Ask GeneralMacArthur anything

[GeneralMacArthur]

Don't know if anyone is interested, but why not.  Learn the origin story of the worst poster on Atlas.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Do you feel the bern yet? 😬

[GeneralMacArthur]

Do you feel the bern yet? 😬

I've been feeling the burn of watching my party self-immolate for 4 years and counting.

[BP🌹]

This'll be fun.

[Hindsight was 2020]

In all seriousness how do you square the peg of “Bernie being unelectable” with the fact he polls similarly to Biden

[GeneralMacArthur]

In all seriousness how do you square the peg of “Bernie being unelectable” with the fact he polls similarly to Biden

The reason Bernie Sanders is doing so well in national polls is that Republicans have not attacked him.  The Republicans have launched major attacks against Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.  When Harris was leading, right-wing media was having a complete meltdown trying to destroy her.  Trump has even been picking on Buttigieg and Bloomberg for a while.  And we all know that Clinton was under full-scale assault from before she even announced.  Yet there has been zero effort to characterize or destroy Bernie Sanders.  In fact, it's the opposite.  I pay attention to right-wing media and most coverage of Sanders is favorable.  He's usually portrayed as a maverick, the scold to his own party.  And they prey, big time, on the Sanders conspiracy theories about rigged primaries and all the WikiLeaks stuff.

The end result is that from the perspective of the right and right-leaning independents, Sanders is in kind of the same position as Ron Paul was to Democrats and left-leaning independents in 2008.  They have a more favorable opinion of him because he's a scold to his own party and says some iconoclastic things they agree with.  Of course, once the right actually starts attacking him this image will quickly dissolve and his numbers will plummet.

But you should really ask yourself, why is the right not attacking him the way they've attacked Biden, Clinton, Warren, and so on?

It's because Bernie is the ideal opponent for Republicans.  He's extremely easy for them to attack.  In 2010, the Republicans salivated at the opportunity to paint any Democrat as socialist.  From 2012-2016, the Republicans destroyed Democrats left and right on the issue of the national debt.  They've been telling voters for years that Democrats want to raise your taxes through the roof.  Now they have the leader of the Democratic Party proudly labeling himself a socialist, promising to add tens of trillions of dollars to the national debt, and idolizing European nations with 60-70% tax rates.  It's like a Republican dream come true.

Not only would they easily be able to defeat Bernie, but more importantly, they'd get to go to every swing or lean-D district and ask the Democratic candidate one simple question.  "Do you consider yourself a socialist?"  If the candidate says no, the follow-up is "Bernie Sanders does consider himself a socialist.  On what issues do you disagree with the nominee of your party, since he is a socialist but you say you are not?"  You don't have to be a political genius to see how devastating that strategy is.

Furthermore, even when he's not the nominee, Bernie is a useful tool for them because he divides the Democrats.  He promotes conspiracy theories about the election.  He attacks the Democratic Party and calls it corrupt.  He forces our candidates to take extreme policy positions.  He inspires activist mobs to primary electable Democrats and replace them with either totally unelectable candidates or humiliating emblems of the party's stupidity (Omar, AOC, etc.) He alienates moderates.  His Bernie Bros have destroyed social media as a center of liberal discourse by bullying and harassing anyone who doesn't like Bernie.

In summary, Bernie is the best thing to ever happen to the Republican Party, so they haven't made any attempt to attack him; in fact, they've been propping him up.  If he were to actually be locked in as the nominee, the floodgates would open and not only would Trump secure an easy victory but Democrats would be devastated downballot.

As one final point, AOC has a nearly 2-1 unfavorable-favorable ratio.  What is the difference between AOC and Bernie?  From my perspective as someone who pays attention to the right, the difference is that the right gleefully attacks AOC as a f***ing moron who wants to explode the deficit, raise your taxes, and lead us down the road to Venezuela.  They basically use her as practice for the playbook they'd run on Bernie.  But they don't launch those attacks on Bernie.

