Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-17-2022, 02:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Perhaps "unintelligent" was too strong a term. I'm sure she is at least average, did her job in the military. I found her
the least impressive during the primary debates, and her interviews with Carlson after that did not improve my sense 
of her judgment.

First off, fair enough.  Less impressive than Harris?  Again, it's rather clear your biases are clouding your objectivity here.

Quote:And I don't recall ever hearing Cori Bush speak, but there could very well be Democrats I'd consider less intelligent if
I head them.

I would be seriously concerned if that wasn't the case.

Quote:If you want to make your point effective, then you could 

You are aware that this is the kind of pedantry that makes people not want to debate with you, right?

Quote:1) disagree with the criteria that I have put forth, and post other independent standards to show she meets them.

I did disagree with your assessment of her being unintelligent.  Anyone who hears her speak and comes to that conclusion has, again IMO, serious bias.  More directly, I have never heard her speak and thought to myself that this is an unintelligent person.  I have come to that conclusion multiple times with AOC, Bush and Waters.  I could add MTG, Palin and Bobert to that list as well.  Or that congressman who thought Guam would tip over.  There are a multiple people who are clearly unintelligent in Congress, I just don't see how anyone could conclude that gabbard was one of them.

Quote:2) or explain how she fits the standards I have put forth--e.g., knowledge of policy/law, and judgment. 
e.g., where is the good judgment in joining the party currently weaponizing the state against opponents,
on grounds the party holding their leaders responsible is actually weaponizing the state for political purposes?

If there is "partisanship" in my judgement, you should be able to specify it, not just SAY it's there because I disagree
with yours. 

I did, apparently not to your satisfaction, which is, unfortunately, less than surprising.  Intelligence, or rather the perception of it, is partially subjective.  Maybe you could provide an example of her being "unintelligent" that led you to your conclusion?  Especially as you are the one making the claim here.

[Dill]

(10-17-2022, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First off, fair enough.  Less impressive than Harris?  Again, it's rather clear your biases are clouding your objectivity here.
I would be seriously concerned if that wasn't the case.

I'm not terribly impressed with Harris. But yes, less "impressive" than Harris, by the standards and examples I have given.

(10-17-2022, 02:41 PM)Quote:If you want to make your point effective, then you could Wrote: You are aware that this is the kind of pedantry that makes people not want to debate with you, right?

"Pedantry" is obsessive concern with minor details or rules, according to my online dictionary.
I don't think asking for standards and examples is digressing into "minor details" here any more than
asking for evidence that fits evidentiary protocols in a courtroom would be.  
If we don't do that, then people are just trading impressions, all equally valid.

One of the problems with the current climate of political debate is that people DON"T measure actions and
words against non-partisan standards. I am aware that some don't like going that route of accountability. 
But why should they be in the right about this and I in the wrong? Why is offering impressions and JUST SAYING 
superior to demonstration? You don't find it so when arguing 2nd Amendment issues. Why do you in this case? 

(10-17-2022, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:1) disagree with the criteria that I have put forth, and post other independent standards to show she meets them.

I did disagree with your assessment of her being unintelligent.  Anyone who hears her speak and comes to that conclusion has, again IMO, serious bias.  More directly, I have never heard her speak and thought to myself that this is an unintelligent person.  I have come to that conclusion multiple times with AOC, Bush and Waters.  I could add MTG, Palin and Bobert to that list as well.  Or that congressman who thought Guam would tip over.  There are a multiple people who are clearly unintelligent in Congress, I just don't see how anyone could conclude that gabbard was one of them.

Quote:2) or explain how she fits the standards I have put forth--e.g., knowledge of policy/law, and judgment. 

e.g., where is the good judgment in joining the party currently weaponizing the state against opponents,

on grounds the party holding their leaders responsible is actually weaponizing the state for political purposes?
If there is "partisanship" in my judgement, you should be able to specify it, not just SAY it's there because I disagree

with yours. 

I did, apparently not to your satisfaction, which is, unfortunately, less than surprising.  Intelligence, or rather the perception of it, is partially subjective.  Maybe you could provide an example of her being "unintelligent" that led you to your conclusion?  Especially as you are the one making the claim here.

No, JUST SAYING I am "partisan" because I think Tulsi not that smart and you think she is, is not specification.  

I did offer an "example" which led me to question her intelligence and judgment--her decision to switch parties on the grounds that Dems were "weaponizing the security state against their opponents."  To that I could add her claim the Dem party is an "elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness." That's in the same ball park as Guam tipping over. There is no logically consistent, non-partisan path from evidence to her conclusions, as there is to, say, the conclusion that Trump weaponized the executive to go after enemies and keep himself in power. Hers are unsubstantiated impressions. Best you could say here is that Gabbard is "smart" because she knows this is what the CPAC audience wants to hear. But why is it smart to go that route? Because she was dead as a candidate in the Dem party? 

That you listen to Gabbard and think she is intelligent and listen to others and think they are not, doesn't establish that my judgment is "partisan," especially given the effort I've put into appealing to non-partisan standards--or what used to be such standards, pre-Gingrich--and the effort you put into avoiding them as "pedantry," keeping disagreement a battle of impressions.

