2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

I have yet to hear a reasoned out criticism of Warren.  All I see is Yi foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of her, along with the usual retards.  I don't even know whether I agree or disagree with the criticisms of her, I have yet to run across a statement that I could evaluate.

From what I gather, the criticism is that she's an inflexible ideologue.

I heard that, but it's one of those statements that I find impossible to evaluate itself, or evaluate Warren based on it.

[DGuller]

Well, I haven't seen you state a single coherent argument against her, which considering your level of vitriol against her is both surprising and uncharacteristic.  I'm really dumbfounded as to the root of such deep distaste for her.

Accusing someone of foaming at the mouth is not the typical response to confusion.

It is also not the most productive method of eliciting an informative response.  Baiting through insults is page one of the Raz play book.

To be fair, I wasn't eliciting a response from you, just stating a fact.  In any case, given that you start off with foaming, and then may or may not proceed with reasoned out arguments, detracts from the credibility of such arguments.

[Admiral Yi]

To be fair, I wasn't eliciting a response from you, just stating a fact.  In any case, given that you start off with foaming, and then may or may not proceed with reasoned out arguments, detracts from the credibility of such arguments.

Too Razzy.  I'm done.

[Maximus]

No, it's not.  That's the fallacy of middle ground. 

No it's not. That's the fallacy of the straw man.

The probability of reaching a sufficiently optimal conclusion is proportional to the number of possible conclusions considered. Therefore, one who is capable of considering many possible conclusions is better suited to maximize the optimality of the conclusion reached than someone who only ever considers their original position.

[Sheilbh]

Perhaps not the best examples as they both support my argument.

How so?

I think balance in the sense of being aware of, and accounting for, negative repercussions of your well-intended policy is crucial in a legislator or executive.

Hearing both sides is essential, not least because you need to to convincingly argue with your opponents.

Elizabeth Warren gives no indication of posessing this trait.  She views politics and policy as a morality play.

So do you when it comes to feckless Latins

Policy is a matter of morality with her, it seems, and that's a problem for me. I want practical, solid ideas that are based on the reality of numbers. I haven't seen much of that from her.

I'd distinguish morality and a morality play. Morality is about what choices we make and what values we have. A morality play is politics as allegory in which you have saints and sinners who meet their rewards and retributions accordingly.

I think policy is about morality - the Labour Party is nothing if it's not a moral crusade - and always has been. There is no pragmatic ideology. The choices we make as countries are about moral values and what we should and shouldn't do. There is no right answer and politics is the way of making those choices.

What drove liberalism in the 19th century was moral indignation at the corruptions and abuses of the established order. It's what motivated the great socialist and social democrat victories in the early 20th century and the Reagan and Thatcher counter-revolution. Pragmatism is useful in deciding how you deliver policies - though it has to be balanced with other considerations - but it's an empty vessel.

There is no pragmatic, numbers driven answer to whether we should have a welfare state or not; or how a country should behave abroad; or what the goal in criminal justice policy should be. Those are moral questions and practical, numbers-driven policies can be found for all answers.

[Admiral Yi]

Policy can be about morality.  There are in fact people in the world who do bad things.  The error lies in the assumption that ALL policy is about morality.  That creates the strong incentive to create bad guys to fit into your morality play.

[Sheilbh]

The probability of reaching a sufficiently optimal conclusion is proportional to the number of possible conclusions considered. Therefore, one who is capable of considering many possible conclusions is better suited to maximize the optimality of the conclusion reached than someone who only ever considers their original position.

There is no optimal conclusion. We're human. There's different values, different beliefs and different sets of ethics floating around. Each person will have different priorities in their individual life, and for their community and weigh them differently. There can't be an optimal solution. The best there can be is a democratic system that allows for change, debate and for us to have those arguments again every few years.

And the idea that Warren is so rigid and inflexible ideologue that she's virtually an automaton seems to me laughable.

I think the reaction against her really is rather odd in its strength

[merithyn]

I bet if Warren had a penis, the amount of illogical hatred leveled at her wouldn't be so severe.  None of you money monkeys have yet to demonstrably explain exactly why she's so vile, considering she just got to Washington.

I don't think that she's vile. I just take issue with the fact that her "balanced" take on fixing the deficit is pretty much "tax the rich".  I see nothing substantative in cutting spending other than cutting back on the military. That's not going to cut it. (Heh.) We need to really look at making cuts elsewhere, too, but she seems very closed to that concept.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

It's because of this link that I take issue with her, DG. As has been stated, though you're intentionally ignoring it to take digs at Yi.

[Sheilbh]

Policy can be about morality.  There are in fact people in the world who do bad things.  The error lies in the assumption that ALL policy is about morality.  That creates the strong incentive to create bad guys to fit into your morality play.

Don't make it all into a morality play, we're all fallen. The people who disagree with you aren't evil, they just disagree with you and you'll be better for trying to understand why.

All policy is about moral philosophy and ideology I suppose. I literally can't think of any area that isn't about a moral choice at heart.

[merithyn]

There is no optimal conclusion. We're human. There's different values, different beliefs and different sets of ethics floating around. Each person will have different priorities in their individual life, and for their community and weigh them differently. There can't be an optimal solution. The best there can be is a democratic system that allows for change, debate and for us to have those arguments again every few years.

And the idea that Warren is so rigid and inflexible ideologue that she's virtually an automaton seems to me laughable.

I think the reaction against her really is rather odd in its strength

I think part of it stems from her claim of being Native American... by 1/32. That put her off on the wrong foot with a lot of people, and she's been forced to dig her way up since then.

I don't particularly care about that, but it did make me read up on her with a jaundiced eye, nonetheless. After reading what she stands for - and doesn't - I wasn't impressed. To be honest, she strikes me as mostly fluff with no real substance. To be fair, she's a freshman in the Congress, so there's only so much substance she can have, which is why I say that I could be swayed. Right now, I don't see the appeal.

[DGuller]

No, it's not.  That's the fallacy of middle ground. 

No it's not. That's the fallacy of the straw man.

The probability of reaching a sufficiently optimal conclusion is proportional to the number of possible conclusions considered. Therefore, one who is capable of considering many possible conclusions is better suited to maximize the optimality of the conclusion reached than someone who only ever considers their original position.

Stating that the optimal solution is necessarily a compromise is the fallacy of middle ground.  Sometimes the optimal solution is all of Column A, and none of Column B.  The truth is not always somewhere in the middle.  And that's even assuming that all the options are analyzed correctly, which they often aren't.

[frunk]

It's because of this link that I take issue with her, DG. As has been stated, though you're intentionally ignoring it to take digs at Yi.

Can you point to what bothers you about her in this link (other than the Indian thing)?  I didn't see anything that out of line, certainly nothing worse than most leftist leaning politician.

[merithyn]

Policy can be about morality.  There are in fact people in the world who do bad things.  The error lies in the assumption that ALL policy is about morality.  That creates the strong incentive to create bad guys to fit into your morality play.

Don't make it all into a morality play, we're all fallen. The people who disagree with you aren't evil, they just disagree with you and you'll be better for trying to understand why.

All policy is about moral philosophy and ideology I suppose. I literally can't think of any area that isn't about a moral choice at heart.

I suppose, but there also has to be a point where it comes down to hard facts. Our budget is a mess, and while no one wants to take money away from the poor, that has to happen to an extent or the situation will get worse and worse.

I guess it's not so much the morality as it is the lack of long-term thinking that bugs me. She offers the simple answers, but if it really were that simple, it would have been done long ago. There's a complexity in these questions that's lacking in her answers.

[DGuller]

I bet if Warren had a penis, the amount of illogical hatred leveled at her wouldn't be so severe.  None of you money monkeys have yet to demonstrably explain exactly why she's so vile, considering she just got to Washington.

I don't think that she's vile. I just take issue with the fact that her "balanced" take on fixing the deficit is pretty much "tax the rich".  I see nothing substantative in cutting spending other than cutting back on the military. That's not going to cut it. (Heh.) We need to really look at making cuts elsewhere, too, but she seems very closed to that concept.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

It's because of this link that I take issue with her, DG. As has been stated, though you're intentionally ignoring it to take digs at Yi.

Can you highlight the parts you're having problems with?  I'm not intentionally ignoring anything, and I'm not intentionally taking digs at Yi.

[merithyn]

It's because of this link that I take issue with her, DG. As has been stated, though you're intentionally ignoring it to take digs at Yi.

Can you point to what bothers you about her in this link (other than the Indian thing)?  I didn't see anything that out of line, certainly nothing worse than most leftist leaning politician.

It's the lack of real suggestions. "Tax the rich. Give to the poor. Cut funding for the military." Hell, that kind of stuff was touted in my 7th-grade Social Studies class by competing teams when we held mock elections. I need more substance than that from someone who wants to run the country.