|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 02 2015 15:43 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 15:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 02 2015 15:13 YoureFired wrote:On July 02 2015 15:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Take out the word kinda, I like using qualifiers so sue me. Publish or perish is a harsh reality for the vast majority in academia. If your point is that quality is more important than volume, I can agree with that. However, having zero output, e.g. not adding to the body of knowledge is a problem. Maybe some people manage to have a decades-long "career" where the one thing they write is their thesis (and I would dearly like to know how), but they are the incredibly rare exception to the rule. Anyways, the comparison is a distraction. Bernie's record consists of taking a bunch of moral stances, but precious little in terms of making a material difference. I'll respect the man, but I'm not voting for the candidate. He's had years and years to demonstrate his effectiveness, and he just hasn't (except for his stint as a mayor like 30 years ago). Those are the facts to me, and bashing Obama, Clinton or whoever else is irrelevant. I want to know if Sanders can actually get shit done. I may be liberal, but I'm also pragmatic. Interestingly, Obama actually sponsored 2 bills that became law as a Senator. Bernie has 3 (two of which are naming post offices) as I mentioned above. On July 02 2015 14:59 bookwyrm wrote:
so the fact that Bernie Sanders has not singlehandedly proposed a solution to everybody's problems is a good reason why he's a bad candidate for presidency. Gotcha You're being facetious and sarcastic. How about you try being a better champion for your candidate? http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-sanders-mccain-veterans-billAlso you literally do not understand how Congress works if you measure someone's self-worth by the bills they've sponsored. It's about committees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Committee_assignments You used self worth wrong. Literally. That bill was co-sponsored, and since it's past 2am and I have work tomorrow, I'm not going to look deeper into it. So, I'm going to postulate that the bill originated with our good friend from Arizona. Who gives a shit about committees? They're power, it's true, but has Bernie done anything with it? On July 02 2015 15:23 YoureFired wrote:On July 02 2015 15:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
what do you mean, "kinda true"? I don't really understand your post. You speak of "languishing in obscurity," Who says that seeking fame is what the thing is about? What if that is the problem?? Bernie Sanders says that "this campaign is not about Bernie Sanders." He's completely right. Bernie Sanders has never done a thing in his life to seek fame for Bernie Sanders. Sanders has the reputation he has because he is a man of integrity. Find somebody from Vermont, no matter their political persuasion, and ask them what they think about Bernie Sanders. I dare you.
i think we need to define words if we're going to talk to one another. what does 'left' mean to you? In what way is Obama 'left'? Obama completely abandoned the people who got him elected in the first place. He turned into a neoliberal running dog. Fuck Barack Obama. Vote Sanders 2016
See above. What's wrong with being a neoliberal? I get it, everyone likes Sanders. Look, even I like Sanders. Doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for him (and what, like 30-40% of Vermont-ians or whatever they're called aren't going to either). you just don't get it. Don't you realize that I am an academic? I'm saying that your measure of what is an effective career is flawed. It's true, but it's a social reality constructed upon a false premise - i.e. something that we should change through political action
I too am an academic (or was in college). I don't know what field you're in, but in mine (molecular biology) publish or perish was pretty damn true. My PI got published in Science every couple years, and he still had most of his grant proposals rejected. It was a hard life. I'm using legislation as a proxy for effectiveness (i.e., his ability to manifest change via his elected position) for Sanders. If it's not good enough, then propose or provide an alternative. so the fact that Bernie Sanders has not singlehandedly proposed a solution to everybody's problems is a good reason why he's a bad candidate for presidency. Gotcha You're not reading. It's the fact that he hasn't actually done anything.
