anything! He could exert pressure on local, state, or the federal government to benefit his donators. He could chair a committee relevant to his donators. He could help block legislation that would be harmful to his donators. Maybe his donators care about something other than business and money, like abortion or same sex marriages or transgender bathrooms.

And I don't think you mean $15 million, I think you mean 0.4% of the income they earned on selling one of their businesses (or, $200 to a $50,000 a year income earner). You're thinking too much like a poor person. $200 may be a good price to make sure transgender bathrooms aren't whatever.

Well if Ted Cruz is one day instrumental in helping them earn more than $15 million, or in realizing some un-monetizable result such as preventing rape victims from getting abortions, and Cruz was instrumental in achieving that result, and he would have been unwilling/unable to get into that position and pass that law without the donation, then I will concede that theirs was a worthwhile investment. But until then, it doesn't matter how small that amount of money is in proportion to their overall wealth, it's still money pissed up the wall for no good reason.

+1

The rich act from the same set of dumb visceral motives that the poor do. They decide, based on nothing but their gut instinct, that Candidate A is an asshole, and they will support Candidate B. Once they've given money to Candidate B, they become blinded. Cognitive dissonance prevents them from acknowledging that B is just as much of an asshole as A. Avoidance of cognitive dissonance becomes a positive feedback loop. The more they give to B, the more "certain" they are that A must be stopped, at all costs.

This is why I don't understand people stating that a lack of empathy is a bad thing. No empathy = one less irrational impulse to have to clean up after.

Empathy is one of our most important pro-survival instincts.

First, empathy prevents a lot of violence. When someone butts in line at the parking lot exit, the testosterone-driven impulse is to jump out of your car, run up to his, pull the door open and smash his face in. Empathy is what allows you to say to yourself, "poor bastard is probably late for an appointment. I'm sure he's just as stressed as I am, if not more." Without empathy there would be a lot more brutish violence than there is.

Second, empathy helps us prop up weaker members of the tribe when they are going through troubles. Almost everyone, even the strongest, has had some low points in their life when they needed someone's help. Empathy helps ensure the survival of the whole tribe. By propping up those who are in need, we allow them to survive long enough to eventually become contributing members of the tribe again.

I don't know why you think you need to "clean up" after your irrational impulses. Some of the nastier ones, maybe. But on balance, your good traits and your bad traits are both there because through millions of years of evolution they allowed your tribe and your species to thrive. Getting in tune with your feelings is more important that trying to out-think them.

[JBlombier]

I like this empathy discussion a lot more than the everlasting American politics and hopefully we can all agree it is more interesting to say the least. However, it's obvious that you guys can't get enough of it, so I'll withdraw from now.
Political debates usually last three weeks around the actual election in my country and then we move on to the more joyful things in life, but I can imagine that in a complex country like the US, it needs to be discussed until every participant feels misunderstood and strengthened in their already set opinions. Sounds like a perfectly healthy way of dealing with things.

[mrswdk]

When someone butts in line at the parking lot exit, the testosterone-driven impulse is to jump out of your car, run up to his, pull the door open and smash his face in.

If you grew up in a juvenile detention center, maybe.

Maybe you should read some Buddhist teachings. A change of perspective would help you to accept events rather than constantly fighting things you can't control.

Second, empathy helps us prop up weaker members of the tribe when they are going through troubles. Almost everyone, even the strongest, has had some low points in their life when they needed someone's help. Empathy helps ensure the survival of the whole tribe. By propping up those who are in need, we allow them to survive long enough to eventually become contributing members of the tribe again.

At the societal level, economic analysis can tell us when it is a good idea to give help to people and how much help to give them. On a personal level, it should be apparent to anyone that proceeding with their life in an orderly fashion is easier if a) they maintain mutually-beneficial interpersonal relationships with people and b) if they help those people stay stable enough to continue having a positive influence in one's life. And, also, that if one of those people proves to be too much hard work keeping stable, it is better to cut them loose. It's nothing to do with emotion.

