War Room Lounge v40: Mixed Feelings about Natural Disasters

[Jack V Savage]

The problem I have, I wouldn't say its with you personally, is that by every measure Bernie Sanders is the perfect candidate for the left and people like yourself (and others) have done nothing but try and diminish his campaign since its inception. And saying you would vote for him over Trump is not an endorsement. I guess I can see supporting Hillary over Bernie in 2016 (I really can't, but I'm trying to be nice), but in 2017 people are already trying to find an excuse to replace him. And you just can't. You may not be on board with 100% of his policies, but you're not going to find a politician who can duplicate his record on the policies Democrats and the Left say they support.

As someone on the left, I'd dispute the notion that he's the perfect candidate for the left. He has a mix of pluses and minuses, like everyone, and they balance out better than some and worse than others. He's a fine candidate, sufficient to have my vote without the slightest hesitation in the general and among the better primary candidates, but I think there are many candidates who can duplicate his record on policies that I support.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Buzzwords? He's highly intelligent, well educated and a very impressive thinker. I don't know what his policy agenda is but I do like that he is focused on political reform (we need it badly). As I've already stated, I reserve the right to change my mind and probably will. If he's bad on policy that matters to me I will change my mind.

The charge that I'm trying to diminish Bernie's campaign is ridiculous. I've said that I admire Bernie a million times on here and would have voted for him over Trump with a huge smile on my face. And yes, I'm not on board with 100% of his policies but that's true for every candidate.

The problem is I don't love Bernie as much as you so you have an immediate reaction to defend him which is weird man. Same seems to be true for AOC (and she is someone that has many unimpressive even down right stupid moments but has very admirable qualities).

It's really annoying and boring to defend my "way too early" rankings to you especially after stating that I will likely change my mind and the candidates are pretty close and there are others I like. It's more like having to defend why I like Aaron Judge over Giancarlo Stanton. Idk man, they're both great and as a Yankees fan I like both players but I have a view on it.

And I really don't want to address it anymore because as I keep repeating - it's too fucking early!!!

I sincerely apologize that I'm "picking on you", I feel that I am to a certain extent, but its really the take on Pete, that many seem to share, including the MSM, that I'm attacking. Its absurd on its face that some guy's CV and a few soundbytes can get this much hype without a single detail about his platform and it comes off very orchestrated.

 

[Trotsky]

Also, to be clear on Buttigieg, it is undeniable that he's a great political talent: he's intelligent, articulate, and charismatic He's probably the greatest political talent (that I have personally seen) since Cory Booker and probably since Barack Obama. For me, it's Bernie #1 - (big space) - Elizabeth Warren #2 - (big space) and Buttigieg could be the #3 guy there depending on how I feel on that day

I think that refers more to the idea that a candidate who isn't perfect is unsupportable, which, if widespread enough, essentially guarantees the exact opposite of progressive goals. Obviously you want to get the information needed to rank candidates properly. But it seems equally obvious that being a responsible citizen means voting for the highest-ranked candidate (according to your own, consistently applied criteria) in every race. The kind of hostage model that is popular among the loony left relies for its effectiveness on the belief that their coalition mates care more about getting results than they do, while proponents of it simultaneously claim the opposite.

I just don't see that as a common sentiment at all. I saw some (some) persons, mostly persons of color, say they could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton because of her history on foreign policy and criminal justice, and that voting for her would be a fundamental betrayal of what they aspired to be and have the world be and would be an act of privilege (I'm thinking of a specific friend on the reasoning, the person after whom I crafted my early-account shtick). But they didn't urge others to not support her.

Now, that's not to say there isn't a limit on how far right I personally could go, as I don't believe in the Chomsky-esque position on rigid lesser evilism. For instance, if there was an election between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, you can bet I'm voting for a third option.

 

[kpt018]

I sincerely apologize that I'm "picking on you", I feel that I am to a certain extent, but its really the take on Pete, that many seem to share, including the MSM, that I'm attacking. Its absurd on its face that some guy's CV and a few soundbytes can get this much hype without a single detail about his platform and it comes off very orchestrated.

It's all good man, I like the pushback and thanks for keeping it cordial. In this case I'm really just given a view at a point in time and admitting that view is fluid.

I really don't perceive him as orchestrated. Every single thing I've seen (2 hour long podcast appearances, town hall, short clips of him speaking or answer questions) he strikes me as really impressive. One thing I absolutely love is several folks on the right that have respected political views say the same and think he's huge trouble for Trump if he wins the nomination. They don't think Trump has an answer for him whereas there is more ammo for Biden, Bernie or Warren (to be fair they've spent decades in politics and Pete is unknown). Obviously that can change.

One thing you have to grant me - Pete is far more intelligent and well educated than Bernie, yes?

