Bernie Sanders could run for president.

Jack V Savage said:
What do you think of Bernie's endorsement of Jane Kim for SF mayor? Kills his leftist credibility for good or just a mistake that came from not following local politics?

As Matthew Lewis put it:
Click to expand...

I honestly have no knowledge on this topic. I didn't know who Jane Kim was until reading your post. I'll take a look and get back to you.
 
Trotsky said:
I honestly have no knowledge on this topic. I didn't know who Jane Kim was until reading your post. I'll take a look and get back to you.
Click to expand...

Oh, shit. I forget that no one generally cares about anyone else's local political scene.

There's a lot of catching up to do, then, which you probably don't want to bother with. Basic issue is that housing prices are ridiculous here as a result of a booming economy and the fact that it's very difficult to build new units. People who own homes don't want new housing built because it will bring down the value of their homes, and there are concerns about the view and other neighborhood changes (some also make arguments against "gentrification," which seems misguided more than ideologically different). On the other side are people who want to build new units and want the prices to come down, and who think that preserving the view for rich people isn't more important than helping non-rich people afford to live here. Pretty much everyone on both sides are Democrats and consider themselves to be on the "left," but as I see it, the first group is really pretty far right on this particular issue, and Kim is one of them.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Oh, shit. I forget that no one generally cares about anyone else's local political scene.

There's a lot of catching up to do, then, which you probably don't want to bother with. Basic issue is that housing prices are ridiculous here as a result of a booming economy and the fact that it's very difficult to build new units. People who own homes don't want new housing built because it will bring down the value of their homes, and there are concerns about the view and other neighborhood changes (some also make arguments against "gentrification," which seems misguided more than ideologically different). On the other side are people who want to build new units and want the prices to come down, and who think that preserving the view for rich people isn't more important than helping non-rich people afford to live here. Pretty much everyone on both sides are Democrats and consider themselves to be on the "left," but as I see it, the first group is really pretty far right on this particular issue, and Kim is one of them.
Click to expand...

I mean, it sounds like there are probably legitimate issues over economic waste and the impropriety of easement-type remedies given the likely incongruity in wealth between property owners/renters. But I would be pretty disappointed to hear that Sanders or his affiliates sided with the former group. I also don't understand how "gentrification" comes into play, unless the demographics of San Francisco are wildly different than anywhere else in the country.

Although, both Sanders and OurRevolution have repeatedly restated their commitment to lesser evilism and empowering the better of realistic choices. I for one vehemently disagree with lesser evilist logic, but I recognize that rational minds may disagree. So I'd have to know who this Kim person is running against for raking Sanders over the coals.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
Somehow, I doubt that you'll be able to actually show an instance of either of the Paul's being dishonest.

You're allowing your political bias to interfere with your ability to judge truth values.
Click to expand...

First of all, bias is different from dishonesty. They aren't remotely synonymous.

More than anything, I would categorize him as a blowhard, but a fairly dishonest blowhard at that. He has a long Congressional record of making grandiose symbolic votes on issues on which his vote is not needed, making grandiose statements on dead issues, and more than anything reductively framing social and political problems in terms of simple solutions that would cause infinitely more subsequent problems. His worst sin is trying to pass off his pro-corporate, pro-wealth, pro-upward distributive policies as anti-bureaucratic populism.

@Jack V Savage might have additional critiques, but I have zero respect for either Ron or Rand Paul.
 
Trotsky said:
I mean, it sounds like there are probably legitimate issues over economic waste and the impropriety of easement-type remedies given the likely incongruity in wealth between property owners/renters. But I would be pretty disappointed to hear that Sanders or his affiliates sided with the former group. I also don't understand how "gentrification" comes into play, unless the demographics of San Francisco are wildly different than anywhere else in the country.

Although, both Sanders and OurRevolution have repeatedly restated their commitment to lesser evilism and empowering the better of realistic choices. I for one vehemently disagree with lesser evilist logic, but I recognize that rational minds may disagree. So I'd have to know who this Kim person is running against for raking Sanders over the coals.
Click to expand...

It's tough because there is a shipload of somewhat similar candidates, and Kim is generally a big lefty. But I think that housing is by far the most important issue around here now, and her position on it is both anti-growth and pro-inequality in effect.
 