it's not a fucking baseball game
It's a fun fact. The standards of success you are measuring are not ones that Bernie is strong in. If voters don't care about your standards, who's wrong - you or them? Also, if you don't see an issue with neoliberal policies (at least in their current iteration, and maybe even theoretically) then you're sippin that capitalist koolaid that led to our current tax rate. Cheers. That's an interesting question. What's your opinion though? Also, if Bernie Sanders can hold the same opinions for a few years and the arc of progress eventually catches up with him, then I can hope that everyone else catches up to me when it comes to pragmatism, facetious as that sounds. Oh no, I kind of favor the free market. Makes me an awful person. Look, I think killing Glass Steagall was the dumbest thing ever. Also, the tax code getting to its current busted state hardly took place overnight, or even solely during the Obama presidency. If there were only the political capital to tackle the issue. Maybe the next president will have it, but I doubt it. HERE'S WHAT'S FUNNY The bill was originally Sanders', and he wanted more funding for it. He was forced to compromise with GOP and McCain was the person willing to reach over the aisle. Try to view this candidate without bias... please... http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/bernie-sanders-pleads-for-more-debates-208036.htmlHe wants debates because he knows his stuff and his positions resonate. Not because he's a clown who somehow got into the Presidential stage (cough cough Trump cough cough Jindal) or a big-money, big-politics name (Clinton, Bush).
It's hardly bias. John McCain is a Vietnam vet, he cares deeply about the military, it was a logical assumption. My point stands though, what else has he done in his long (and hopefully illustrious) career in public service?
|
On July 02 2015 15:54 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 15:45 IgnE wrote:On July 02 2015 15:32 zlefin wrote:On July 02 2015 14:59 bookwyrm wrote:
so the fact that Bernie Sanders has not singlehandedly proposed a solution to everybody's problems is a good reason why he's a bad candidate for presidency. Gotcha since you prefer to strawman rather than debate intelligently, I shall not debate with you. You do realize it's absurd to hold it against Bernie that he didn't draft a proposed budget plan right? dude, don't be like that other guy. I never said I held that against him. Please read carefully before replying, and don't try to read things into something that aren't there.
On July 02 2015 14:58 zlefin wrote:
I don't necessarily expect legislation to pass, but I'd like it to be proposed.
If I were in Congress, I'd propose a budget that is fully balanced, as well as a long term fix to social security and medical costs. They wouldn't pass of course due to unpopularity, but I'd still submit them.
is there an emoji for rolling eyes at undergraduates?
On July 02 2015 15:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
I too am an academic (or was in college). I don't know what field you're in, but in mine (molecular biology) publish or perish was pretty damn true. My PI got published in Science every couple years, and he still had most of his grant proposals rejected. It was a hard life..
okay so a) you're not an academic, you're a person with a bachelor's degree and b) you are deliberately failing to listen. politics is not about reaffirming what already exists, it's about saying how you think things should be. Slow down for a second and consider the possibility that I might actually have a point that you're missing here
basically: academe shouldn't work that way, because it's stupid, it measures the wrong things. And so your using that same way of thinking to judge presidential candidates is just as silly
On July 02 2015 22:40 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 15:43 YoureFired wrote:On July 02 2015 15:33 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 02 2015 15:13 YoureFired wrote:On July 02 2015 15:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Take out the word kinda, I like using qualifiers so sue me. Publish or perish is a harsh reality for the vast majority in academia. If your point is that quality is more important than volume, I can agree with that. However, having zero output, e.g. not adding to the body of knowledge is a problem. Maybe some people manage to have a decades-long "career" where the one thing they write is their thesis (and I would dearly like to know how), but they are the incredibly rare exception to the rule. Anyways, the comparison is a distraction. Bernie's record consists of taking a bunch of moral stances, but precious little in terms of making a material difference. I'll respect the man, but I'm not voting for the candidate. He's had years and years to demonstrate his effectiveness, and he just hasn't (except for his stint as a mayor like 30 years ago). Those are the facts to me, and bashing Obama, Clinton or whoever else is irrelevant. I want to know if Sanders can actually get shit done. I may be liberal, but I'm also pragmatic. Interestingly, Obama actually sponsored 2 bills that became law as a Senator. Bernie has 3 (two of which are naming post offices) as I mentioned above. On July 02 2015 14:59 bookwyrm wrote:
so the fact that Bernie Sanders has not singlehandedly proposed a solution to everybody's problems is a good reason why he's a bad candidate for presidency. Gotcha You're being facetious and sarcastic. How about you try being a better champion for your candidate? http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-sanders-mccain-veterans-billAlso you literally do not understand how Congress works if you measure someone's self-worth by the bills they've sponsored. It's about committees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Committee_assignments You used self worth wrong. Literally. That bill was co-sponsored, and since it's past 2am and I have work tomorrow, I'm not going to look deeper into it. So, I'm going to postulate that the bill originated with our good friend from Arizona. Who gives a shit about committees? They're power, it's true, but has Bernie done anything with it? On July 02 2015 15:23 YoureFired wrote:On July 02 2015 15:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
what do you mean, "kinda true"? I don't really understand your post. You speak of "languishing in obscurity," Who says that seeking fame is what the thing is about? What if that is the problem?? Bernie Sanders says that "this campaign is not about Bernie Sanders." He's completely right. Bernie Sanders has never done a thing in his life to seek fame for Bernie Sanders. Sanders has the reputation he has because he is a man of integrity. Find somebody from Vermont, no matter their political persuasion, and ask them what they think about Bernie Sanders. I dare you.
