War Room Lounge v51: A Total Non-Starter

[Fawlty]

Spoiler: Links to past lounge freds

v1
v2
v3
v4
v5
v6
v7
v8
v9
v10
v11
v12
v13
v14
v15
v16
v17
v18
v19
v20
v21
v22
v23
v24
v25
v26
v27
v28
v29
v29.5
v30
v31
v32
v33
v34
v35
v36
v37
v38
v39
v40
v41
v42
v43
v44
v45
v46
v47
v48
v49
v50

For maybe the first time in my posting history, I'm recommending Trevor Noah segments (debate recaps) because they're pretty entertaining if not comprehensive:






Mod Note: This thread is for general conversation and any other conversations to avoid derails in regular threads. If you find yourself going off topic in a thread, please quote the person's post, come in here, click insert quote, and continue on in here. This is also still the War Room. Do not expect OT/Bare Knuckles rules in here.


Odd Note:
"
We have memorized America,
how it was born and who we have been and where.
In ceremonies and silence we say the words,
telling the stories, singing the old songs.
We like the places they take us. Mostly we do.
The great and all the anonymous dead are there.
We know the sound of all the sounds we brought.
The rich taste of it is on our tongues.
But where are we going to be, and why, and who?
The disenfranchised dead want to know.
We mean to be the people we meant to be,
to keep on going where we meant to go.
"
― Miller Williams


"Time to go down to the basement for some more hauntingly delicious...daily tracking polls!”
― Count Chocula

 

[abiG]

 

[abiG]

The Drudge Report political website posted a surprising instant poll showing that its visitors believed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was the overwhelming victor of the first Democratic presidential debate, polling at almost 35% with 12,314 votes.

Her closest competitor was Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who was polling at just under 13.5% and 4,791 votes. Julián Castro of Texas and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey were polling the lowest with less than 5% each.

Tulsi Gabbard also won the Washington Examiner poll. by a strikingly similar margin - 34.15% for the Hawaii congresswoman and 23.06% for Warren.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tulsi-gabbard-winning-first-democratic-debate

 

[Fawlty]

aggro like whoa bro

aggro

 

[Jack V Savage]

Poll's broken. Only allows one vote.

 

[Fawlty]

Poll's broken. Only allows one vote.

Thanks, should be good now

 

[MiniCraque]

Why is Yang a non-starter to you?

 

[Lead]

The Drudge Report political website posted a surprising instant poll showing that its visitors believed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was the overwhelming victor of the first Democratic presidential debate, polling at almost 35% with 12,314 votes.

Her closest competitor was Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who was polling at just under 13.5% and 4,791 votes. Julián Castro of Texas and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey were polling the lowest with less than 5% each.

Tulsi Gabbard also won the Washington Examiner poll. by a strikingly similar margin - 34.15% for the Hawaii congresswoman and 23.06% for Warren.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tulsi-gabbard-winning-first-democratic-debate

How many presidential cycles are you guys going to post nonscientific internet polls and assume it has any value. Tell me about how Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential term went and Bernie’s 2016 term.

 

[Quipling]

Why is Yang a non-starter to you?

His one answer that I remember was bad.

Also a-b testing is a terrible way to develop policy.

 

[abiG]

How many presidential cycles are you guys going to post nonscientific internet polls and assume it has any value. Tell me about how Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential term went and Bernie’s 2016 term.

Didn't team Hildawg screw over Bernie?

 

[Fawlty]

Why is Yang a non-starter to you?

He seems terribly unprepared, and while my opinion of him has gone up a bit (I think he's a brilliant person), his proposals are too disorganized and shallow, and some have deep problems like his News and Information Ombudsman, which may be unconstitutional and at least problematic for the free press. That's not to say he shouldn't be in the next administration, but he is not ready to be the head executive. A guy with no experience in government has to be amazing basically across the board.

 

[Sketch]

He seems terribly unprepared, and while my opinion of him has gone up a bit (I think he's a brilliant person), his proposals are too disorganized and shallow, and some have deep problems like his News and Information Ombudsman, which may be unconstitutional and at least problematic for the free press. That's not to say he shouldn't be in the next administration, but he is not ready to be the head executive. A guy with no experience in government has to be amazing basically across the board.

You're not fooling anyone. That 1000 dollars a month would be massive for you.

 

[MiniCraque]

His one answer that I remember was bad.

Also a-b testing is a terrible way to develop policy.

