War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Islam Imamate]

That was bad (and frankly should have ended Brazile's public life). But let's say that the extra prep time on that question gave Clinton a 5-point bump in the polls. She still wins by 7 points without it.

Oh I agree, as I said before I don't think it made the difference and if Sanders was an irresistible candidate it wouldn't have mattered.

But the point is it shows who was the preferred candidate of the party and that at least one action was taken to give her an advantage. And who is to say that there weren't other such efforts that didn't get caught? Again I still think Sanders loses in a theoretically perfectly fair contest but I don't think the primary in 2016 was such a contest.

What does that mean in terms of concrete action that would translate to him getting fucked? The nomination isn't decided by reading the body language of the DNC. It's decided by votes.

Well there is the case of Brazile but I'm sure you mean aside from that. And to that I concede I don't have a great answer.

I will say that it would lead me to believe that in any situation where the biased individuals that make make up the party machinery have any sort of discretion that can have any sort of impact, however small, on the campaign they will come down on the side of Clinton. At the end of the day an organization like a politcal party is made up of the people who man it and their decisions and their self admitted biases can give us a clue as to the kinds of decisions they make. Again, how many actions like Donna Brazile's were taken that weren't caught? We'll never know, we only know that what she did and that other people in the party also preferred Clinton and could thus be motivated to act similarly even if they ultimately didn't.

That's pretty vague so if you don't pay it much mind then fair enough.

"Bias" in the sense that people working in the DNC might have preferred Clinton? Sure. Bias in the sense of Sanders being fucked in the election? How? The charge seems utterly nonsensical to me.

Fucked in the sense that he would've won otherwise? I agree, not likely. Clinton was the favorite for a reason. Fucked in the sense that he was unfairly treated? I think so. At the very least we have the leaking of the debate questions to Clinton.

I think that the emails are legitimate, but the way they were presented was incredibly dishonest, and designed to produce exactly the impact that it did produce. After the releases, Trump and the right generally were saying that the election was rigged and that Bernie shouldn't support Clinton, and many people uncritically swallowed a ridiculous narrative. If a hostile party has complete access to anyone's email history, they can use that to stir up dissension.

Fair and as I said I think calling the primary rigged is not accurate.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that people whose primary focus is the party winning in the general have to like it.

Fair enough

That's not my argument. My argument is that people's genuine feelings are being manipulated and/or that internal conflicts are clouding their judgment (for example True Progressives have hatred of the Democratic Party as an important part of their self-identification, and that naturally leads them to oppose the nominee or frontrunner, which they find different reasons to justify).

Okay sure.

Nevertheless the implication is accurate. It absolutely was a rout, and the only "shenanigans" that could have had any impact was the leaked question, and the likely impact of that was far too small to be measured (actually negative since it became known). You know what I think of the "if you don't count voters who voted for the other guy, my candidate would have won" arguments.

I think that it's important to get this right because by accepting the ridiculous claim that Bernie was screwed out of the nomination, we open the door to thinking that if he loses again, that is proof he was screwed and that we should, as I say, shit on the provisions.

Well I would agree that he would've lost anyway but I think people are right to feel that the DNC was not fair with Bernie, whether or not it made a difference in the end, and to be unhappy about it then and skeptical about whether they'll be fair with him now.

 

[Lead]

You ever feel like making a topical thread, then balk when you get to the effort part because you're not in the mood to wade through borderline retarded arguments?

That's me right now.

Be the change you want to see in the world

It’s not the critic who counts

Don’t shit on rabbits and in the water supply and then accuse one of hiding the Pepsi and bacon

Take this eternal wisdom

 

[Fawlty]

Why does the DNC have to "be fair" to an Independent who is trying to take over the party and change its core values?

 

[Falsedawn]

Be the change you want to see in the world

It’s not the critic who counts

Don’t shit on rabbits and in the water supply and then accuse one of hiding the Pepsi and bacon

Take this eternal wisdom

I've made enough meticulously sourced threads that were met with "lol" to know better.

It doesn't help that my true points of expertise might as well be magic to some people. Technology is the great divider.

 

[Falsedawn]

Why does the DNC have to "be fair" to an Independent who is trying to take over the party and change its core values?

Because they're a center right party with a left wing base that they desperately want to hold on to.

 

[Trotsky]

The Rogan appearances play the biggest part in that, her "both sides" crap plays very well in this subforum, she talks shit about Democrats nonstop, wants everyone to forget about the Mueller report, and she's eerily fond of dictators. I think all of that makes her popularity on this sub...intersectional...if I can be a bit of a dick about it. Also the Muslim thing.

