Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Trotsky]

These guys consistently conflate the concept of education with university degrees

 

[waiguoren]

I strongly believe that W is smarter than people think, smarter than most of his critics, and smarter than Gabbard, and that being govenor of Texas is good preparation for being president. He was a terrible president, but I blame that more on the general rot of the GOP than on him being unusually poorly prepared, incapable, or unready. That is, what made him bad was just doing the same kinds of shit that any Republican president would have done in that era. Contrast that with Trump, who is doing the same dumb things that Bush did, but is also grossly incompetent and morally and temperamentally unfit.

And I think you're misreading me on my view of qualification if you think it's too narrow. I pointed out Obama's books (and their success and quality) as being qualifying. If Taylor Swift wanted to run for office in 10 years, I'd think that her songwriting and business success would make her at least an interesting candidate (not for president, right away, though, but it would count toward my regard of her as a later presidential candidate). Not narrow at all. The problem with Gabbard is not that her credentials are unconventional. They're conventional but unimpressive, and nothing about her makes up for it. I could overlook her not excelling as a student if she demonstrated expertise in something afterward. I could overlook her lack of gov't experience if she had an impressive career in the private sector before entering gov't. Etc. Give me *something*, though. Some reason to think that you'd be good in the most important job in the world.

My friend responds:

So Taylor Swift’s songwriting is a qualification but Tulsi Gabbard’s military service and leadership experience within the military are not?

She apparently graduated OCS first in her class too. First female officer candidate to do so in the history of Alabama Military Academy.

I strongly believe that W is smarter than people think

(me) I'd really like to have you elaborate on that. My impression is the opposite (that he's less informed and more easily manipulated than most of his critics allege) but I'm open to evidence.

That's one of the things I agree with my friend on. We could be biased due to our common background. We both took full academic scholarships to a state school in lieu of offers to top universities and generally believe that brand-name schools are overrated.

@waiguoren, I can't believe that Gabbard's sudden rebranding as an anti-war candidate has gone over so successfully. Usually people who make big position changes are regarded with skepticism. On the other hand, more plausible doves are regarded with extreme skepticism for no reason at all (inferring that about this guy from his comments). And I don't see how Obama being president of the Harvard Law Review is *not* a positive on his resume. Talk about overly narrow ideas of qualifications!

Friend responds:

How is it a sudden rebranding?

Which other doves are regarded with extreme skepticism?

 

[waiguoren]

I don't see how Obama being president of the Harvard Law Review is *not* a positive on his resume. Talk about overly narrow ideas of qualifications!

(friend)

Presidency of HLR is a positive but it’s fluff.


I would like to see evidence of Gabbard’s hawkishness.

I have heard people claim her voluntary deployment to Iraq makes her a hawk but I completely disagree.

Her experiences while deployed seem to be a major factor in her anti-interventionist stance.

 

[Trotsky]

My friend responds:

So Taylor Swift’s songwriting is a qualification but Tulsi Gabbard’s military service and leadership experience within the military are not?

She apparently graduated OCS first in her class too. First female officer candidate to do so in the history of Alabama Military Academy.



(me) I'd really like to have you elaborate on that. My impression is the opposite (that he's less informed and more easily manipulated than most of his critics allege) but I'm open to evidence.




That's one of the things I agree with my friend on. We could be biased due to our common background. We both took full academic scholarships to a state school in lieu of offers to top universities and generally believe that brand-name schools are overrated.



Friend responds:

How is it a sudden rebranding?

Which other doves are regarded with extreme skepticism?

For undergraduate studies, "brand name" is useless in 2019 and has been for a couple decades since there are scant few high end occupations that require only an undergraduate degree (engineering being a big one that comes to mind). For graduate studies, law school, medical school, etc., it's a very big deal. A law degree from Harvard and a law degree from Southeastern Texas State are universes apart.

But, regardless, degrees are the metric for education. I presume he meant intelligence, which is not sufficiently explained by degrees.

 

[Lead]

@waiguoren

Hook your friend up with this sub-forum. We always can afford to have more posters.

 

[waiguoren]

For undergraduate studies, "brand name" is useless in 2019 and has been for a couple decades. For graduate studies, law school, medical school, etc., it's a very big deal.

