|
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 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:
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.
I think there is a structural difference between cable-ratings-driven news orgs (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) and newspapers editorial boards (WaPo, NYDY). All these cable interviews and debates produced nothing of substance and never revealed candidate depth of knoweldge. But the two editorial board transcripts WaPo/Trump and NYDN/Bernie were devastating.
The cable guys rely on repeated interviews with candidates to generate content. Moreover, substantive questions with followups are boring and don't fit between commercial slots. This violates Chomsky's described notion of "concision". Also, the questioners have to be dashing leading man types who need to ask questions like a cross examining attorney (looking at you Anderson Cooper). These pretty man questioners focus on trying to impeach the candidates by finding inconsistencies because that is easier for the dashing leading men to memorize, rather than going to the substantive positions the candidates actually hold. Think about it, when is the last time Anderson Cooper challenged a candidate on the merits of their position? All he does is talk about shit from the 90s and asks why policies are different in 2016.
The newspaper editorial boards have the luxury of sitting there with no audience watching and no ads between segments. The newspaper audience simply isn't listening to the actual interview so there are no concision concerns. Thus, they can get away with meaty questions that get to what the candidates actually know. Also, they only do 1 of these interviews a year as opposed to Trump's 40 something Hannity interviews.
|
On April 07 2016 04:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 02:49 Naracs_Duc wrote: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 ? 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. And how is it that Merkel is, somehow, "able to lead" ? 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.
Germany seems to be doing fine. Your disdain for the EU's conservative stances says nothing about Merkel's aptitude.
There is only thing you really need in a leader when it comes to their intelligence--and that is do you trust them to know how to build the team necessary to get the job done. If they already know everything there is to know about the economy, do they know who to talk to in order to get details on something else (and vice versa).
Populist candidates who like making grand gestures but can't tell you how they plan to fix the problem--that is automatically bad. Not because they don't know everything--but because they should know what their strengths are, what their weaknesses are, and have a plan on how to mitigate the weakness and maximize the strength.
If Bernie has no idea about the finance sector then he better have someone he talks to about it before using at as his main stump speech. Hilary already has a team in place, when she goes to debates, she calls them by name, lists out their accomplishments as to why she chose them, and tells us that she is working with them on creating a solution. She then contextualizes it by telling us that she is already forming coalitions with more moderate versions of sander's proposals purely so that she get something passed instead of just making waves. And thats not even her main selling point, just something she is doing because she wants to be ready to run the country and not just stand there yelling at others for not doing things the way she would do them.
In a sense, "intellectual intelligence" simply means having their shit together. That if they're stupid about something, they know to ask for help, that if they're not stupid about something, that they give a specific plan. What the interview showed was Bernie had neither. He neither had an idea on how to fix things, nor did he have the humility to say that he had no idea how to fix things and would need help.
He literally first says that he would break up the banks, and then followed it by saying that he would not do it because he's not a dictator. People use the phrase flip flopper wrong ALL the time to simply mean that at one point they supported something, but then at another point they no longer support it. But when Kerry got the flip flop accusation it was very specifically changing his stances on a speech to speech basis on whether or not he was for the war or not eventually culminating in the awful "I was for it before I was against it" phrase in his failed attempt to be both for and against the war in one phrase. This is no different a moment for me where Bernie wants to make sure to say that he will break up big banks while also saying that he does not have that power all in one interview. Its awful.
|
On April 07 2016 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:
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.
The PhD comment is merely pointing out that the more educated you are the more likely you are to be intellectual sound when it comes to making decisions.
|
Germany is doing fine at the expense of the rest of the european union, and it has nothing to do with Merkel that gained power after most of the reform were made. From my point of view you don't know much about europe, and since it's not the european thread I'm not going to lecture you here.
On April 07 2016 04:38 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:
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. The PhD comment is merely pointing out that the more educated you are the more likely you are to be intellectual sound when it comes to making decisions.
That's false. Political questions are moral, not scientific. Knowing the world of finance does not make you a better president, knowing where to put finance, having a scale of value that is not entirely economic and that give finance both a place and limits is needed for a good president.
|
On April 07 2016 04:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 03:33 Mohdoo 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. 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. 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.
My point is that a PhD is a non-zero contribution and it is positive. I would not say a PhD makes a particularly good candidate worth investigating. I am just saying that I do believe the skills learned in acquiring a PhD (How to ask a question, how to create the information to answer it) would lend themselves to being a more thoughtful and capable person. These would apply to leadership roles of any sort. But I think I improperly conveyed my thoughts. I am not saying all presidents should have a PhD. I *am* saying that I think people underestimate the sorts of things that people, on a general scale, get out of a PhD.
|
So to change the subject. Words coming out that hillary is going to ramp up the criticism of bernie sanders in the coming days. Who is dumb enough to authorize this? Best case for hillary at this point is a slow burn of the movement that peters out when the numbers just don't end up for him and hillary ends up at the convention with the popular vote and the majority of non super delegate votes. Any atttacks against Bernie sanders at this point is just going to hurt her in the general when she needs bernie sanders voters to vote for her.
|
On April 07 2016 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
So to change the subject. Words coming out that hillary is going to ramp up the criticism of bernie sanders in the coming days. Who is dumb enough to authorize this? Best case for hillary at this point is a slow burn of the movement that peters out when the numbers just don't end up for him and hillary ends up at the convention with the popular vote and the majority of non super delegate votes. Any atttacks against Bernie sanders at this point is just going to hurt her in the general when she needs bernie sanders voters to vote for her.