i think we need to define words if we're going to talk to one another. what does 'left' mean to you? In what way is Obama 'left'? Obama completely abandoned the people who got him elected in the first place. He turned into a neoliberal running dog. Fuck Barack Obama. Vote Sanders 2016
See above. What's wrong with being a neoliberal? I get it, everyone likes Sanders. Look, even I like Sanders. Doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for him (and what, like 30-40% of Vermont-ians or whatever they're called aren't going to either). you just don't get it. Don't you realize that I am an academic? I'm saying that your measure of what is an effective career is flawed. It's true, but it's a social reality constructed upon a false premise - i.e. something that we should change through political action
I too am an academic (or was in college). I don't know what field you're in, but in mine (molecular biology) publish or perish was pretty damn true. My PI got published in Science every couple years, and he still had most of his grant proposals rejected. It was a hard life. I'm using legislation as a proxy for effectiveness (i.e., his ability to manifest change via his elected position) for Sanders. If it's not good enough, then propose or provide an alternative. so the fact that Bernie Sanders has not singlehandedly proposed a solution to everybody's problems is a good reason why he's a bad candidate for presidency. Gotcha You're not reading. It's the fact that he hasn't actually done anything.
it's not a fucking baseball game
It's a fun fact. The standards of success you are measuring are not ones that Bernie is strong in. If voters don't care about your standards, who's wrong - you or them? Also, if you don't see an issue with neoliberal policies (at least in their current iteration, and maybe even theoretically) then you're sippin that capitalist koolaid that led to our current tax rate. Cheers. That's an interesting question. What's your opinion though? Also, if Bernie Sanders can hold the same opinions for a few years and the arc of progress eventually catches up with him, then I can hope that everyone else catches up to me when it comes to pragmatism, facetious as that sounds. Oh no, I kind of favor the free market. Makes me an awful person. Look, I think killing Glass Steagall was the dumbest thing ever. Also, the tax code getting to its current busted state hardly took place overnight, or even solely during the Obama presidency. If there were only the political capital to tackle the issue. Maybe the next president will have it, but I doubt it. HERE'S WHAT'S FUNNY The bill was originally Sanders', and he wanted more funding for it. He was forced to compromise with GOP and McCain was the person willing to reach over the aisle. Try to view this candidate without bias... please... http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/bernie-sanders-pleads-for-more-debates-208036.htmlHe wants debates because he knows his stuff and his positions resonate. Not because he's a clown who somehow got into the Presidential stage (cough cough Trump cough cough Jindal) or a big-money, big-politics name (Clinton, Bush). It's hardly bias. John McCain is a Vietnam vet, he cares deeply about the military, it was a logical assumption. My point stands though, what else has he done in his long (and hopefully illustrious) career in public service?
um... won the admiration and respect of the people of Vermont? it's not sports center dude. we are not counting up RBIs here.
|
I'm probably better published than a good number of people with PhD's, and I spent 8 years on multiple research projects (so about a third of my life). So where does the cutoff point point for academic start? Why are we even arguing about this?
You're strawmanning. I never once said politics is about reaffirming the status quo. What I've said time and time again that it's about changing the status quo, creating some sort of meaningful change. Cool, so Bernie Sanders says things. They're the right things. But what has he done apart from speak from a stage that's larger than any we could find? My opinion, if you want to call it that, of Bernie Sanders is that he's a nice guy who is right and has been right on a lot of issues for a long time but hasn't done much more than be right. Given this definition of politics which we should both agree on, Bernie is pretty ass at being a politician.
