[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2015-October-11, 07:49, said:

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has, after months or years of careful consideration, come to the remarkable conclusion that our policy in Syria is not going well.

Fortunately for the US, Putin has stepped in. Now we can step back a bit strategically to "avoid a global conflict" and let the Russians sink deeper into the morass.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2015-October-11, 10:48, said:

Fortunately for the US, Putin has stepped it. Now we can step back a bit strategically to "avoid a global conflict" and let the Russians sink deeper into the morass.

The Russians handled Afghanistan so well there is no reason to think they cannot also do it here.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2015-October-11, 07:49, said:

Maybe it is time to consider moving. Anyone want an aging mathematician? Can I qualify as a refugee?

Where to go? Suggestions appreciated.

[kenberg]

Russians in Syria:
We can expect more deaths and more refugees. Beyond that, prediction in the Middle East in general and in the current Syrian crisis is a guess. We have evolved from "Assad must go" to "Let's hope the Russians regret this". .Perhaps they will. I don't believe the situation is even remotely comparable to the Russian involvement in Afghanistan of thirty years ago, so i don't see that result as implying much one way or the other. Maybe the candidates can be asked their opinions on this in the upcoming Democratic debate. It would be more informative than one more discussion of e-mails. I for one would be interested in their thinking on this and surrounding issues.

The Russians and Assad both intend to keep Assad in power and neither has any constraints on how many they will kill to bring this about. So I think a prediction of more death and more refugees stands on solid ground, Beyond that, I yield the floor to the experts, if there are any, to predict the future.

Speaking of experts, between the above paragraph and this I took time out to read an article by Dennis Ross I found it interesting, i am no more qualified to evaluate the proposal than I am to evaluate experiments in quantum mechanics.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2015-October-11, 15:07, said:

Where to go? Suggestions appreciated.

Turn me loose, set me free, somewhere in the middle of Montana... Merle haggard.

Nah, I stay here. But there are times.....

[y66]

Set me free? My brother just sent pictures from his place in Vermont. I would say that pretty much describes how he's feeling. I'm happy for him. I'm not feeling any pain here in Virginia at the moment. But it's probably good to have a backup plan. Montana for summer months is a possibility.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2015-October-11, 18:29, said:

Set me free? My brother just sent pictures from his place in Vermont. I would say that pretty much describes how he's feeling. I'm happy for him. I'm not feeling any pain here in Virginia at the moment. But it's probably good to have a backup plan. Montana for summer months is a possibility.

You may be reading too much into what was really just an expression of exasperation> When I thought maybe I should request refugee status I was imagining the 2016 campaign. Sample slogan: "Vote for Hillary, she is better than Ted"

I am happy with my life here in Maryland. I am as unhappy with national politics as I can ever remember being.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2015-October-11, 19:45, said:

You may be reading too much into what was really just an expression of exasperation> When I thought maybe I should request refugee status I was imagining the 2016 campaign. Sample slogan: "Vote for Hillary, she is better than Ted"

I am happy with my life here in Maryland. I am as unhappy with national politics as I can ever remember being.

I took it for being a semi-rare moment of facetiousness on your part intended as a sign of exasperation with national politics. Ditto for Merle Haggard complaining about life in the big city which was probably poetic license on his part. As for being set free, I suspect that is closer to the truth for you and Merle, with the thing to be freed from being different (possibly).

[barmar]

As exasperating as it is, I'd still rather be here than most other places in the world. A do-nothing government is better than an oppressive theocracy.

Then again, I'm a middle class white guy, and I've never experienced life in any other country.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2015-October-12, 08:50, said:

As exasperating as it is, I'd still rather be here than most other places in the world.

That ("I'd still rather stay here") is what most people think in most other places in the world (e.g. Mexico) too.

 barmar, on 2015-October-12, 08:50, said:

A do-nothing government is better than an oppressive theocracy.

True, but are these the only two options? (And are these the only criteria for moving?)

Rik

[kenberg]

I was asked what question I would like to see put to the Democratic candidates tonight. Perhaps some would like to make a suggestion.

I suggested:
Suppose that President Obama called and asked your advice on how to respond to Russian military activities in Syria. What would you suggest? Skip the long range answer of "degrade and destroy", what response would you suggest for now or within the next few months?

Here is a variant:
Do you believe that by the time of the 1016 election it will be apparent that Putin's use of military force in Syria worked out badly for Russian self-interest?

I assume some sort of variant on the above will be asked, I cannot really see how it would not be.

