|
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 April 07 2016 03:12 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 KwarK wrote:
While superdelegates may exist to undermine the popular vote that doesn't mean that it's always prudent to do so and that they will. The Tea Party is a rebellion as much against the Republican establishment as it is against the left. They spend more time trying to push Republican candidates right, through threats to run against them, attack ads and controlling funding, than actually opposing the left. They feel that the mainstream doesn't represent them or their interests and that there has been a general shift towards compromise rather than ideological purity. Just because Dems aren't as naturally anti-government does not mean they can't protest the party establishment and can be safely ignored. That kind of arrogance is how you get the Tea Party.
Sure, superdelegates are meant to overpower the popular vote but I suspect they won't actually do it. You fuck with your base at your own peril. To give an extreme example. The entirety of the Tea party supporters could register as democrats and through the primary give Cruz the ability to run as the Democratic candidate. The Super delegates allow the party to stop such a hostile takeover, an outside force usurping the party. To use them to defy your own established base is suicide. Which counts more as the established base, the popular vote or the delegate vote?
In my example? The voters who have been voting for your party for the last X years. And not the tea party people who may hold the popular and/or delegate vote
|
On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything.
In my experience, PhDs are very quick to throw their arms up and say "aint my specialty, go talk to the PhD in charge of that". However, once it is their job to learn something else, they tend to do pretty damn well as long as it is clear that is their purpose. As people increasingly specialize, I think this type of behavior is typical.
With regards to the interview that brought all this up, I think Bernie showed very non-PhD behavior by scrambling to throw out something, even if it is complete shit. The correct thing would be to, first of all, know more than he does. He doesn't need to know the exact mechanism for breaking up banks, but he should at least be like "well using blah and blah ideas..". His answers were some shitty occupy wall st memes. It was awful. He may as well have told sheeple to wake up.
|
On April 07 2016 03:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:57 KwarK wrote:
While superdelegates may exist to undermine the popular vote that doesn't mean that it's always prudent to do so and that they will. The Tea Party is a rebellion as much against the Republican establishment as it is against the left. They spend more time trying to push Republican candidates right, through threats to run against them, attack ads and controlling funding, than actually opposing the left. They feel that the mainstream doesn't represent them or their interests and that there has been a general shift towards compromise rather than ideological purity. Just because Dems aren't as naturally anti-government does not mean they can't protest the party establishment and can be safely ignored. That kind of arrogance is how you get the Tea Party.
Sure, superdelegates are meant to overpower the popular vote but I suspect they won't actually do it. You fuck with your base at your own peril. To give an extreme example. The entirety of the Tea party supporters could register as democrats and through the primary give Cruz the ability to run as the Democratic candidate. The Super delegates allow the party to stop such a hostile takeover, an outside force usurping the party. To use them to defy your own established base is suicide.
Sure, but maybe the hordes of new Democrats registering to vote for Sanders are not seen as "the base" by "the establishment".
Look, I am not arguing that Sanders will, or should, be held out of power by the superdelegates. I'm just arguing that seeing it as "well, Sanders got the majority of delegates, therefore the superdelegates will switch to him too" is a very naive interpretation that is almost certainly wrong, because it ignores the principal reason for having superdelegates in the party in the first place. I am also not a US citizen, let alone someone "in the know" on the intricacies of the DNC, but the idea that they will inevitably switch means that there is really no point in having superdelegates in the first place.
|
On April 07 2016 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. In my experience, PhDs are very quick to throw their arms up and say "aint my specialty, go talk to the PhD in charge of that". However, once it is their job to learn something else, they tend to do pretty damn well as long as it is clear that is their purpose. As people increasingly specialize, I think this type of behavior is typical. With regards to the interview that brought all this up, I think Bernie showed very non-PhD behavior by scrambling to throw out something, even if it is complete shit. The correct thing would be to, first of all, know more than he does. He doesn't need to know the exact mechanism for breaking up banks, but he should at least be like "well using blah and blah ideas..". His answers were some shitty occupy wall st memes. It was awful. He may as well have told sheeple to wake up.
The discussion on how to break up the banks was silly and I don’t know why the interviewer harped on it so much. The government has the power to do it, always has. We have broken up companies before and it has been done through creating laws and regulations specifying that their current business practices are not acceptable. That is how we broke up the phone companies back in the day and its how we would do it. Asking him for specific laws and mechanisms is just inviting people to then claim he was wrong, which might have been their purpose. The part where the interviewer asked were a prisoner would be held was another stupid part, like he is going to be able to talk about that with any authority without being president.
