Tulsi Gabbard

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

honorentheos wrote:Question for you, EAllusion. Maybe off topic but since it's come up in this thread I'll ask it here. Given your Libertarian views, what are your thoughts on managing entitlement programs going forward?

I favor the reforms Biden traditionally has and would, like Biden, try to use them as a bargaining chip for other reforms I want too. It's a shame that Biden feels compelled to run away from this because it's bad politics for the Dem primary.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

DoubtingThomas wrote:It is not extremely minimal in NH (a must win state for Sanders). At the time Sanders din't know Gabbard wasn't going to rise in the polls.

Gabbard is a bad candidate who has a minimal impact on the polls. Warren is a top tier candidate who can, and has, significantly sliced into Sanders' voting demographics. This was conventional wisdom and is correct. That Sanders would act with regard to this conventional understanding would not be a surprising fact in want of explanation.

So what is your evidence?

I linked an article from the Intercept on this very point.

No, we are giving Warren the benefit of the doubt by assuming that Sanders made a sexist comment. But when Warren was asked, "Did Sanders say.... " She should have said "No comment" "or "I don't recall" or "Sanders is not a sexist".

When taken with your history of appalling sexist comments, this reads very poorly. No, she isn't obligated to avoid saying what she had already said in private to avoid hurting Sanders. She can say what she thinks happened if that's what she thinks happened.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3916
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote: She can say what she thinks happened if that's what she thinks happened.

Okay, but Warren didn't have to falsely accuse Sanders of calling her a liar. Warren was expecting Sanders to deny the alleged comments, so there was no real reason for her to get mad at the end of the debate, it it is very suspicious. I don't think Warren is stupid, it is likely that she was trying to politically hurt Sanders at least at the end of the debate.

EAllusion wrote:I linked an article from the Intercept on this very point.

Okay.

EAllusion wrote:When taken with your history of appalling sexist comments, this reads very poorly.

I will likely vote for the most feminist candidate in history, but you accuse me of sexism? Wow. Is it because of the STEM topic? By the way, did you read

This is a paradox, because gender-equal countries are those that give girls and women more educational and empowerment opportunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)....We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girls are relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sex differences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways. The differences are expected on the basis of expectancy-value theory and are consistent with prior research (Eccles, 1983; Wang & Degol, 2013). The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength, which also seems to be common academic advice given to students, at least in the United Kingdom (e.g., Gardner, 2016; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, 2015).

Independent of absolute levels of performance, boys on average had personal academic strengths in science and mathematics, and girls in reading comprehension. Thus, even when girls’ absolute science scores were higher than those of boys, as in Finland, boys were often better in science relative to their overall academic average. Similarly, girls might have scored higher than boys in science, but they were often even better in reading...We also found that boys often expressed higher self-efficacy, more joy in science and a broader interest in science than girls. These differences were also larger in more gender equal countries, and were related to the students’ personal academic strength.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=pssa

I am just curious to know if you read it. Sharing studies, data, and controversial topics doesn't make me a sexist.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3916
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote:That Sanders would act with regard to this conventional understanding would not be a surprising fact in want of explanation.


Maybe, but I don't think Sandes does a lot of political calculations. Sanders is no expert in political science, but people like Sanders because he looks authentic.
Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20392
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

EAllusion wrote:
honorentheos wrote:Question for you, EAllusion. Maybe off topic but since it's come up in this thread I'll ask it here. Given your Libertarian views, what are your thoughts on managing entitlement programs going forward?

I favor the reforms Biden traditionally has and would, like Biden, try to use them as a bargaining chip for other reforms I want too. It's a shame that Biden feels compelled to run away from this because it's bad politics for the Dem primary.


Can you flesh this out a little? I'm not familiar with Biden's stance on entitlement reforms. Perhaps some 'if EAllusion were boss of the world' practical examples would be helpful.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

User avatar
MissTish
God
Posts: 1466
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:17 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by MissTish »

DoubtingThomas wrote:I will likely vote for the most feminist candidate in history, but you accuse me of sexism?


Who is the 'most feminist candidate in history'? From your posts I'm not sure if you mean Gabbard or Sanders, both of whom you've claimed to want to vote for, but neither fits this description.

