Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[dckingsfan]

Looks like I am Yang and wife is Klobuchar... interesting.

[Zonkerbl]

Steyer? Who? And Yang, no surprise. Not surprised Warren was so far down the list for me. I don't agree with a lot of her policy proposals. But hey, at least she has the nuts to propose them publicly and let them sink or swim on their own merits. I respect that.

I've always liked Klobuchar. I think she has a quiet midwestern charisma that people will get to like.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Zonkerbl]

MLK Jr was a socialist.

Just sayin'.

[dckingsfan]

MLK Jr was a socialist.

Just sayin'.

Didn't he label himself a "Democratic Socialist" vs. "Socialist"?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Zonkerbl]

MLK Jr was a socialist.

Just sayin'.

Didn't he label himself a "Democratic Socialist" vs. "Socialist"?

Like Bernie, he thought the tendency of Capitalism to rob from the poor and give to the rich was a feature, not a bug, and did not consider himself pro-capitalist. In his own words he described himself as "more socialistic than capitalistic"

Strictly speaking I don't think either he or Bernie are true "government should own the means of production" socialists. As I've argued on this thread redistributing money from winners to losers so everybody benefits from capitalism is well-executed capitalism, not socialism. So in that sense neither MLK Jr nor Bernie are socialists.

[Edit: In Europe people who are in favor of well executed capitalism are called "Social Democrats"]

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

hannity had the balls to go on his show and say "libs are pinning their hopes on this parnas crook. this convicted criminal. here's a list of all the shady ties he has, how can we possibly trust his testimony?"

also

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Warren 13
Sanders 12
Yang 10
Biden/Bloombeg/Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Steyer 8
Gabbard 7

17 Warren, 15 Bernie for me. Disagreed with Bernie on guns and carbon tax, and I said I'd be open to UBI, which isn't part of Bernie's plan. The quiz is pretty flawed, but still interesting.

Wow. I thought I was a Yang gang-er.

Turns out, based on these questions, I’m a crusty old moderate. Biden, Bloomberg, Steyer, Klobuchar in that order.

When I read Yang’s analysis and related policy prescriptions, however, I find him the only candidate in the past couple of decades who really gets it.

We can’t bring 20th century solutions to 21st century challenges.

I’m all in on Yang... of course, I enjoy tilting at windmills

[I_Like_Dirt]

Looks like I am Yang and wife is Klobuchar... interesting.

I went in expecting Warren. She came in second... to Yang. In hindsight, I probably should have expected Yang but didn't think about him too much. It does reinforce a bit what I've been suggesting, though (not just my results but everyone's): that if you take away the face and all that other pre-determined bias baggage from the equation, certain candidates suffer more than others. I suggested earlier and feel more strongly about it now: the candidates who have suffered most from biases unrelated to actual policy positions are Warren (mostly Bernie supporters) and Yang, and Cory Booker was in that group, too, I feel, before he dropped out.

[pancakes3]

Turns out, based on these questions, I’m a crusty old moderate. Biden, Bloomberg, Steyer, Klobuchar in that order.

speculating, but if you're leading with Biden/Bloomberg, then you probably hold crusty old moderate positions re: legalizing it.

It does reinforce a bit what I've been suggesting, though (not just my results but everyone's): that if you take away the face and all that other pre-determined bias baggage from the equation, certain candidates suffer more than others. I suggested earlier and feel more strongly about it now: the candidates who have suffered most from biases unrelated to actual policy positions are Warren (mostly Bernie supporters) and Yang, and Cory Booker was in that group, too, I feel, before he dropped out.

For sure. Correlated evidence, but note that Warren not only is a woman but has a rich history of superficial gaffes to sway superficial opinions, and Yang/Booker are minorities. Lots of bias to be mined there.

Of course, LS Boulez has Biden, Bloomberg, and Steyer as win/place/show, so ::shrug::

I think it's a useful exercise to take the quiz and confront yourself with any potential biases. I'm a Warren/Bernie/Yang guy myself but my takeaway wasn't the rankings, but the moderate degree with which I agreed with them, or every other opinion. 13/20 and 12/20 doesn't really show a strong alignment of interests, and 8/20 means I disagree with them more than I agree.

Another flaw is that the policy stances are weighed equally. Sure, I have opinions on legalizing pot and UBI, but it pales in comparison to other issues like health care and student debt.

[Ruzious]

Turns out, based on these questions, I’m a crusty old moderate. Biden, Bloomberg, Steyer, Klobuchar in that order.

speculating, but if you're leading with Biden/Bloomberg, then you probably hold crusty old moderate positions re: legalizing it.