The best way to refute me, under the standards given, is as I said before--show me the standards for judgment are wrong, or show how they don't apply to Gabbard because she has a deep understanding of policy and principles and shows good judgment, e.g., the ability to recognize and prioritize real problems and policy solutions.  

So far, you are just asking me 1) to trust your ability tell who is or is not intelligent by your hearing them, not by standing what they say against any "pedantic" external measures, and 2) to assume my failure to buy such impressions given their clash with already noted standards indicates partisanship. Just does.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-17-2022, 04:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not terribly impressed with Harris. But yes, less "impressive" than Harris, by the standards and examples I have given.

Yeah, this opinion makes me think far less of your position on this issue, dramatically so.  Harris is one of the most insipid, vacuous and insincere politicians I have seen in my lifetime.

Quote:"Pedantry" is obsessive concern with minor details or rules, according to my online dictionary.
I don't think asking for standards and examples is digressing into "minor details" here any more than
asking for evidence that fits evidentiary protocols in a courtroom would be.  
If we don't do that, then people are just trading impressions, all equally valid.

I think you'll find that my issue is with your tone and choice of words, not your desire for elaboration.

Quote:One of the problems with the current climate of political debate is that people DON"T measure actions and
words against non-partisan standards. I am aware that some don't like going that route of accountability. 
But why should they be in the right about this and I in the wrong? Why is offering impressions and JUST SAYING 
superior to demonstration? You don't find it so when arguing 2nd Amendment issues. Why do you in this case? 

Because here we are dealing in subjective opinion.  When I argue 2A issues I do so from an objective, fact based, position.  Debating the perceived intelligence of a person is always going to be subjective, even if it's regarding a matter of degree of intelligence/unintelligence.

Quote:No, JUST SAYING I am "partisan" because I think Tulsi not that smart and you think she is, is not specification.  

What I'm saying is that, to me, she is obviously not unintelligent to the degree that finding her so makes me question the motives of the person making that claim.  You have shown yourself to be firmly entrenched on the far left, to the point that I honestly can't recall a position you hold that could be considered right of center (even in Europe).  This logically leads me to conclude that your issued with Gabbard, i.e. finding her "unintelligent", is, at the very least to a significant extent, based on her political leanings.

Quote:I did offer an "example" which led me to question her intelligence and judgment--her decision to switch parties on the grounds that Dems were "weaponizing the security state against their opponents."  To that I could add her claim the Dem party is an "elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness." That's in the same ball park as Guam tipping over. There is no logically consistent, non-partisan path from evidence to her conclusions, as there is to, say, the conclusion that Trump weaponized the executive to go after enemies and keep himself in power. Hers are unsubstantiated impressions. Best you could say here is that Gabbard is "smart" because she knows this is what the CPAC audience wants to hear. But why is it smart to go that route? Because she was dead as a candidate in the Dem party? 

Interesting.  You don't see any issue with the Dem stance on war/foreign intervention?  For all his myriad faults Trump kept us largely away from military engagement, the, fully justified IMO, assassination of Qasem Soleimani being an obvious exception.  I certainly agree that the war in Ukraine was not caused by Biden, at least not directly.  One could certainly make the argument that US policy towards Russia in the 21st century was/is a major contributor towards it, of which Biden was no small contributor either as a senator, VP or POTUS, but it was not a direct cause.  But his response to it can absolutely be viewed through the lens that Gabbard uses, especially his reaction to the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Quote:That you listen to Gabbard and think she is intelligent and listen to others and think they are not, doesn't establish that my judgment is "partisan," especially given the effort I've put into appealing to non-partisan standards--or what used to be such standards, pre-Gingrich--and the effort you put into avoiding them as "pedantry," keeping disagreement a battle of impressions.

Yeah, I already addressed this above, so no need to repeat.

Quote:The best way to refute me, under the standards given, is as I said before--show me the standards for judgment are wrong, or show how they don't apply to Gabbard because she has a deep understanding of policy and principles and shows good judgment, e.g., the ability to recognize and prioritize real problems and policy solutions.  

Show you that your subjective standards are wrong?  I'm afraid that would require an openness to different points of view/arguments that you have never demonstrated on this board.  After all, I cannot prove you "wrong" as your position is pure opinion.  Of course you think it is buttressed by fact, but it is, more accurately, your perception of her that you have cemented in your mind as factual.  

Quote:So far, you are just asking me 1) to trust your ability tell who is or is not intelligent by your hearing them, not by standing what they say against any "pedantic" external measures, and 2) to assume my failure to buy such impressions given their clash with already noted standards indicates partisanship. Just does.  

I'm not asking you anything, I'm wholly disagreeing with your assessment of Gabbard for reasons already given.  I am especially unimpressed by your appraisal of her as the "most unintelligent" member of the Democratic party at the national level given the myriad superior choices available in that regard.  It demonstrated, as I've said, a clear bias against her by you.  There are Dem politicians that are clearly unintelligent, as is true with the GOP.  That you not only lump Gabbard in that group, but declare her the most unintelligent example, demonstrates that you're not reasonable enough on this issue to even attempt a discussion. You have your position, I find it absurd.  I suppose there's no need to discuss it beyond that for reasons already given.

