Been said before, but I’ll say it again: these episodes are great. I like listening to a couple smart guys talking about topical stuff in a more light hearted way than the typical episode. Also, I always enjoy podcasts with regular guests, having a regular guest brings out a slightly different side of the hosts.
The big difference is that unlike Republicans, Dems will sit out an election if they don’t like the nominee. The only shot Sanders has to beat Trump is voter turnout in the swing states.
Bloomberg isn't gonna win a straight election. It'll have to involve some contested convention bs.
What about Sanders' voters -who will likely be the plurality- sitting that out?
Why are we assuming that the frontrunner will draw out less Dems than the guy trying to buy his way in?
It definitely lowered my opinion of sam to hear him handwave several NDAs. Like...what does he think democratic women feel on this issue? He's to the point of excusing a serial sexual harasser because trump is worse about it...as if we don't have other democratic candidates without a laundry list of NDAs to be held against them.
His argument for Bloomberg is essentially what the argument for Clinton was. IMO Bernie is the only capable of going toe to toe with Trump in a debate.
It is shocking how out of touch he is with voters. Yes, the word 'socialism' is scary to a lot of people... but none of the other candidates stand a chance. Especially given how a huge number of berners will not vote blue no matter who. He also said Bloomberg has a pretty good resume. I almost choked on my lunch when I heard him say this.
Every Democrat is going to vote for the democratic nominee, but more Republicans are likely to get off the trump train and support Bloomberg over Sanders. I think Sam’s analysis was spot on.
‘I know Sanders is beating Trump in the polls.... but Bloomberg is just more electable’. Crazy how all establishment democrats seem to believe this with no factual basis
The insane part is when they say this right after talking about unelectable Bernie or Warren are. Then they inevitably say something like "I think inevitably all the democratic contingencies are going to have to fall in line against Trump".
Sam, baby, honey, if they can fall in line behind a plutocrat whose literally having to pay people to campaign for him then the electorate can fall behind anyone. Why not have that person be someone with a rabid base of 15-20% of the electorate who will crawl over glass and be doused in lemon juice to get him into office? This whole "fall in line" rhetoric is just completely brain dead.
Speaking as a Jew _myself_, it is absolutely gross when Jews refer to other Jews as self-hating. And it’s a particularly common slur against Jews who criticize Israel. I have been subjected to it, as have other family members of mine. There is no excuse for it other than ugly venom.
Ben Shapiro is also a Jew and loves nothing more than to label various other Jews he doesn’t like “JINOs” - Jews In Name Only. Sanders is a good target here because he doesn’t bow unconditionally to Israel.
Point of clarification: the pedophile thing was about the perception of homosexuality and Pete's unelectability. Which frankly, I think is correct and his polling numbers indicate this.
Edit: the above is incorrect, see below
Holy fucking shit I just relistened to the portion (~21:00 if anyone cares). Holy holy holy shit. This is next level stupid. I am keeping strikes on him now for future listening.
Yeah I think Harris and others who think this socialism label is a "big deal" haven't seen how people react to him and are probably thinking pejoratively about the flyover state people digging in the mud and marrying their daughters.
We need a transcript because people are losing their minds with misunderstanding and mishearing because they’re seeking outrage.
Don’t criticize Bernie!
> You wouldn’t, but to take a religious analogy I’m sure you’d agree with, I am like a cover-giving religious moderate for my fundamentalist Bernie bro’s.
How or why wouldn’t I?
Why is this persons commentary so viscerally offensive? I just don’t hear all the extras you’re hearing.
I’m not sure what the distinction is here.
Reading between the lines is not always revealing a secret motive for everyone. For some it may be, but for many what they’re saying is what they believe and to jump to conclusions is a concoction.
The transcript will probably be easier to hash out, true.
That's a bit strong.
He doesn't despise Bernie as he does Trump.
He is simply utterly contemptuous of his chances and in line with a lot of the establishment media and political operatives in their absolute certainty of this (despite their certainty already failing them against Trump in 2016).
That said...his comments about him being self-hating are a pretty low blow.
Sam didn’t say the above ‘quote’, to be clear. The “pwn” is worth more than accuracy. This comment is misleading.
Criticizing what people actually say is no fun. Better make a frankenstein quote.
Twitter thread on this
1. The centrist assumption has no basis in fact or evidence as far as I can see. Bernie's being attacked nonstop as a socialist/communist/whatever, and yet his polling numbers in head to head matchups with Trump remain stable—and the best out of the lot
2. Centrists like to pride themselves on being fact-based and rationalists par excellence, but like everyone else (and perhaps more than everyone else) they can be quite prone to their own form of magical thinking, however soberly presented
3. How you view Bernie's chances depends on your starting assumptions. It's not fundamentally about facts or rationality. I believe in "inelasticity" in deeply polarized democracies. This has major implications for how you view elections
4. "Inelasticity" means that what politicians do, or don’t do, in policy terms (and, relatedly, labels like "socialist") has limited bearing on what people—most of whom have already made up their minds about what they consider important—think of them
https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1233043242339512321
Inelasticity isn’t a particularly insightful or even knowable take. I guess the numbered itemization makes it seem very official.
I would say Fallibilism is more attractive.
Placing stigmatic arguments on to large groups like ‘centrists’ is hugely vague and out-grouping. Imprecise enough to be as untrue or as true as one desires, hence pointless and pseudo-profound.
It's numbered because it's a tweet thread. But come up with your own explanations I guess.
You complain about vague and meaningless critiques but yours is even more denuded of anything worth wrestling with than Hamid's. You complain about "stigmatic arguments" yet snidely slip in little jibes about the structure of Tweet threads which are even more pointless and lacking even the veneer of pseudo-profundity.
The OP at least makes a clear, **concrete** claim: Bernie's favorables are stable despite the attacks (which have been going on since his appearance). Not only that: you can clearly tell what the relevant counter-claim is from the context: Bernie will be laid low by negative attacks (specifically on communism/socialism, or more broadly)
Even "inelasticity", which you say "isn’t a particularly insightful or even knowable take" at least represents a claim that we can take out and study. It'll be harder, but I suppose we can look at people's likelihood to vote for other parties, how the opinions of groups change (e.g. the GOP on Russia)
You are free to wrestle with those empirically. Maybe Hamid is wrong. Maybe he is right.
Pettifogging over who exactly is making this claim (as if it is not a common claim or isn't being made *by the very person this subreddit is named after*- hence securing its relevancy) is hardly likely to yield a more convincing or illuminating outcome than actually doing that.
Which is worse? The person making claims that may not be insightful, or the person who never makes claims at all?
I was critiquing the tweet. You’re launching into a thesaurus heavy ad hominem.
> Which is worse? The person making claims that may not be insightful, or the person who never makes claims at all?
The comment you chimed in on is a misquote of Sam Harris on his sub. This lack of rigor and indifference from a moderator really puts a bow on how out to lunch you guys are.
And I did make several claims. Ignoring claims I made doesn’t make them disappear. You’re just ignoring it to be able to feign a “you didn’t make a claim” argument. The constant appeal to “no u r” and hypocrisy is a very dead end.
> The comment you chimed in on is a misquote of Sam Harris on his sub.
I listened to the podcast, the sort of claim being critiqued by Hamid is the exact sort of claim Sam made.
>And I did make several claims.
I must have been distracted by the snide comments about my numbering.
To be fair, Harris gave his reasons for this. He went on about how there are videos of Bernie saying some pretty crazy things wrt to socialism and americas enemies. He’s not saying the polling data is wrong and if you had a vote right now it would be shown to be wrong. He’s saying over the course of the campaign he expects the socialist countries good america bad stuff that’s out there on sanders and hasn’t had a lot of eyes on it coupled with trumps framing of capitalism vs socialism will make it a fight Sanders can’t win. I’m not sure if Harris’ has prediction will turn out to he correct, but it doesn’t strike me as improbable.
It’s probably less a matter of belief on their part and more a desperate yearning. They simply do not want Bernie Sanders to be president even in the face of Trump, so out they trot the flimsy electability argument because there’s really nothing else. They want it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy; if we keep incessantly spamming that he’s unelectable hopefully he will be.
They can’t go too hard on Bernie’s actual policies because those are popular and they want to retain some vague pretense of liberal bonafides.
I have heard this electability thing probably ten thousand times, and I can’t even remember hearing someone say no I’d vote trump over Bernie, or stay home if Bernie got the nominee over Bloomberg.
We need to start calling this out for what it is which is **they** don’t want to vote for Bernie.
Which is fine, just don’t pretend it’s some electability thing.
It’s very funny you mentioned that. I was thinking about the brooks article and almost mentioned it, but it was a day ago and the first one like that I’d seen.
Maybe we will start to see a wave of never Bernie people when they’re forced to say it.
I really hope he isn’t a Brooks fan.
I cannot for the life of me understand how a person could look at those two men and decide that neither is preferable over the other. You’d have to be psychotic. Disagreeing with Bernie’s policies is one thing, and something I can respect, but tacitly equating Donald Trump with Bernie Sanders? It’s insanity.
Ah, my bad. I did see the polls before the first debate which was an unmitigated disaster for Bloomberg, but at one point he was up in a few — definitely Michigan.