[mrswdk]

Political debates usually last three weeks around the actual election in my country and then we move on to the more joyful things in life

Sounds good. It's been months since I was able to look at the BBC without all the top stories being garbage about 'Brexit' and the upcoming referendum.

[Dukasaur]

At the societal level, economic analysis can tell us when it is a good idea to give help to people and how much help to give them. On a personal level, it should be apparent to anyone that proceeding with their life in an orderly fashion is easier if a) they maintain mutually-beneficial interpersonal relationships with people and b) if they help those people stay stable enough to continue having a positive influence in one's life. And, also, that if one of those people proves to be too much hard work keeping stable, it is better to cut them loose. It's nothing to do with emotion.

Economic analysis is just a calculator. A calculator without parameters is useless. It is instinct that tells you what you want, that sets the parameters.

[mrswdk]

At the societal level, economic analysis can tell us when it is a good idea to give help to people and how much help to give them. On a personal level, it should be apparent to anyone that proceeding with their life in an orderly fashion is easier if a) they maintain mutually-beneficial interpersonal relationships with people and b) if they help those people stay stable enough to continue having a positive influence in one's life. And, also, that if one of those people proves to be too much hard work keeping stable, it is better to cut them loose. It's nothing to do with emotion.

Economic analysis is just a calculator. A calculator without parameters is useless. It is instinct that tells you what you want, that sets the parameters.

You can't come to the conclusion you'd rather live in comfort and security without referring to same base emotion?

On a side note, I notice you have abandoned the 'empathy prevents us committing gross acts of violence against strangers' line. I assume that is an acknowledgement of the fact that we do not need empathy to prevent us from engaging in pointless acts of violence.

[thegreekdog]

What do you anticipate Ted Cruz doing to help them recoup that $15 million?

I don't know, but let's keep track over the next few years and find out! It could be anything! He could exert pressure on local, state, or the federal government to benefit his donators. He could chair a committee relevant to his donators. He could help block legislation that would be harmful to his donators. Maybe his donators care about something other than business and money, like abortion or same sex marriages or transgender bathrooms.

And I don't think you mean $15 million, I think you mean 0.4% of the income they earned on selling one of their businesses (or, $200 to a $50,000 a year income earner). You're thinking too much like a poor person. $200 may be a good price to make sure transgender bathrooms aren't whatever.

Well if Ted Cruz is one day instrumental in helping them earn more than $15 million, or in realizing some un-monetizable result such as preventing rape victims from getting abortions, and Cruz was instrumental in achieving that result, and he would have been unwilling/unable to get into that position and pass that law without the donation, then I will concede that theirs was a worthwhile investment. But until then, it doesn't matter how small that amount of money is in proportion to their overall wealth, it's still money pissed up the wall for no good reason.

What Duk said... except I'll say it better.

When some random person gives 0.4% of their income to the "Feel the Bern" campaign, what does that person except to get in return?

Further, it's probably a combination of a bunch of different considerations, not just one. It may be that the Mario Brothers think that they can secure a senator in their pocket for future use on national/federal, state, and local political influences (e.g. I bet Cruz has some influence over local elections in Texas and elsewhere), they can help Cruz stay in the senate and not get replaced by a pro-choice, pro-taxation, pro-Mexican Democrat, and they can get Cruz to influence legislation and regulation.

Finally, I would trust the instincts of those brothers to donate 0.4% of their income than the instincts of some dude who thinks giving 0.4% of his minimum wage salary to Hillary Clinton will put him in any better position. The Mario Brothers probably have a better sense of the value of $15 million than some poor schmoe who thinks $50 is going to make Clinton help him at all.

