AMA (YYW)

> Debate Topics 

The current and former LD topics are both reasonably good. 

The last was: In a democracy, the public’s right to know ought to be valued above the right to privacy of candidates for public office.

Here, you'd obviously be debating between "the public's right to know" and "candidate privacy".  Trump's refusal to disclose his tax returns is obviously the factual predicate giving rise to why this is the topic to be debated, but the topic isn't limited to Trump or his refusal to disclose his tax returns. 

Importantly, this isn't a debate about the degree to which (e.g., five versus ten years of tax returns) a candidate ought to disclose private information, or even the kind of information (e.g., tax returns, health information, and the like) that ought to be disclosed.  Rather, it's only a debate about which of these two competing values ought to be prioritized when they're in conflict.  So, AFF must argue that the public's right to know ought to be valued above the right to privacy of candidates for public office; whereas NEG must argue that the public's right to know ought NOT be valued above the right of privacy of candidates for public office.

So on AFF, you'd probably from the perspective that the only way to achieve a just electoral result would be where the public has a sufficient level of information to make a reasonably informed decision about who they're voting for.  The body politic would have that level of information where the material facts relating to a politician's personal and economic history were disclosed.  Without that, a candidate can hold himself out to be whatever he wants and fraudulently induce the electorate to put him in office. 

Alternatively, on NEG, you'd probably argue from the perspective that while a minimally adequate amount of information might be disclosed, democracy would be harmed where the disclosure of private information erodes a candidate's right to privacy.  This would mostly promote candidates who can function as a token PR firm rep, over someone who actually represents the people.  Everyone has skeletons in their closet and the fact that you're running for public office shouldn't mean that things in your past which have no bearing on your ability to function or which would have bearing on your decision-making (e.g., conflicts of interest) should be laid to bear.  You might also argue that the opportunity cost of unreasonable transparency would obviously be that to the extent that you're talking about who sexually assaulted whom in college means that you're not talking about, say, an egregious voting record of voting for corporate interests at the expense of voters.  

Ojeda is quite impressive.

When he does not win the primary, how will you react?

I have no illusion that Ojeda will win the primary; and am reasonably sure that something bad -- though I'm not sure what it will be -- will happen to him at the hands of Republicans in WV.  They've already attacked him, and probably will do something like set his house on fire or mess with his brakes.  This is how politics are, there.

He is also not well-liked among the Democratic majority.  The establishment types think they're better than him, even though they'll never say it.  The progressives hate him, and think he's deplorable.  Even the Bernie types aren't totally on board with him.  Ojeda is a working class guy that speaks like a hillbilly, and who barely knows how to put on a suit.  He is not one of "the chosen" political class.

He is also genuinely anti-corruption, which terrifies everyone in politics.  When he says Big Pharma isn't coming in his office, he means it.  This is a guy who isn't looking for a handout and is the literal real deal.  The problem is that people in WV are so jaded, miserable, and depressed that they don't even believe him when he says that it doesn't have to be this way.  So, when they hear a Republican say "I won't make it worse" and "keep things the way they are", they're more comfortable with him -- no matter how much of a slime he is.

All in all, WV is economically worse off than Norilsk, Russia.  There, at least jobs are somewhat available.  In WV, there is no work outside of coal, and those who work in the mines die young from black lung.  But, whereas they used to get Workers Compensation benefits, Republicans have changed the law denying them coverage which will result in a more agonizing and painful -- but cheap -- death.  That's the irony. 

Why do you think the left cannot form a working class coalition around Ojeda to bypass Democratic Elites like the right working class did with Trump?

>Why do you think the left cannot form a working class coalition around Ojeda to bypass Democratic Elites like the right working class did with Trump?

That is a very complicated question, and a good question.  I'm not sure I've thought about this enough to give a complete answer yet.  But, I can see at least seven levels that would have to be considered to address it with anything resembling sufficiency: (1) the threat posed by progressives, and especially people like Keith Ellison and Kirsten Gillibrand; (2) the threat posed by #metoo and the complicated mess of gender politics; (3) the impact of identity politics on the DNC; (4) the institutional narratives of "diversity" and "inclusion" to the exclusion of working class whites; (5) prejudice and stereotypes of the white working class, and the resulting judgment and narratives that follow from those stereotypes; (6) the illusory "solution" to the problem of gun violence in the form of laws that restrict access to firearms or ammunition, and attendant political implications of that to the democratic establishment; and (7) the unmistakable tension between the financial interests of donors and those of the working class in general, and the white working class in particular.  