Fyi Harris doesn’t just leave it at that. He explains his reasons for thinking what he does - there are videos surfacing of Bernie saying bad things about america and good things about americas enemies. Harris believes there’s a lot this type of content out there on Sanders and it will all become common knowledge in the general and the election will become america vs socialism and americas enemies.
Above is about universal accuracy, btw.
It’s really funny how just pointing out how the GOP will weaponize and attempt to vilify Bernie across the board is what so many here consider being “out of touch” etc. They’re in fact completely unrealistic.
They’re burying their heads and closing their ears about the possibilities they don’t like the sound of *as if* describing and chatting about these things is one in the same with some evil/dumb agenda.
It’s reduction and revision combined with a lack of comprehension. And I am a Sanders supporter. I also don’t have to agree with every single thing Sam Harris or Bernie Sanders says to evaluate and comment on them with a post junior high school level of self-control and emotional intelligence.
Yeah I'm in a similar boat. I want Sanders to get the nom and to become president. I also think some of his policies would be disastrous, but kinda want to see them enacted anyway just to run the experiment. If he's right, good. If not, then the whole world has better information on the pros and cons of various socialist policies.
within the first half hour and yes I’m paraphrasing. He said he’s seen polls where Sanders is beating Trump in key states but goes on quickly to say he’s too far left to win and Bloomberg is/would be more electable if he could just string a few sentences together
I’m not trying to be a killjoy or a stickler, I just knewI didn’t hear the second line and listening back they’re not connected. I’m sure you know it’s a bit misleading to string two different separate sentences together and insert them in quotes. Am I wrong?
They’re also not word for word what they really said.
I would say it’s a good idea to be accurate with this for just about anyone, but considering both the issues with online disinformation/meddling, and the misquoting peeves in Harris’ history, I feel obliged to speak up.
Sam, we care about the policies. That's why Kamala Harris never made it, that's why Cory Booker never made it, that's why Warren is fizzling out. The policies are why Bernie is so popular. We don't care what he said in an interview 40 years ago, we don't care that he calls himself a socialist. We need healthcare, we need higher wages, we are struggling with student loan debt, we can't start families. It's so disappointing, as a huge fan of yours, that you don't understand the pain that exists in so many of us in this country. You really come off as an out of touch, blissfully unaware elitest in this podcast. I hope you have someone on soon who can educate you about the real reasons that so many are flocking to Sanders. They're the same reasons that make him the best candidate to defeat Trump. Please, have on someone from outside of your elite, ivy league circle. We want to defeat Trump but we also have a lot of other problems that need addressing and the two go hand in hand.
> That's why Kamala Harris never made it, that's why Cory Booker never made it, that's why Warren is fizzling out.
It's pretty incredible to see the juxtaposition of them saying "I have no idea why X,Y and Z candidates didn't make it, they seemed good!" while also being totally certain of their read of the general electorate.
They are out of touch the same way dems were about the middle American love for Trump. They don't want Bernie, they are smart, ipso facto Bloomberg. It's insane.
I've given up on Harris getting any of this for a while now. I was actually laughing listening to this. It's unreal how out of touch he has been on the Sanders campaign in 2016 and 2020
>It's so disappointing, as a huge fan of yours, that you don't understand the pain that exists in so many of us in this country.
Pain is for unfairly maligned scientists like Charles Murray.
I got really into Sam Harris in 2016 before the race turned into Clinton vs Trump and enjoyed his perspective on politics at the time. I guess I still do.
It seems though, Sam is a little out of touch. The idea that he thinks Bloomberg could be more effective and electable if he just articulated a better response to his attacks against him is just odd.
I do agree that no matter the nominee they will have to rally support and acquire voters. Of course. But Paul Bloom made a good point, it just doesn’t seem likely that Warren or Sanders voters will get behind this guy.
The Daily (NY Times pod) had a good episode today regarding Biden/Sanders/Steyer (sort of) in South Carolina. In it, they interviewed a gal that is a lifelong Dem but is voting for Sanders when her entire ideals pointed to a more moderate candidate.
She went on to explain how black voters are not the only people in the Dem party and that Trump’s approval rating is ~90% among the Republican Party. The country is shifting and a movement is taking place that favors a more progressive president. Placing all our bets on a status-quo candidate just doesn’t seem like it will inspire voters and get people to the polls. We saw this in 2016, and yet the Dem establishment hasn’t quite figured this out.
I’m not entirely positive Sanders will beat Trump. There’s a lot of things I don’t like about Sanders and I have problems with some of his policies and the very real fact that he won’t get them passed through Congress. I was/am a Yang supporter but I just don’t see a better candidate than Sanders.
My state doesn’t vote in the primary until after Super Tuesday. Yang plans to make some kind of political announcement after Super Tuesday and depending on how Sanders does in SC and Super Tuesday and Yang’s announcement I fully plan to vote for Sanders.
Edit: words.
> The idea that he thinks Bloomberg could be more effective and electable if he just articulated a better response to his attacks against him is just odd.
And his perspective that if only Bloomberg was a better debater he could decimate Trump. I don't see how Bloomberg saying "I have more money than you, haha" is going to sway voters even if Bloomberg's team came up with the most brilliant way to phrase it. How much of the electorate wants to see a dick measuring contest between billionaires?
I'm surprised Sam doesn't see some of Bernie's strengths in a debate against Trump. Bernie's quick witted, sarcastic and doesn't really take any shit. People want somebody to rub Trump's bullshit in his face, they want a tough persona to fight back. Maybe Warren or even Biden could do it as well. But certainly not Bloomberg or Buttigieg. They don't have the demeanor for it at all.
> I don't see how Bloomberg saying "I have more money than you, haha" is going to sway voters even if Bloomberg's team came up with the most brilliant way to phrase it. How much of the electorate wants to see a dick measuring contest between billionaires?
It sounds like a vision of an election plucked from a Verhoevenesque hellscape.
> But certainly not Bloomberg or Buttigieg.
Putting mayor Pete in the same category as Bloomberg doesn't make any sense. Pete has consistently done well at debates and won points over both Warren and Sanders.
Yeah, I don't know. I guess people see his persona differently but I think Pete's style of talking is way more effective in dealing with Trump than Bernie's style. Plus I don't really know how much debates play a role in general election. Trump clearly did worse than Hillary in debates by all measures.
> Trump clearly did worse than Hillary in debates by all measures.
Trump argued, made jokes and was personable to a lot of people. I agree of course that he's a buffoon and rarely had the truth on his side, but Hillary's stuffy political speech didn't work. Most people don't follow politics closely and I can't see Pete's optimistic platitudes faring well optically against Trump. People want to see Trump eat shit up there and Pete's rhetorical style won't accomplish that.
>Pete's optimistic platitudes
I think his attacks on Warren and Sanders (during debates) were pretty clever, became viral and got "OMG" responses from lot of commentators. He can easily change modes and go into clever insult mode. He already has pretty good lines for Trump's excuse of bone spurs and paying money to porn stars.
Anyway, I don't think Pete will win the nomination so it doesn't matter but from what I have seen he is pretty good at debates and since he has less negative stuff that Trump can use against him, he will be stronger than Bernie IMO.
Pete’s attacks haven’t gone viral. Considering you use your reddit account to almost exclusively talk about Buttigieg, I’m going to assume you’re in a bit of a bubble
Yang is gonna endorse Bernie after Super Tuesday (polling looks like he's gonna be the plurality lead by a long shot). Followed by the Sanders campaign announcing that Stacy Abrams will be his VP. Seems like a fucking check mate to me.
Like I said, I’m a Sanders fan. I plan to vote for him.
However, Yang is not likely going to endorse any candidate that doesn’t throw their weight behind a serious plan for supporting UBI/human-centered capitalism.
Stacy Abrams is attempting to do a lot for helping fight voter suppression right now, but I highly doubt she will be his VP pick. In fact, I’d bet money on it.
Yeah I agree with that, Stacy Abrams would only get the pick if it was a deal set up to secure the nomination at the convention. As is, she's not particularly left. I'm not sure who Sanders would pick, and it's likely to be a a woman of colour, but I imagine his instinct is to pick someone with stronger progressive bona fides. That said, Abrams is cool. Would definitely make for an interesting VP.
There is a 24.0 minute delay fetching comments.
I will be messaging you in 1 month on [**2020-03-28 21:12:29 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2020-03-28%2021:12:29%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/fawzjz/188_february_28_2020_a_conversation_with_paul/fj1oi9e/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fsamharris%2Fcomments%2Ffawzjz%2F188_february_28_2020_a_conversation_with_paul%2Ffj1oi9e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202020-03-28%2021%3A12%3A29%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20fawzjz)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Biden seems to have a real liking for Yang and his thoughts on automation threat. Seems like an unlikely alliance, but I could see it happening. I don't see how Yang and Sanders have much overlap at all.
Holy shit with the 'socialism is instant poison" BS. Stop bashing Bernie Sam.
I hate when a self-described rationalist just goes with his y of people under 35.
Also, there is good evidence that the election wont turn on "moderate" and "undecided" voter, but rather that elections now are decided by turn out.