[Dukasaur]

At the societal level, economic analysis can tell us when it is a good idea to give help to people and how much help to give them. On a personal level, it should be apparent to anyone that proceeding with their life in an orderly fashion is easier if a) they maintain mutually-beneficial interpersonal relationships with people and b) if they help those people stay stable enough to continue having a positive influence in one's life. And, also, that if one of those people proves to be too much hard work keeping stable, it is better to cut them loose. It's nothing to do with emotion.

Economic analysis is just a calculator. A calculator without parameters is useless. It is instinct that tells you what you want, that sets the parameters.

You can't come to the conclusion you'd rather live in comfort and security without referring to same base emotion?

You can't even define comfort and security without referring to some base emotion.

What is "the good life"? Good food, good beer, a decent blowjob now and then?

The only reason you enjoy good food is because your animal ancestors covered their nutritional bases by seeking a wide variety of taste experiences. Based on cold analytical knowlege alone, there's nothing more efficient than subsisting entirely on some disgustingly-flavoured "nutrition shake" with its perfectly balanced blend of nutrition.

The only reason you enjoy good beer is because your animal ancestors enjoyed eating rotten hops and gaining some mood-altering alcohol as a result. Even birds prefer to eat rotten, fermenting berries over good wholesome berries. Moods get boring, even good moods, and since the dawn of brains animals have enjoyed eating things that would alter their brain functions and give them new stimuli to experience.

The only reason you enjoy a good blowjob is because evolution has given you a drive to unload your semen at every opportunity. Everything you want, everything you love, everything you hate, everywhere you want to go, is defined by dumb animal instinct, and that instinct is some combination of random chance and evolutionary selection.

The tiny inputs from your rational mind, of which you are so inordinately proud, do nothing but occasionally find a more efficient way to satisfy your dumb animal desires. Over the centuries, the cumulative effect of these tiny inputs has made us devastatingly powerful, so it's easy to overstate how large they are. Man watched forests burn for a million years before he got the idea, "hey, maybe I can store one of these embers in a box, and have fire to warm me up on a winter's day." A million men watched steam escape from a kettle before one man thought, "hey, maybe that energy can be harnessed to do something more." These one-in-a-million rational input have transformed our lives, and they make us forget that for every rational thought, there were 999,999 irrational ones along the way.

There is absolutely nothing you do that isn't based on dumb animal instinct. Last time you bought a car, did you buy red, white, or blue? You probably entertained yourself with some complex mental masturbation about why red is better than blue, but bottom line: it isn't! There's absolutely no rational reason to prefer red over blue or blue over red. It's just instinct, and whatever excuses you make for your preference are just mental masturbation. There's no reason to prefer pork over beef, or cashews over almonds, or rock over country, other than the fact that some of these things resonate with your instincts better than others.

There's absolutely no rational reason for you to want to communicate with me, other than the fact that our ancestors sat around a fire and scratched and grunted in unison, and thereby de-stressed after a long day hunting mastodon on the trail. I'm a stranger on the other side of the planet; I have no input into your health or wealth. The one and only reason you seek to communicate with me is a dumb animal instinct to be part of the tribe and participate in this communal grunting.

On a side note, I notice you have abandoned the 'empathy prevents us committing gross acts of violence against strangers' line. I assume that is an acknowledgement of the fact that we do not need empathy to prevent us from engaging in pointless acts of violence.

Since your only response was a joke, I figured you weren't planning on disputing the indisputable. Empathy helps us unwind and find common ground with others in moments when other instincts would otherwise launch us into needless violence.

[mrswdk]

At the societal level, economic analysis can tell us when it is a good idea to give help to people and how much help to give them. On a personal level, it should be apparent to anyone that proceeding with their life in an orderly fashion is easier if a) they maintain mutually-beneficial interpersonal relationships with people and b) if they help those people stay stable enough to continue having a positive influence in one's life. And, also, that if one of those people proves to be too much hard work keeping stable, it is better to cut them loose. It's nothing to do with emotion.

Economic analysis is just a calculator. A calculator without parameters is useless. It is instinct that tells you what you want, that sets the parameters.