[Dill]

(10-17-2022, 05:23 PM)Quote:No, JUST SAYING I am "partisan" because I think Tulsi not that smart and you think she is, is not specification. Wrote: What I'm saying is that, to me, she is obviously not unintelligent to the degree that finding her so makes me question the motives of the person making that claim.  You have shown yourself to be firmly entrenched on the far left, to the point that I honestly can't recall a position you hold that could be considered right of center (even in Europe).  This logically leads me to conclude that your issued with Gabbard, i.e. finding her "unintelligent", is, at the very least to a significant extent, based on her political leanings.

Why didn't I find McConnell "unintelligent" then, based on his political leanings, given that I have shown myself "firmly entrenched on the far left"? 

It's because I posited standards of knowledge, competence and judgment independent of right or left, and which could be met by either side. And I then applied them to statements Gabbard actually made, as I did to McConnell's statements and actions, coming to a different conclusion in her case because of a difference in quality.

She went Republican because it's the Dems who "weaponize the security state." It's a fact she said that, not my subjective impression. And the validity of such claims can be tested against factual, not subjective, grounds.

But you discard the argument I actually made to "logically" conclude that my beef must solely be with her "political leanings," not what such poor and factually ungrounded judgement reveals about her low ability to assess political events and positions. 

You argue from my political stance to claim that is what I am doing to Gabbard--i.e., arguing from her political stance to a desired conclusion, according to no other standard.

And anyway measurement of intelligence is all "subjective" you say. Except it is "objective" enough for you not only to decide which pols are smarter or dumber, but also to claim those who disagree with your assessments lose "credibility."  How could they, unless assessment of some objective state of affairs were at stake?  Without some independent measurement, no one's "opinion" is any more credible than anyone else's.

And from that you conclude that I--the guy working to set judgment on politically neutral standards that are not merely subjective--am "not reasonable enough to even attempt a discussion." 

[Dill]

(10-17-2022, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I did offer an "example" which led me to question her intelligence and judgment--her decision to switch parties on the grounds that Dems were "weaponizing the security state against their opponents."  To that I could add her claim the Dem party is an "elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness." That's in the same ball park as Guam tipping over. There is no logically consistent, non-partisan path from evidence to her conclusions, as there is to, say, the conclusion that Trump weaponized the executive to go after enemies and keep himself in power. Hers are unsubstantiated impressions. Best you could say here is that Gabbard is "smart" because she knows this is what the CPAC audience wants to hear. But why is it smart to go that route? Because she was dead as a candidate in the Dem party? 

Interesting.  You don't see any issue with the Dem stance on war/foreign intervention?  For all his myriad faults Trump kept us largely away from military engagement, the, fully justified IMO, assassination of Qasem Soleimani being an obvious exception.  I certainly agree that the war in Ukraine was not caused by Biden, at least not directly.  One could certainly make the argument that US policy towards Russia in the 21st century was/is a major contributor towards it, of which Biden was no small contributor either as a senator, VP or POTUS, but it was not a direct cause.  But his response to it can absolutely be viewed through the lens that Gabbard uses, especially his reaction to the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Interesting. No doubt Trump would have kept us from protecting Ukraine's sovereignty, if he could. 

One "could" indeed make the argument that US policy towards Russia was/is a major contributor towards Putin's aggression, since I have already done so in this forum.  But that wouldn't make the U.S. leadership who supported it, Republican or Democrat, "warmongers."  That decades long encroachment was not like the invasion of Iraq or the illegal assassination of an Iranian general and other direct applications of military violence.

And sure, Gabbard can "absolutely" view Biden's upholding of international law through a special "lens," a camera obscura that inverts the political world so that the defender of Ukraine's national sovereignty and political freedom is the war monger and the Dems are the party that "weaponizes the security state" against opponents. 

But it's not a "wholly subjective" determination that Trump, not "Democrats," intended to use the DOD to seize ballot boxes, wanted the DOJ to attack political enemies, and to subvert the legal transfer of power to Biden, any more than whether Putin or Biden is the warmonger now is "wholly subjective." 

But anyone adopting that T. Carlson lens slips free of any responsible factual grounding--"it's all subjective"--and becomes enmeshed in all manner of double standards and logical inconsistency.  Smart people don't go there. Gabbard did. 
 
                                     

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-18-2022, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Interesting. No doubt Trump would have kept us from protecting Ukraine's sovereignty, if he could.

I highly doubt that, but I know why thinking that is comforting to you. 

Quote:One "could" indeed make the argument that US policy towards Russia was/is a major contributor towards Putin's aggression, since I have already done so in this forum. 

Yes, it's hardly a unique position as it is a clear and obvious one.  But self congratulations are the best type of congratulations.

Quote:But that wouldn't make the U.S. leadership who supported it, Republican or Democrat, "warmongers."  That decades long encroachment was not like the invasion of Iraq or the illegal assassination of an Iranian general and other direct applications of military violence.

No, that on its own would not be sufficient to earn that label, agreed.  Also, how is killing a known international terrorist "illegal"?  Was the killing of Osama Bin Laden illegal as well?

Quote:And sure, Gabbard can "absolutely" view Biden's upholding of international law through a special "lens," a camera obscura that inverts the political world so that the defender of Ukraine's national sovereignty and political freedom is the war monger and the Dems are the party that "weaponizes the security state" against opponents. 