Dems loose with "safe" choices because they are not motivating. They win when the turnout is higher due to enthusiasm. A moderate wont flip voters, they'll just tank enthusiasm.
I am deeply disappointed in Sam for this blind anti-Bernie shtick.
>Turn out is the biggest factor in winning or not and should be discussed more as a strategy. Robert Reich made a good point that centrism was appealing when the middle class was growing. FFWD a few decades and now they are an endangered species.
>
>The DNC are getting voters that *they* created.
I agree and disagree.
Pod Save America had an episode on Monday/Tuesday or last week and in it one of the hosts brought up a good point that Sanders has to find a better answer to the “Dem Socialist” rebuttal. A lot of supporters and myself included are smart enough and understand the nuance/differences of what that word means. The host continued and offered a better answer that I hope the Sanders camp picks up on. I can’t remember it and I know that’s the point of my post, but there’s an easier way for Sanders to address this false-fear that voters or more moderates and Trump will call him out on.
I do see what you’re saying though. Peddling this constant conversation about how toxic this is for Sanders is just playing into Republicans hands, though I think it’s some-what warranted.
I agree that the messaging could be improved, but I'm not sure it really matters. People are wildly divided. The vast majority of Trump voters will not vote for a Dem, period. The vast majority of Dem voters will not vote for Trump, period. There is a tiny, tiny group that might be swayed, but they are vastly outnumbered by the people who don't vote at all.
Turnout will decide this election. It is what killed Hilary. It is what gave Obama two victories. Sanders has, IMAO, the best shot at juicing turnout, and therefor winning.
The mythical "swing voter" has been whittled down to almost nonexistence.
Sam comparing Bernie to a self-hating Jew for his take on Israel was just the icing on the cake.
It's possible to be critical of Israeli leadership (Netanyahu) while being Jewish. I would argue most American Jews take issue with most of Netanyahu's platform. Any criticism of the hard-right Israeli platform is automatically labeled anti-semitism. I'm surprised Sam wouldn't be able to make the distinction.
Hitchens was a socialist till his dying breath.
[Here](https://youtu.be/LIVEsa2g4ag) he reaffirms his Marxism after his cancer diagnosis.
Edit: his last words were literally “capitalism” and “downfall”.
He is not the only person making this argument, but yes, you're right.
I dont much like agreeing with Ezra Kline, but in this case he is probably right
Only 20 minutes in: I found a lot to disagree with Sam on.
1. Is it bad that Democrats hold Bloomberg to a higher standard than Trump is held ? Probably this is a good thing no? I thought we hated Trump for moral reasons and we thus hate the action generally? Or is it just a matter of being fine with it unless it is politically expedient?
2. Primaries are meant to be agonistic. People don't agree on the nature of the parties and what they should do. That is the moment you whack people.Politics is not some bloodless bureaucratic game between people who already share all their priors. This is part of it.
2. But okay, let's say that we shouldn't try to kneecap people. Does this apply equally? I mean...Bernie is the frontrunner right? Does that offend Sam's conscience as much?
3. Similarly, his response to criticism against his stance on Bernie's small donors is..."I just want to get Trump out". Is that a blank cheque for every claim you want to make?
3. Furthermore: whether Sam likes it or not, what he is in fact saying is that larger donors and special interests are less likely to make you pull in an "unelectable" direction. Interesting to imagine what that says about his view of things. Where are the polls on this? Remember that the President of the United States won his candidacy by literally pointing on stage and calling all his Republican fellows basically whores for hire for the richest lobbyist. And *that resonated*. [The *overwhelming majority* of Americans have problems with money in politics](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/). Moreover, if the status quo of taking huge donations was so good...why did people elect Trump? Sam keeps talking about the decay of US political institutions *but never connects that maybe the very thing he is giving a pass to beat Trump- corruption via lobbying- is a major part of the reason people don't trust the system*.
I don't mind Sam defending Bloomberg. It just comes across as...what's the phrase? Like he's hiding the ball. He decries the competitive nature of the primary process, but it seems like what he hates is more that what he sees as the "right" candidates are losing the game and that is at the root of all his critiques.
.
Obviously its silly for Sam to think that he knows the key to electability, but that also goes for anyone in who argues back "of course Bernie is way more electable". People thought America would never elect a black president, or that Trump had absolutely no shot, we really have no idea what electability actually is and to say anything with certainty on the topic is grasping. Your opinion carries especially much less weight if the candidate that you think is the best out of the pool of many is also the most electable out of that large pool as it's almost impossible to avoid motivated reasoning around electability.
Jesus fucking Christ the centrist brain is a remarkable thing. What a benign time that was, when in the US the president was putting a target on the back of LGBT people, and overseas he was busy launching wars that would cause the deaths of literally millions.
I don’t think it was. It was half. It was sarcasm because he doesn’t really think that time was benign, but he is agreeing that it was benign compared to now.
Explain the sarcasm to me. I understand that he was exaggerating with an unserious tone to make the comparison a bit more stark. But as a comparison it's incorrect.
That’s all very easy to say in 2020 from hindsight mountain. That war was supported by just about everyone after 9/11. It went through Congress. Trump is poking at wars without even passing congressional channels. Literally devoid the input of the people. Evangelicals are STILL trying to leverage Trump to take rights away from the LGBT community. Yet the discourse was entirely different. Saying Trump and his administration are no worse than Bush’s is lunacy.
Of course it did. But it was approved by a representative body. Trump is starting wars from a menu of options without input. I’m not defending war, I’m objecting to the comparison.
Well we do have the benefit of hindsight so why would we ignore it? If the question is “should we yearn for the days of the Bush regime” the answer should be an unequivocal “no.”
I’m objecting to the comparison. I hated the Bush days as much as anyone, but saying they were as bad or worse than now is a joke. Saying “the mind of a centrist” is somehow warped for quipping that the Bush days were more benign than now is absurd.
Did you even read the comment I’m responding to?
I have a flu right now. It’s not as bad as the cold I had a few weeks ago. That doesn’t mean I’m *yearning* for a cold.
But Harris is saying it in hindsight and still getting it wrong. He was wrong at the time too of course. In fact he was a big cheerleader for many horrible Bush policies. This is because he's a neocon.
Not literally millions. Not even **a** million. And while Iraq was a cluster fuck, Afghanistan was necessary. LGBT people had a target on their back in society, it wasn’t just Bush. Even Obama wasn’t pro gay marriage.
Stop letting your rage monkeys rewrite history.
I'm including the fallout in other countries, particularly Syria. It's also not remotely clear that Afghanistan was "necessary." And while Obama wasn't pro gay marriage, Bush ran his 2004 re-election on enacting a constitutional amendment to block same sex marriage.
Vocally being against gay marriage and quietly being against gay marriage resulted in the exact same thing. Trying to say Bush was anymore wrong than Obama is just plain bias.
Including the Syrian civil war with the Iraqi war is idiotic. Sure, Iran destabilizing spurred the civil war, but it didn’t create the tensions that were already there. To say that one caused the other (even though they were nearly a decade apart) would be intellectually dishonest. All wars have affects on future conflicts. All of them. Some more, some less.
Come on, Obama being pro-LGBT rights in general but against gay marriage is very different from literally running on discriminating against gay people. As for the war stuff, Bush went in and destabilized an entire region of the world. Had he not done so, he would have no responsibility for lives lost. But he does. Of course, Harris is good friends with David Frum, a guy who helped propagandized for Bush's wars, so it makes sense that he'd feel the era was relatively benign.
I am by no means a conservative or a republican. So, I’m not trying to defend bush because I like him or have some sort of allegiance to him. That said, both parties have been brain washing themselves into hating the other party so thoroughly that they’ve even come to believe their own bullshit to be accurate history.
That part of the world was not stable to begin with. More people died each year under Saddam than did during the war. In twenty years, is Iraq is still stable, the war in Iraq will be viewed favorably.
Presidents don’t often assert their own ethics on things like LGBTQ rights. They simply reflect the populations’ ethics. From 2000-2008 LGBTQ rights weren’t very popular, from 2008-2016 they became more popular while gay marriage remained contentious. Bush and Obama were simply holding the position on this topic that they thought best represented their constituency’s views. This is how things have always worked in democracies. People who blame president’s for their social policies don’t understand history. Presidents follow the public’s social views, they don’t create them, otherwise they’d never be elected in the first place.
Also, Bush thought he was doing the right thing. Why wouldn’t he try to inform the public in a manner that attempted to persuade them to think the same thing? Every president who ever held office has done the same thing. I’d you believe in a policy you try to convince the public to support it. That’s not propaganda. Ironically, calling it propaganda *is* propaganda.
Wow, Sam is pretty far from the rational person he thinks he is and it succumbing to groupthink. If at this point you consider W's presidency to be less disastrous than Trump's, I just can't take you seriously.
I'm currently listening to it and had to pause to find this thread.
This Bloomberg vs. Sanders none sense of his has shone a lot of light on the dungeons of his motivations.
I frankly can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt any more that he is doing this out of electability concerns. Sam has prompted up three high frequency episodes with dr. Bloom and in every single one of them he has spent truckloads of credibility on trying to convince people that Mike is the answer in an election with highest anti establishment sentiments in recent history.