Anyone else?

My thought is to suggest probing questions to ask the candidates, regardless of what the poster might think the best answer would be.

I personally hope that no questions are asked about either Benghazi or e-mails, but I am a dreamer.

[phil_20686]

There is no point asking foreign policy questions like that, as people will not answer them, for good and quite persuasive reasons, like, detailing the strategy you will follow seriously crimps your strategic options if you actually win an election. Or because criticising the foreign policy of a sitting US policy is not a great idea generally, and any idea that's new gets painted that way by the press.


I would ask:
1) What's next for Obama care? Is this a project complete or is it the first step on a journey? What is the goal and what is the next steps that you would like to take?

2) What do you think about the SC decision effectively taking the definition of marriage away from democratically elected institutions?

3) What steps would you take on gun control if you had a super majority in both houses - e.g. would you like to see a constitutional amendment or reinterpretation of the right to bear arms?

4) Do you think that the Federal Reserve is adequately fulfilling its mandate, and what steps would you like the government and/or the Fed take to improve the economy? - I really like how this question generally exposes a candidates economic competences as it touches on so many topics.

[hrothgar]

WRT the Democratic Debate tonight:

I am operating under the assumption that the House will remain in GOP hands through at least 2022.
I don't much care about a broad Democratic legislative agenda. I don't see much chance of this happening.

The two issues that I care about:

1. How are you going to going to win in November? (Cause I damn well care about the Supreme Court)

2. Are you willing to launch a permanent campaign against the Republicans from now until the 2020 redistricting process is complete?

[kenberg]

I do see the point of not asking for detailed specifics, but I cannot imagine them not being asked for something, and something fairly concrete, about how they see our future in that area of the world. I accept that the questions as I suggest them may need some work.

[y66]

What does the Democratic party have to do to win back the votes of working-class white voters besides nominating a white candidate?

Who is your favorite character in The Wire?

Do you agree with cherdano that we should all read more TNC? Will you invite TNC to dinner at the White House if you are elected? Will you invite cherdano?

Would you consider asking Barney Frank to be your mate? Your running mate?

How far did you get into Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty First Century"? Do you agree with his central thesis and his proposed solution?

In 2008, hedge funds contributed twice as much to Democrats as Republicans (approx. $14 million vs $7 million). In 2012, hedge funds contributed three times as much to Republicans as Democrats (approx $14 million vs $4.5 million). What's going on?

How much have hedge funds contributed to your campaign and what are they asking you to do in return?

Citibank recently estimated that a business as usual approach to climate change will cost the U.S. an additional $44 trillion by 2060. What is your estimate? Is the U.S. commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 enough to keep the planet from becoming toast? What will you do to keep this from happening? And what is your carbon footprint?

Did you like Fred Gitelman's alternative statement from the WBF? How would you eliminate cheating in bridge? What is your favorite convention?

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2015-October-13, 09:25, said:

Did you like Fred Gitelman's alternative statement from the WBF? How would you eliminate cheating in bridge? What is your favorite convention?

Now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty. This could swing some votes!

I liked the other questions also.

[Winstonm]

My question to the Democrats tonight? I would have to point at the Republican crazies and ask, "You lost Congressional seats to these guys?"

[y66]

Guest post by David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times:

Quote

The House Republican caucus is close to ungovernable these days. How did this situation come about?

This was not just the work of the Freedom Caucus or Ted Cruz or one month’s activity. The Republican Party’s capacity for effective self-governance degraded slowly, over the course of a long chain of rhetorical excesses, mental corruptions and philosophical betrayals. Basically, the party abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism. Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries, and every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own.

By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.

All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party. Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple.

This produced a radical mind-set. Conservatives started talking about the Reagan “revolution,” the Gingrich “revolution.” Among people too ill educated to understand the different spheres, political practitioners adopted the mental habits of the entrepreneur. Everything had to be transformational and disruptive. Hierarchy and authority were equated with injustice. Self-expression became more valued than self-restraint and coalition building. A contempt for politics infested the Republican mind.

Politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas and interests.

But this new Republican faction regards the messy business of politics as soiled and impure. Compromise is corruption. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens. Political identity became a sort of ethnic identity, and any compromise was regarded as a blood betrayal.