Yeah, we all agree on this.

But, regardless, degrees are the metric for education. I presume he meant intelligence, which is not sufficiently explained by degrees.

No, he meant "education" and not "intelligence". Unfortunately the term "education" has become bastardized over the years to mean something like "years of school completed". I believe the latin root of the term is related to terms like "duct", i.e., a guide or a channel. Education is whatever guides the pupil to better see the truth. A Harvard grad can be poorly educated while a high school dropout can be highly educated.

 

[waiguoren]

@waiguoren

Hook your friend up with this sub-forum. We always can afford to have more posters.

Yeah but I don't want to be pushy. He has a young kid and another on the way too. I'm hoping that the give-and-take with Jack V will encourage him to sign up.

 

[waiguoren]

@Jack V Savage

More stuff from friend:

The point of the resume is to determine whether or not a candidate warrants an interview.

The candidate with the best resume is not always the best candidate for the job. A series of interviews and tests is usually used to determine that.

Obama’s resume was weaker than his competitors’ but after the interview process, American voters determined that he was the best candidate for the job and hired him.

And he did a decent job overall

Gabbard’s resume is weaker than her competitors’ but I think it offers enough to have her interview. Her proactive promotion of sane foreign policy sets her out from many in the pack. As does her military service.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Brand-name schools are overrated in the sense that a lot of the measured benefits are just measuring the effects of the type of person who attends them, but we ideally want that type of person in leadership positions and it's hard to identify them so it's useful to voters or employers. And higher level classes at top schools really are better. Not to mention master's programs and professional schools.

With regard to the military stuff, if she were a general or something, it would matter. I don't think the army reserves matters at all. A lot of posters here have military experience and they're mostly idiots. Like, literally, way below average.

As for the recent change, see the previously mentioned attack on Obama for not bombing Syria. I don't see how that kind of thing gets dismissed and she gets suddenly rebranded as noticeably more anti-war than anyone else. I don't think any of the real candidates have anything like that on their record.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, we all agree on this.



No, he meant "education" and not "intelligence". Unfortunately the term "education" has become bastardized over the years to mean something like "years of school completed". I believe the latin root of the term is related to terms like "duct", i.e., a guide or a channel. Education is whatever guides the pupil to better see the truth. A Harvard grad can be poorly educated while a high school dropout can be highly educated.

It's certainly possible, but where's the evidence in this case?

 

[Fawlty]

Yeah, I was just reading through it. I sent some of it to my childhood friend who is a big Tulsi Gabbard guy and was a Sanders voter but who despises Hillary Clinton. His take on some of @Fawlty and @Jack V Savage 's posts from that thread:


These guys consistently conflate the concept of education with university degrees


And furthermore value it based solely on prestige of the institution, apparently


They must have found George W Bush highly intelligent and qualified



But I countered with

I think Bush didn't get very good grades. Jack seems to be taking the standard "high grades from an elite institution" view.

My own view is that Jack's view of "qualification" is far too narrow.

Your friend is retarded. You're better off leaving him out, if he even exists.

 

[Trotsky]

@Jack V Savage

More stuff from friend:

The point of the resume is to determine whether or not a candidate warrants an interview.

The candidate with the best resume is not always the best candidate for the job. A series of interviews and tests is usually used to determine that.

Obama’s resume was weaker than his competitors’ but after the interview process, American voters determined that he was the best candidate for the job and hired him.

And he did a decent job overall

Gabbard’s resume is weaker than her competitors’ but I think it offers enough to have her interview. Her proactive promotion of sane foreign policy sets her out from many in the pack. As does her military service.

I don't think Gabbard's interviews thus far have offered much room for optimism, though. Obama was known to be extremely intelligent, rational, even-tempered, and humble. Gabbard seems to have an even-keeled enough demeanor (particularly by....contemporary standards), but hasn't shown much in the way of intelligence or knowledge.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

More stuff from friend:

The point of the resume is to determine whether or not a candidate warrants an interview.

The candidate with the best resume is not always the best candidate for the job. A series of interviews and tests is usually used to determine that.

Obama’s resume was weaker than his competitors’ but after the interview process, American voters determined that he was the best candidate for the job and hired him.