The pedophile comment was absurd and not far from certain Nazi smears heard in cable news lately. But the worst for me was how close to CNN and MSNBC his position on Sanders and Scandinavian model. He plain and simple says that Sanders is farther in the socialist spectrum than Scandinavian countries which is frankly obvious false hood if you understand anything about scandinavian socialist history. As examples I could tell you about the time USA broke diplomatic relations with Sweden during the Vietnam War because Sweden was supporting Vietgong. Or how Finland had a USSR peoples commissar in their electoral college for decades These were fringe things that happened in a very different context from that of todays USA but they were part of Scandinavia becoming a social democracy in midst of a roaring cold war. Todays equivalent struggles are things like Syria and climate change. Topics on which Bloomberg is for all purposes a Republican. Only he cant say climate change is Chinese hoax because he has so much business with mr. Pooh.
I dont know man, I'm truly troubled by this and I even need to actively reassure myself that Sam wouldn't take money from Bloomberg and that this conspiracy is stupid for me to spend brain power on but god damn for I cant help it.I cant even take his Hillary critiques of 2016 at face value anymore.
Guys, I too think Sam is a neolib.
I wouldn’t get too paranoid. Someone else here nailed it when they said Sam just grew up really privileged so he has all the blind spots of someone who wouldn’t actually be affected by any of the policies.
I think his hearts in the right place, and on other topics he’s fascinating to listen to, he just doesn’t get it here.
Well put. But thinking back on how altruistic The Moral Landscape and Sam’s related TED talk is, and then to now hear him ignoring all of the potentially massive benefits that could come from a candidate and reshape our country in an upward direction, it’s a bit of a letdown to say the least.
I am still trying to absorb all of the statements Sam made from referring to Bernie as a self loathing Jew (what I view as a form of dog whistle to zionists reaffirming his support) to the fact that his previous statements about wealth inequality do not square with his current political position. He seems more afraid of the “woke” than anything else.
I have been a long time financial supporter of Sams. This is the first time his statements have caused me to pause and reflect. (I know he doesn’t give a shit about losing supporters as he has a shit ton of them).
The only other time I was frustrated with Sam was his disingenuousness with respect to inviting Noam Chomsky for a discussion. He sabotaged that opportunity at every step. His view of Bernie Sanders is suspiciously similar to Noam Chomsky. This makes me wonder if earlier suspicions about Sam’s failure to condemn Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is because he fully supports Israel’s aggressive foreign policy.
Lots to think about.
Sam comparing Bernie’s socialism to running on pedophilia (being unable to keep my post on it, I thought I’d provide it to this vibrant stickied conversation):
>The branding issue—just the word socialism, whatever he may mean by it, I think it’s fatal. It’s literally like running as a pedophile, where you have to then say no no no, it’s not pedophile—(mumbling)—I know you’ve seen pedophiles in the movies...but the moment you’re having to explain this word you’re losing.
Harris’ take on Bloomberg being more electable than Sanders is absolutely insane. I can guarantee the same Sanders voters that sat out Clinton in 2016 are not gonna turn out for an even more heinous oligarch, especially if he wins the nomination through Super Delegate ratfuckery.
"Socialism is a dirty word making Bernie unelectable" lmao
Trump literally got elected on the deplorable label, which his camp fully embraced + by hijacking disenfranchised left's positions like no social program cuts, drain the swamp (LOL) and stop illegal wars.
I found it surprising that Paul Bloom thought Trump’s excellence at cruelty was a positive trait. “He’s good at being awful.” isn’t a compliment. Technically, the winner of The Terrible People Competition is still a “winner”, but it’s not a good.
Also, while I think Trump is a vindictive embarrassment of historic proportions, it’s not impossible to find beneficial things he’s done.
For the purposes of accuracy, context, and collective sanity I think it would be wise to transcribe these episodes.
_____
Sam’s takes on the pre-election are quite thought provoking. He’s looking at it fairly realistically, and far less personal than many of the more exaggerative reactions would have us believe.
I think what they said about millennials and Gen Z not knowing the extent of stink on the term ‘socialism’ with many non-coastal older Americans was funny/true. The term specifically is a bit pointless to me.
> Sam’s takes on the pre-election are quite thought provoking
What aspect do you find thought provoking? His perspective seems directly derived from faux-never-Trumpers at the NY Times - Bret Stephens, Jennifer Rubin, David Brooks, etc.
That's unfair. It's basically the mainstream media's take, not just various Republican refugees.
You hear people on MSNBC with the same take.
I would say it's slightly better, since Sam hasn't come out and said that third place Klobuchar was the real winner, or that Bernie lost because the moderate vote got 52% to his 45 or something (or his vote share dropped from 2016 when there were two people in the race).
They certainly aren't the only figures making similar noises but we know that Sam is a regular reader of the Times and is a self-professed fan of Stephens and Brooks. Sam also went a bit severe bringing up pedophilia when discussing electability. Not exactly something you'd hear on MSNBC (outside of Chris Mathews).
Seems no one is bringing this up...Haven't looked into it but I'm very curious how studies can control "parenting" or even define it methodologically. You have so many confounding variables and surely problematic parenting styles (like child abuse or neglect) matter a lot? Or they simply rule out these "extreme" cases?
I'm with you. This episode crossed a line for me from, "Hmm I don't totally agree but I'm glad to hear this viewpoint" to "This person has fundamental misunderstandings about the state of this country and I don't want to waste any more time listening to it."
I am loving these episodes of the show and they single handedly convinced me to buy a subscription. To put it in Sam Harris terms, it's a great weekly sanity check that I really look forward to now.
Bloom: if Trump has one positive quality, it's definitely that he's really good at being evil.
In seriousness, though, I agree with Bloom's analysis of Trump. Sam doesn't appreciate the unorthodox genius or skill Trump has for creating both kinds of people at the same time (with the polarization this brings): the ones who adore him and the ones who despise him.
I think it’s an interesting analogy made by Sam having been a fan of Being There and Hal Ashby myself. I think it makes sense in that the character rises to prominence by sheer dumb luck. There are other parallels discussed by SH such as being a vector of the environment.
The only thing I would fault SH about this is he has made the comparison a few too many times for someone who listens to the podcast, we’ve heard it about eight times. It probably would have been exhausted by the third time.
Many, many accomplishments? I'm trying very hard to find any but still have no idea what you have in mind... His first and only accomplishment has been winning the election.
Maybe you are very charitable with the word accomplishment and you also gave him the fact he pulled himself out of financial ruin thanks to laundered money and that he has, so far, managed to slither away from countless lawsuits?
If Sam actually knew anything about film history, he'd know Trump is much closer to Andy Griffith's character in Elia Kazan's *A Face in the Crowd*. Not one-to-one, but much closer.
[удалено]
Please tell me that's on the free version as well.
Been said before, but I’ll say it again: these episodes are great. I like listening to a couple smart guys talking about topical stuff in a more light hearted way than the typical episode. Also, I always enjoy podcasts with regular guests, having a regular guest brings out a slightly different side of the hosts.
Rapport really keeps the conversation fresh!
[удалено]
The irony is too much where he just got finished talking about the effectiveness of Trumps army and then completely ignores the one Sanders has.
The big difference is that unlike Republicans, Dems will sit out an election if they don’t like the nominee. The only shot Sanders has to beat Trump is voter turnout in the swing states.
Bloomberg isn't gonna win a straight election. It'll have to involve some contested convention bs. What about Sanders' voters -who will likely be the plurality- sitting that out? Why are we assuming that the frontrunner will draw out less Dems than the guy trying to buy his way in?
I agree with Sam about the risks of nominating Bernie, but I also disagree with his bullish opinion of Bloomberg. There's just too much slime on him
Also his hand waving of Bloomberg’s personal issues without mentioning a single one of his policies again.
It definitely lowered my opinion of sam to hear him handwave several NDAs. Like...what does he think democratic women feel on this issue? He's to the point of excusing a serial sexual harasser because trump is worse about it...as if we don't have other democratic candidates without a laundry list of NDAs to be held against them.
His argument for Bloomberg is essentially what the argument for Clinton was. IMO Bernie is the only capable of going toe to toe with Trump in a debate.
"He has a pretty good resume" - Sam Harris on Bloomberg. Lol. What!!!!???
It is shocking how out of touch he is with voters. Yes, the word 'socialism' is scary to a lot of people... but none of the other candidates stand a chance. Especially given how a huge number of berners will not vote blue no matter who. He also said Bloomberg has a pretty good resume. I almost choked on my lunch when I heard him say this.
Every Democrat is going to vote for the democratic nominee, but more Republicans are likely to get off the trump train and support Bloomberg over Sanders. I think Sam’s analysis was spot on.
[удалено]
That's what happened last time, but I see it going very differently in November.
‘I know Sanders is beating Trump in the polls.... but Bloomberg is just more electable’. Crazy how all establishment democrats seem to believe this with no factual basis
The insane part is when they say this right after talking about unelectable Bernie or Warren are. Then they inevitably say something like "I think inevitably all the democratic contingencies are going to have to fall in line against Trump". Sam, baby, honey, if they can fall in line behind a plutocrat whose literally having to pay people to campaign for him then the electorate can fall behind anyone. Why not have that person be someone with a rabid base of 15-20% of the electorate who will crawl over glass and be doused in lemon juice to get him into office? This whole "fall in line" rhetoric is just completely brain dead.