And the bottom line is, you still haven't answered my question about what Bernie Sanders has done, or provided any sort of evidence to how effective he would be as a president. That's what I want to know.
|
On July 03 2015 00:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm probably better published than a good number of people with PhD's, and I spent 8 years on multiple research projects (so about a third of my life). So where does the cutoff point point for academic start? Why are we even arguing about this?.
because we're arguing about the standards according to which one should be assessed for various things. You refuse to hear my criticism of the standards you are applying, and simply demand that I accept your way of thinking. You're right that I'm not answering your question, because I'm challenging the assumptions that underpin the question. This is like critical thinking 101 here.
I do not give a crap about your publications. They are meaningless. You know why? Becuase I know how this shit works. It's just a game you play about getting your name at the top of pieces of paper. It's the same with having your name on bills in the senate. It's a bad standard for running academe, and it's a bad standard for judging presidential candidates.
do you get it now?
let's put it this way. Bernie Sanders has done a hell of a lot more in his career in the senate that you could ever accomplish in a lifetime of putting your name at the top of pieces of paper.
In 10 years when you finally realize the complete futility of the system in which you are seeking validation you will look back on this conversation and realize how foolish you were being. Really, the moment you show up at grad school you probably realize how right I am. Have fun applying for those grants!
|
He has played an integral if not leading role in Vermont having attained the status of one of the most successful laboratories of democracy in the US. That's my campaign trail schlep line, but it's very true, I think. I'm waiting on a write up from my aunt who has lived in Vermont for over 20 years and who has a lot to say on why Bernie has more than proven himself capable of competent, White-House ready leadership. What I know is that he's been in politics a long time, ranging back to his stint as mayor of Burlington, VT to having established a very consistent and relatively inscrutable voting record while as the longest serving independent in the House. His foreign policy voting record is extremely appealing to both staunchly anti-war liberals and isolationist conservatives, and his continued emphasis on the importance of a different approach to economics as contrasted with the status quo is already garnering increasing interest. His record speaks for itself.
|
No, you haven't offered ANY sort of alternative proxy for measuring political or academic success. All you've given is a bunch of exasperating logical fallacies.
I know academia can be even more of a rat race than working in an office. I did pretty fucking good as an undergrad-- my name is in Science as both a co-author and in acknowledgements for another paper. And then I quit, because the way research works sucks-- on that we agree. I didn't want to go to grad school, and I didn't want to spend more time writing grants than in the lab. You're beating one side of a dead horse, I'm beating the other here.
Why are you comparing me to Sanders, apart for the sake of ad hom? Let's look at him beside other politicians, what has he done apart from being right? (again, still haven't answered my question)
On July 03 2015 01:06 farvacola wrote:
He has played an integral if not leading role in Vermont having attained the status of one of the most successful laboratories of democracy in the US. That's my campaign trail schlep line, but it's very true, I think. I'm waiting on a write up from my aunt who has lived in Vermont for over 20 years and who has a lot to say on why Bernie has more than proven himself capable of competent, White-House ready leadership. What I know is that he's been in politics a long time, ranging back to his stint as mayor of Burlington, VT to having established a very consistent and relatively inscrutable voting record while as the longest serving independent in the House. His foreign policy voting record is extremely appealing to both staunchly anti-war liberals and isolationist conservatives, and his continued emphasis on the importance of a different approach to economics as contrasted with the status quo is already garnering increasing interest. His record speaks for itself.
See, this is the sort of answer that I was looking for. I know that he was a pretty good mayor of Burlington 30 years ago. A consistent voting record is testament to his integrity, and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record for reiterating that I respect and like him as a human being. But a voting record is little more than an attendance record that can be graded and scrutinized-- what kind of change has originated from Bernie during his time in Congress? I want to know what he's done for Vermont that is so mind-blowingly great that he can bring to the rest of the US.
And also, to be completely frank, I'm worried about what sort of dirt there is on Bernie. You said it yourself, the man is inscrutable. He's gotten past the socialist thing and being slightly kooky, but what else is in his closet? I refuse to believe there aren't any skeletons.
But the simplest way I can put it is my heart is with Bernie, but my head is with Hillary. And my belief is we should vote with our heads, not our hearts. I'm ready for Bernie if you guys can give me something.
|
I can only remember him for filibustering the Bush tax cuts. Opp research hasn't even begun to start on this guy, who was just some crazy senator out of Vermont. Once you get to raising capital gains taxes, and the heap of progressive reforms he advocates, we'll see how he'll fare in the general election campaigning (if he makes it there).