Jack V Savage said:
It's tough because there is a shipload of somewhat similar candidates, and Kim is generally a big lefty. But I think that housing is by far the most important issue around here now, and her position on it is both anti-growth and pro-inequality in effect.
Click to expand...

Oh, because she's East Asian American. So "similar" candidates come by the shipload.

Got it.

v0J.gif
 
Trotsky said:
First of all, bias is different from dishonesty. They aren't remotely synonymous.
Click to expand...
If you see the Paul's as being dishonest in some measurable way, then you've allowed your bias to cloud your ability to judge truth values.


Trotsky said:
More than anything, I would categorize him as a blowhard, but a fairly dishonest blowhard at that. He has a long Congressional record of making grandiose symbolic votes on issues on which his vote is not needed, making grandiose statements on dead issues, and more than anything reductively framing social and political problems in terms of simple solutions that would cause infinitely more subsequent problems. His worst sin is trying to pass off his pro-corporate, pro-wealth, pro-upward distributive policies as anti-bureaucratic populism.
Click to expand...
So nothing specific, measurable, or verifiable.

Got it.

You need to understand that you simply disagreeing with either of the Paul's, doesn't make them dishonest.


Trotsky said:
@Jack V Savage might have additional critiques, but I have zero respect for either Ron or Rand Paul.
Click to expand...
I have zero interest in Jack's analysis. I quit speaking with him several years ago, and ever since then my time on this forum has become much more productive.

Everyone's time on this Earth is limited, it's best to spend that limited time trying to rationalize with those who wish to be rational. I made the decision in my life that I would not waste my valuable time on this planet trying to give the red pill of Truth to those who would spit it out and call it poison.

I'm happy to discuss any number of issues with those whom I disagree with, such as yourself. I simply refuse to waste my time with those who think that insults constitute some sort of retort in a debate.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
I'm happy to discuss any number of issues with those whom I disagree with, such as yourself. I simply refuse to waste my time with those who think that insults constitute some sort of retort in a debate.
Click to expand...

But, of course, I'm always willing to explain stuff to you and anyone else, while you seem to think that random insults are sufficient as a response. I think it's clear that the real issue is that you are unable to defend your points against good responses and unwilling to change your mind when shown to be wrong (for example after I demonstrated circular reasoning in your application of the NAP).

That said, I think Trotsky's response was fine and didn't see a need to add anything.
 
@Farmer Br0wn


Here, this is a fairly recent vote that is a good representation of the dishonesty of Rand Paul.

In a narrow 50-48 vote along partisan lines, Paul sat out instead of siding with liberty and privacy rights. Had it been a 60-38 vote, I assure you that he'd have made a principled stand. But, since taking a stand here could actually hurt his standing with giant corporations that give him money and with his GOP colleagues, he sat out like a bitch.

The Senate passed a resolution Thursday in a 50-48 party line vote that would dismantle a set of internet privacy rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last year.

The rules, which the FCC passed in a party-line vote in October, require internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon to obtain customers’ permission before using their personal information for advertising purposes.

If passed by the House and signed by President Trump, the bill would use an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to eliminate the rules before they go into effect. The CRA would also prevent the FCC from passing “substantially similar” regulations in the future, though no court has ruled on what agencies can pass under those standards.
Critics of the privacy regulations say they are too onerous, and subject service providers to stricter regulations than websites such as Facebook and Google, which also collect consumer data.

The vote immediately drew criticism from privacy and consumer advocates like the ACLU, Public Knowledge and Free Press, while trade groups praised the move.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/325410-senate-votes-to-block-internet-privacy-regulations


Or how about his vote in favor of Jeff Sessions? He has spoken out bravely against police abuses of discretion, the curbing of the 4th Amendment, and the tyranny of the prison state, yet he voted for the most authoritarian AG in US history: an AG who wants to increase arrests and penalties for marijuana use: the same use the Pauls famously pander to their supporters about being okay with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ith-character-attacks/?utm_term=.d852d6aa7c08

OH, but then he passionately decries Sessions' plans in saying they would "ruin lives."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/opinions/sessions-is-wrong-rand-paul-opinion/index.html






Yeah, just like his father, Rand Paul is a blowhard piece of shit who only has principles when convenient.
 
Trotsky said:
@Farmer Br0wn


Here, this is a fairly recent vote that is a good representation of the dishonesty of Rand Paul.