That is one way to view it, and the one that is obviously the most palatable to you.  Alas, your opinion on Gabbard is once more just that, your opinion.  You disagree with her, many do not.  But stating your opinion as fact has been you MO in this thread, so continuing to do so is at least consistent.

Quote:But it's not a "wholly subjective" determination that Trump, not "Democrats," intended to use the DOD to seize ballot boxes, wanted the DOJ to attack political enemies, and to subvert the legal transfer of power to Biden, any more than whether Putin or Biden is the warmonger now is "wholly subjective." 

Why are those two things mutually exclusive?  I know it's very easy for you to fall back on "but Trump did X" instead of examining what may be legitimate criticism of your own party.  But Trump's excesses do not excuse those of others, nor do they mitigate them, no matter how much you clearly wish it were otherwise.

Quote:But anyone adopting that T. Carlson lens slips free of any responsible factual grounding--"it's all subjective"--and becomes enmeshed in all manner of double standards and logical inconsistency.  Smart people don't go there. Gabbard did. 

Quote:                                   

Except you've established zero factual basis for your claims of "double standards" and "logical inconsistency".  You disagreeing with her positions does not invalidate them nor validate the labels you choose to slap on her positions.  Nor does going on a show you dislike evidence of anything you claim.  Is everyone who goes on Joy Reid's show a homophobe like her?  You may lack the empathy to understand why people think differently than you, or the wisdom to understand that your opinion isn't automatically correct because it's yours.  I don't know, maybe it's something else, but your position on this is surprisingly strong considering its shaky foundation.

You can feel free to respond, not that you need my permission to do so.  But I personally think we've mined this thread of any possible value.  You have an opinion, that Gabbard is the least intelligent Dem at the national level.  I find that opinion laughable, extremely so.  No need to have long winded conversations beyond that simple acknowledgement.   

[BigPapaKain]

(10-18-2022, 01:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I highly doubt that, but I know why thinking that is comforting to you. 

Not to derail this, but Trump - quite publicly - withheld military aid to Ukraine long before Putin got his panties twisted and invaded.
To think he wouldn't have continued to do so is...well it's something.

[Dill]

(10-18-2022, 02:30 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:-leaving-the-Democratic-Party?I highly doubt that, but I know why thinking that is comforting to you.

Not to derail this, but Trump - quite publicly - withheld military aid to Ukraine long before Putin got his panties twisted and invaded.
To think he wouldn't have continued to do so is...well it's something.

And he quite publicly adored Putin, and other dictators.

So, we can't say for sure WHAT he would have in fact done, but we can infer that would probably not be the best guy
to lead the "free word" in upholding international law and the sovereignty of other nations, neither of which he understood 
or showed much interest in upholding.

Yes. Perhaps he'd have been pushed by Congress, his party, and NATO to respond with some aid

--all the while condemning Putin's "genius." Not committed to stopping a European dictator's aggression. 
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-18-2022, 02:30 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Not to derail this, but Trump - quite publicly - withheld military aid to Ukraine long before Putin got his panties twisted and invaded.
To think he wouldn't have continued to do so is...well it's something.

Yeah, because of the right wing and corrupt Ukrainian government.  It is interesting to see people who used to call Ukraine a haven for far right, even NAZI, actors (see Azov regiment) as well as the most corrupt country in Europe, conveniently forget all of that now.  Not that we shouldn't be helping them against Russia because of that, but it's no less true now then it was then.  Trump also exhorted European nations to increase their military spending due to the Russian threat and warned countries such as Germany about being reliant on Russia for energy.  Not exactly the words and actions of a Russian puppet or sycophant.  He also turned out to be 100% correct.  Unfortunately Hollo can fill us in on how the winter goes for them with energy rationing.

You are certainly correct that Trump likes him some authoritarians.  The reasons for this are rather obvious, but for those without the eyes to see it, he sees them as himself running a business, with the final say and ultimate control.  But it's quite a leap to say he'd be sitting on his thumbs over Ukraine, given his past remarks about Russia being a threat both economically (relying on Russian energy) and militarily.


I must say, it is impressive how certain people managed to make this thread about Gabbard another thread on Trump.

[Dill]

(10-18-2022, 01:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But it's not a "wholly subjective" determination that Trump, not "Democrats," intended to use the DOD to seize ballot boxes, wanted the DOJ to attack political enemies, and to subvert the legal transfer of power to Biden, any more than whether Putin or Biden is the warmonger now is "wholly subjective." 

Why are those two things mutually exclusive?  I know it's very easy for you to fall back on "but Trump did X" instead of examining what may be legitimate criticism of your own party.  But Trump's excesses do not excuse those of others, nor do they mitigate them, no matter how much you clearly wish it were otherwise.

Well the claim is not that they are "mutually exclusive," but that we have overwhelming evidence for the one, not the other.

I'm prepared to examine "legitimate criticism of [my] own party," but what Hillary whattabout can equalize an attempted coup? 
What grounds for worrying more about Dems than the coup party?

When Trump won, Hillary conceded and Obama's transition team created guidebooks and the like to help
the incoming Trump team get up to speed, and that team promptly threw them in the waste basket when they arrived at the WH.