These aren't totally discrete issues, and there's a lot of overlap between them; but for each of them, there is a unique problem posed.  I'll probably say some more about this later... but there's just too much to say to type it all out here.  Way too much to say.  

Let's just start out with the threat posed by progressives, and especially people like Keith Ellison and Kirsten Gellibrand. 

These are people who, as soon as you start even associating with people who have a sort of working class sense of humor, are going to go after you and shame you for that.  Assume hypothetically that Joe Biden wore a hula girl shirt; I'm sure Gellibrand would tweet about it, and her morass of the professionally offended social justice warrior types would make it their mission in life to make his condemnation the next viral phenomenon.  The world at large, almost all Americans, and nearly all democrats would know that Gellibrand was completely full of shit (just like she was with Al Franken), but everyone else in the DNC would be afraid that if they said "hey, wait a minute, isn't this a bit idiotic?" that they'd fall victim too for taking his side.

Democrats can't internally disagree on social issues because the illusion of social justice has become such a thing of unquestionable orthodoxy to them.  In a way, the way they treat diversity, #metoo, gender issues, and the like, is the same way that the evangelical right treats blacks and gays.  It's more tribal than it is about anything resembling tolerance, which is the reason why there's something like an armistice between the democratic elites and the progressives on those identity politics issues.   Both Gellibrand and Ellison, however, will not hesitate to position themselves to capitalize on this newfound priestly power they've acquired.  Gellibrand made that explicitly clear when she went out of her way to ruin Al Franken's career, which helped the DNC in exactly zero ways but helped her career by making her look like a champion of supposedly oppressed women.... which is the most unmitigatedly contrived morsel of bullshit the American people have been served since #MAGA. 

 So, the progressives hold daggers in their hands and the establishment don't want to get stabbed... and thus they stay out of arm's reach.   

Jesus Christ you really see a lot of vectors to a question. I'll have to think of another good one.

Okay how about this one.

When and how do you predict the Democratic Party will rein in the most fringe extreme members of the party?

Much thanks, I appreciate the detailed response.  I've never tried actual LD format but I have learned that using a current LD topic attracts more views.

I agree that last topic is about prioritization rather than one right's supercession.  I think I'd argue that application for public office inherently suppresses right to privacy (any employer has some responsibility for vetting potential employees) or limiting intrusion to strictly constitutional bounds and let the voters decide (that is, voters ought not vote for candidates who fail to prove their suitability via wide disclosure).

Interesting that the next topic is a subset of the present topic. I can think of good arguments for 3 positions but CON on Saudi Arms eludes me.  I certainly don't see how arms sales to Saudi Arabia advances any general American interest however rich a few Americans get off the sales.  Saudi Arabia is a major source of funding for the Taliban with whom we've been at war for 17 years.  We could end the war in a year if we just got our allies to stop financing our enemies, I expect.  Saudi money was the catalyst for ISIS's rapid expanision.  The Saudi Ambassador to the US financed at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. The surviving hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui has testified that the principle financier was then prince, now king Salman.  The same king who just murdered an American reporter and continues to deny an knowledge in the face of near universal scorn.  Saudi Arabia seems to me more like an active enemy: David throwing stones until Goliath sells him a pistol.

Well, there are about twelve other dynamics in play I can think of off the top of my head that would have at least some significant bearing on the answer to the question about why the DNC can't form a working class coalition; and that's not even getting to why such a coalition couldn't be formed around Ojeda in particular.   It's all very complicated.  

>When and how do you predict the Democratic Party will rein in the most fringe extreme members of the party?