It does reinforce a bit what I've been suggesting, though (not just my results but everyone's): that if you take away the face and all that other pre-determined bias baggage from the equation, certain candidates suffer more than others. I suggested earlier and feel more strongly about it now: the candidates who have suffered most from biases unrelated to actual policy positions are Warren (mostly Bernie supporters) and Yang, and Cory Booker was in that group, too, I feel, before he dropped out.

For sure. Correlated evidence, but note that Warren not only is a woman but has a rich history of superficial gaffes to sway superficial opinions, and Yang/Booker are minorities. Lots of bias to be mined there.

Of course, LS Boulez has Biden, Bloomberg, and Steyer as win/place/show, so ::shrug::

I think it's a useful exercise to take the quiz and confront yourself with any potential biases. I'm a Warren/Bernie/Yang guy myself but my takeaway wasn't the rankings, but the moderate degree with which I agreed with them, or every other opinion. 13/20 and 12/20 doesn't really show a strong alignment of interests, and 8/20 means I disagree with them more than I agree.

Another flaw is that the policy stances are weighed equally. Sure, I have opinions on legalizing pot and UBI, but it pales in comparison to other issues like health care and student debt.

Me and Boulez are like twin brother old f...olks - though I'm more of a Klobuchar and Pete fan than a Yang or Steyer fan. I had:
Biden and Bloomberg 14
Mayor Pete and Klob 13
Yang and Steyer 12
Gabby 8
And no surprise - Warren 6 and Sanders 5.

Btw, I would COMPLETELY and without hesitation support Warren or Sanders if either wins the primary.

[I_Like_Dirt]

For sure. Correlated evidence, but note that Warren not only is a woman but has a rich history of superficial gaffes to sway superficial opinions, and Yang/Booker are minorities. Lots of bias to be mined there.

Of course, LS Boulez has Biden, Bloomberg, and Steyer as win/place/show, so ::shrug::

I think it's a useful exercise to take the quiz and confront yourself with any potential biases. I'm a Warren/Bernie/Yang guy myself but my takeaway wasn't the rankings, but the moderate degree with which I agreed with them, or every other opinion. 13/20 and 12/20 doesn't really show a strong alignment of interests, and 8/20 means I disagree with them more than I agree.

Another flaw is that the policy stances are weighed equally. Sure, I have opinions on legalizing pot and UBI, but it pales in comparison to other issues like health care and student debt.

It can be more than that, though. In LS Boulez, example, for instance, I think the point is pretty clear that he's not actually comfortable with the more extreme positions, when faced with them on their own but he's actively making an effort to be forward-thinking regardless of how uncomfortable it makes him and it offers him an opportunity to understand that discomfort.

It's not just biases in terms of thinking you want something and really don't, though. It can also be biases in the sense of understanding where you really lean towards. For my own part - I know I want a significant shakeup, particularly with respect to the balance of power tilting not nearly so strongly towards the wealthy and changes that stand a chance of actually happening, to a degree, with an emphasis on survivability, which places the environment front and center. If you think about it that way and know the candidates positions even a little bit, my results aren't actually surprising in that sense. But even now, there are things I sometimes take for granted, as evidenced with my not giving enough thought to Yang before considering my expectations heading into the quiz. Stuff like that can happen to anyone and knowing yourself is important.

It's also interesting to see the dynamics at play about where people see costs and risks. For decades we basically haven't counted human and environmental costs into the economic equation and we're paying a seriously steep price right now while considering trying to punt as much of it down the road on credit yet again. The feeling tends to be that there is a lot of risk in making such drastic changes to the status quo, and that's true, but there are also massive risks in not taking drastic steps that generally don't seem to get identified all that often when people are factoring in their own preferences and who will and won't consider those factors tends to be sadly predictable, on average.



Edit:

The other issue you brought up is weighted valuations of the issues in question and I agree. That tends to be where Bernie builds massive amounts of support. That tends to be a more nuanced issue than people give it credit for, in my experience. Just because Bernie is more vocal and pushes for M4A more loudly than anyone else, Warren included, doesn't mean he's more likely to actually achieve it. Making one big stand, losing and then never having a chance at another stand again isn't necessarily better than a long drawn out series of battles that are strategically played to win the war. I'm willing to wait a few years on M4A if it means it's possible to squeeze more benefits out in the meanwhile, and I'm also willing to wait a few years on M4A if it means gradual changes designed to increase the chances of its implementation actually sticking in the end.