I wish he had provided more specific examples of illegal practices, but that was the only problem I had with his responses.
|
On April 07 2016 03:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:57 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:52 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:33 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:17 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy? So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party. Not disagreeing, just wanted to point out that the variables that jump started the tea party are the same variables that has jump started the bern party. Its relevant in that it shows that both Trump and Bernie are definitely part of the same zeitgeist movement, just opposite coins of it. I think this analysis and comparison leaves out a crucial and highly differentiating factor, namely that the Tea Party and Trump movements incorporate a great deal of "small government" ideology into their platforms, whereas Sanders and his supporters necessarily rely on a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that "big government" and federal regulation are highly important/effective. While there are definitely similarities, I think it's a bit myopic to overlook that difference. Two groups having different solutions to the same problem does not mean that they are part of vastly different movements. Malcolm X and Martin Luther had very different ideas on how to solve the civil rights problem, but it didn't mean that they were not part of the same cause. Bringing up Malcolm X and Martin Luther King as a basis for affirming your comparison is not exactly helpful; the notion that both were fighting for the same thing vis a vie "civil rights" boils down their goals past recognizability. Their movements wanted VERY different things. Yes, they did want different things. But they both did see the same problems, and just had different solutions for those problems. Very different solutions. Which is exactly what I said--I don't see the confusion? They both saw an issue, much like the Tea Party and the Bern Party saw an issue--and hence both went about wanting to fix that issue.
Without getting into the history in detail, which, admittedly, is part of the problem with this whole act of reductionism, MLK observed that the US was a nation founded on a racist document and that "progress" in the general sense hinged entirely on a society's willingness to put the problems of the least advantaged above everything else. MLK also emphasized that segregation was, in many ways, the most publicly pressing problem relative to the plight of minorities, and his social campaign turned on integration as the primary means of effecting change in the US.
Malcolm X, on the other hand, first focused his rhetoric on the notion that blacks were inherently superior to whites, that segregation was not a problem and was actually to be encouraged in the interest of giving blacks a uniform basis through which they could rise up beyond the shackles of their minority status, and that integration was a problem in itself. Malcolm X would later repudiate his prior anti-civil rights movement views as he abandoned the Nation of Islam, but he still routinely emphasized black self-defense and separable preservation as the best route to societal emancipation.
With the above in mind, it should be clear that your attempt at comparison falls flat; furthermore, the errors above are similarly present when one attempts to reduce Sanders and Trump support onto the faces of a single coin. Once one starts describing the movements with any degree of granularity, the idea that all populism is effectively the "same" becomes untenably general in nature.
|
On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything.
That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way.
|
On April 07 2016 03:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. In my experience, PhDs are very quick to throw their arms up and say "aint my specialty, go talk to the PhD in charge of that". However, once it is their job to learn something else, they tend to do pretty damn well as long as it is clear that is their purpose. As people increasingly specialize, I think this type of behavior is typical. With regards to the interview that brought all this up, I think Bernie showed very non-PhD behavior by scrambling to throw out something, even if it is complete shit. The correct thing would be to, first of all, know more than he does. He doesn't need to know the exact mechanism for breaking up banks, but he should at least be like "well using blah and blah ideas..". His answers were some shitty occupy wall st memes. It was awful. He may as well have told sheeple to wake up. The discussion on how to break up the banks was silly and I don’t know why the interviewer harped on it so much. The government has the power to do it, always has. We have broken up companies before and it has been done through creating laws and regulations specifying that their current business practices are not acceptable. That is how we broke up the phone companies back in the day and its how we would do it. Asking him for specific laws and mechanisms is just inviting people to then claim he was wrong, which might have been their purpose. The part where the interviewer asked were a prisoner would be held was another stupid part, like he is going to be able to talk about that with any authority without being president. I wish he had provided more specific examples of illegal practices, but that was the only problem I had with his responses.
It was the easy question of the interview. Bernie wasn't even sure the feds could or couldn't do it, wasn't sure if Dodd Frank could or couldn't do it, and wasn't sure if he should or shouldn't do it.
Asked if he would break them up, he agreed, sort of.
They clarified if that means its a federal thing, he says no because he is not a dictator.
