Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Happy Man]

From: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-syria/
Bernie has described the civil war in Syria as a “quagmire in a quagmire” and his policy on Syria has three facets: address the humanitarian crisis created by the war; end ISIS; and phase-out Assad, the main party responsible for starting and continuing the war.

Bernie Sanders: Anti-Second Amendment, pro-regime change for Syria
Tulsi Gabbard: Pro-Second Amendment, anti-regime change for Syria

Damnation! Bernie is gong full isreal in Syria? That’s a deal breaker for me. Tulsi gabbard all the way!

 

[waiguoren]

Your question implied that it's H-O or nothing

False.

You use different models to organize your thinking about different questions.

Sure. So I ask again, which model(s) has/have led you to the conclusion that more international trade hurts no one? We can't run a controlled, randomized experiment the way we sometimes can in medicine, so empirical data are of little or no use.

I said that I'd be more interested in seeing you look for contradictory evidence than trying to poke holes in any models or trying to push a model that has fared notoriously poorly in empirical testing.

Economics is almost never suited to "empirical testing" of models. That's a foundational issue, meaning that if one does not grasp it he cannot have informed opinions on a huge variety of subjects.

It appears to me that your own position on the issue (Free trade is bad? I haven't seen you get more specific)

You are probably the worst poster I've seen when it comes to strawmanning people. Remember when you strawmanned @Cubo de Sangre and then told him to kill himself?

is driven primarily by prejudice and sort of irrational hygienic concerns (as is your view on immigration, and probably other things--you got issues, man).

Hm.....

You can't even say what I lied about. Meanwhile, you were busted red-handed lying about my own claim on multiple occasions. You should probably just delete your account and kill yourself.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Economics is almost never suited to "empirical testing" of models. That's a foundational issue, meaning that if one does not grasp it he cannot have informed opinions on a huge variety of subjects.

I would agree that if you dismiss any attempts to answer questions with evidence that you are not able to participate meaningfully in the discussion. That's why some "schools of thought" end up just being cults.

You are probably the worst poster I've seen when it comes to strawmanning people. Remember when you strawmanned @Cubo de Sangre and then told him to kill himself?

No. What was the strawman IYO?

 

[waiguoren]

No. What was the strawman IYO?

You claimed that @Cubo de Sangre claimed that Elizabeth Warren claimed to be a "full-blooded Native American".

When I asked you to provide evidence, you responded with this post, which was a wall of text with no citation.

I'm still waiting for the citation. I'm guessing it doesn't exist.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You claimed that @Cubo de Sangre claimed that Elizabeth Warren claimed to be a "full-blooded Native American".

When I asked you to provide evidence, you responded with this post, which was a wall of text with no citation.

I'm still waiting for the citation. I'm guessing it doesn't exist.

You don't know what "strawman" is, apparently. And I don't know why you're changing the subject, when we were discussing trade. If Cubo acknowledges that Warren didn't claim to be a full-blooded NA, what was the argument even about? We all agree that she claimed to have heard she had a distant NA ancestor, and that turned out to be right? Also, I think the reason you're so upset is that you strongly identify with your racial identity and see her as a race traitor.

 

[waiguoren]

You don't know what "strawman" is, apparently.

It means 'to attribute to another person a position that he never took.'

Also, I think the reason you're so upset is that you strongly identify with your racial identity and see [Elizabeth Warren] as a race traitor.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It means 'to attribute to another person a position that he never took.'

In that case, again, what was his position? And what is your intention in changing the subject? This thread is about the 2020 Democratic nomination race and the side discussion was about trade (and I noticed that you refused to spell out your own position--I guess it's easier to not say anything and then accuse others of strawmanning when they try to make sense of your position).

And, yes, it appears to me that race plays an extremely outsized role in your thinking about a wide variety of issues. As I said, I think you have some serious issues.

 

[japman40]

Damnation! Bernie is gong full isreal in Syria? That’s a deal breaker for me. Tulsi gabbard all the way!

He ain't doing military intervention over there or arming jihadist so no

 

[japman40]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/8247...ple-donated-bernie-sanders-campaign-first-day

Boom!

 

[waiguoren]

In that case, again, what was his position?

You'll have to ask him. I didn't read the entire conversation. I'm confident he never took the position you ascribed to him.

My take is that you are a sloppy, hopelessly partisan person who writes well. Basically, you've made a home on these forums arguing with people who don't have time and/or patience and/or the requisite intellect to match you.

You're heavily emotionally invested in these exchanges. There is no other possible reason why you would tell another poster he should kill himself.

I noticed that you refused to spell out your own position--I guess it's easier to not say anything and then accuse others of strawmanning when they try to make sense of your position

My position is that the effects of trade vary greatly depending on the situation.

In the US context over the past 25 years, I think trade with China has hurt low-skilled workers in terms of job prospects. On the other hand, those people have access to much cheaper goods. On net, I think it's hard to say if these people as a whole are "hurt" or "helped". For some of them, having a stable factory job would be better for them then getting access to cheaper stuff. For others, who are not so inclined to 9-5 factory-type jobs, the savings overwhelms the loss of job opportunities.

And, yes, it appears to me that race plays an extremely outsized role in your thinking about a wide variety of issues

Hm. Evidence?

As I said, I think you have some serious issues.

What issues?

Issues like these?

You can't even say what I lied about. Meanwhile, you were busted red-handed lying about my own claim on multiple occasions. You should probably just delete your account and kill yourself.

 

[Trotsky]

You claimed that @Cubo de Sangre claimed that Elizabeth Warren claimed to be a "full-blooded Native American.

For the love of all that is holy do not start this shit again.

 

[waiguoren]

For the love of all that is holy do not start this shit again.

Heh.

Well, the guy is now claiming that I "have issues". This is the same guy that told @Cubo de Sangre to kill himself and called @IngaVovchanchyn "rotten-souled". Had to call him out on that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You'll have to ask him. I didn't read the entire conversation. I'm confident he never took the position you ascribed to him.

Do you understand my point? If we agree what is the argument about? If he's holding inconsistent positions, disagreeing with one of them is not strawmanning.

My take is that you are a sloppy, hopelessly partisan person who writes well. Basically, you've made a home on these forums arguing with people who don't have time and/or patience and/or the requisite intellect to match you.

You're heavily emotionally invested in these exchanges. There is no other possible reason why you would tell another poster he should kill himself.

Well, I sincerely appreciate the compliment to my writing. The other stuff, IMO, is just bitterness on your part, a result of excessive pride on your part. You should celebrate discovering error, as it indicates that you're closer to the truth than you had been previously, rather than get angry at the fellow who helped you along your path.

My position is that the effects of trade vary greatly depending on the situation.

In the US context over the past 25 years, I think trade with China has hurt low-skilled workers in terms of job prospects. On the other hand, those people have access to much cheaper goods. On net, I think it's hard to say if these people as a whole are "hurt" or "helped". For some of them, having a stable factory job would be better for them then getting access to cheaper stuff. For others, who are not so inclined to 9-5 factory-type jobs, the savings overwhelms the loss of job opportunities.

As I said, I mostly agree on China, which is an exception to the general rule (and I think the effect will wash out in the longer-term, leaving it a more unambiguous positive).

Hm. Evidence?

The kinds of threads you start and issues that interest you, your position on immigration, your praise of white nationalists in gov't (Miller and Kobach, for example). We don't have to relitigate it here, but this can be a running discussion (I'll bring it up as it arises).

What issues?

I think that was pretty clear from the context.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Heh.

Well, the guy is now claiming that I "have issues". This is the same guy that told @Cubo de Sangre to kill himself and called @IngaVovchanchyn "rotten-souled". Had to call him out on that.

Do you not agree that Inga is rotten-souled? At least, you must admit that she is grossly dishonest and often argues in bad faith, and that she generally has no sense of right and wrong.

 

[waiguoren]

Do you not agree that Inga is rotten-souled?

I don't even know what the term means. Seems like something a person with issues would say, though.

At least, you must admit that she is grossly dishonest and often argues in bad faith, and that she generally has no sense of right and wrong.

I not aware of this. Feel free to offer some evidence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't even know what the term means. Seems like something a personal with issues would say, though.

I have seen no evidence for this. Feel free to offer some.

Why? It seems to be that it's something that is both true and relevant to the discussion in which it arose. I think your own inability to separate objective assessments of character from emotional aversions is leading you astray here. Or maybe you're just mad at me and trying to hurt my feelings or something? At any rate, I think you should maybe take another break.

 

[waiguoren]

Well, I sincerely appreciate the compliment to my writing. The other stuff, IMO, is just bitterness on your part, a result of excessive pride on your part. You should celebrate discovering error, as it indicates that you're closer to the truth than you had been previously, rather than get angry at the fellow who helped you along your path.

Ha! This is comedy.

I celebrate discovering error. Unfortunately, when you slip into rabid partisan mode you rarely help me to discover errors. I keep you around because (1) when you aren't in rabid mode, we can have some interesting discussions (2) I am interested in psychoanalyzing you. I think you have issues.

 

[waiguoren]

Why? It seems to be that it's something that is both true and relevant to the discussion in which it arose.

If you don't define your term, we can't proceed.

I think you should maybe take another break.

But should I delete my account and kill myself?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ha! This is comedy.

I celebrate discovering error. Unfortunately, when you slip into rabid partisan mode you rarely help me to discover errors. I keep you around because (1) when you aren't in rabid mode, we can have some interesting discussions (2) I am interested in psychoanalyzing you. I think you have issues.

Now I'm not only a partisan, but a rabid one? Can you define "partisan" as you're using it? The normal definition would clearly not refer to me.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

No. What was the strawman IYO?

Probably the shit I flat-out called you a liar on, challenged you to prove me wrong, and you didn't. Instead you had your little meltdown that @waiguoren quoted part of, then ultimately getting timed out by a mod.

If Cubo acknowledges that Warren didn't claim to be a full-blooded NA, what was the argument even about? We all agree that she claimed to have heard she had a distant NA ancestor, and that turned out to be right?

The point was simple. Genetically and customarily, having only one distant ancestor belonging to a certain heritage is insufficient for a claim to that heritage. That's why you kept up with the strawmen. You couldn't admit that Warren claiming to "be" NA was always bogus. Further evidenced by her retracting the claim well before taking any DNA test. No honest person who isn't mentally handicapped would call this ball red.