[dobrojim]

the more things change...

was listening to BBC news earlier today and they were doing 'person on the
street' interviews in or around the Capital. So this guy they interviewed
from NC sounded about as informed as the Dubya fans of 2004 who
said they found WMDs in Iraq. This North Carolinian said that Trump
committed no crimes and the dems were making a mountain out of
a molehill (adding if we understood the expression).

So Popper, if you're still around to read this I'd be curious to know
if you agreed with this guy that DJT committed no crimes and/or
that Trump's accusers are making a mountain out of a molehill.


PS
DA1, don't bother. At this point, no one cares.

[Zonkerbl]

Ok did this on my laptop instead of the phone. My results are a four way tie (13) between Bloomberg, Steyer, Yang, and Klobuchar. However Bloomberg doesn't support marijuana legalization, which as an economist that doesn't believe in banning things, this is a HUGE nono for me. A terrible policy position shared by Biden. Only Yang agrees with me that we should have a national registry for guns, but I do have some reservations about how this would be weaponized against minorities.

I'm suspicious that I only agree with Bernie on 4 issues. This may be a question framing manipulation issue. No surprise I don't agree with Tulsi "Traitor" Gabbard on hardly anything.

[dckingsfan]

Ok did this on my laptop instead of the phone. My results are a four way tie (13) between Bloomberg, Steyer, Yang, and Klobuchar. However Bloomberg doesn't support marijuana legalization, which as an economist that doesn't believe in banning things, this is a HUGE nono for me. I terrible policy position shared by Biden. Only Yang agrees with me that we should have a national registry for guns, but I do have some reservations about how this would be weaponized against minorities.

I'm suspicious that I only agree with Bernie on 4 issues. This may be a question framing manipulation issue. No surprise I don't agree with Tulsi "Traitor" Gabbard on hardly anything.

Same with me on Bloomberg - but I am not underestimating what he is doing with his attack ads on Trump.

Yang topped my list.

It doesn't surprise me with respect to Bernie. When you actually dive into his proposals - they aren't all that.

[I_Like_Dirt]

It doesn't surprise me with respect to Bernie. When you actually dive into his proposals - they aren't all that.

They really aren't. They're not awful. He's an astute politician and I get the impression that his heart is in the right place but he's up against other solid candidates that are simply outclassing him. Warren was 2nd on my list and Bernie was 5th or something like that. Bernie gets lumped into the discussions because he and his team are effectively trying to drive a single issue above all else. He still speaks to other stuff well enough, including extremely loudly regarding wealth inequality, but the other stuff he deals with all ties back to his one single issue. He wants a wealth tax... specifically to pay for universal health care and education immediately. He wants greater equality and supports women's rights, minority rights, etc... which he assumes will largely resolves themselves once there is universal health care and free university education. No thought to unintended consequences or much in the way of strategic planning for how he will get what he wants if other political institutions resist him. It's a single issue that tries to push everyone else away from him and causes a rather significant us/them divide.

Even his supporters likely won't line up with his policy positions as much as they think other than changing their minds in hindsight. His appeal is largely surrounding a single issue of a health transfer (to which the education transfer is attached) from rich to poor. There is a lot of value in his macro view, too, but comparatively, he really lags behind.

[popper]

the more things change...

was listening to BBC news earlier today and they were doing 'person on the
street' interviews in or around the Capital. So this guy they interviewed
from NC sounded about as informed as the Dubya fans of 2004 who
said they found WMDs in Iraq. This North Carolinian said that Trump
committed no crimes and the dems were making a mountain out of
a molehill (adding if we understood the expression).

So Popper, if you're still around to read this I'd be curious to know
if you agreed with this guy that DJT committed no crimes and/or
that Trump's accusers are making a mountain out of a molehill.


PS
DA1, don't bother. At this point, no one cares.

I haven't read the Articles of Impeachment but according to Trump's lawyers they don't reference any violations of criminal statutes. If that's true, and I'm not sure it is, then how would his conduct rise to the level of impeachable offense? I'm under the impression that treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors is the constitutional threshold. I'm happy to change my views if you can point out where the House references specific violations of criminal statutes and there's sufficient evidence to back them up.

On the second question, if Trump committed no crime then it appears to me that the House is making a mountain out of mole hill. When I first learned of the two month funding delay to Ukraine it didn't strike me as a big deal. The money got transferred in the proper FY and Ukraine did not investigate Biden.

PS - Even if Trump did not commit a crime I would support some sort of official admonishment for his tawdry actions.