He opposed DOMA back in the day, so I'll give him points for putting his feet down on something and not floating this way and that on the political tides. I don't know how much credit I can give him going from no-name nationally to challenging Hillary in early primaries. Hillary's slow implosion and scandal-ridden coverage, together with a weak Democratic field to begin with, might buoy anybody close to that height that espouses radical left-wing views. I think he's easy pickings for Clinton's political machine. The problem is after thrashing him, all you have is Clinton. She can hardly rally anyone to her cause that's not already voting for the candidate without an (R) in front of their name.
|
On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:No, you haven't offered ANY sort of alternative proxy for measuring political or academic success. All you've given is a bunch of exasperating logical fallacies. I know academia can be even more of a rat race than working in an office. I did pretty fucking good as an undergrad-- my name is in Science as both a co-author and in acknowledgements for another paper. And then I quit, because the way research works sucks-- on that we agree. I didn't want to go to grad school, and I didn't want to spend more time writing grants than in the lab. You're beating one side of a dead horse, I'm beating the other here. Why are you comparing me to Sanders, apart for the sake of ad hom? Let's look at him beside other politicians, what has he done apart from being right? (again, still haven't answered my question) Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 01:06 farvacola wrote:
He has played an integral if not leading role in Vermont having attained the status of one of the most successful laboratories of democracy in the US. That's my campaign trail schlep line, but it's very true, I think. I'm waiting on a write up from my aunt who has lived in Vermont for over 20 years and who has a lot to say on why Bernie has more than proven himself capable of competent, White-House ready leadership. What I know is that he's been in politics a long time, ranging back to his stint as mayor of Burlington, VT to having established a very consistent and relatively inscrutable voting record while as the longest serving independent in the House. His foreign policy voting record is extremely appealing to both staunchly anti-war liberals and isolationist conservatives, and his continued emphasis on the importance of a different approach to economics as contrasted with the status quo is already garnering increasing interest. His record speaks for itself. See, this is the sort of answer that I was looking for. I know that he was a pretty good mayor of Burlington 30 years ago. A consistent voting record is testament to his integrity, and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record for reiterating that I respect and like him as a human being. But a voting record is little more than an attendance record that can be graded and scrutinized-- what kind of change has originated from Bernie during his time in Congress? I want to know what he's done for Vermont that is so mind-blowingly great that he can bring to the rest of the US. And also, to be completely frank, I'm worried about what sort of dirt there is on Bernie. You said it yourself, the man is inscrutable. He's gotten past the socialist thing and being slightly kooky, but what else is in his closet? I refuse to believe there aren't any skeletons. But the simplest way I can put it is my heart is with Bernie, but my head is with Hillary. And my belief is we should vote with our heads, not our hearts. I'm ready for Bernie if you guys can give me something.
What do you think a President does? What skills are required to do those things? What makes you think Bernie doesn't have those skills?
|
On July 03 2015 01:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:No, you haven't offered ANY sort of alternative proxy for measuring political or academic success. All you've given is a bunch of exasperating logical fallacies. I know academia can be even more of a rat race than working in an office. I did pretty fucking good as an undergrad-- my name is in Science as both a co-author and in acknowledgements for another paper. And then I quit, because the way research works sucks-- on that we agree. I didn't want to go to grad school, and I didn't want to spend more time writing grants than in the lab. You're beating one side of a dead horse, I'm beating the other here. Why are you comparing me to Sanders, apart for the sake of ad hom? Let's look at him beside other politicians, what has he done apart from being right? (again, still haven't answered my question) On July 03 2015 01:06 farvacola wrote:
He has played an integral if not leading role in Vermont having attained the status of one of the most successful laboratories of democracy in the US. That's my campaign trail schlep line, but it's very true, I think. I'm waiting on a write up from my aunt who has lived in Vermont for over 20 years and who has a lot to say on why Bernie has more than proven himself capable of competent, White-House ready leadership. What I know is that he's been in politics a long time, ranging back to his stint as mayor of Burlington, VT to having established a very consistent and relatively inscrutable voting record while as the longest serving independent in the House. His foreign policy voting record is extremely appealing to both staunchly anti-war liberals and isolationist conservatives, and his continued emphasis on the importance of a different approach to economics as contrasted with the status quo is already garnering increasing interest. His record speaks for itself. See, this is the sort of answer that I was looking for. I know that he was a pretty good mayor of Burlington 30 years ago. A consistent voting record is testament to his integrity, and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record for reiterating that I respect and like him as a human being. But a voting record is little more than an attendance record that can be graded and scrutinized-- what kind of change has originated from Bernie during his time in Congress? I want to know what he's done for Vermont that is so mind-blowingly great that he can bring to the rest of the US. And also, to be completely frank, I'm worried about what sort of dirt there is on Bernie. You said it yourself, the man is inscrutable. He's gotten past the socialist thing and being slightly kooky, but what else is in his closet? I refuse to believe there aren't any skeletons. But the simplest way I can put it is my heart is with Bernie, but my head is with Hillary. And my belief is we should vote with our heads, not our hearts. I'm ready for Bernie if you guys can give me something. What do you think a President does? What skills are required to do those things? What makes you think Bernie doesn't have those skills?