When Biden won, Trump refused to concede and sicced a mob on the Capitol. 
So I "fall back on Trump did X" because "X" was his attempt to use the DOJ and DOD to prevent the legitimate winner from taking office. And there is no comparable Dem X. No precedent in U.S. history like that.

What are the "excesses of others" that you think could redeem Tulsi here, create some equivocation which justifies her
embrace of the coup party on the grounds that the party defending rule of law is "weaponizes the security state"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-18-2022, 05:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Well the claim is not that they are "mutually exclusive," but that we have overwhelming evidence for the one, not the other.

My apologies, I'm not having a discussion about Trump.  I'm discussing Gabbard.  I know you can hang your hat on Trump, and little else at the moment, but that's not the purpose of my participation in this thread.

Quote:I'm prepared to examine "legitimate criticism of [my] own party," but what Hillary whattabout can equalize an attempted coup? 
What grounds for worrying more about Dems than the coup party?

Again, this is not a thread about Trump or Hillary, as much as you might wish otherwise.

Quote:When Trump won, Hillary conceded and Obama's transition team created guidebooks and the like to help
the incoming Trump team get up to speed, and that team promptly threw them in the waste basket when they arrived at the WH.

When Biden won, Trump refused to concede and sicced a mob on the Capitol. 
So I "fall back on Trump did X" because "X" was his attempt to use the DOJ and DOD to prevent the legitimate winner from taking office. And there is no comparable Dem X. No precedent in U.S. history like that.

I don't care whether there is a comparable incident involving a Dem.  Your position seems to be that the GOP (as a whole?) instigated 01/06/22 therefore no one should ever leave the Democratic party ever again?  That is mindbendingly stupid.  I wholeheartedly condemned what happened on 01/06, but that doesn't make the Dems any more palatable to me on the issues I dislike them over.  You can be a single issue voter all day, it's certainly your prerogative, but dismissing the intelligence of those who aren't in lockstep with you is a poor look at best.

Quote:What are the "excesses of others" that you think could redeem Tulsi here, create some equivocation which justifies her
embrace of the coup party on the grounds that the party defending rule of law is "weaponizes the security state"?

First, she doesn't need redemption for having an opinion that differs from yours.  Secondly, she's stated her position herself, she hardly needs me to repeat it.  We get it, you disagree with her, which is fine.  But that this, to you, implicates her as a profoundly unintelligent person really undercuts any argument you think you're making.

According to you 01/06 means we should shut this whole forum down, because it means no one should ever not vote for a Democrat again.  Ignore the massive inflation, recession and rampant crime and don't you dare think about voting for someone else because of 01/06 and such.

[hollodero]

(10-18-2022, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, because of the right wing and corrupt Ukrainian government.  It is interesting to see people who used to call Ukraine a haven for far right, even NAZI, actors (see Azov regiment) as well as the most corrupt country in Europe, conveniently forget all of that now.  Not that we shouldn't be helping them against Russia because of that, but it's no less true now then it was then.  Trump also exhorted European nations to increase their military spending due to the Russian threat and warned countries such as Germany about being reliant on Russia for energy.  Not exactly the words and actions of a Russian puppet or sycophant.  He also turned out to be 100% correct.  Unfortunately Hollo can fill us in on how the winter goes for them with energy rationing.

Yeah it's going to get cold.

But I have to add to this depiction that Trump withheld Congress-approved aid to Ukraine because he wanted them to announce fake investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma.  That was his motivation, not the more noble ones that you point out just as those that wanted to defend him on that one did.

Also, sorry for not answering earlier, last days were crazy. I just can add this about Tulsi Gabbard. I didn't think it was particularly smart to associate with Assad, not to mention unlikeable.
Also I for one was way less impressed with her alleged takedown of Harris than you were. I don't think believing one of those is more or less impressive than the other can be used to determine one person's bias. As for her reasons to switch parties, I would say you might be projecting yur own grievances onto her. I don't know her real motives, but I doubt they are rooted in that exact same grievances. 
I'd assume it was a calculated career move. It sure would have helped me to see it otherwise had she not used such cheap talking points like this hostility to faith saying or how she talked about Dems weaponizing the DOJ - a classical Trump defense. I can't really respect someone going down that route.

Oh and there was that one about AOC and MTG...

(10-13-2022, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, AOC is much more subtle about it, but she's no less a radical.  They're both profoundly unintelligent and beholden to ideological talking points.  A rational counterpoint is not something either is prepared to tolerate.

I find it quite possible that both are not exactly open for counterpoints and hence possibly pretty annoying in their convictions. But that's where for me the similarities end. AOC's being radical and crazy is manifested in her making some over the top suggestions in a climate change plan that you don't consider smart. MTG's craziness manifests itself in believing into QAnon and pedophile rings that Trump is out to fight and Jewish space lasers causing forest fires. There's a difference.

[Dill]

(10-18-2022, 06:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My apologies, I'm not having a discussion about Trump.  I'm discussing Gabbard.  I know you can hang your hat on Trump, and little else at the moment, but that's not the purpose of my participation in this thread.

Again, this is not a thread about Trump or Hillary, as much as you might wish otherwise.