They clarify if that meant the feds couldn't break up banks, he says he doesn't know, he thinks they can, and that they are corrupt.
Its not like they asked him a question and he gave a wrong/stupid answer. They literally did not know what he was answering them.
|
On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way.
People overvalue titles and “achievement” through navigating systems like universities as some marker of talent in all fields. When really the most important talent is knowing when you are well out of your depth.
On April 07 2016 03:29 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. In my experience, PhDs are very quick to throw their arms up and say "aint my specialty, go talk to the PhD in charge of that". However, once it is their job to learn something else, they tend to do pretty damn well as long as it is clear that is their purpose. As people increasingly specialize, I think this type of behavior is typical. With regards to the interview that brought all this up, I think Bernie showed very non-PhD behavior by scrambling to throw out something, even if it is complete shit. The correct thing would be to, first of all, know more than he does. He doesn't need to know the exact mechanism for breaking up banks, but he should at least be like "well using blah and blah ideas..". His answers were some shitty occupy wall st memes. It was awful. He may as well have told sheeple to wake up. The discussion on how to break up the banks was silly and I don’t know why the interviewer harped on it so much. The government has the power to do it, always has. We have broken up companies before and it has been done through creating laws and regulations specifying that their current business practices are not acceptable. That is how we broke up the phone companies back in the day and its how we would do it. Asking him for specific laws and mechanisms is just inviting people to then claim he was wrong, which might have been their purpose. The part where the interviewer asked were a prisoner would be held was another stupid part, like he is going to be able to talk about that with any authority without being president. I wish he had provided more specific examples of illegal practices, but that was the only problem I had with his responses. It was the easy question of the interview. Bernie wasn't even sure the feds could or couldn't do it, wasn't sure if Dodd Frank could or couldn't do it, and wasn't sure if he should or shouldn't do it. Asked if he would break them up, he agreed, sort of. They clarified if that means its a federal thing, he says no because he is not a dictator. They clarify if that meant the feds couldn't break up banks, he says he doesn't know, he thinks they can, and that they are corrupt. Its not like they asked him a question and he gave a wrong/stupid answer. They literally did not know what he was answering them.
Yeah, that entire line of questioning was weird. Breaking up the banks would be complicated and no one tool would get the job done. It would be a process. There isn't a button in congress to break them up, it would have to be all parts of goverment. I completely understand why he didn't give a straight answer, because there isn't one.
|
On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way.
I wouldn't say the PhD made her that way, but if I was to take a population of 1000 PhD and compare to 1000 BS, I would certainly say the PhD sample showed a detectable improvement in decision making and ability to manage projects. But in the case of Merkel, it was in physical chemistry. Physical chemistry is essentially physics focused around things to do with atoms, electrons and photons. She is a smart cookie. There's no two ways about that. However, I would not say someone studying physical chemistry is necessarily a great president or anything. I *can* say that she has tackled some complex issues, devised plans to characterize them, and succeeded in improving human understanding of some small part of the universe.
Edit: Also worth pointing out that she characterized mechanisms of organic reactions, which was a really hot topic around that time. She studied a really good thing to study at the time. It's dead now, but it was a great area before.