Bernie probably has the executive skills to be president. The real issue is whether he'll apply them in a way that most people find appetizing.
|
On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
what has he done apart from being right?
I don't understand what other criteria I could possibly have for a presidential candidate, besides picking the guy who is right about stuff...
On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
but my head is with Hillary. .
why? Because she's the business as usual candidate? Why is electing somebody with a proven track record of being a hawkish sycophant to oligarchs the verdict of the head? She's obviously just a figurehead for billionaires. Why is that the reasonable choice? Just because the mainstream media, which is also in the pocket of billionaires, tells us that she's the one we should vote for because #feminism?
|
The ability to get things done-- made into law, whatever you want to call it. Obama didn't necessarily have the greatest record in that regard, but I'll give him a pass because, in my opinion he's been a fairly effective executive and he wasn't in Congress all that long. Bernie on the other hand spent all these years in Congress and what has he actually accomplished? No prizes for he was right about abortion, gay marriage, the Iraq War, x, y, and z.
For example, his position is free college for everyone. What has he done to make that a reality as a Congressman? How will he make it a reality as an executive? And before that, how will be defend the idea and its necessary funding and regulatory mechanisms in a debate?
|
On July 03 2015 01:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:No, you haven't offered ANY sort of alternative proxy for measuring political or academic success. All you've given is a bunch of exasperating logical fallacies. I know academia can be even more of a rat race than working in an office. I did pretty fucking good as an undergrad-- my name is in Science as both a co-author and in acknowledgements for another paper. And then I quit, because the way research works sucks-- on that we agree. I didn't want to go to grad school, and I didn't want to spend more time writing grants than in the lab. You're beating one side of a dead horse, I'm beating the other here. Why are you comparing me to Sanders, apart for the sake of ad hom? Let's look at him beside other politicians, what has he done apart from being right? (again, still haven't answered my question) On July 03 2015 01:06 farvacola wrote:
He has played an integral if not leading role in Vermont having attained the status of one of the most successful laboratories of democracy in the US. That's my campaign trail schlep line, but it's very true, I think. I'm waiting on a write up from my aunt who has lived in Vermont for over 20 years and who has a lot to say on why Bernie has more than proven himself capable of competent, White-House ready leadership. What I know is that he's been in politics a long time, ranging back to his stint as mayor of Burlington, VT to having established a very consistent and relatively inscrutable voting record while as the longest serving independent in the House. His foreign policy voting record is extremely appealing to both staunchly anti-war liberals and isolationist conservatives, and his continued emphasis on the importance of a different approach to economics as contrasted with the status quo is already garnering increasing interest. His record speaks for itself. See, this is the sort of answer that I was looking for. I know that he was a pretty good mayor of Burlington 30 years ago. A consistent voting record is testament to his integrity, and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record for reiterating that I respect and like him as a human being. But a voting record is little more than an attendance record that can be graded and scrutinized-- what kind of change has originated from Bernie during his time in Congress? I want to know what he's done for Vermont that is so mind-blowingly great that he can bring to the rest of the US. And also, to be completely frank, I'm worried about what sort of dirt there is on Bernie. You said it yourself, the man is inscrutable. He's gotten past the socialist thing and being slightly kooky, but what else is in his closet? I refuse to believe there aren't any skeletons. But the simplest way I can put it is my heart is with Bernie, but my head is with Hillary. And my belief is we should vote with our heads, not our hearts. I'm ready for Bernie if you guys can give me something. What do you think a President does? What skills are required to do those things? What makes you think Bernie doesn't have those skills?