I also think she does have an ultra-left perspective (left of my own) on how to view society and how to treat political opponents. She reminds me of the socialists that are always reprimanding insults toward poor white racists because "they're still human beings, even if their politics suck" and so on. And I think she can get by with that sort of libertarianism partially because of her military background.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I promised myself I'd give Tulsi's Rogan appearance an honest listen, and she still sounded like vapid populist AIDS. Sorry.

What's the most egregious thing she said on there? Or is that it was mostly a lot of nothingburgers?

What I want to know is why she's even a thing here. I guess it's radio shows/podcasts? The media I consume doesn't even notice her existence, but in the WR, she's everywhere.

Some good answers so far but in her defense she does also call out some unpopular aspects of our foreign policy like the alliance with Saudi Arabia. That might not be unrelated to what @Higus was getting at, about being less accommodating to Muslims, but the reality is that some of our foreign policy is pretty unpopular to many Americans and criticizing that as part of your campaign isn't a bad strategy.

Also she was in the military, maybe that makes some difference.

 

[Fawlty]

What's the most egregious thing she said on there? Or is that it was mostly a lot of nothingburgers?

Some good answers so far but in her defense she does also call out some unpopular aspects of our foreign policy like the alliance with Saudi Arabia. That might not be unrelated to what @Higus was getting at, about being less accommodating to Muslims, but the reality is that some of our foreign policy is pretty unpopular to many Americans and criticizing that as part of your campaign isn't a bad strategy.

Also she was in the military, maybe that makes some difference.

Right out of the gate, with the ridiculously simplistic "Iraq was a war for oil" trope. Lots of empty talk and folksy talk, lots of agreeing with Rogan about every single thing, and a healthy dose of "the Internet should be a utility" nonsense.

 

[Fawlty]

Because they're a center right party with a left wing base that they desperately want to hold on to.

I get that there is a lot of pressure from the farther-left progressive faction, but it's not unreasonable for a party to defend itself from an outsider, at least to the degree it was actually done vs. the degree of super llama drama the left has generated over it.

 

[PEB]

 

[JDragon]

So I would like to weigh in on the topic of STEM vs. social sciences and whether you can 'self-teach' your way into being a social scientist.

The short answer is: yes, you can. You might even build a career off of it. Chances are you will not be very good or respected, though.

I worked with a couple of peace researchers back in university. Actually these guys were nuclear physicists who understood the whole proliferation issues down to the atoms, literally. They had their own institute and they were publishing articles on all topics regarding technological impact assessment and specifically arma control and dual-use technology. The thing is, they sucked at the social science part of things. My professor for my masters thesis, on the other hand, was a pure political scientist but had understood the need to get a good grasp of all the technological aspects in order to be able to discuss these matters on eye level with physicists and military.

Social sciences are also social in the sense that they do not replicate the one true reality like natural science aim to do. Analyzing international relations can be done in a huge number of ways, and none of them are necessarily wrong, they just have different amounts of empirical and theoretical support. Similar to WR discussions in that sense. Same thing with history. People invoke a large number of methods, and despite applying research frameworks rigorously, the outcomes are often differing. The very process of discussing research results of crucial for all scientific fields, but social sciences especially rely on it. And this discussion process needs people who are well-versed in all empirical and methodological aspects.

Tl;dr: yes, you can in theory self-teach yourself into being a social scientist, but chances are you are gonna suck

 

[sickc0d3r]

Suck it, losers! I'm pretty sure Tulsi's popularity around here is not about secretly hating mooslims and loving the racisms. Well, not JUST about those things.

I'd say the common War Room poster tends to kind of hate your average politician. She breaks the mold a little and checks a lot of the boxes for left leaning posters around here (and I guess some righties like that she's military and once said "Muslim extremists", but they're abandoning her as they learn her position on gun laws). Anyway, she's not wonky enough for me at this point which is why I prefer Warren, but she's got time. At least she's talking about issues that I personally care about.

 

[PEB]

Suck it, losers! I'm pretty sure Tulsi's popularity around here is not about secretly hating mooslims and loving the racisms. Well, not JUST about those things.

I'd say the common War Room poster tends to kind of hate your average politician. She breaks the mold a little and checks a lot of the boxes for left leaning posters around here (and I guess some righties like that she's military and once said "Muslim extremists", but they're abandoning her as they learn her position on gun laws). Anyway, she's not wonky enough for me at this point which is why I prefer Warren, but she's got time. At least she's talking about issues that I personally care about.