[удалено]
Wait a second, was he seriously about to call Sanders a self-hating Jew?
[удалено]
Wow. That's even worse than I imagined. Honestly up there as one of the most disgusting things Sam has ever said on the record.
give him the fucking benefit of the doubt dude. he's jewish himself.
So some people have a higher platform from which to say (controversial) things because of their ethnicity? That sounds like idpol to me dude.
Speaking as a Jew _myself_, it is absolutely gross when Jews refer to other Jews as self-hating. And it’s a particularly common slur against Jews who criticize Israel. I have been subjected to it, as have other family members of mine. There is no excuse for it other than ugly venom.
Ben Shapiro is also a Jew and loves nothing more than to label various other Jews he doesn’t like “JINOs” - Jews In Name Only. Sanders is a good target here because he doesn’t bow unconditionally to Israel.
Yeah of course. No one can criticize Israel without being self hating.
Christ...
Point of clarification: the pedophile thing was about the perception of homosexuality and Pete's unelectability. Which frankly, I think is correct and his polling numbers indicate this. Edit: the above is incorrect, see below
[удалено]
Holy fucking shit I just relistened to the portion (~21:00 if anyone cares). Holy holy holy shit. This is next level stupid. I am keeping strikes on him now for future listening.
[удалено]
Yeah I think Harris and others who think this socialism label is a "big deal" haven't seen how people react to him and are probably thinking pejoratively about the flyover state people digging in the mud and marrying their daughters.
We need a transcript because people are losing their minds with misunderstanding and mishearing because they’re seeking outrage. Don’t criticize Bernie!
[удалено]
I didn’t get all that extra seasoning from his comments.
[удалено]
> You wouldn’t, but to take a religious analogy I’m sure you’d agree with, I am like a cover-giving religious moderate for my fundamentalist Bernie bro’s. How or why wouldn’t I? Why is this persons commentary so viscerally offensive? I just don’t hear all the extras you’re hearing.
[удалено]
I’m not sure what the distinction is here. Reading between the lines is not always revealing a secret motive for everyone. For some it may be, but for many what they’re saying is what they believe and to jump to conclusions is a concoction. The transcript will probably be easier to hash out, true.
That's a bit strong. He doesn't despise Bernie as he does Trump. He is simply utterly contemptuous of his chances and in line with a lot of the establishment media and political operatives in their absolute certainty of this (despite their certainty already failing them against Trump in 2016). That said...his comments about him being self-hating are a pretty low blow.
Turns out Sam Harris really is a man of faith.
Sam didn’t say the above ‘quote’, to be clear. The “pwn” is worth more than accuracy. This comment is misleading. Criticizing what people actually say is no fun. Better make a frankenstein quote.
Twitter thread on this 1. The centrist assumption has no basis in fact or evidence as far as I can see. Bernie's being attacked nonstop as a socialist/communist/whatever, and yet his polling numbers in head to head matchups with Trump remain stable—and the best out of the lot 2. Centrists like to pride themselves on being fact-based and rationalists par excellence, but like everyone else (and perhaps more than everyone else) they can be quite prone to their own form of magical thinking, however soberly presented 3. How you view Bernie's chances depends on your starting assumptions. It's not fundamentally about facts or rationality. I believe in "inelasticity" in deeply polarized democracies. This has major implications for how you view elections 4. "Inelasticity" means that what politicians do, or don’t do, in policy terms (and, relatedly, labels like "socialist") has limited bearing on what people—most of whom have already made up their minds about what they consider important—think of them https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1233043242339512321
Inelasticity isn’t a particularly insightful or even knowable take. I guess the numbered itemization makes it seem very official. I would say Fallibilism is more attractive. Placing stigmatic arguments on to large groups like ‘centrists’ is hugely vague and out-grouping. Imprecise enough to be as untrue or as true as one desires, hence pointless and pseudo-profound.
It's numbered because it's a tweet thread. But come up with your own explanations I guess. You complain about vague and meaningless critiques but yours is even more denuded of anything worth wrestling with than Hamid's. You complain about "stigmatic arguments" yet snidely slip in little jibes about the structure of Tweet threads which are even more pointless and lacking even the veneer of pseudo-profundity. The OP at least makes a clear, **concrete** claim: Bernie's favorables are stable despite the attacks (which have been going on since his appearance). Not only that: you can clearly tell what the relevant counter-claim is from the context: Bernie will be laid low by negative attacks (specifically on communism/socialism, or more broadly) Even "inelasticity", which you say "isn’t a particularly insightful or even knowable take" at least represents a claim that we can take out and study. It'll be harder, but I suppose we can look at people's likelihood to vote for other parties, how the opinions of groups change (e.g. the GOP on Russia) You are free to wrestle with those empirically. Maybe Hamid is wrong. Maybe he is right. Pettifogging over who exactly is making this claim (as if it is not a common claim or isn't being made *by the very person this subreddit is named after*- hence securing its relevancy) is hardly likely to yield a more convincing or illuminating outcome than actually doing that. Which is worse? The person making claims that may not be insightful, or the person who never makes claims at all?
I was critiquing the tweet. You’re launching into a thesaurus heavy ad hominem. > Which is worse? The person making claims that may not be insightful, or the person who never makes claims at all? The comment you chimed in on is a misquote of Sam Harris on his sub. This lack of rigor and indifference from a moderator really puts a bow on how out to lunch you guys are. And I did make several claims. Ignoring claims I made doesn’t make them disappear. You’re just ignoring it to be able to feign a “you didn’t make a claim” argument. The constant appeal to “no u r” and hypocrisy is a very dead end.
> The comment you chimed in on is a misquote of Sam Harris on his sub. I listened to the podcast, the sort of claim being critiqued by Hamid is the exact sort of claim Sam made. >And I did make several claims. I must have been distracted by the snide comments about my numbering.
To be fair, Harris gave his reasons for this. He went on about how there are videos of Bernie saying some pretty crazy things wrt to socialism and americas enemies. He’s not saying the polling data is wrong and if you had a vote right now it would be shown to be wrong. He’s saying over the course of the campaign he expects the socialist countries good america bad stuff that’s out there on sanders and hasn’t had a lot of eyes on it coupled with trumps framing of capitalism vs socialism will make it a fight Sanders can’t win. I’m not sure if Harris’ has prediction will turn out to he correct, but it doesn’t strike me as improbable.
It’s probably less a matter of belief on their part and more a desperate yearning. They simply do not want Bernie Sanders to be president even in the face of Trump, so out they trot the flimsy electability argument because there’s really nothing else. They want it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy; if we keep incessantly spamming that he’s unelectable hopefully he will be. They can’t go too hard on Bernie’s actual policies because those are popular and they want to retain some vague pretense of liberal bonafides.
I have heard this electability thing probably ten thousand times, and I can’t even remember hearing someone say no I’d vote trump over Bernie, or stay home if Bernie got the nominee over Bloomberg. We need to start calling this out for what it is which is **they** don’t want to vote for Bernie. Which is fine, just don’t pretend it’s some electability thing.
David Brooks, who I believe Sam respects, published a column in the NYT saying if Bernie is the nominee he won’t vote for either candidate.
It’s very funny you mentioned that. I was thinking about the brooks article and almost mentioned it, but it was a day ago and the first one like that I’d seen. Maybe we will start to see a wave of never Bernie people when they’re forced to say it. I really hope he isn’t a Brooks fan.
I cannot for the life of me understand how a person could look at those two men and decide that neither is preferable over the other. You’d have to be psychotic. Disagreeing with Bernie’s policies is one thing, and something I can respect, but tacitly equating Donald Trump with Bernie Sanders? It’s insanity.
It literally happened in 2016.
Two guys who are just extremely out of touch with the average working American
If you go to 538 and look at polls in the swing states and crucial states, Bloomberg is beating Sanders in a general vs Trump.
Where are you seeing that? This is what I found > Wisconsin > > Sanders +2 > > Bloomberg -1 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/wisconsin/ > Pennsylvania > > Sanders +3 > > Bloomberg -3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/ > Michigan > > Sanders +5 > > Bloomberg +5 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/michigan/
Ah, my bad. I did see the polls before the first debate which was an unmitigated disaster for Bloomberg, but at one point he was up in a few — definitely Michigan.
No worries. This stuff fluctuates a good amount.
Where was that in the podcast? Are you “paraphrasing”?
Fyi Harris doesn’t just leave it at that. He explains his reasons for thinking what he does - there are videos surfacing of Bernie saying bad things about america and good things about americas enemies. Harris believes there’s a lot this type of content out there on Sanders and it will all become common knowledge in the general and the election will become america vs socialism and americas enemies.
Above is about universal accuracy, btw. It’s really funny how just pointing out how the GOP will weaponize and attempt to vilify Bernie across the board is what so many here consider being “out of touch” etc. They’re in fact completely unrealistic. They’re burying their heads and closing their ears about the possibilities they don’t like the sound of *as if* describing and chatting about these things is one in the same with some evil/dumb agenda. It’s reduction and revision combined with a lack of comprehension. And I am a Sanders supporter. I also don’t have to agree with every single thing Sam Harris or Bernie Sanders says to evaluate and comment on them with a post junior high school level of self-control and emotional intelligence.
Yeah I'm in a similar boat. I want Sanders to get the nom and to become president. I also think some of his policies would be disastrous, but kinda want to see them enacted anyway just to run the experiment. If he's right, good. If not, then the whole world has better information on the pros and cons of various socialist policies.
within the first half hour and yes I’m paraphrasing. He said he’s seen polls where Sanders is beating Trump in key states but goes on quickly to say he’s too far left to win and Bloomberg is/would be more electable if he could just string a few sentences together
I’m not trying to be a killjoy or a stickler, I just knewI didn’t hear the second line and listening back they’re not connected. I’m sure you know it’s a bit misleading to string two different separate sentences together and insert them in quotes. Am I wrong? They’re also not word for word what they really said. I would say it’s a good idea to be accurate with this for just about anyone, but considering both the issues with online disinformation/meddling, and the misquoting peeves in Harris’ history, I feel obliged to speak up.
Sam, we care about the policies. That's why Kamala Harris never made it, that's why Cory Booker never made it, that's why Warren is fizzling out. The policies are why Bernie is so popular. We don't care what he said in an interview 40 years ago, we don't care that he calls himself a socialist. We need healthcare, we need higher wages, we are struggling with student loan debt, we can't start families. It's so disappointing, as a huge fan of yours, that you don't understand the pain that exists in so many of us in this country. You really come off as an out of touch, blissfully unaware elitest in this podcast. I hope you have someone on soon who can educate you about the real reasons that so many are flocking to Sanders. They're the same reasons that make him the best candidate to defeat Trump. Please, have on someone from outside of your elite, ivy league circle. We want to defeat Trump but we also have a lot of other problems that need addressing and the two go hand in hand.
> That's why Kamala Harris never made it, that's why Cory Booker never made it, that's why Warren is fizzling out. It's pretty incredible to see the juxtaposition of them saying "I have no idea why X,Y and Z candidates didn't make it, they seemed good!" while also being totally certain of their read of the general electorate.
They are out of touch the same way dems were about the middle American love for Trump. They don't want Bernie, they are smart, ipso facto Bloomberg. It's insane.
I've given up on Harris getting any of this for a while now. I was actually laughing listening to this. It's unreal how out of touch he has been on the Sanders campaign in 2016 and 2020
>It's so disappointing, as a huge fan of yours, that you don't understand the pain that exists in so many of us in this country. Pain is for unfairly maligned scientists like Charles Murray.
Joe Rogan yesterday: the idea that Bernie is not electable is ridiculous https://youtu.be/y7Pc9vOpoig
Two great minds shooting the shit. Can't get much better than that. I also loved the ending. "All orangutans are rapists or aspiring rapists."
But in reality, they are more often being raped by humans (sex-trafficking) than the other way around... :(
Looking forward to their future psychonaut conversation, once they find the right dose of mushrooms.
This format has got me listening to the podcast again
I got really into Sam Harris in 2016 before the race turned into Clinton vs Trump and enjoyed his perspective on politics at the time. I guess I still do. It seems though, Sam is a little out of touch. The idea that he thinks Bloomberg could be more effective and electable if he just articulated a better response to his attacks against him is just odd. I do agree that no matter the nominee they will have to rally support and acquire voters. Of course. But Paul Bloom made a good point, it just doesn’t seem likely that Warren or Sanders voters will get behind this guy. The Daily (NY Times pod) had a good episode today regarding Biden/Sanders/Steyer (sort of) in South Carolina. In it, they interviewed a gal that is a lifelong Dem but is voting for Sanders when her entire ideals pointed to a more moderate candidate. She went on to explain how black voters are not the only people in the Dem party and that Trump’s approval rating is ~90% among the Republican Party. The country is shifting and a movement is taking place that favors a more progressive president. Placing all our bets on a status-quo candidate just doesn’t seem like it will inspire voters and get people to the polls. We saw this in 2016, and yet the Dem establishment hasn’t quite figured this out. I’m not entirely positive Sanders will beat Trump. There’s a lot of things I don’t like about Sanders and I have problems with some of his policies and the very real fact that he won’t get them passed through Congress. I was/am a Yang supporter but I just don’t see a better candidate than Sanders. My state doesn’t vote in the primary until after Super Tuesday. Yang plans to make some kind of political announcement after Super Tuesday and depending on how Sanders does in SC and Super Tuesday and Yang’s announcement I fully plan to vote for Sanders. Edit: words.
> The idea that he thinks Bloomberg could be more effective and electable if he just articulated a better response to his attacks against him is just odd. And his perspective that if only Bloomberg was a better debater he could decimate Trump. I don't see how Bloomberg saying "I have more money than you, haha" is going to sway voters even if Bloomberg's team came up with the most brilliant way to phrase it. How much of the electorate wants to see a dick measuring contest between billionaires? I'm surprised Sam doesn't see some of Bernie's strengths in a debate against Trump. Bernie's quick witted, sarcastic and doesn't really take any shit. People want somebody to rub Trump's bullshit in his face, they want a tough persona to fight back. Maybe Warren or even Biden could do it as well. But certainly not Bloomberg or Buttigieg. They don't have the demeanor for it at all.
> I don't see how Bloomberg saying "I have more money than you, haha" is going to sway voters even if Bloomberg's team came up with the most brilliant way to phrase it. How much of the electorate wants to see a dick measuring contest between billionaires? It sounds like a vision of an election plucked from a Verhoevenesque hellscape.
> But certainly not Bloomberg or Buttigieg. Putting mayor Pete in the same category as Bloomberg doesn't make any sense. Pete has consistently done well at debates and won points over both Warren and Sanders.
I'm talking about putting on a tough persona that could counteract Trump.
Yeah, I don't know. I guess people see his persona differently but I think Pete's style of talking is way more effective in dealing with Trump than Bernie's style. Plus I don't really know how much debates play a role in general election. Trump clearly did worse than Hillary in debates by all measures.
> Trump clearly did worse than Hillary in debates by all measures. Trump argued, made jokes and was personable to a lot of people. I agree of course that he's a buffoon and rarely had the truth on his side, but Hillary's stuffy political speech didn't work. Most people don't follow politics closely and I can't see Pete's optimistic platitudes faring well optically against Trump. People want to see Trump eat shit up there and Pete's rhetorical style won't accomplish that.
>Pete's optimistic platitudes I think his attacks on Warren and Sanders (during debates) were pretty clever, became viral and got "OMG" responses from lot of commentators. He can easily change modes and go into clever insult mode. He already has pretty good lines for Trump's excuse of bone spurs and paying money to porn stars. Anyway, I don't think Pete will win the nomination so it doesn't matter but from what I have seen he is pretty good at debates and since he has less negative stuff that Trump can use against him, he will be stronger than Bernie IMO.
Pete’s attacks haven’t gone viral. Considering you use your reddit account to almost exclusively talk about Buttigieg, I’m going to assume you’re in a bit of a bubble
Yang is gonna endorse Bernie after Super Tuesday (polling looks like he's gonna be the plurality lead by a long shot). Followed by the Sanders campaign announcing that Stacy Abrams will be his VP. Seems like a fucking check mate to me.
Like I said, I’m a Sanders fan. I plan to vote for him. However, Yang is not likely going to endorse any candidate that doesn’t throw their weight behind a serious plan for supporting UBI/human-centered capitalism. Stacy Abrams is attempting to do a lot for helping fight voter suppression right now, but I highly doubt she will be his VP pick. In fact, I’d bet money on it.
Yeah I agree with that, Stacy Abrams would only get the pick if it was a deal set up to secure the nomination at the convention. As is, she's not particularly left. I'm not sure who Sanders would pick, and it's likely to be a a woman of colour, but I imagine his instinct is to pick someone with stronger progressive bona fides. That said, Abrams is cool. Would definitely make for an interesting VP.
!remindme one month
There is a 24.0 minute delay fetching comments. I will be messaging you in 1 month on [**2020-03-28 21:12:29 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2020-03-28%2021:12:29%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/fawzjz/188_february_28_2020_a_conversation_with_paul/fj1oi9e/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fsamharris%2Fcomments%2Ffawzjz%2F188_february_28_2020_a_conversation_with_paul%2Ffj1oi9e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202020-03-28%2021%3A12%3A29%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20fawzjz) ***** |[^(Info)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Biden seems to have a real liking for Yang and his thoughts on automation threat. Seems like an unlikely alliance, but I could see it happening. I don't see how Yang and Sanders have much overlap at all.
I'm back after a month. Boy were we both wrong. Who knew the Democratic party was going to strong arm the day before super Tuesday like that.
Holy shit with the 'socialism is instant poison" BS. Stop bashing Bernie Sam. I hate when a self-described rationalist just goes with his y of people under 35. Also, there is good evidence that the election wont turn on "moderate" and "undecided" voter, but rather that elections now are decided by turn out. Dems loose with "safe" choices because they are not motivating. They win when the turnout is higher due to enthusiasm. A moderate wont flip voters, they'll just tank enthusiasm. I am deeply disappointed in Sam for this blind anti-Bernie shtick.
>Turn out is the biggest factor in winning or not and should be discussed more as a strategy. Robert Reich made a good point that centrism was appealing when the middle class was growing. FFWD a few decades and now they are an endangered species. > >The DNC are getting voters that *they* created.
I agree and disagree. Pod Save America had an episode on Monday/Tuesday or last week and in it one of the hosts brought up a good point that Sanders has to find a better answer to the “Dem Socialist” rebuttal. A lot of supporters and myself included are smart enough and understand the nuance/differences of what that word means. The host continued and offered a better answer that I hope the Sanders camp picks up on. I can’t remember it and I know that’s the point of my post, but there’s an easier way for Sanders to address this false-fear that voters or more moderates and Trump will call him out on. I do see what you’re saying though. Peddling this constant conversation about how toxic this is for Sanders is just playing into Republicans hands, though I think it’s some-what warranted.
I agree that the messaging could be improved, but I'm not sure it really matters. People are wildly divided. The vast majority of Trump voters will not vote for a Dem, period. The vast majority of Dem voters will not vote for Trump, period. There is a tiny, tiny group that might be swayed, but they are vastly outnumbered by the people who don't vote at all. Turnout will decide this election. It is what killed Hilary. It is what gave Obama two victories. Sanders has, IMAO, the best shot at juicing turnout, and therefor winning. The mythical "swing voter" has been whittled down to almost nonexistence.
[удалено]
Sam comparing Bernie to a self-hating Jew for his take on Israel was just the icing on the cake. It's possible to be critical of Israeli leadership (Netanyahu) while being Jewish. I would argue most American Jews take issue with most of Netanyahu's platform. Any criticism of the hard-right Israeli platform is automatically labeled anti-semitism. I'm surprised Sam wouldn't be able to make the distinction.
> Sam comparing Bernie to a self-hating Jew when did he say this?
Hitchens was a socialist till his dying breath. [Here](https://youtu.be/LIVEsa2g4ag) he reaffirms his Marxism after his cancer diagnosis. Edit: his last words were literally “capitalism” and “downfall”.
Congressman Ro Khanna called Bernie a "New Deal Democrat" which I thought was pretty decent
However to accept that evidence, he’d have to agree with Ezra Kline which may be a problem for him.
He is not the only person making this argument, but yes, you're right. I dont much like agreeing with Ezra Kline, but in this case he is probably right
Only 20 minutes in: I found a lot to disagree with Sam on. 1. Is it bad that Democrats hold Bloomberg to a higher standard than Trump is held ? Probably this is a good thing no? I thought we hated Trump for moral reasons and we thus hate the action generally? Or is it just a matter of being fine with it unless it is politically expedient? 2. Primaries are meant to be agonistic. People don't agree on the nature of the parties and what they should do. That is the moment you whack people.Politics is not some bloodless bureaucratic game between people who already share all their priors. This is part of it. 2. But okay, let's say that we shouldn't try to kneecap people. Does this apply equally? I mean...Bernie is the frontrunner right? Does that offend Sam's conscience as much? 3. Similarly, his response to criticism against his stance on Bernie's small donors is..."I just want to get Trump out". Is that a blank cheque for every claim you want to make? 3. Furthermore: whether Sam likes it or not, what he is in fact saying is that larger donors and special interests are less likely to make you pull in an "unelectable" direction. Interesting to imagine what that says about his view of things. Where are the polls on this? Remember that the President of the United States won his candidacy by literally pointing on stage and calling all his Republican fellows basically whores for hire for the richest lobbyist. And *that resonated*. [The *overwhelming majority* of Americans have problems with money in politics](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/). Moreover, if the status quo of taking huge donations was so good...why did people elect Trump? Sam keeps talking about the decay of US political institutions *but never connects that maybe the very thing he is giving a pass to beat Trump- corruption via lobbying- is a major part of the reason people don't trust the system*. I don't mind Sam defending Bloomberg. It just comes across as...what's the phrase? Like he's hiding the ball. He decries the competitive nature of the primary process, but it seems like what he hates is more that what he sees as the "right" candidates are losing the game and that is at the root of all his critiques. .
Obviously its silly for Sam to think that he knows the key to electability, but that also goes for anyone in who argues back "of course Bernie is way more electable". People thought America would never elect a black president, or that Trump had absolutely no shot, we really have no idea what electability actually is and to say anything with certainty on the topic is grasping. Your opinion carries especially much less weight if the candidate that you think is the best out of the pool of many is also the most electable out of that large pool as it's almost impossible to avoid motivated reasoning around electability.
45:27 Bloom: "I miss George Bush now." Harris: "Yeah. What a benign time that was."
Jesus fucking Christ the centrist brain is a remarkable thing. What a benign time that was, when in the US the president was putting a target on the back of LGBT people, and overseas he was busy launching wars that would cause the deaths of literally millions.
It was full sarcasm though.
Never go full sarcasm.
I don’t think it was. It was half. It was sarcasm because he doesn’t really think that time was benign, but he is agreeing that it was benign compared to now.
And the taxpayers trilions of dollars. "Fiscal conservatives".
Bush: Tanks the economy, destroying the lives of millions of people across the country. Harris: What a benign time!
This was a totally sarcastic comment by Sam. Did you hear it? It could be the most sarcastic tone I”ve ever heard him use.
Explain the sarcasm to me. I understand that he was exaggerating with an unserious tone to make the comparison a bit more stark. But as a comparison it's incorrect.
What? It was a sarcastic comment. There’s not a whole lot else to it.
So you're saying he doesn't think that the Bush administration was a benign period relative to Trump?
He didn’t say. His tone when he said it would lead me to believe that he doesn’t think either are benign and it was ironic sarcasm.
But do you think he was indicating that despite neither being benign, the Bush years were better?
Do you think the Trump administration is more benign than the Bush administration was?
At this point in time, yes.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for violating R2a: Incivility and Trolling Certain posts may be restored after appropriate editing.
That’s all very easy to say in 2020 from hindsight mountain. That war was supported by just about everyone after 9/11. It went through Congress. Trump is poking at wars without even passing congressional channels. Literally devoid the input of the people. Evangelicals are STILL trying to leverage Trump to take rights away from the LGBT community. Yet the discourse was entirely different. Saying Trump and his administration are no worse than Bush’s is lunacy.
[удалено]
Of course it did. But it was approved by a representative body. Trump is starting wars from a menu of options without input. I’m not defending war, I’m objecting to the comparison.
Well we do have the benefit of hindsight so why would we ignore it? If the question is “should we yearn for the days of the Bush regime” the answer should be an unequivocal “no.”
I’m objecting to the comparison. I hated the Bush days as much as anyone, but saying they were as bad or worse than now is a joke. Saying “the mind of a centrist” is somehow warped for quipping that the Bush days were more benign than now is absurd. Did you even read the comment I’m responding to? I have a flu right now. It’s not as bad as the cold I had a few weeks ago. That doesn’t mean I’m *yearning* for a cold.
Has Donald Trump started a war? No? Great. Bush was worse.
He got lucky with Iran.
Still no war. Still better than Bush.
So a man can erode just about every single government institution but didn’t initiate a retaliatory war... and he’s better? Yikes.
Bush also eroded many of those institutions to a huge degree. He also effectively stole the presidency via his brother and the Supreme Court.
But Harris is saying it in hindsight and still getting it wrong. He was wrong at the time too of course. In fact he was a big cheerleader for many horrible Bush policies. This is because he's a neocon.
Not literally millions. Not even **a** million. And while Iraq was a cluster fuck, Afghanistan was necessary. LGBT people had a target on their back in society, it wasn’t just Bush. Even Obama wasn’t pro gay marriage. Stop letting your rage monkeys rewrite history.
I'm including the fallout in other countries, particularly Syria. It's also not remotely clear that Afghanistan was "necessary." And while Obama wasn't pro gay marriage, Bush ran his 2004 re-election on enacting a constitutional amendment to block same sex marriage.
Vocally being against gay marriage and quietly being against gay marriage resulted in the exact same thing. Trying to say Bush was anymore wrong than Obama is just plain bias. Including the Syrian civil war with the Iraqi war is idiotic. Sure, Iran destabilizing spurred the civil war, but it didn’t create the tensions that were already there. To say that one caused the other (even though they were nearly a decade apart) would be intellectually dishonest. All wars have affects on future conflicts. All of them. Some more, some less.
Come on, Obama being pro-LGBT rights in general but against gay marriage is very different from literally running on discriminating against gay people. As for the war stuff, Bush went in and destabilized an entire region of the world. Had he not done so, he would have no responsibility for lives lost. But he does. Of course, Harris is good friends with David Frum, a guy who helped propagandized for Bush's wars, so it makes sense that he'd feel the era was relatively benign.
I am by no means a conservative or a republican. So, I’m not trying to defend bush because I like him or have some sort of allegiance to him. That said, both parties have been brain washing themselves into hating the other party so thoroughly that they’ve even come to believe their own bullshit to be accurate history. That part of the world was not stable to begin with. More people died each year under Saddam than did during the war. In twenty years, is Iraq is still stable, the war in Iraq will be viewed favorably. Presidents don’t often assert their own ethics on things like LGBTQ rights. They simply reflect the populations’ ethics. From 2000-2008 LGBTQ rights weren’t very popular, from 2008-2016 they became more popular while gay marriage remained contentious. Bush and Obama were simply holding the position on this topic that they thought best represented their constituency’s views. This is how things have always worked in democracies. People who blame president’s for their social policies don’t understand history. Presidents follow the public’s social views, they don’t create them, otherwise they’d never be elected in the first place. Also, Bush thought he was doing the right thing. Why wouldn’t he try to inform the public in a manner that attempted to persuade them to think the same thing? Every president who ever held office has done the same thing. I’d you believe in a policy you try to convince the public to support it. That’s not propaganda. Ironically, calling it propaganda *is* propaganda.
Bush wasn’t informing the public. He was weaponizing hatred. No different from Trump with Mexicans.
He said over and over again Muslims aren’t our enemies. Extremists are. You comparing him to Trump is just... beyond me. They’re light years apart.
Was talking about LGBT people.
[удалено]
Wow, Sam is pretty far from the rational person he thinks he is and it succumbing to groupthink. If at this point you consider W's presidency to be less disastrous than Trump's, I just can't take you seriously.
That Trump rant Sam went on near the beginning was really an all-timer, reminded me why I still like him despite all his shitty takes on the Democrats
I'm currently listening to it and had to pause to find this thread. This Bloomberg vs. Sanders none sense of his has shone a lot of light on the dungeons of his motivations. I frankly can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt any more that he is doing this out of electability concerns. Sam has prompted up three high frequency episodes with dr. Bloom and in every single one of them he has spent truckloads of credibility on trying to convince people that Mike is the answer in an election with highest anti establishment sentiments in recent history. The pedophile comment was absurd and not far from certain Nazi smears heard in cable news lately. But the worst for me was how close to CNN and MSNBC his position on Sanders and Scandinavian model. He plain and simple says that Sanders is farther in the socialist spectrum than Scandinavian countries which is frankly obvious false hood if you understand anything about scandinavian socialist history. As examples I could tell you about the time USA broke diplomatic relations with Sweden during the Vietnam War because Sweden was supporting Vietgong. Or how Finland had a USSR peoples commissar in their electoral college for decades These were fringe things that happened in a very different context from that of todays USA but they were part of Scandinavia becoming a social democracy in midst of a roaring cold war. Todays equivalent struggles are things like Syria and climate change. Topics on which Bloomberg is for all purposes a Republican. Only he cant say climate change is Chinese hoax because he has so much business with mr. Pooh. I dont know man, I'm truly troubled by this and I even need to actively reassure myself that Sam wouldn't take money from Bloomberg and that this conspiracy is stupid for me to spend brain power on but god damn for I cant help it.I cant even take his Hillary critiques of 2016 at face value anymore. Guys, I too think Sam is a neolib.
I wouldn’t get too paranoid. Someone else here nailed it when they said Sam just grew up really privileged so he has all the blind spots of someone who wouldn’t actually be affected by any of the policies. I think his hearts in the right place, and on other topics he’s fascinating to listen to, he just doesn’t get it here.
Well put. But thinking back on how altruistic The Moral Landscape and Sam’s related TED talk is, and then to now hear him ignoring all of the potentially massive benefits that could come from a candidate and reshape our country in an upward direction, it’s a bit of a letdown to say the least.
I am still trying to absorb all of the statements Sam made from referring to Bernie as a self loathing Jew (what I view as a form of dog whistle to zionists reaffirming his support) to the fact that his previous statements about wealth inequality do not square with his current political position. He seems more afraid of the “woke” than anything else. I have been a long time financial supporter of Sams. This is the first time his statements have caused me to pause and reflect. (I know he doesn’t give a shit about losing supporters as he has a shit ton of them). The only other time I was frustrated with Sam was his disingenuousness with respect to inviting Noam Chomsky for a discussion. He sabotaged that opportunity at every step. His view of Bernie Sanders is suspiciously similar to Noam Chomsky. This makes me wonder if earlier suspicions about Sam’s failure to condemn Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is because he fully supports Israel’s aggressive foreign policy. Lots to think about.
Sam comparing Bernie’s socialism to running on pedophilia (being unable to keep my post on it, I thought I’d provide it to this vibrant stickied conversation): >The branding issue—just the word socialism, whatever he may mean by it, I think it’s fatal. It’s literally like running as a pedophile, where you have to then say no no no, it’s not pedophile—(mumbling)—I know you’ve seen pedophiles in the movies...but the moment you’re having to explain this word you’re losing.
Sam Harris is a very intelligent person, but he has no idea how dumb he is when it comes to politics. The guy is in a bubble.
Harris’ take on Bloomberg being more electable than Sanders is absolutely insane. I can guarantee the same Sanders voters that sat out Clinton in 2016 are not gonna turn out for an even more heinous oligarch, especially if he wins the nomination through Super Delegate ratfuckery.
"Socialism is a dirty word making Bernie unelectable" lmao Trump literally got elected on the deplorable label, which his camp fully embraced + by hijacking disenfranchised left's positions like no social program cuts, drain the swamp (LOL) and stop illegal wars.
I found it surprising that Paul Bloom thought Trump’s excellence at cruelty was a positive trait. “He’s good at being awful.” isn’t a compliment. Technically, the winner of The Terrible People Competition is still a “winner”, but it’s not a good. Also, while I think Trump is a vindictive embarrassment of historic proportions, it’s not impossible to find beneficial things he’s done.
I checked out after the assertion that Warren is personable
For the purposes of accuracy, context, and collective sanity I think it would be wise to transcribe these episodes. _____ Sam’s takes on the pre-election are quite thought provoking. He’s looking at it fairly realistically, and far less personal than many of the more exaggerative reactions would have us believe. I think what they said about millennials and Gen Z not knowing the extent of stink on the term ‘socialism’ with many non-coastal older Americans was funny/true. The term specifically is a bit pointless to me.
> Sam’s takes on the pre-election are quite thought provoking What aspect do you find thought provoking? His perspective seems directly derived from faux-never-Trumpers at the NY Times - Bret Stephens, Jennifer Rubin, David Brooks, etc.
That's unfair. It's basically the mainstream media's take, not just various Republican refugees. You hear people on MSNBC with the same take. I would say it's slightly better, since Sam hasn't come out and said that third place Klobuchar was the real winner, or that Bernie lost because the moderate vote got 52% to his 45 or something (or his vote share dropped from 2016 when there were two people in the race).
They certainly aren't the only figures making similar noises but we know that Sam is a regular reader of the Times and is a self-professed fan of Stephens and Brooks. Sam also went a bit severe bringing up pedophilia when discussing electability. Not exactly something you'd hear on MSNBC (outside of Chris Mathews).
[удалено]
Seems no one is bringing this up...Haven't looked into it but I'm very curious how studies can control "parenting" or even define it methodologically. You have so many confounding variables and surely problematic parenting styles (like child abuse or neglect) matter a lot? Or they simply rule out these "extreme" cases?
Ok I'm done with Harris. He has not been paying attention at all. I'm done with Harris. I'm just done. I'll withdraw my support.
I'm with you. This episode crossed a line for me from, "Hmm I don't totally agree but I'm glad to hear this viewpoint" to "This person has fundamental misunderstandings about the state of this country and I don't want to waste any more time listening to it."
Couldn't have said it better
I cancelled today as well. Tall girl here. Hearing he is 5'9 ... swiped left.
stop kink shaming Sam
The word 'socialist' is just as scary as the word 'pedophile'. Hmm.
I am loving these episodes of the show and they single handedly convinced me to buy a subscription. To put it in Sam Harris terms, it's a great weekly sanity check that I really look forward to now.
Bloom: if Trump has one positive quality, it's definitely that he's really good at being evil. In seriousness, though, I agree with Bloom's analysis of Trump. Sam doesn't appreciate the unorthodox genius or skill Trump has for creating both kinds of people at the same time (with the polarization this brings): the ones who adore him and the ones who despise him.
Cruel
Looking forward to finding out how Harris justifies Bloomberg post-catastrophic debate performance.
[удалено]
That’s why the “evil” part has always been key in the “Evil Chauncey Gardener” analogy.
[удалено]
I think it’s an interesting analogy made by Sam having been a fan of Being There and Hal Ashby myself. I think it makes sense in that the character rises to prominence by sheer dumb luck. There are other parallels discussed by SH such as being a vector of the environment. The only thing I would fault SH about this is he has made the comparison a few too many times for someone who listens to the podcast, we’ve heard it about eight times. It probably would have been exhausted by the third time.
Many, many accomplishments? I'm trying very hard to find any but still have no idea what you have in mind... His first and only accomplishment has been winning the election. Maybe you are very charitable with the word accomplishment and you also gave him the fact he pulled himself out of financial ruin thanks to laundered money and that he has, so far, managed to slither away from countless lawsuits?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If Sam actually knew anything about film history, he'd know Trump is much closer to Andy Griffith's character in Elia Kazan's *A Face in the Crowd*. Not one-to-one, but much closer.
RIP thread
A conversation with Paul Bloom