In a narrow 50-48 vote along partisan lines, Paul sat out instead of siding with liberty and privacy rights. Had it been a 60-38 vote, I assure you that he'd have made a principled stand. But, since taking a stand here could actually hurt his standing with giant corporations that give him money and with his GOP colleagues, he sat out like a bitch.



http://thehill.com/policy/technology/325410-senate-votes-to-block-internet-privacy-regulations


Or how about his vote in favor of Jeff Sessions? He has spoken out bravely against police abuses of discretion, the curbing of the 4th Amendment, and the tyranny of the prison state, yet he voted for the most authoritarian AG in US history: an AG who wants to increase arrests and penalties for marijuana use: the same use the Pauls famously pander to their supporters about being okay with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ith-character-attacks/?utm_term=.d852d6aa7c08

OH, but then he passionately decries Sessions' plans in saying they would "ruin lives."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/opinions/sessions-is-wrong-rand-paul-opinion/index.html






Yeah, just like his father, Rand Paul is a blowhard piece of shit who only has principles when convenient.
Click to expand...
The Rands just got BTFO.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
I can't say I'm complaining.

It allowed me to look back at some of my correct predictions. :)
Click to expand...
What, that the next president would likely be a R? Wow, that's a Nostradamus level prediction.
 
Trotsky said:
@Farmer Br0wn


Here, this is a fairly recent vote that is a good representation of the dishonesty of Rand Paul.

In a narrow 50-48 vote along partisan lines, Paul sat out instead of siding with liberty and privacy rights. Had it been a 60-38 vote, I assure you that he'd have made a principled stand. But, since taking a stand here could actually hurt his standing with giant corporations that give him money and with his GOP colleagues, he sat out like a bitch.



http://thehill.com/policy/technology/325410-senate-votes-to-block-internet-privacy-regulations


Or how about his vote in favor of Jeff Sessions? He has spoken out bravely against police abuses of discretion, the curbing of the 4th Amendment, and the tyranny of the prison state, yet he voted for the most authoritarian AG in US history: an AG who wants to increase arrests and penalties for marijuana use: the same use the Pauls famously pander to their supporters about being okay with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ith-character-attacks/?utm_term=.d852d6aa7c08

OH, but then he passionately decries Sessions' plans in saying they would "ruin lives."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/opinions/sessions-is-wrong-rand-paul-opinion/index.html
Click to expand...
Such integrity. And just imagine the liberty if his "privatize all the prisons" agenda came to pass with Sessions as the AG. We'd be up to our ears in freedom.
 
Trotsky said:
@Farmer Br0wn


Here, this is a fairly recent vote that is a good representation of the dishonesty of Rand Paul.

In a narrow 50-48 vote along partisan lines, Paul sat out instead of siding with liberty and privacy rights. Had it been a 60-38 vote, I assure you that he'd have made a principled stand. But, since taking a stand here could actually hurt his standing with giant corporations that give him money and with his GOP colleagues, he sat out like a bitch.



http://thehill.com/policy/technology/325410-senate-votes-to-block-internet-privacy-regulations


Or how about his vote in favor of Jeff Sessions? He has spoken out bravely against police abuses of discretion, the curbing of the 4th Amendment, and the tyranny of the prison state, yet he voted for the most authoritarian AG in US history: an AG who wants to increase arrests and penalties for marijuana use: the same use the Pauls famously pander to their supporters about being okay with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ith-character-attacks/?utm_term=.d852d6aa7c08

OH, but then he passionately decries Sessions' plans in saying they would "ruin lives."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/opinions/sessions-is-wrong-rand-paul-opinion/index.html






Yeah, just like his father, Rand Paul is a blowhard piece of shit who only has principles when convenient.
Click to expand...
A vote for an Attorney General isn't a measure of honesty or dishonesty.

Unless the person casting the vote previously said "I will never vote for person 'X'!", then turns around and votes for person 'X', its not usable as a measure of honesty, and it's a poor argument on your part.

As for the abstention from voting, you're ascribing motives that you have no way of knowing.

Again, nothing verifiable, nothing measurable, and nothing specific.

kpt018 said:
The Rands just got BTFO.
Click to expand...
I sure hope the Rands are fine, whoever they are....

The Paul's on the other hand, are just fine.

kpt018 said:
What, that the next president would likely be a R? Wow, that's a Nostradamus level prediction.
Click to expand...

I promise to use my powers only for good, not evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,998
Messages
55,460,310
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top