I think non-starter implies problems observed before the debate. I think he did ok-ish, certainly was outshined by people like PB and Harris.

He seems terribly unprepared, and while my opinion of him has gone up a bit (I think he's a brilliant person), his proposals are too disorganized and shallow, and some have deep problems like his News and Information Ombudsman, which may be unconstitutional and at least problematic for the free press. That's not to say he shouldn't be in the next administration, but he is not ready to be the head executive. A guy with no experience in government has to be amazing basically across the board.

Yeah this makes sense. The Ombudsman thing was weird and half-baked. Probably an attempt at a crowd pleaser considering how important the fake news topic is for Dems. I think it's not in his page anymore.

I don't like the focus on automation. Not something that should be ignored on the policy side but it shouldn't be the main reason for UBI nor is it the quintessential threat to the working class imo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He seems terribly unprepared, and while my opinion of him has gone up a bit (I think he's a brilliant person), his proposals are too disorganized and shallow, and some have deep problems like his News and Information Ombudsman, which may be unconstitutional and at least problematic for the free press. That's not to say he shouldn't be in the next administration, but he is not ready to be the head executive. A guy with no experience in government has to be amazing basically across the board.

Another thing is that the underlying rationale behind his signature policy is wrong, IMO. It's odd that while the entire developed world is in the midst of a very long-term slowdown in productivity growth (which is bad, BTW), people see a potential massive increase in productivity growth (which would be good, though if it were really massive, there could be adjustment issues) as a major concern.

I think people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that these things can both be true:

1. New technology is super cool and pushing the boundaries of what we thought possible.
2. The incremental impact of new technology growth on our lives is much smaller than that of earlier, less-impressive technology (like electrification and the internal combustion engine).

Probably no advance in medical science in the past 50 years has had as much impact on people's lives as having doctors clean their hands, the FDA, ensuring that water that comes out of pipes isn't contaminating, or other innovations along those lines.

 

[Lead]

Didn't team Hildawg screw over Bernie?

There’s debate about super delegates but she didn’t win more of the popular vote and delegates based on those votes then Bernie

 

[Fawlty]

I don't like the focus on automation. Not something that should be ignored on the policy side but it shouldn't be the main reason for UBI nor is it the quintessential threat to the working class imo.

I don't understand the issue well enough, mostly because I can't predict what the landscape is going to look like as we maximize automation, how many jobs we'll actually lose, and how people will be employed or what new industries pop up. So I can't even say where it should rank as a focus.

 

[Fawlty]

Another thing is that the underlying rationale behind his signature policy is wrong, IMO. It's odd that while the entire developed world is in the midst of a very long-term slowdown in productivity growth (which is bad, BTW), people see a potential massive increase in productivity growth (which would be good, though if it were really massive, there could be adjustment issues) as a major concern.

I think people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that these things can both be true:

1. New technology is super cool and pushing the boundaries of what we thought possible.
2. The incremental impact of new technology growth on our lives is much smaller than that of earlier, less-impressive technology (like electrification and the internal combustion engine).

Probably no advance in medical science in the past 50 years has had as much impact on people's lives as having doctors clean their hands, the FDA, ensuring that water that comes out of pipes isn't contaminating, or other innovations along those lines.

That's been true since fire and the wheel, but maybe it's daunting (or the inverse of daunting) for us as we realize that we're maxxing out computing capabilities and some other things with diminishing returns. What if there's no next breakthrough? But I don't understand how that plays into Yang's strong emphasis on making up for the changes due to automation.

 

[Fawlty]

I think non-starter implies problems observed before the debate.

I'm using it kind of loosely. I'd define it as "somebody I'm intentionally not considering at all, or have now written off."

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's been true since fire and the wheel, but maybe it's daunting (or the inverse of daunting) for us as we realize that we're maxxing out computing capabilities and some other things with diminishing returns. What if there's no next breakthrough? But I don't understand how that plays into Yang's strong emphasis on making up for the changes due to automation.

Because he's arguing that automation is taking our jerbs or soon will be, while the bigger problem is that we don't have enough automation (as a stand-in for general technology-based productivity growth).

Also, minor quibble, but I don't think it's been true since fire and the wheel. Really significant change in living standards started in the 1800s and then started petering out in the mid-to-late 1900s. For most of human history before that, there really wasn't much improvement.

 

[waiguoren]

@Limbo Pete

I was thinking of you just now as I inspected my long, thick cucumber.