A weird contradictory mentality replaced traditional conservatism. Republican radicals have contempt for politics, but they still believe that transformational political change can rescue the nation. Republicans developed a contempt for Washington and government, but they elected leaders who made the most lavish promises imaginable. Government would be reduced by a quarter! Shutdowns would happen! The nation would be saved by transformational change! As Steven Bilakovics writes in his book “Democracy Without Politics,” “even as we expect ever less of democracy we apparently expect ever more from democracy.”

This anti-political political ethos produced elected leaders of jaw-dropping incompetence. Running a government is a craft, like carpentry. But the new Republican officials did not believe in government and so did not respect its traditions, its disciplines and its craftsmanship. They do not accept the hierarchical structures of authority inherent in political activity.

In his masterwork, “Politics as a Vocation,” Max Weber argues that the pre-eminent qualities for a politician are passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion. A politician needs warm passion to impel action but a cool sense of responsibility and proportion to make careful decisions in a complex landscape.

If a politician lacks the quality of detachment — the ability to let the difficult facts of reality work their way into the mind — then, Weber argues, the politician ends up striving for the “boastful but entirely empty gesture.” His work “leads nowhere and is senseless.”

Welcome to Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and the Freedom Caucus.

Really, have we ever seen bumbling on this scale, people at once so cynical and so naïve, so willfully ignorant in using levers of power to produce some tangible if incremental good? These insurgents can’t even acknowledge democracy’s legitimacy — if you can’t persuade a majority of your colleagues, maybe you should accept their position. You might be wrong!

People who don’t accept democracy will be bad at conversation. They won’t respect tradition, institutions or precedent. These figures are masters at destruction but incompetent at construction.

These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed. But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around.

[kenberg]

Sp Anderson cooper took my suggestion ( ) and asked about the Russians in Syria. Clinton's response:

Quote

Well, first of all, we got a lot of business done with the Russians when Medvedev was the president, and not Putin. We got a nuclear arms deal, we got the Iranian sanctions, we got an ability to bring important material and equipment to our soldiers in Afghanistan.

There's no doubt that when Putin came back in and said he was going to be President, that did change the relationship. We have to stand up to his bullying, and specifically in Syria, it is important -- and I applaud the administration because they are engaged in talks right now with the Russians to make it clear that they've got to be part of the solution to try to end that bloody conflict.

And, to -- provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it's important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad, and we can't do that if we don't take more of a leadership position, which is what I'm advocating.

I think that the issue is important on its own, and as for politics I think it will surely be a factor in 2016. The first election I voted in had Kennedy and Nixon squaring off over the missile gap. Vietnam was important in several elections. Then Carter was probably doomed in 1980 for many reasons, not all of them his fault, but the Iran hostage crisis made it tough, and after his embarrassing failure launching a rescue, he would have lost to Donald Duck. And so on.

With the usual disclaimer of limited knowledge, here is my thought about what is happening.

The Putin-Assad alliance has two planned stages.

Stage 1: Wipe out (or degrade and destroy to use current phrasing) the US backed rebels.

Stage 2:: Wipe out ISIS.


Few things go as planned in the Middle East, but I don't think we should write this off as doomed to failure. For example, we seem to have the idea (well, we have the policy, I don't have much faith in it) that we can degrade and destroy ISIS while simultaneously backing groups that oppose Assad. Russia will be working with Assad. Additionally, we (properly) worry if we inadvertently wipe out a hospital. Putin does not worry about such things and, importantly, he will have Assad's forces to do the really ugly slaughtering.


There are other features. The Russians have a strong direct interest in dealing with Islamic terrorism. We deplore it, everyone deplores it, but (again acknowledging my lack of expertise) I think the demographics of Russia make this a more immediate threat to them. So there is strong motivation for them to stick with the effort.


They will need money. True enough. But there are a lot of rich states in the Middle East and many of them have great and realistic fears about ISIS. They may not like Assad, no one does, and they may not be fond of Putin either, but they have an intense fear of ISIS and the movement that it represents. If Putin-Assad seem to have a more realistic approach than they see from the US, money could be forthcoming.


Perhaps it is so that a year from now it will be clear that Putin made a grave mistake. We can hope so, and hoping so appears to be our policy. If this hope does not go as hoped, the Middle East will be changed.


The answer given by Ms. Clinton has promise, but if she is to carry it into the general election it will need more substance. .For example, Putin has "made it clear" that he doesn't give a damn that his actions are "not acceptable". Now?

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2015-October-13, 16:58, said:

My question to the Democrats tonight? I would have to point at the Republican crazies and ask, "You lost Congressional seats to these guys?"

Elected officials are a reflection of the voters.