If she "attacks" Bernie the way Bernie "attacks" Clinton, I think she'll be fine. If she is careful, delicate and precise, I think it could be a lot like the interview we've been discussing. If she makes blanket statements that are mostly emotional, I think Bernie has a shot at New York. But if she is genuine and careful in her critiques of the Sanders platform, I think it is long overdue. There are weaknesses that have not been addressed. This is especially true if she throws in her own accomplishments.
The BIG thing is minimum wage. That is where Bernie is blatantly a moron. Clinton proposes a system that helps the country more accurately assess reasonable minimum wages across the country. This is because $15 in SF is not the same as $15 in Rural Nebraska. If she highlights Bernie's plans as imprecise, overly emotional, and then shows why her plans accomplish many of the same things, she can do really well. The whole $15/hr federally is just such a damn joke. I can't believe it hasn't been blasted more.
|
On April 07 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Germany is doing fine at the expense of the rest of the european union, and it has nothing to do with Merkel that gained power after most of the reform were made. From my point of view you don't know much about europe, and since it's not the european thread I'm not going to lecture you here.
No, I don't know much about the EU as a nation. But from what I've seen of Germany as a nation things seems to be working just fine for them. You might disagree with Germany's methods but the results speak for itself at least in the past several years.
But this isn't really about whether or not Merkel is a better leader than Bush Jr. This is really about education. Would you rather have a more educated leader or a less educated leader?
|
On April 07 2016 05:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Germany is doing fine at the expense of the rest of the european union, and it has nothing to do with Merkel that gained power after most of the reform were made. From my point of view you don't know much about europe, and since it's not the european thread I'm not going to lecture you here. No, I don't know much about the EU as a nation. But from what I've seen of Germany as a nation things seems to be working just fine for them. You might disagree with Germany's methods but the results speak for itself at least in the past several years. But this isn't really about whether or not Merkel is a better leader than Bush Jr. This is really about education. Would you rather have a more educated leader or a less educated leader?
Again do you know what you are talking about ? Do you know what is a common currency ? In which state germany was before 2000 ? What it did ? Why the euro permitted them to do so ? At which time did Merkel came into power ? How is Germany's current account surplus possible ? What's the european union average unemployment ?
Seems like you're pretty quick to judge a situation without knowing much about it, and maybe it's the reason why you discard Sanders argument and cheer for the so qualified Clinton.
|
On April 07 2016 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:
The BIG thing is minimum wage. That is where Bernie is blatantly a moron. Clinton proposes a system that helps the country more accurately assess reasonable minimum wages across the country. This is because $15 in SF is not the same as $15 in Rural Nebraska. If she highlights Bernie's plans as imprecise, overly emotional, and then shows why her plans accomplish many of the same things, she can do really well. The whole $15/hr federally is just such a damn joke. I can't believe it hasn't been blasted more.
Its been blasted, just not on facebook. If Facebook and reddit shut down tomorrow most of Bernie's support dies with it. Not that people dislike Bernie, but there's a reason that even things like the $12 wage Hilary is working towards is composed of a team of experts and fellow lawmakers about what is passable, and not what looks good in a meme.
|
On April 07 2016 05:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 05:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 07 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:
Germany is doing fine at the expense of the rest of the european union, and it has nothing to do with Merkel that gained power after most of the reform were made. From my point of view you don't know much about europe, and since it's not the european thread I'm not going to lecture you here. No, I don't know much about the EU as a nation. But from what I've seen of Germany as a nation things seems to be working just fine for them. You might disagree with Germany's methods but the results speak for itself at least in the past several years. But this isn't really about whether or not Merkel is a better leader than Bush Jr. This is really about education. Would you rather have a more educated leader or a less educated leader? Again do you know what you are talking about ? Do you know what is a common currency ? In which state germany was before 2000 ? What it did ? Why the euro permitted them to do so ? At which time did Merkel came into power ? How is Germany's current account surplus possible ? What's the european union average unemployment ?
She lets the EU borrow 30 billion right when it was about to hit the shitter and you're confused why her country's doing better than the rest of the almost bankrupted nations in the EU? Just because she's pointing out the issue of a purely socialists system with her 7/25/50 speech doesn't mean that she's automatically the bad guy.