Yea, he's trying really hard to discredit Sanders as a candidate.
Very few of our presidents in recent history have had a track record of "change that they caused". That's not how reality works. One politician doesn't make change happen in the American system.
The ability to get things done-- made into law, whatever you want to call it. Obama didn't necessarily have the greatest record in that regard, but I'll give him a pass because, in my opinion he's been a fairly effective executive and he wasn't in Congress all that long. Bernie on the other hand spent all these years in Congress and what has he actually accomplished? No prizes for he was right about abortion, gay marriage, the Iraq War, x, y, and z.
For example, his position is free college for everyone. What has he done to make that a reality as a Congressman? How will he make it a reality as an executive? And before that, how will be defend the idea and its necessary funding and regulatory mechanisms in a debate?
He has come out with explicit plans for most of the things he campaigns about several times. You are just trying really hard to be ignorant of this so you can question him.
|
On July 03 2015 02:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One politician doesn't make change happen in the American system.
Yes, exactly. Bernie's central message of the campaign is that "it's not about me." Ticklish wants us to defend Bernie Sanders under the assumption that a good presidential candidate is a one man political messiah. We are trying to explain that this is the entirely wrong paradigm but he refuses to listen.
On July 03 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
No prizes for he was right about abortion, gay marriage, the Iraq War, x, y, and z.
um. why not? These things demonstrate that Sanders is a man of principle. I think being a man of principle is the best possible qualification for being president. Not being a wheeler dealer.
|
On July 03 2015 02:07 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
what has he done apart from being right? I don't understand what other criteria I could possibly have for a presidential candidate, besides picking the guy who is right about stuff... why? Because she's the business as usual candidate? Why is electing somebody with a proven track record of being a hawkish sycophant to oligarchs the verdict of the head? She's obviously just a figurehead for billionaires. Why is that the reasonable choice? Just because the mainstream media, which is also in the pocket of billionaires, tells us that she's the one we should vote for because #feminism?
Then this is where we disagree: We both want what Bernie offers. I just don't think he can actually deliver on those promises. They'll be torn to shreds in the debates, and I have no idea what would happen to them in Congress. Hillary has the second best agenda (except for Jill, but lets face it she's not going to win), and she is by far the most likely to get some if it passed.
Here's how the math works in my head: A*p + C
Agenda * likelihood of delivering + random good things happening. Sample numbers only, I'll ignore the last one for this comparison.
Bernie: 90*.1 = 9
Hillary: 70*0.6 = 42
On July 03 2015 02:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 01:40 IgnE wrote:On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:No, you haven't offered ANY sort of alternative proxy for measuring political or academic success. All you've given is a bunch of exasperating logical fallacies. I know academia can be even more of a rat race than working in an office. I did pretty fucking good as an undergrad-- my name is in Science as both a co-author and in acknowledgements for another paper. And then I quit, because the way research works sucks-- on that we agree. I didn't want to go to grad school, and I didn't want to spend more time writing grants than in the lab. You're beating one side of a dead horse, I'm beating the other here. Why are you comparing me to Sanders, apart for the sake of ad hom? Let's look at him beside other politicians, what has he done apart from being right? (again, still haven't answered my question) On July 03 2015 01:06 farvacola wrote:
He has played an integral if not leading role in Vermont having attained the status of one of the most successful laboratories of democracy in the US. That's my campaign trail schlep line, but it's very true, I think. I'm waiting on a write up from my aunt who has lived in Vermont for over 20 years and who has a lot to say on why Bernie has more than proven himself capable of competent, White-House ready leadership. What I know is that he's been in politics a long time, ranging back to his stint as mayor of Burlington, VT to having established a very consistent and relatively inscrutable voting record while as the longest serving independent in the House. His foreign policy voting record is extremely appealing to both staunchly anti-war liberals and isolationist conservatives, and his continued emphasis on the importance of a different approach to economics as contrasted with the status quo is already garnering increasing interest. His record speaks for itself. See, this is the sort of answer that I was looking for. I know that he was a pretty good mayor of Burlington 