So that we're clear, when/if I answer this question, I'm going to be referring to the identity politics left as the fringe/extreme; so, nearly all progressives fall into that category, though not all entirely.  That, said, this is an even more complicated question than the one about Ojeda.  There are at least ten major factors that play into that, which I can think of off the top of my head.  My initial instinct is to say either "they won't" or "I don't know", because my working theory has been that identity politics progressivism will implode on itself under its own weight.  There are signs of that now.  But, just because there are signs doesn't mean that there's an expedited timeline, or even a timeline at all.  It's really hard to say even IF the DNC will reign in their more extreme elements.  I will think about this more. 

You're welcome.  Ask more questions if you like.

As to the CON arguments on Saudi Arabia, there are several.  The most obvious would be that we could make future arms sales contingent upon them being more respectful of human rights.  But, there are about thirty other arguments on CON that immediately come to mind. 

Is that given King Salman perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, we should only give him missiles if he promises to do better? Would you concede Saudi Arabia is hostile to US interests?

Recast the 9 members of the Fellowship of the Ring with characters from other novels? (i.e. Holden Caulfield as Golem)

Name 3 villains you've wished had won. 

>Is that given King Salman perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, we should only give him missiles if he promises to do better? Would you concede Saudi Arabia is hostile to US interests?

I'm not exactly sure I understand your question.  But, what I think you're asking is, since it's fairly well known that the Saudis had some role in the 9/11 attacks, how can we realistically lend credence to any future promise not to engage in wanton human rights abuses?  If that's not what you're asking, let me know.

As a preliminary matter, it is beyond dispute that there are numerous areas where the Saudis are hostile to US interests.  But, that doesn't tell the whole story.  There are other areas where they cooperate, though those areas are becoming fewer and fewer.  

To the prior question, though... the fact that Saudi Arabia is whatever it is now, doesn't mean that it has to remain that way.  Even if they don't believe the way we believe, it's not inconceivable that they might change their beliefs; or, more pragmatically, even if they don't reform their beliefs (and support of terrorism) of their own choosing, they may at least care about their own interests in things like being able to sell their oil to Western countries to a degree that is sufficient to reach some kind of deal.  Values, beliefs, and ideals, often have a price tag.  With the Saudis, I'm sure that's as true as it would be for Lindsay Graham, who stopped caring about Trump and Russia when he started getting campaign contributions from questionable sources in Central Europe. 

>Recast the 9 members of the Fellowship of the Ring with characters from other novels? (i.e. Holden Caulfield as Golem)

Holden Caulfield as Golem would be a great place to start.  I will have to think about this more. 

V, from V for Vendetta... but he did win. 

I'll have to think about the rest.  

Does Bezos actually have billions of dollars?

Yes.

Anything I can do to increase my chances in becoming a police officer?

I don't know anything about becoming a police officer.  Sorry, bud. 

Imagine the people in Detroit became desperate and elected you Mayor.

What policies would you immediately implement to improve Detroit?

What would your long term policies look like? Be creative.

Hmmm.... that's going to require a long answer, but I would start by selling bonds on international markets to finance infrastructure and lobbying the state legislature for money for the same.  Once the infrastructure had reached a point where the city wasn't working with an unreliable power grid (as it currently is) and fixed the fucking pipes (water supply is fucked too), I'd start negotiating sweetheart tax deals for foreign companies to come to Detroit and open up factories, R&D labs, and the like.  I'd also finish the subway they stopped building during WWII.  That would be a good place to start. 

I'd also like to hear how you would restructure the property tax.

Welp, thats okay. Had a nice weekend?

Why foreign companies?

Because local companies know better.

Plus there is a better chance if it is foreign owned that it will resist the crony labor mob mentality of Detroit. Especially if it is Asian owned.

Can't you just post as YYW on DDO something like, "I am now coal on DArt" and then link it here?

This is YYW.  I haven't logged into DDO in a while.

I presume you like Ojeda then?

I haven't forgotten about you, or GrayParrot.  For the record, I do not agree with GrayParrot's answer but certainly can understand why he might hold those opinions.

I am unequivocally pro-union.  The short answer to why foreign companies is because I want to bring new capital into the country and into my state, not shift capital from one state to another where net American jobs aren't created. 

My goal is in creating a business environment where a middle class can prosper, and where the number of people who can enter and remain in the middle class includes people who have only a high school degree, and people who have Ph.D.'s.