But enough about that, the reason she was brought up was a comparator to George Bush. Would you rather have had George Bush in charge of Germany or Merkel? Do you think Merkel's PhD is a nice to have or do you prefer Bush's lack of a PhD a nice to have? Stick on topic please.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the way bernie is clogging up the campaign means obama can't be campaigning. this is a huge loss for dems especially as moron sandernistas keep on attacking hillary. you need obama to lend the credibility.
this is one of the many reasons why sanders has set back the democrats badly
|
On April 07 2016 05:33 oneofthem wrote:
the way bernie is clogging up the campaign means obama can't be campaigning. this is a huge loss for dems especially as moron sandernistas keep on attacking hillary. you need obama to lend the credibility.
this is one of the many reasons why sanders has set back the democrats badly
I can just imagine Sanders vs Trump right now.
"I believe the Democratic Party commits voter fraud, and my opponent's supporters believes the Democratic Party commits voter fraud, and I see no reason not to believe them."
"This guy is so anti establishment he wants to give them an extra 15 trillion dollars for a program his peers don't even believe will work. Which is like asking a loan shark if you have good enough credit to borrow money."
|
On April 07 2016 05:33 oneofthem wrote:
the way bernie is clogging up the campaign means obama can't be campaigning. this is a huge loss for dems especially as moron sandernistas keep on attacking hillary. you need obama to lend the credibility.
this is one of the many reasons why sanders has set back the democrats badly
Eh, the Bernie effect is greatly exaggerated. There will ever plenty of time for Obama to campaign for the eventual nominee. The bigger concern that democrats should have is Hillary's very obvious weakness as a candidate.
|
Naracs_Duc you have 0 economic knowledge, I can't even make sense of your first sentence, and germany had more debt than most other european country before the subprime crisis - more than france for exemple.
Merkel is a shit leader, Bush is a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine (ideals like equality and solidarity, individual freedom (with limits), cooperation rather than competition, etc.). The PhD is completly irrelevant, education gives nothing for politics : with or without an education, you defend specific interests, you belong to a specific group (and a society is made of different and sometime opposed groups), you have certain values and defend those.
A good politician is not someone who find efficient solution to problems, because there is no "efficiency" outside of any moral judgement. A good president is someone who define the goal, the efficiency. In this regard, Clinton, always running after other's ideas, and incapable of actually defend a set of values, is the core exemple of the professionnal politician that, like a tennis player on a court, do what it must to win "the game" : it's half the reason why some people don't like her, much like any other professionnal politician out there.
People who root for her know, even inconciously, that she defend their interests and their values in the end, the values of the upper middle class, the value of the system.
|
On April 07 2016 05:33 oneofthem wrote:
the way bernie is clogging up the campaign means obama can't be campaigning. this is a huge loss for dems especially as moron sandernistas keep on attacking hillary. you need obama to lend the credibility.
this is one of the many reasons why sanders has set back the democrats badly
He set them back in a lot of ways, but I would argue this is a long time coming. If it wasn't Sanders to make this happen, it was gonna be someone. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind. I think Bernie will actually end up helping in a lot of ways. When Sanders finally endorses Clinton (holy fuck I can not wait), Obama will be there to tell all the Bernistas everything is going to be ok. He's a brilliant speaker and he will help round up a lot of the Bernistas. The SJW interpretive dance therapy people won't be convinced. But most will.
|
@whitedog
You saying
"a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine"
Tells me everything I need to know as to why you think education is irrelevant to someone becoming good at what they do. Thank you for talking, you can walk away from this conversation now.
Cheers.
|
On April 07 2016 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 05:33 oneofthem wrote:
the way bernie is clogging up the campaign means obama can't be campaigning. this is a huge loss for dems especially as moron sandernistas keep on attacking hillary. you need obama to lend the credibility.
this is one of the many reasons why sanders has set back the democrats badly He set them back in a lot of ways, but I would argue this is a long time coming. If it wasn't Sanders to make this happen, it was gonna be someone. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind. I think Bernie will actually end up helping in a lot of ways. When Sanders finally endorses Clinton (holy fuck I can not wait), Obama will be there to tell all the Bernistas everything is going to be ok. He's a brilliant speaker and he will help round up a lot of the Bernistas. The SJW interpretive dance therapy people won't be convinced. But most will.
Definitely crossing fingers. Right now when asked about it he simply retorts a "what's in it for me, what will they give us" mentality that I believe will percolate to his supporters. But I can be wrong.
|
Asked about "it"? Endorsing Clinton if she wins? I thought he was already on board with that. An interesting thought is the fact that Clinton would not hesitate to endorse Sanders.
|
On April 07 2016 05:43 Naracs_Duc wrote:
@whitedog
You saying
"a shit leader, because they follow liberal, productivist ideals that are different from mine"
Tells me everything I need to know as to why you think education is irrelevant to someone becoming good at what they do. Thank you for talking, you can walk away from this conversation now.
Cheers.
Joke post. Being against liberalism and productivism is impossible to understand for the basic oneofsanto of the worlds ...
"irrelevant to someone beong good at what they do"
Still can't understand that politics is not a common activity that you can get better at by following some stupid course in a university ? Politics is not science, there's no irremediable "progress" in politics, and managing a society is not comparable to building and repairing some kind of machinerie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