30 years ago. A consistent voting record is testament to his integrity, and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record for reiterating that I respect and like him as a human being. But a voting record is little more than an attendance record that can be graded and scrutinized-- what kind of change has originated from Bernie during his time in Congress? I want to know what he's done for Vermont that is so mind-blowingly great that he can bring to the rest of the US. And also, to be completely frank, I'm worried about what sort of dirt there is on Bernie. You said it yourself, the man is inscrutable. He's gotten past the socialist thing and being slightly kooky, but what else is in his closet? I refuse to believe there aren't any skeletons. But the simplest way I can put it is my heart is with Bernie, but my head is with Hillary. And my belief is we should vote with our heads, not our hearts. I'm ready for Bernie if you guys can give me something. What do you think a President does? What skills are required to do those things? What makes you think Bernie doesn't have those skills? Yea, he's trying really hard to discredit Sanders as a candidate. Very few of our presidents in recent history have had a track record of "change that they caused". That's not how reality works. One politician doesn't make change happen in the American system. Show nested quote +The ability to get things done-- made into law, whatever you want to call it. Obama didn't necessarily have the greatest record in that regard, but I'll give him a pass because, in my opinion he's been a fairly effective executive and he wasn't in Congress all that long. Bernie on the other hand spent all these years in Congress and what has he actually accomplished? No prizes for he was right about abortion, gay marriage, the Iraq War, x, y, and z.
For example, his position is free college for everyone. What has he done to make that a reality as a Congressman? How will he make it a reality as an executive? And before that, how will be defend the idea and its necessary funding and regulatory mechanisms in a debate? He has come out with explicit plans for most of the things he campaigns about several times. You are just trying really hard to be ignorant of this so you can question him.
If all the Sanders people are going to just throw ad hom at me, I'll gladly excuse myself from that camp.
|
What part of that was an ad hominem?
edit: haha okay you switched them around. your math equation is nice. Have you contacted nate silver? Maybe you should start a political analysis site based on Bayesian inference! it's science
what about Hillary's agenda do you like, exactly? Is it the part where she ships all our jobs overseas, or the part where she starts WWIII?
Your claim seems to be something like: Bernie Sanders is right about everything, but he's not a spineless wheeler dealer, so he can't "get things done", so he wouldn't be a good president. Hillary Clinton "gets things done" because she's a power hungry cynic, and that's good even though all the things she does are sort of horrible. I just don't get it.
But I'm going off to sleep in the forest where they don't have internet. bye <3. More Bernie Sanders agitprop when I return :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 03 2015 02:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 02:07 bookwyrm wrote:On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
what has he done apart from being right? I don't understand what other criteria I could possibly have for a presidential candidate, besides picking the guy who is right about stuff... On July 03 2015 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
but my head is with Hillary. . why? Because she's the business as usual candidate? Why is electing somebody with a proven track record of being a hawkish sycophant to oligarchs the verdict of the head? She's obviously just a figurehead for billionaires. Why is that the reasonable choice? Just because the mainstream media, which is also in the pocket of billionaires, tells us that she's the one we should vote for because #feminism? Then this is where we disagree: We both want what Bernie offers. I just don't think he can actually deliver on those promises. They'll be torn to shreds in the debates, and I have no idea what would happen to them in Congress. Hillary has the second best agenda (except for Jill, but lets face it she's not going to win), and she is by far the most likely to get some if it passed. Here's how the math works in my head: A*p + C Agenda * likelihood of delivering + random good things happening. Sample numbers only, I'll ignore the last one for this comparison. Bernie: 90*.1 = 9 Hillary: 70*0.6 = 42
I think you are underestimating even the admittedly stupid electorate. If you think people can win debates against Bernie by shouting "SOCIALIST!" you haven't watched Bernie speak.
|
To the Sanders supporters:
How do you guys see a general election going? Maybe times are changing socially, but I have seen no indication that independents are any less fiscally conservative than before.
I feel like the whole idea of "spreading the message" is great, but I worry that he does to Clinton what Santorum did to Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