And he did a decent job overall

Gabbard’s resume is weaker than her competitors’ but I think it offers enough to have her interview. Her proactive promotion of sane foreign policy sets her out from many in the pack. As does her military service.

Again, her military service doesn't move the needle at all IMO, her foreign policy is no better than anyone else's, and she has no experience in it. Obama's resume was fine. It's ridiculous to compare it to Gabbard's.

 

[waiguoren]

Brand-name schools are overrated in the sense that a lot of the measured benefits are just measuring the effects of the type of person who attends them, but we ideally want that type of person in leadership positions and it's hard to identify them so it's useful to voters or employers. And higher level classes at top schools really are better. Not to mention master's programs and professional schools.

With regard to the military stuff, if she were a general or something, it would matter. I don't think the army reserves matters at all. A lot of posters here have military experience and they're mostly idiots. Like, literally, way below average.

As for the recent change, see the previously mentioned attack on Obama for not bombing Syria. I don't see how that kind of thing gets dismissed and she gets suddenly rebranded as noticeably more anti-war than anyone else. I don't think any of the real candidates have anything like that on their record.

Jack, I sent this to him. Just to be clear, you are referring to this tweet and this tweet only, right?

 

[waiguoren]

With regard to the military stuff, if she were a general or something, it would matter. I don't think the army reserves matters at all. A lot of posters here have military experience and they're mostly idiots. Like, literally, way below average.

(friend)

She is a Major in the Army National Guard. They’ll let anyone enlist so there are a lot of enlisted idiots. Officers tend to be far more intelligent, especially officers that get promoted to O-4

With regard to the military stuff, if she were a general or something

(friend)

She is three ranks below general and she is only 37.

 

[waiguoren]

It's certainly possible, but where's the evidence in this case?

Since that was a response to me, I'll respond.

I don't have any evidence that Gabbard is highly educated. I'm not a Gabbard supporter and have no interest in defending her. I merely noticed that MSM has not been kind to her and some of the coverage is unfair. I suspect this has to with her lukewarm support for Israel and her challenging of the DNC/Obama.



my friend says:

In response to the tweet, bombing al-Qaeda is not equivalent to waging a costly regime-change war. But that tweet does concern me. Thank you for pointing it out.

I think his most recent message (military service doesn’t move the needle at all, etc.) demonstrates that this guy and I just have a different set of priorities for electing a president. That’s great. I wish all voters gave as much thought to the matter as he does. If that were the case, I think our competing priorities would result in the selection of a truly excellent president.

Your friend is retarded. You're better off leaving him out, if he even exists.

I lol'd. you can be funny sometimes, in an annoying kind of way.

 

[waiguoren]

It's certainly possible, but where's the evidence in this case?

(friend says)

I don’t believe that she is highly educated. I just also don’t believe that she is poorly educated and I see no evidence of the latter. She seems to be able to think critically better than most of her peers in Congress and US politics in general.

So I would say I think she is at least sufficiently educated.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack, I sent this to him. Just to be clear, you are referring to this tweet and this tweet only, right?

She also told a Hawaii paper straight up that, "when it comes to wars against terrorists, I am a hawk."

Now, understand that I'm not saying that her recent history of hawkishness disqualifies her--my general view is that foreign policy is incredibly complicated and I don't know much about it other than that most people I see spouting off know even less. I'm saying that there's no reason to think that she's the "anti-war" candidate any more than literally anyone else running for the Democratic nomination. She has no extra credibility on that claim, and the notion that she does is misguided. Make of that what you will (for example, Bannon's support of her is predicated at least partly on her hawkishness, which is more defensible).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the idea that the MSM would cover someone better or worse based on their "support for Israel" or challenging the DNC to be comically misguided. I don't think there's any group with as much of a mismatch between actual power and perceived power by online kooks as the DNC--not excepting the Illuminati or Free Masons.

 

[waiguoren]

I think the idea that the MSM would cover someone better or worse based on their "support for Israel" or challenging the DNC to be comically misguided.

What's your take on the MSM+bipartisan attack on that Somali congresswoman? I don't think that would have happened in a world without the powerful Jewish lobby and Jewish media influence. In general, I think that interest group and investor funding do influence politicians and MSM, respectively.