I'm also quite curious as to how you've decided who the most feminist candidate in history is. I'd be interested in hearing about that.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy.- Super Hans

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.- H. L. Mencken

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3916
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

MissTish wrote:
DoubtingThomas wrote:I will likely vote for the most feminist candidate in history, but you accuse me of sexism?


Who is the 'most feminist candidate in history'? From your posts I'm not sure if you mean Gabbard or Sanders, both of whom you've claimed to want to vote for, but neither fits this description.

I'm also quite curious as to how you've decided who the most feminist candidate in history is. I'd be interested in hearing about that.



Okay there is probably no way to really know, but Sanders is very feminist.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... -concerned

https://www.thenation.com/article/berni ... president/

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

Both of those pieces argue that Sanders is a strong feminist candidate because socialist programs he advocates have the secondary benefit of advancing female interests. That's quite a reach. So he's not the arch-feminist DT has decided he is because of feminism per se, but because these authors have decided that single payer health care is feminism.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3916
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

Never mind!
Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Can you flesh this out a little? I'm not familiar with Biden's stance on entitlement reforms. Perhaps some 'if EAllusion were boss of the world' practical examples would be helpful.

- Doc
The two big reforms I favor is raising the FICA cap and retirement age a little.

Secondarily, I have some radical ideas about UBI that in a fantasy world I would replace entitlements with, but in terms of incremental reform to fairly reduce the burden of entitlements on the federal budget, that's where I'd go.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3916
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote:The two big reforms I favor is raising... retirement age a little.


What?

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
EAllusion wrote:The two big reforms I favor is raising... retirement age a little.


What?


I think the age at which people are eligible to collect SS benefits should be increased to reflect advances in length and quality of life since the initial age was established.

User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 6202
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:56 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by ajax18 »

I think the age at which people are eligible to collect SS benefits should be increased to reflect advances in length and quality of life since the initial age was established.


That didn't work out so well for Macron.

If it's only three or four years, that's about how long it takes the average person to get his disability application approved to basically get ahold of the same money. It doesn't really change much.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3916
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote:I think the age at which people are eligible to collect SS benefits should be increased to reflect advances in length and quality of life since the initial age was established.


Most people that really need SS benefits don't make it to 80.

User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 14755
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Some Schmo »

EAllusion wrote:I think the age at which people are eligible to collect SS benefits should be increased to reflect advances in length and quality of life since the initial age was established.

Isn't life expectancy decreasing lately?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

Perfume on my Mind wrote:
EAllusion wrote:I think the age at which people are eligible to collect SS benefits should be increased to reflect advances in length and quality of life since the initial age was established.

Isn't life expectancy decreasing lately?

It's stalled due to the massive impact of opiod-related deaths, but that's neither here nor there when we're talking about gains that have been banked for decades in terms of quality of life improvements.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
EAllusion wrote:I think the age at which people are eligible to collect SS benefits should be increased to reflect advances in length and quality of life since the initial age was established.


Most people that really need SS benefits don't make it to 80.


Why did you pick 80 as the age? You can save billions by upping the retirement age by one year. If I recall correctly, you can save billions by raising the age by two months.

The labor force expansion would also secondarily increase GDP growth which is both a good in of itself and would further help the federal budget.

candygal
God
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 8:38 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by candygal »

Somebody just give me a good solid democrat to vote for...I am so disappointed.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10376
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by honorentheos »

Interesting that today's polls show a pretty big shake-up just a week before the Iowa Caucuses. According to RealClear, Warren has taken a pretty big hit since the episode behind the OP while Sanders is now in first in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The old saying that a candidate needs to win, place or show to have a future in the race looks bad for Warren.

Iowa -

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6731.html

Sander - 25
Biden - 22
Buttigieg - 17
Warren - 13.5

Bloomberg News is reporting this morning an even more recent poll has Klobuchar in the third place spot:

An Emerson University poll showed Sanders leading in Iowa with 30% while Joe Biden followed with 21%. Klobuchar was in third with 13% ahead of Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg who had 11% and 10%, respectively. The poll was conducted from Jan. 23-26 and has a margin of error of 4.6 percentage points.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ign-update

That said, the margin of error suggests third place is a three-way race. And a week is a long time...
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17553
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

Man, Bloomberg's continued rise is like a really expensive experiment to determine how much advertising matters in primary campaigns.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3916
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote: You can save billions by upping the retirement age by one year..


Right, but America is under stress, and stress isn't good for your health.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests