Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[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.