I don't care whether there is a comparable incident involving a Dem.  Your position seems to be that the GOP (as a whole?) instigated 01/06/22 therefore no one should ever leave the Democratic party ever again?  That is mindbendingly stupid.  I wholeheartedly condemned what happened on 01/06, but that doesn't make the Dems any more palatable to me on the issues I dislike them over.  You can be a single issue voter all day, it's certainly your prerogative, but dismissing the intelligence of those who aren't in lockstep with you is a poor look at best.

First, she doesn't need redemption for having an opinion that differs from yours.  Secondly, she's stated her position herself, she hardly needs me to repeat it.  We get it, you disagree with her, which is fine.  But that this, to you, implicates her as a profoundly unintelligent person really undercuts any argument you think you're making.

According to you 01/06 means we should shut this whole forum down, because it means no one should ever not vote for a Democrat again.  Ignore the massive inflation, recession and rampant crime and don't you dare think about voting for someone else because of 01/06 and such.

Lol sure. That's what I've argued.  We'll recall this the next time you accuse others of misrepresenting you position.

And I'm actually talking about Gabbard not Trump. You said I've established "zero factual basis for [my] claims of [her] 'double standards' and 'logical inconsistency.'" It's all "subjective" and "my opinion."

So I asked you to confirm whether or not it's "factual" that Trump led a coup against the U.S. gov, weaponizing departments like the DoD and DoJ, and "factual" that Gabbard justified her party switch by publicly proclaiming the Dems were the dangerous "state weaponizing" party and warmongers to boot. 

Or is it only my "opinion" that Trump and the GOP did what they did, and Gabbard said what she said? 

Cuz if it's NOT just MY OPINION then there is a "solid factual basis" that Gabbard committed a massive logical and 
factual inconsistency, an MTG-level inversion of reality, that cannot be erased by any "empathy" or "wisdom" I supposedly lack. 
The question was about Gabbard, not Trump, as much as you might wish otherwise.

So the ball was back in your court.  Subjective dill opinion or objective public facts? 

But the "rational counterpoint" never comes. For, suddenly, after a passionate defense of Trump's supposed prescience regarding Ukraine and explaining away his love for bloody dictators, you are not on this thread to discuss him, and you are not going to "repeat" Gabbard's position--though no one asked you to. 

She doesn't need "redemption" for having a different opinion about who's actually weaponizing some state, and even if Trump did launch a coup it doesn't mean people can't join his party or have to be in lockstep with single issue voters who defend democracy, and to even imply this wonderful woman could be unintelligent itself undercuts my argument. Somehow.  

And you were speaking for everyone again. Wow.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-18-2022, 10:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah it's going to get cold.

I have two friends from San Diego that now live in Berlin.  I'm sincerely worried about them and they're considering coming back to CA for the winter.  I'm pulling for you, brother.

Quote:But I have to add to this depiction that Trump withheld Congress-approved aid to Ukraine because he wanted them to announce fake investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma.  That was his motivation, not the more noble ones that you point out just as those that wanted to defend him on that one did.

Oh, I have no doubt that Trump injected personal reasons into that decision.  But the stated reason was due to corruption.  It also does not negate my point about the left being more than concerned about Ukraine's fascism and corruption and now act like neither ever existed.

Quote:Also, sorry for not answering earlier, last days were crazy. I just can add this about Tulsi Gabbard. I didn't think it was particularly smart to associate with Assad, not to mention unlikeable.

I believe her stated reasons for meeting with Assad were to better understand the situation in Syria.  She is also a consistent opponent of US sponsored regime change, something I would think most posters here would be right on board with.  Finally, thinking of Assad as preferable to an ISIS regime is hardly a radical position.  They both suck, a lot, but one is demonstrably worse

Quote:Also I for one was way less impressed with her alleged takedown of Harris than you were. I don't think believing one of those is more or less impressive than the other can be used to determine one person's bias. As for her reasons to switch parties, I would say you might be projecting yur own grievances onto her. I don't know her real motives, but I doubt they are rooted in that exact same grievances. 
I'd assume it was a calculated career move. It sure would have helped me to see it otherwise had she not used such cheap talking points like this hostility to faith saying or how she talked about Dems weaponizing the DOJ - a classical Trump defense. I can't really respect someone going down that route.

Everything in a political debate is a career move.  The fact that she annihilated Harris for her hypocrisy using actual facts, not slander or inference, is what impressed me.  She ended Harris' bid that night, and we'd never have heard from her again if Biden hadn't resurrected her corpse.

Quote:Oh and there was that one about AOC and MTG...


I find it quite possible that both are not exactly open for counterpoints and hence possibly pretty annoying in their convictions. But that's where for me the similarities end. AOC's being radical and crazy is manifested in her making some over the top suggestions in a climate change plan that you don't consider smart. MTG's craziness manifests itself in believing into QAnon and pedophile rings that Trump is out to fight and Jewish space lasers causing forest fires. There's a difference.

No, you're misunderstanding.  I'm comparing their policy positions.  AOC is, by her own definition, a radical.  She was part of a group that advocates the seizing of the means of production.  For the US this is an insanely radical position.  MTG says crazy shit, hence my stating that AOC is far more subtle with her radicalism, but both are political radicals in comparison to mainstream US thinking.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2022, 01:22 AM)Dill Wrote: Lol sure. That's what I've argued.  We'll recall this the next time you accuse others of misrepresenting you position.

