Tulsi Gabbard

[_honorentheos]

Question for you, EA. 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? You've mentioned a few writers for Reason who reflect your views but I don't recall who they were or if there is a general consistent idea in that regard. Being a pragmatic leftish centrist, I generally view the role of government to be providing democratic access to opportunities, offering help to lift someone up whose down on their luck or takes a stumble but with the intent of getting them going on their own again. I don't think privatization of Social Security is viable. The logistical problems of taking it private alone is too high a hurdle, plus it would essentially mandate citizens contributing to stocks and mutual funds which is problematic, in my opinion. But short of a program that turned the Fed into an investment company, there still needs to be some way of infusing more into the system than just increasing contributions and reducing payouts.

[_DoubtingThomas]

On the chance you have an autism spectrum disorder, "absolutely zero threat" doesn't mean literally a zero probability of having an impact on the election where she will not garner even one vote that might have otherwise gone to Sanders. It means her threat is extremely minimal such that Sanders responding differently to Gabbard than Warren wouldn't be surprising on that ground alone.

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.

she released the story a few weeks before the Iowa primary with the intent to harm Sanders on the eve of an election, there's no evidence that happened and some evidence to think it did not.

So what is your evidence?

I see were back on the give Sanders every benefit of the doubt while making the worst assumptions about Warren's motives train again.

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". Warren was trying to score political points. Sanders is probably the most feminist candidate and Warren should have defended him. She did the opposite and falsely accused Sanders of calling her a liar.

[_EAllusion]

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 Democrat primary.

[_EAllusion]

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]

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.

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

Okay.

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.

[Guest]

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.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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 Democrat primary.

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

- Doc

[_MissTish]

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.

[_DoubtingThomas]

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]

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.