|
On April 07 2016 03:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:52 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:33 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:17 farvacola wrote:On April 07 2016 02:08 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 01:16 farvacola wrote:
Anyone willing to equivocate Sanders with Mussolini should be regarded with skepticism at best. It's clear that Magpie has no interest in wrestling with what and who Sanders represents, and like KwarK pointed out, it's precisely that disregard among Republicans that spawned the Tea Party. not that I disagree with you--but didn't the tea party start because of discontent with the bank bail out, the iraq war, discontent for wall street, and wanting a more isolationist stance in general to shift focus towards domestic policy for the poor/middle class instead of foreign policy? So I think you're right, only that I'd argue that all of those policy viewpoints already existed among Republicans in one form or another prior to the formation of the Tea Party as a popular movement. It was Republican Party politics that led to their consolidation and divergence from the party's main platform in the form of a grassroots, ideologically charged movement al la the Tea Party. Not disagreeing, just wanted to point out that the variables that jump started the tea party are the same variables that has jump started the bern party. Its relevant in that it shows that both Trump and Bernie are definitely part of the same zeitgeist movement, just opposite coins of it. I think this analysis and comparison leaves out a crucial and highly differentiating factor, namely that the Tea Party and Trump movements incorporate a great deal of "small government" ideology into their platforms, whereas Sanders and his supporters necessarily rely on a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that "big government" and federal regulation are highly important/effective. While there are definitely similarities, I think it's a bit myopic to overlook that difference. Two groups having different solutions to the same problem does not mean that they are part of vastly different movements. Malcolm X and Martin Luther had very different ideas on how to solve the civil rights problem, but it didn't mean that they were not part of the same cause. Bringing up Malcolm X and Martin Luther King as a basis for affirming your comparison is not exactly helpful; the notion that both were fighting for the same thing vis a vie "civil rights" boils down their goals past recognizability. Their movements wanted VERY different things. Yes, they did want different things. But they both did see the same problems, and just had different solutions for those problems. Very different solutions. Which is exactly what I said--I don't see the confusion? They both saw an issue, much like the Tea Party and the Bern Party saw an issue--and hence both went about wanting to fix that issue. Without getting into the history in detail, which, admittedly, is part of the problem with this whole act of reductionism, MLK observed that the US was a nation founded on a racist document and that "progress" in the general sense hinged entirely on a society's willingness to put the problems of the least advantaged above everything else. MLK also emphasized that segregation was, in many ways, the most publicly pressing problem relative to the plight of minorities, and his social campaign turned on integration as the primary means of effecting change in the US. Malcolm X, on the other hand, first focused his rhetoric on the notion that blacks were inherently superior to whites, that segregation was not a problem and was actually to be encouraged in the interest of giving blacks a uniform basis through which they could rise up beyond the shackles of their minority status, and that integration was a problem in itself. Malcolm X would later repudiate his prior anti-civil rights movement views as he abandoned the Nation of Islam, but he still routinely emphasized black self-defense and separable preservation as the best route to societal emancipation. With the above in mind, it should be clear that your attempt at comparison falls flat; furthermore, the errors above are similarly present when one attempts to reduce Sanders and Trump support onto the faces of a single coin. Once one starts describing the movements with any degree of granularity, the idea that all populism is effectively the "same" becomes untenably general in nature.
You're really digging deep here, but being that I had already said that their solutions to the problem was vastly different, this doesn't really say much of anything while taking a long time to say it.
Both MLK and MX saw that there was great divide amongst blacks and whites. MLK felt the solution to the problem was one direction, MX saw the solution coming from a different direction--the granularity of their solutions differentiate them, but the variables in play that got them started was the same.
The same is true for the Tea Party and the Bern Party. They both became unhappy with the Iraq War, both got upset by the bail outs, and both got upset by what Obama has accomplished. Do they have different paths they want to take to fix those issues, yes, very much so. But the things in play that motivated them in the first place is the same. This is not a "all populist movements are the same" argument, this is a "there is a common shift in the zeitgeist of the US" argument where both the Tea Party and the Bern Party are perfect examples of that mental shift.
This is not an attack on you as person just because you support trump/bernie. This is merely an observation of an event in history.
|
On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way.
She just made an ideological commitment for the first time in almost ten years. Some people applaud her for that, others don't, that's pretty much what happens if you throw your weight behind beliefs that you hold. She's pretty much governed in technocratic, incremental and pragmatic fashion for almost her entire time as chancellor which made her basically non-attackable. I mean it's kind of armchair psychology but you could definitely say that for the most part she took a scientific approach to the office.
|
On April 07 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way. People overvalue titles and “achievement” through navigating systems like universities as some marker of talent in all fields. When really the most important talent is knowing when you are well out of your depth. Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:29 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. In my experience, PhDs are very quick to throw their arms up and say "aint my specialty, go talk to the PhD in charge of that". However, once it is their job to learn something else, they tend to do pretty damn well as long as it is clear that is their purpose. As people increasingly specialize, I think this type of behavior is typical. With regards to the interview that brought all this up, I think Bernie showed very non-PhD behavior by scrambling to throw out something, even if it is complete shit. The correct thing would be to, first of all, know more than he does. He doesn't need to know the exact mechanism for breaking up banks, but he should at least be like "well using blah and blah ideas..". His answers were some shitty occupy wall st memes. It was awful. He may as well have told sheeple to wake up. The discussion on how to break up the banks was silly and I don’t know why the interviewer harped on it so much. The government has the power to do it, always has. We have broken up companies before and it has been done through creating laws and regulations specifying that their current business practices are not acceptable. That is how we broke up the phone companies back in the day and its how we would do it. Asking him for specific laws and mechanisms is just inviting people to then claim he was wrong, which might have been their purpose. The part where the interviewer asked were a prisoner would be held was another stupid part, like he is going to be able to talk about that with any authority without being president. I wish he had provided more specific examples of illegal practices, but that was the only problem I had with his responses. It was the easy question of the interview. Bernie wasn't even sure the feds could or couldn't do it, wasn't sure if Dodd Frank could or couldn't do it, and wasn't sure if he should or shouldn't do it. Asked if he would break them up, he agreed, sort of. They clarified if that means its a federal thing, he says no because he is not a dictator. They clarify if that meant the feds couldn't break up banks, he says he doesn't know, he thinks they can, and that they are corrupt. Its not like they asked him a question and he gave a wrong/stupid answer. They literally did not know what he was answering them. Yeah, that entire line of questioning was weird. Breaking up the banks would be complicated and no one tool would get the job done. It would be a process. There isn't a button in congress to break them up, it would have to be all parts of goverment. I completely understand why he didn't give a straight answer, because there isn't one.
There actually is a straight answer.
"Breaking up the banks is a complicated process and I will hire the best team I can to best manage that process"
One and done. Going back and forth on your own answers is the opposite of that.
|
On April 07 2016 03:39 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way. People overvalue titles and “achievement” through navigating systems like universities as some marker of talent in all fields. When really the most important talent is knowing when you are well out of your depth. On April 07 2016 03:29 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. In my experience, PhDs are very quick to throw their arms up and say "aint my specialty, go talk to the PhD in charge of that". However, once it is their job to learn something else, they tend to do pretty damn well as long as it is clear that is their purpose. As people increasingly specialize, I think this type of behavior is typical. With regards to the interview that brought all this up, I think Bernie showed very non-PhD behavior by scrambling to throw out something, even if it is complete shit. The correct thing would be to, first of all, know more than he does. He doesn't need to know the exact mechanism for breaking up banks, but he should at least be like "well using blah and blah ideas..". His answers were some shitty occupy wall st memes. It was awful. He may as well have told sheeple to wake up. The discussion on how to break up the banks was silly and I don’t know why the interviewer harped on it so much. The government has the power to do it, always has. We have broken up companies before and it has been done through creating laws and regulations specifying that their current business practices are not acceptable. That is how we broke up the phone companies back in the day and its how we would do it. Asking him for specific laws and mechanisms is just inviting people to then claim he was wrong, which might have been their purpose. The part where the interviewer asked were a prisoner would be held was another stupid part, like he is going to be able to talk about that with any authority without being president. I wish he had provided more specific examples of illegal practices, but that was the only problem I had with his responses. It was the easy question of the interview. Bernie wasn't even sure the feds could or couldn't do it, wasn't sure if Dodd Frank could or couldn't do it, and wasn't sure if he should or shouldn't do it. Asked if he would break them up, he agreed, sort of. They clarified if that means its a federal thing, he says no because he is not a dictator. They clarify if that meant the feds couldn't break up banks, he says he doesn't know, he thinks they can, and that they are corrupt. Its not like they asked him a question and he gave a wrong/stupid answer. They literally did not know what he was answering them. Yeah, that entire line of questioning was weird. Breaking up the banks would be complicated and no one tool would get the job done. It would be a process. There isn't a button in congress to break them up, it would have to be all parts of goverment. I completely understand why he didn't give a straight answer, because there isn't one. There actually is a straight answer. "Breaking up the banks is a complicated process and I will hire the best team I can to best manage that process" One and done. Going back and forth on your own answers is the opposite of that.
The follow up question will be "What powers and regulations would you use to accomplish that?" The interviewer isn't going to just let it go if they want that specific information.
|
I'm more surprised that interviews like this hadn't happened yet. This seemed like the kind of interview that should be happening more often.
|
On April 07 2016 02:49 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:34 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 02:22 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 02:14 WhiteDog wrote:On April 07 2016 00:45 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. . That's how you get George W. Bush A president needs to be intellectually able to lead, if necessary also against the population or advisers if those happen to demand outrageous things. Because Merkel knows anything about the economy ? She does not, having a degree in physics or anything else does not make you better in economy. Your G. W. Bush comment is dumb. Intellectually able to lead =/= domain knowledge of a specific topic. GW ran a campaign on emphasizing the middle class showing the people a person who understood the worries and interests of the common person. Much like Bernie, he focused on the insecurities and worries of the people and shifted the conversation away from specific policy discussions and towards "what do we deserve" rhetoric. Which is how he got a huge surge of middle class/lower income christians who finally felt like they had someone who represented their struggles. He got into power *because* people didn't care about the details and voters cared more for what their vote represented, not what their vote would produce. Whether or not the specific experts acquired were correct or not is not relevant to the discussion. My point was exactly that a president does not need to be an expert in everything, but rather defend certain value and give objectives to people he hire to tailor solutions that respect the value he is supposed to defend. Now ; can you explain me how what you say actually contredict my point ? You are basically repeating what I am saying. Saying "bush bush" is no argument, the guy almost killed himself with a bretzel. Merkel, as someone with a PhD, is intellectually able to lead because she understands the importance of evidence based conclusions. Bush, who ran on feelings and protesting of the (at the time) status quo of Clinton, got elected despite not having the intellectual intelligence or experience to show he knew how to find solutions to problems. He mainly told a disenfranchised group that he cared about they felt and because of that they showed up in droves to vote for him. This is the complete opposite of what you said, I do not know how you would think I was not contradicting you.
You don't even understand what you say, then... How is that having a PhD in physics is any good to understand economy or politics ? You think the law of physics apply to growth ? lol At best, a PhD in physics is somehow an indication that the person in question can think, but does that mean that you consider Sanders to be unable to think ? Bush is not even an exemple anyway, and so is Merkel. Only you, and Nyxisto, are trying to argue over simple exemple : the core point was that a representative is not supposed to be an expert, and Merkel is not an expert on migration, growth or labor market. Yet she can make decision.
And how is it that Merkel is, somehow, "able to lead" more than Bush ? The woman that basically lead europe to its knees, an european union where no one wants to be, and half the union having extreme right wing government.
Yeah she leads us, in a hole.
On April 07 2016 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way. She just made an ideological commitment for the first time in almost ten years. Some people applaud her for that, others don't, that's pretty much what happens if you throw your weight behind beliefs that you hold. She's pretty much governed in technocratic, incremental and pragmatic fashion for almost her entire time as chancellor which made her basically non-attackable. I mean it's kind of armchair psychology but you could definitely say that for the most part she took a scientific approach to the office.
So she took the scientific approach on greece too ? Which economist defended her solutions ? And she took the scientific approach on the euro ? On which point exactly ?
There are never one scientific solution to a political problem, there are various solutions, with pros and cons, all defending certain value and certain objectives.
But I think that is the core opposition in politics nowadays : liberals who believe there is only one solution to a political problem, and think science will give that solution, and others.
|
On April 07 2016 03:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:39 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way. People overvalue titles and “achievement” through navigating systems like universities as some marker of talent in all fields. When really the most important talent is knowing when you are well out of your depth. On April 07 2016 03:29 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. In my experience, PhDs are very quick to throw their arms up and say "aint my specialty, go talk to the PhD in charge of that". However, once it is their job to learn something else, they tend to do pretty damn well as long as it is clear that is their purpose. As people increasingly specialize, I think this type of behavior is typical. With regards to the interview that brought all this up, I think Bernie showed very non-PhD behavior by scrambling to throw out something, even if it is complete shit. The correct thing would be to, first of all, know more than he does. He doesn't need to know the exact mechanism for breaking up banks, but he should at least be like "well using blah and blah ideas..". His answers were some shitty occupy wall st memes. It was awful. He may as well have told sheeple to wake up. The discussion on how to break up the banks was silly and I don’t know why the interviewer harped on it so much. The government has the power to do it, always has. We have broken up companies before and it has been done through creating laws and regulations specifying that their current business practices are not acceptable. That is how we broke up the phone companies back in the day and its how we would do it. Asking him for specific laws and mechanisms is just inviting people to then claim he was wrong, which might have been their purpose. The part where the interviewer asked were a prisoner would be held was another stupid part, like he is going to be able to talk about that with any authority without being president. I wish he had provided more specific examples of illegal practices, but that was the only problem I had with his responses. It was the easy question of the interview. Bernie wasn't even sure the feds could or couldn't do it, wasn't sure if Dodd Frank could or couldn't do it, and wasn't sure if he should or shouldn't do it. Asked if he would break them up, he agreed, sort of. They clarified if that means its a federal thing, he says no because he is not a dictator. They clarify if that meant the feds couldn't break up banks, he says he doesn't know, he thinks they can, and that they are corrupt. Its not like they asked him a question and he gave a wrong/stupid answer. They literally did not know what he was answering them. Yeah, that entire line of questioning was weird. Breaking up the banks would be complicated and no one tool would get the job done. It would be a process. There isn't a button in congress to break them up, it would have to be all parts of goverment. I completely understand why he didn't give a straight answer, because there isn't one. There actually is a straight answer. "Breaking up the banks is a complicated process and I will hire the best team I can to best manage that process" One and done. Going back and forth on your own answers is the opposite of that. The follow up question will be "What powers and regulations would you use to accomplish that?" The interviewer isn't going to just let it go if they want that specific information.
The response would then be "making final decisions before convening with experts in the matter would be short sighted and will lead to negative consequences. It is better that things of this nature be handled delicately and with great care."
Its not his job to have the details of the plan. Its his job to let us know he has one, that he has an idea how to put it together, and to let us know that it is a joint effort.
|
|
|
On April 07 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Unless the PhD is in interpretive feminist dance therapy, a PhD really does say a lot about someone's ability to process information. It shows they are at least capable of it. I would argue that the existence of someones PHD is an accurate measurement of their ability to obtain a PhD. I have known some really dumb PhDs in STEM and the humanities, who are helpless outside of their field. And there are others who can pick of anything. That has also been my experience, and overall I can't agree with Mohdoo's generalization. Perhaps we can just say that Merkel was a good enough leader for Germany (until she decided to suicide her credibility by pushing this refugee crisis) without saying that it's the PhD that made her that way. I wouldn't say the PhD made her that way, but if I was to take a population of 1000 PhD and compare to 1000 BS, I would certainly say the PhD sample showed a detectable improvement in decision making and ability to manage projects. But in the case of Merkel, it was in physical chemistry. Physical chemistry is essentially physics focused around things to do with atoms, electrons and photons. She is a smart cookie. There's no two ways about that. However, I would not say someone studying physical chemistry is necessarily a great president or anything. I *can* say that she has tackled some complex issues, devised plans to characterize them, and succeeded in improving human understanding of some small part of the universe. Edit: Also worth pointing out that she characterized mechanisms of organic reactions, which was a really hot topic around that time. She studied a really good thing to study at the time. It's dead now, but it was a great area before.
Perhaps it's true that a random sample of 1000 people with PhDs would be better than a random sample of BS only in decision-making and completing projects. But we're not really making that comparison in any way that matters. Maybe you're just trying to assert that as an aside, in which case it's not too unreasonable a statement. Given that the discussion is about who makes for a better president, though, I assume that you think that that PhD credential contributes to making better presidents. That is not an assertion than you can make with any degree of accuracy. Some PhDs know how to apply their specialist knowledge, and more importantly their research skills, in a way that is useful for the country. Others see no value in anything but their own work, aren't willing to see a different perspective, and make terrible decisions. Physical chemistry PhD is a great credential for doing physical chemistry, but what makes you think that it's a great credential for organizing and leading a national government and a ruling party? It really isn't related. Being an intelligent physical chemist doesn't imply that you will be an intelligent leader of a nation at all.
If anything, the best presidential candidates would be those who have been successful at running large organizations in the past, such as successful governors or successful businessmen. Even that seems to be an ineffective predictor of success as president. Herbert Hoover had some really impressive accomplishments before his presidency but turned out to be a pretty bad leader.
Wiki says the only president with a PhD was Woodrow Wilson. Take that as you will.
|
There are, however, a lot of JDs, which is a form of higher ed that dovetails more naturally into a profession where persuasion and rhetoric are highly valued. Those also happen to be very important skills for politicians.
People like to say Obama is "professorial" but he's really not. He talks how you wish your professors talked: Clearly, fairly concisely, and not too fast. In reality most professors (who usually have PhDs) are terrible communicators that face the blackboard when they teach, or talk much too fast, have an accent, a nervous tic, or one of a hundred other problems with communicating.
|
I think what the PhD comment was trying to get at is not that such a person knows 'stuff' but that is implies a certain mindset and way of approaching problems.
It also does not mean that someone cant be as good or better without a PhD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
