[commanderkai]

I'm honestly not following the GOP candidates yet, even though I'm one of the very FEW people on this site who don't demonize them (or the Tea Party). Christie sounds interesting, and Cain, although I haven't heard much, sounds intriguing as well.

The poor recovery on the economy, mixed with the "hope and change" being basically political bullshit, the GOP can pull off a victory, but picking somebody who is too populist, or is just an idiot (I'm looking at Trump) won't help.

[Psudo]

From my few days of research, it looks like idiots and populists constitute the majority of the candidates. Andy Martin, self-styled "King of the Birthers," is an absolute wackjob. I just added him and Tim Pawlenty to the chart.

I should add Christie next...

[Thanos]

Strange. You really liked jumping down my throat when I was basically saying the very same thing. What the problem, are you jealous that I got there first to what you're just finding out now?

[Psudo]

You were talking about getting people kicked off the site. I'm talking about disagreeing with what they say and choosing not to vote for them. Which of us was bashing freedom of speech?

I never disagreed with you about Truthers, Birthers, and Deathers being wrong. In fact, I included a Foiler category on my chart inspired by your list. I just don't think it's right for CKA to have stricter admission requirements than the Federal Election Commission.

I added Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, and Tim Roemer to the chart. No foil in his column.

[GreenTiger]

Scratch Donald Trump.

[BartSimpson]

Psudo wrote:

You're making the Philosopher Kings argument. A perfect government would necessarily need to be run by philosophers, either by giving philosophers genuine power or by the powerful learning to genuinely live a philosophical life.

It's been tried and, forgive me, but I'd rather a government run by the first 400 people in the Toronto phonebook than a bunch of philosophers who are incapable of dressing themselves in the morning.

[andyt]

I don't get this philosophers stuff either. Is pseudo seeing philosophers as especially good and wise people?

Maybe a govt run by Nietzsche - that would be interesting. Or the existentialists.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

I don't get this philosophers stuff either. Is pseudo seeing philosophers as especially good and wise people?

Maybe a govt run by Nietzsche - that would be interesting. Or the existentialists.

Well, we've already tried government run by the narcissists, right?

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

I don't get this philosophers stuff either. Is pseudo seeing philosophers as especially good and wise people?

Maybe a govt run by Nietzsche - that would be interesting. Or the existentialists.

Well, we've already tried government run by the narcissists, right?

You'll always get narcissists running for office. As they say, politics is show business for ugly people. I wasn't aware they were considered a philosophical school.

[Psudo]

The Philosopher King argument is 1) not mine, but Plato's, and 2) calls for the traits of a good King (leader) and good philosopher (moralist, thoughtful person) to be in the same individual. "Philosophers who are incapable of dressing themselves" don't qualify.

This is the classical Greek definition of "Philosopher," which means a person who lives right rather than blindly following custom or hedonistic drives. Not the Noam Chomsky chair jockey wiser-than-though crap that passes for philosophy today.

andyt wrote:

politics is show business for ugly people

Okay, THAT explains Trump's popularity.

----
I now have 15 names on my chart, and a list of every name of every other potential candidate I could find at the bottom (48 more, most of whom are clearly not running). Also, you can use drop menus and the Match button to sort the columns so that the ones closer ideologically to those views are also closer physically to them.