Her Husband looks like he's filming using the RED camera that's a 50,000 dollar camera setup "Trigger the Trumpters "

 

[Fawlty]

See, I want to like her and can appreciate most of that Twitter sentiment, but at no point does she address her tarpaulin-like prepuce and its resemblance to ET's blanket.

 

[Higus]

See, I want to like her and can appreciate most of that Twitter sentiment, but at no point does she address her tarpaulin-like prepuce and its resemblance to ET's blanket.

...bruh.

 

[Fawlty]

...bruh.

Sorry, that's a sensitive topic and I should treat it more gently.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

The whole thing with Tulsi is weird for me, as far as being objective goes. She’s friendly with my wife, so we obviously wish her well. Also we’d obviously vote for her over Trump, but she’s not the favorite candidate for either of us.

What’s the story with her being less friendly to Muslims? Obviously Muslims aren’t a large portion of her constituents here in Hawaii, but has she been antagonistic in any way?

I get the former LGBT issues, but her being strongly Hindu doesn’t mean she’s automatically against Muslims. Is it the Assad thing?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh I agree, as I said before I don't think it made the difference and if Sanders was an irresistible candidate it wouldn't have mattered.

But the point is it shows who was the preferred candidate of the party and that at least one action was taken to give her an advantage. And who is to say that there weren't other such efforts that didn't get caught? Again I still think Sanders loses in a theoretically perfectly fair contest but I don't think the primary in 2016 was such a contest.

Preferred by some people in the party, yes. Though note that Brazile implied that she provided help to O'Malley and Sanders too (in a couple of interviews).

I will say that it would lead me to believe that in any situation where the biased individuals that make make up the party machinery have any sort of discretion that can have any sort of impact, however small, on the campaign they will come down on the side of Clinton. At the end of the day an organization like a politcal party is made up of the people who man it and their decisions and their self admitted biases can give us a clue as to the kinds of decisions they make. Again, how many actions like Donna Brazile's were taken that weren't caught? We'll never know, we only know that what she did and that other people in the party also preferred Clinton and could thus be motivated to act similarly even if they ultimately didn't.

That's pretty vague so if you don't pay it much mind then fair enough.

I think that it's unrealistic to expect that workers won't have preferences, but we should expect them not to do anything unethical in the service of those preferences. We really have one example of that second expectation being violated, and it really didn't matter to the campaign. So I think the narrative advanced by Trump/Wikileaks/the True Left is just flatly false or at least lacking evidence and plausibility.

Well I would agree that he would've lost anyway but I think people are right to feel that the DNC was not fair with Bernie, whether or not it made a difference in the end, and to be unhappy about it then and skeptical about whether they'll be fair with him now.

I think the whole underlying basis that the DNC is a "center-right" organization that hates Bernie because he's a True Progressive or a threat to capital is wrong. I do believe that they wanted him to get out once it was clear that he couldn't win because they thought it would hurt Clinton in the general, though. And I'd expect that that would be their angle at all times (wanting the nominee--whomever it is--to win the general election).

 

[Higus]

The whole thing with Tulsi is weird for me, as far as being objective goes. She’s friendly with my wife, so we obviously wish her well. Also we’d obviously vote for her over Trump, but she’s not the favorite candidate for either of us.

What’s the story with her being less friendly to Muslims? Obviously Muslims aren’t a large portion of her constituents here in Hawaii, but has she been antagonistic in any way?

I get the former LGBT issues, but her being strongly Hindu doesn’t mean she’s automatically against Muslims. Is it the Assad thing?

I'd say that most of the anti-muslim stuff is perception rather than objective reality. But then again, perception IS reality in politics. Euphemisms are powerful in politics, and her zeal against terrorism is easily co-opted by Islamophobes.

She's been pretty hawkish, especially in regards to anti-terror positions. She's used some divisive rhetoric in the past, describing them as "the enemy". There was a news cycle when a bunch of conservatives were in a manufactured outrage tizzy about Obama not using the specific phrase "radical Islam" to describe terrorists, and she was notably the only democrat in that dog pile. That's just off the top of my head.

 

[PubliusVentidius]

"Not only did [60 of the Fortune 500 companies] pay no taxes but many of them claimed refunds, which they got. How much? $4.3 billion dollars of your taxes that you paid were sent back to these companies who paid no taxes at all during the same year. Total amount of money they earned on which they paid no taxes: $79 billion. Add to that $4.3 billion of refunds. This is a perverse tax code."