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted it, but if you think that one could not easily infer that based on your arguments on this subject you're delusional.

Quote:And I'm actually talking about Gabbard not Trump.

Quote: You said I've established "zero factual basis for [my] claims of [her] 'double standards' and 'logical inconsistency.'" It's all "subjective" and "my opinion."

So I asked you to confirm whether or not it's "factual" that Trump led a coup against the U.S. gov, weaponizing departments like the DoD and DoJ, and "factual" that Gabbard justified her party switch by publicly proclaiming the Dems were the dangerous "state weaponizing" party and warmongers to boot. 

Or is it only my "opinion" that Trump and the GOP did what they did, and Gabbard said what she said? 

Cuz if it's NOT just MY OPINION then there is a "solid factual basis" that Gabbard committed a massive logical and 
factual inconsistency, an MTG-level inversion of reality, that cannot be erased by any "empathy" or "wisdom" I supposedly lack. 
The question was about Gabbard, not Trump, as much as you might wish otherwise.

So the ball was back in your court.  Subjective dill opinion or objective public facts?

Subjective Dill opinion.  Repeated denials don't impress me, nor do repeated assertions of the same sort.  Repetition does not generate truth.

Quote:But the "rational counterpoint" never comes. For, suddenly, after a passionate defense of Trump's supposed prescience regarding Ukraine

A "passionate defense"?  Seriously?  I'll recall this the next time you accuse others of misrepresenting you position. 

Quote:and explaining away his love for bloody dictators, you are not on this thread to discuss him, and you are not going to "repeat" Gabbard's position--though no one asked you to. 

Hahahaha, you're precious.  Stating obvious reasons why he finds authoritarian leaders attractive is not "explaining away", it's explaining.  This is the problem with extremists like yourself.  You see any comment about an "enemy" to be an endorsement unless it's a full throated attack.  This is why any conversation with you dissolves into circuitous tedium.  You ignore what you can't refute and nitpick to death anything you can.  These past two quotes from you more than adequately demonstrate you are not arguing in good faith.  No logical person could view my statements and come to the conclusions that you just did.

Quote:She doesn't need "redemption" for having a different opinion about who's actually weaponizing some state, and even if Trump did launch a coup it doesn't mean people can't join his party or have to be in lockstep with single issue voters who defend democracy, and to even imply this wonderful woman could be unintelligent itself undercuts my argument. Somehow.

And yet you still have nothing but your subjective opinion on her intelligence.  I'll reiterate, if you listen to her speak on any subject and then listen to Harris and come to the conclusion that Harris is more intelligent then you're outing your own lack of intelligence and nothing more.  Sure, it's subjective, but sometimes subjectivity becomes obvious.  If I ask who is the more beautiful woman, Margot Robbie or Rhea Perlman, I'm asking for your opinion on a subjective criteria.  But if you pick Perlman I'm going to think you're either trolling, insane, an idiot or some mix of those three. 

Quote:And you were speaking for everyone again. Wow.

No, just speaking for me.  And I know I've said this before, but I'm done with this conversation.  Your deliberate mislabeling of my arguments reminded me of why having any discussion with you is less than pleasant.  I know you lack the self awareness to understand this and will just think I'm running away, but I guess I'll just have to live with that.

[Dill]

(10-19-2022, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So I asked you to confirm whether or not it's "factual" that Trump led a coup against the U.S. gov, weaponizing departments like the DoD and DoJ, and "factual" that Gabbard justified her party switch by publicly proclaiming the Dems were the dangerous "state weaponizing" party and warmongers to boot. 

Or is it only my "opinion" that Trump and the GOP did what they did, and Gabbard said what she said?

Subjective Dill opinion.  Repeated denials don't impress me, nor do repeated assertions of the same sort.  Repetition does not generate truth.

Er.  I'm affirming. 

You're denying.  Repeatedly. 

[hollodero]

(10-19-2022, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have two friends from San Diego that now live in Berlin.  I'm sincerely worried about them and they're considering coming back to CA for the winter.  I'm pulling for you, brother.

Thanks. I'll be fine. I'd say most people here see the situation as bad, but not quite as catastrophic as some outside observers make it out to be. For sure, heating is going to be expensive, many people like me will have to restrict themselves on many fronts, but most of our countries are still rich and can afford financial support for most people that are in danger of freezing. Not for all of them, apparently, there will be suffering and there's no making light of that. But there might be a positive within the negative as well, at least for us in the west. The long overdue switch to renewables is accelerated greatly, and the end of these Nordstream pipelines and our dependence on Russian gas actually is to be welcomed. I think in the long run we sure need to be concerned, but not overly afraid.

I understand your concern about your friends, but I'd be cautiously optimistic they will get by. Maybe not while in party mode, but still.

(10-19-2022, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I have no doubt that Trump injected personal reasons into that decision.  But the stated reason was due to corruption.

On that I have a different perception. All the witnesses in the impeachment hearing, namely ambassador Taylor, Gordon Sundland and a Mr. Holmes (maybe I forgot some), testified as much. That the already approved military aid was dependent on Ukraine announcing investigations into Biden. That was officially known (everyone was in the loop, said Sundland) and the one known condition, not a secret motive.

(10-19-2022, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It also does not negate my point about the left being more than concerned about Ukraine's fascism and corruption and now act like neither ever existed.