 

[Gregolian]

Good piece from Chait here that you might both like:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...-not-omar-but-all-muslims-and-minorities.html

Maybe it's cause I'm only half and the half of me that is a minority is Asian my brain never feels like I'm being attacked for being a minority.

Yeah, the NZ shooter was very much a part of the MAGA derp brigade. Hailed Trump as a "symbol of renewed white identity and purpose."

*rollseyes*... further reason for what I said earlier where I said I feel like we're due for another "Dark Ages" so to speak.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Buzzwords? He's highly intelligent, well educated and a very impressive thinker. I don't know what his policy agenda is but I do like that he is focused on political reform (we need it badly). As I've already stated, I reserve the right to change my mind and probably will. If he's bad on policy that matters to me I will change my mind.

The charge that I'm trying to diminish Bernie's campaign is ridiculous. I've said that I admire Bernie a million times on here and would have voted for him over Trump with a huge smile on my face. And yes, I'm not on board with 100% of his policies but that's true for every candidate. In fact, I'm worried about some of his policies. But that's ok!

The problem is I don't love Bernie as much as you so you have an immediate reaction to defend him which is weird man. Same seems to be true for AOC (and she is someone that has many unimpressive even down right stupid moments but has very admirable qualities).

It's really annoying and boring to defend my "way too early" rankings to you especially after stating that I will likely change my mind and the candidates are pretty close and there are others I like. It's more like having to defend why I like Aaron Judge over Giancarlo Stanton. Idk man, they're both great and as a Yankees fan I like both players but I have a view on it.

And I really don't want to address it anymore because as I keep repeating - it's too fucking early!!!

Great post.

I think one real difference between Bernie fans and regular left-leaning folks who may or may not prefer Bernie is over the issue of his uniqueness, which is actually similar to a criticism that Krugman had of Obama as a candidate in 2008.

Part of the problem is that if someone's running for president, he needs to convince everyone that he's uniquely well-qualified to do the job, when the reality is that actually enacting policy requires a team of advisers and other employees who will be drawn from the same pool for all candidates in the same party and requires help from members of your party in Congress. In the general, you're really voting for a party rather than an individual. In the primary, you're voting for who can best get the votes in the general and coordinate the team, but few candidates can acknowledge that (JFK did that well in the Nixon debate, when he defended his lack of experience by pointing that out).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I sincerely apologize that I'm "picking on you", I feel that I am to a certain extent, but its really the take on Pete, that many seem to share, including the MSM, that I'm attacking. Its absurd on its face that some guy's CV and a few soundbytes can get this much hype without a single detail about his platform and it comes off very orchestrated.

Note that the MSM *followed* the hype rather than produced it. He got a spike in the polls, and then the MSM started taking him seriously. That happens in every election.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

As someone on the left, I'd dispute the notion that he's the perfect candidate for the left. He has a mix of pluses and minuses, like everyone, and they balance out better than some and worse than others. He's a fine candidate, sufficient to have my vote without the slightest hesitation in the general and among the better primary candidates, but I think there are many candidates who can duplicate his record on policies that I support.

Agreed that perfect is too strong a word, for example his FP could be better. However, he's the best we have and its not even close.
We can't go by sound bytes and platitudes. We have to go by records and 4 years in Congress isn't deep enough.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I just don't see that as a common sentiment at all. I saw some (some) persons, mostly persons of color, say they could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton because of her history on foreign policy and criminal justice, and that voting for her would be a fundamental betrayal of what they aspired to be and have the world be and would be an act of privilege (I'm thinking of a specific friend on the reasoning, the person after whom I crafted my early-account shtick). But they didn't urge others to not support her.

I don't know how common it is, but I think that's what people mean when they worry about purity tests.

I think with regard to Clinton, there might be a generation-gap thing. For those of us old enough to remember Bill's presidency, the notion that Hillary is secretly conservative and responsible for all of Bill's deviations from liberal orthodoxy just seemed mind-bogglingly crazy. By the left and right of the time, she was always perceived as the person pulling him to the left in a kind of tug-of-war with the utterly vile Dick Morris. Seeing both the left and right abandon that in 2016 was one of those moments where you just think, "God damn, some people just really have no honor." But to people with no memory of that, it might have seemed plausible.

Now, that's not to say there isn't a limit on how far right I personally could go, as I don't believe in the Chomsky-esque position on rigid lesser evilism. For instance, if there was an election between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, you can bet I'm voting for a third option.

Hmm. I think that you always gotta vote for the best major-party candidate, unless there's a Perot-like situation where you have someone else that is truly viable.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Agreed that perfect is too strong a word, for example his FP could be better. However, he's the best we have and its not even close.
We can't go by sound bytes and platitudes. We have to go by records and 4 years in Congress isn't deep enough.