You can't come to the conclusion you'd rather live in comfort and security without referring to same base emotion?

You can't even define comfort and security without referring to some base emotion.

What is "the good life"? Good food, good beer, a decent blowjob now and then?

The only reason you enjoy good food is because your animal ancestors covered their nutritional bases by seeking a wide variety of taste experiences. Based on cold analytical knowlege alone, there's nothing more efficient than subsisting entirely on some disgustingly-flavoured "nutrition shake" with its perfectly balanced blend of nutrition.

The only reason you enjoy good beer is because your animal ancestors enjoyed eating rotten hops and gaining some mood-altering alcohol as a result. Even birds prefer to eat rotten, fermenting berries over good wholesome berries. Moods get boring, even good moods, and since the dawn of brains animals have enjoyed eating things that would alter their brain functions and give them new stimuli to experience.

The only reason you enjoy a good blowjob is because evolution has given you a drive to unload your semen at every opportunity. Everything you want, everything you love, everything you hate, everywhere you want to go, is defined by dumb animal instinct, and that instinct is some combination of random chance and evolutionary selection.

The tiny inputs from your rational mind, of which you are so inordinately proud, do nothing but occasionally find a more efficient way to satisfy your dumb animal desires. Over the centuries, the cumulative effect of these tiny inputs has made us devastatingly powerful, so it's easy to overstate how large they are. Man watched forests burn for a million years before he got the idea, "hey, maybe I can store one of these embers in a box, and have fire to warm me up on a winter's day." A million men watched steam escape from a kettle before one man thought, "hey, maybe that energy can be harnessed to do something more." These one-in-a-million rational input have transformed our lives, and they make us forget that for every rational thought, there were 999,999 irrational ones along the way.

There is absolutely nothing you do that isn't based on dumb animal instinct. Last time you bought a car, did you buy red, white, or blue? You probably entertained yourself with some complex mental masturbation about why red is better than blue, but bottom line: it isn't! There's absolutely no rational reason to prefer red over blue or blue over red. It's just instinct, and whatever excuses you make for your preference are just mental masturbation. There's no reason to prefer pork over beef, or cashews over almonds, or rock over country, other than the fact that some of these things resonate with your instincts better than others.

There's absolutely no rational reason for you to want to communicate with me, other than the fact that our ancestors sat around a fire and scratched and grunted in unison, and thereby de-stressed after a long day hunting mastodon on the trail. I'm a stranger on the other side of the planet; I have no input into your health or wealth. The one and only reason you seek to communicate with me is a dumb animal instinct to be part of the tribe and participate in this communal grunting.

I was so sure your 'our ape ancestors loved to get off on rotten fruit' line was BS that I Googled it and found this. Humans' relatively high tolerance for alcohol (compared to most other animals) has come about because apes who couldn't tolerate the ethanol in rotting fruit died off, leaving only the ones that could tolerate it. It's nothing to do with deriving pleasure from being intoxicated.

The reason ale became so commonplace in medieval Europe (and has therefore remained prevalent in Europe, N America and Australia) was because ale was safer than water, with the fermenting process killing off most of the pathogens that would have been found in most water sources. It is only recently that some (not all) people in those societies have started to derive amusement from drinking so much alcohol that they become intoxicated.

I can't really be bothered to challenge all your other PLAYER-esque assumptions. You need a full reprogramming and I don't have time.

On a side note, I notice you have abandoned the 'empathy prevents us committing gross acts of violence against strangers' line. I assume that is an acknowledgement of the fact that we do not need empathy to prevent us from engaging in pointless acts of violence.

Since your only response was a joke, I figured you weren't planning on disputing the indisputable. Empathy helps us unwind and find common ground with others in moments when other instincts would otherwise launch us into needless violence.

I already disputed what you said. I just figured there was no need to go into that much detail about exactly why it's ridiculous that you think empathy is the only reason we don't all go around beating each other's faces to pulp every time someone inconveniences us.