I can understand why questions about corruption take a backseat given the current situation. Why would anyone slam Selenski with Ukraine's corrupt past right now? I'd say there's a bigger fish to fry currently and going after Selenski about that right now would look quite weird.
Selenski himself might be corrupt or not, but right now that really is of no concern, I'm with the left on that one. And fascism was an issue right after the ill-advised Klitschko revolution, but that was just a certain period of time. Selenski and his staff are distinctly not fascists.

(10-19-2022, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe her stated reasons for meeting with Assad were to better understand the situation in Syria.  She is also a consistent opponent of US sponsored regime change, something I would think most posters here would be right on board with.  Finally, thinking of Assad as preferable to an ISIS regime is hardly a radical position.  They both suck, a lot, but one is demonstrably worse

It is not. Raising doubts whether Assad really ever used chemical agents, however, is dubious. At one point she seemed to support him staying in power. Well, imho a weird position.
I also have to say that I personally get very angry at folks that blame NATO, the west and Biden's warmongering for the war in Ukraine. Or imply that the US is running secret biolabs in Ukraine, things that Russia TV gladly picks up. Same thing goes for her claiming the restrictions of free speech in Russia are not so different from those in the US. She also called Adam Schiff a "domestic enemy" of the US, which just takes it a thousand steps too far for me, especially when adding that him and Brennan are a bigger threat than the Jan 6 insurrectionists. Oh and she claimed that the Mar-a-Lago search warrant has the hallmarks of dictatorship.

But hey, you apparently like her and I'm not inclined to convince you otherwise. It's just difficult to make this an objectifiable appreciation. Eg. I for one don't think Gabbard single-handedly sunk Harris' campaign that possibly started on the bottom of the ocean to begin with. I saw the clip of her takedown and don't really see the brilliance, but sure I don't need to.

(10-19-2022, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you're misunderstanding.  I'm comparing their policy positions.  AOC is, by her own definition, a radical.  She was part of a group that advocates the seizing of the means of production.  For the US this is an insanely radical position.

I guess one can see it that way. And yeah the proposal you linked is radical, not just by US standards, but I did not really see AOC coming up there? As far as I know she's not a member of the socialist party. She's affiliated with the democratic socialists, which might be radical enough for you, but I can't quite connect her to the pamphlet you linked.

[Dill]

(10-19-2022, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And yet you still have nothing but your subjective opinion on her intelligence.  I'll reiterate, if you listen to her speak on any subject and then listen to Harris and come to the conclusion that Harris is more intelligent then you're outing your own lack of intelligence and nothing more.  Sure, it's subjective, but sometimes subjectivity becomes obvious.  If I ask who is the more beautiful woman, Margot Robbie or Rhea Perlman, I'm asking for your opinion on a subjective criteria.  But if you pick Perlman I'm going to think you're either trolling, insane, an idiot or some mix of those three. 

Actually that's a claim I'd love to test. As Gabbard slips away from accountability to Dem voters,
I think we'll hear many surprising things from her. Perhaps she'll revisit her opposition to gay marriage, or even
support the big lie, now she is stumping for supporters thereof. At least one reporter has speculated she
might be running mate for the liar in chief, if he avoids jail and declares.

But a Harris/Gabbard comparison won't work without some kind of independent standard.

Right now you seem to think that assessing intelligence is a judgement of taste rather than fact;
and you think (mistakenly) that such judgments can't be demonstrated one way or another--just 
asserted--and that if there is any element of subjectivity then the whole is tainted and useless: just 
"opinion" if deployed by me against Gabbard, but something more concrete and definitive if deployed 
by you against Harris and myself. 

But throughout human evolution, our survival has depended on our ability to distinguish real danger from apparent. 
I don't see anything especially subjective about that criterion as a measure of intelligence. If it's just my opinion
these mushrooms are poisonous, and yours that they are not, that can get sorted quickly.

If Harris condemns Russia for handing out 10 year prison sentences to people who call the Ukraine war a "war,"
and Gabbard sees an approaching parity of censorship in the U.S. because Trump lost a Twitter account  
for violating community standards against threats, that would suggest Gabbard is less able to discern real danger.* 
That's not like picking Robbie over Perlman on aesthetic criteria you think are merely "subjective."

If you are right about the role of subjectivity in judgment and the assessment of intelligence,
then it's hard to see how most institutions could work--schools, the military, businesses, professional
sports--any field in which people have to make accountable judgments assessing others' ability.
SATs, GREs, LSATs--none could do better than a coin flip in assessing ability and predicting success.

Unfortunately, though I am traveling now and will only be online intermittently over the next week. I'll try my best to work up some
comparisons, though, over then next few days. And think of a way to control for political bias.

*Granting it's not merely my "opinion" that Russians are jailed for calling a war a "war."

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-18-2022, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump also exhorted European nations to increase their military spending due to the Russian threat and warned countries such as Germany about being reliant on Russia for energy.  Not exactly the words and actions of a Russian puppet or sycophant.  He also turned out to be 100% correct.

Reading that link like...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2022, 04:24 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Reading that link like...

Right?  Apparently for some pointing that out is a "passionate defense" of Trump's everything.  Seriously, the world is officially nuts.