I don't know enough about FP to criticize him there, but his age is a serious concern IMO, his kind of model of politics seems wrong to me, some of his statements have been disturbing (why is he entertaining this MMT idiocy?). I don't see this as an absolute weakness of his, but I think in terms of solid policy ideas, Warren has him (and everyone else) beat to hell so it's a relative weakness.

With regard to Buttigieg, there's definitely a form of identity politics going on. For a lot of us, the idea of someone who loves Ulysses, and literature in general, being president is really satisfying. The current president has had more books ghost-written for him than he's actually read, and literally has the writing skills of a 5th grader, which feels like an embarrassment to the country.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

One thing you have to grant me - Pete is far more intelligent and well educated than Bernie, yes?

He has a more elite educational pedigree. Nobody can say for sure if he's actually more intelligent, or by what degree.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't know enough about FP to criticize him there, but his age is a serious concern IMO, his kind of model of politics seems wrong to me, some of his statements have been disturbing (why is he entertaining this MMT idiocy?). I don't see this as an absolute weakness of his, but I think in terms of solid policy ideas, Warren has him (and everyone else) beat to hell so it's a relative weakness.

With regard to Buttigieg, there's definitely a form of identity politics going on. For a lot of us, the idea of someone who loves Ulysses, and literature in general, being president is really satisfying. The current president has had more books ghost-written for him than he's actually read, and literally has the writing skills of a 5th grader, which feels like an embarrassment to the country.

It would be satisfying to have a President hang a framed 1st edition of Amazing Fantasy #15 in the Oval Office, but I'm not going to root for a candidate simply for that reason. It will be nice to not have an idiot in the WH, that is for sure.

 

[Fawlty]

This reads like part 2 to the article @Trotsky posted. There is literally nothing there but political jargon. Its the textual representation of a man with his shirt sleeves rolled up looking tough while sitting in a boardroom.

I don't think it's buzz-wordy to say that not only do we need to reach across the aisle (which would be buzzwordy), but that the ability to deliver in areas of consensus is itself an extremely important indicator for democracy (a philosophical statement), and that a big part of what is holding the Democratic Party back in that area is their tendency to get jerked around by Republicans on those issues, which must be resolved by Democrats getting their own shit together with stronger, more united ideas (a common enough observation that reasonable people spend a lot of time arguing about). He wouldn't be the only serious person saying that stuff, either, though I do like the way he says it.

Speaking to the direction of the party is one of the most important things a candidate can do, as we're literally electing the leader of the party. This is why we wait for him and his team to come up with some proposals that show a command of the issues, innovation, and a way we might implement them, and decide if the party can go along with it. His thinking appears sound, and he speaks with the practice of the mind rather than practice of just the script (he writes his own scripts, so to say, which is not an empty suit quality; that's his work).

He is also a big data guy, which I want my next president to be. This is really important (if they aren't into data, they need their closest people to be - Bernie is weak here).

 

[Sketch]

Burgers cooking, onions sizzling along with them. Bought 16 strong IPA beers, and the onions rings are coming along nicely.

All the meanwhile the freshly laminated 24' by 28' poster I had made of @Fawlty hangs above my stove watching it all go down. The best part? He's drinking a beer in the picture, just like I'm doing now.

 

[LMP]

Burgers cooking, onions sizzling along with them. Bought 16 strong IPA beers, and the onions rings are coming along nicely.

All the meanwhile the freshly laminated 24' by 28' poster I had made of @Fawlty hangs above my stove watching it all go down. The best part? He's drinking a beer in the picture, just like I'm doing now.

You are one of those guys that drink IPA beer?

 

[Sketch]

You are one of those guys that drink IPA beer?

Can't handle hard liquor very well right now from abusing it in my trip to Mexico, and I need a strong beer. Only the IPA's up here are strong enough 7-8 percent minimum.

 

[LMP]

Can't handle hard liquor very well right now from abusing it in my trip to Mexico, and I need a strong beer. Only the IPA's up here are strong enough 7-8 percent minimum.

 

[Lead]

Can't handle hard liquor very well right now from abusing it in my trip to Mexico, and I need a strong beer. Only the IPA's up here are strong enough 7-8 percent minimum.

What did you have in Mexico?

 

[Fawlty]

Burgers cooking, onions sizzling along with them. Bought 16 strong IPA beers, and the onions rings are coming along nicely.

All the meanwhile the freshly laminated 24' by 28' poster I had made of @Fawlty hangs above my stove watching it all go down. The best part? He's drinking a beer in the picture, just like I'm doing now.

I can live with this. And that sounds delicious.

 

[Sketch]

What did you have in Mexico?

What didn't I have?