[Frodo]

What's your opinion of your namesake, General Douglas MacArthur? And why did you choose this particular username? 

[BP🌹]

What's your opinion of your namesake, General Douglas MacArthur? And why did you choose this particular username? 

And do you think that nuclear weapons should've been used against the Chinese during the Korean War?

[GeneralMacArthur]

What's your opinion of your namesake, General Douglas MacArthur? And why did you choose this particular username?

I honestly think MacArthur is the most interesting man in American history.  Go pick up American Caesar, that is my most-recommended book.

He took over a blood-soaked American colony in the Philippines and became a beloved military governor, forging a lifelong friendship with president Quezon (the namesake of Quezon City) and even godfather to his son.  He advocated strongly for an accelerated timeline for Filipino independence.  He singlehandedly arranged for defense of the islands at a time when the entire country scoffed at him.  When he was proven right, he fought for weeks against overwhelming Japanese odds on Corregidor.  After a daring nighttime escape through Japanese-patrolled minefields, he spent the next two years single-mindedly dedicated to hopping from one island to the next, one grueling battle to the next, until he finally returned to liberate the Philippines.

It's a great story on its own.  But the even better story is his time as ruler of Japan, where he essentially rebuilt the nation from the ground up in his image.  He wrote the Japanese constitution still in use to this day.  He created the capitalist marketplace.  He restructured their entire society, instituting liberal reforms that, in just a few years, transformed ultra-conservative Japan into a society more progressive than America itself.  He fiercely beat back attempts by the Soviet Union to do to Japan what they did to Germany.  Japan today is one of the most peaceful, prosperous and free nations in the history of the world and it owes it almost entirely to one man.  And the crazy thing is, this is one of the best things America has ever done, and most Americans don't even know this story.  After a fierce three-year war against a brutal, hated adversary, we conquered their country and... rebuilt them into a global superpower, then left them to their own devices.  So much for "imperialist pigs".

And that doesn't even get started on his brilliance in the Korean War, his multiple presidential runs, his early army career that was even wilder than Teddy Roosevelt's, or his fascinating personal life.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What's your opinion of your namesake, General Douglas MacArthur? And why did you choose this particular username? 

And do you think that nuclear weapons should've been used against the Chinese during the Korean War?

Honestly I think it's still too earlier to judge history on that.  The global events that such a move would have headed off are still playing out to this day.  Taking out China earlier would have prevented everything Mao did, the Vietnam War, the second half of the Korean War, the Cambodian Genocide, and the scourge of oppression that has afflicted China and southeast Asia for decades and continues today.

In the 1980s, people thought the Soviet Union would last for centuries.  It, and the threat of global communism, would dissolve before their eyes just a few years later.  Today, most people think that China is going to replace us as a global superpower and dominate the world for the next century.  But if the Hong Kong protests had sparked a similar movement in China, we could be watching the collapse of the CPC today.  With that in mind, if you had asked people in 1982 whether we should have nuked the USSR and occupied Moscow in 1945, almost everyone would say yes.  But looking back from the vantage point of today, it's probably for the better that the Cold War played out the way it did.

In my personal opinion?  I wouldn't have pulled the trigger.  I think the precedent of using nuclear weapons for regime change would have been very dangerous to set, and adding that much more instability in Europe could have led to complete Soviet hegemony over Asia.  Plus, without China, we might never have won the Cold War anyway.

[lfromnj]

Ok what do you actually think happened during the Epstein suicide/murder?
You definetely are one of the most establishment friendly posters here although on this forum I like that because its controversial here.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Ok what do you actually think happened during the Epstein suicide/murder?
You definetely are one of the most establishment friendly posters here although on this forum I like that because its controversial here.

I haven't seen any actual evidence to support the idea that he didn't kill himself.

Usually when there's zero evidence of something despite massive national interest, it's because it's not true.  I mean, if one of the prison security guards making $25 an hour had even a shred of evidence that he was murdered, wouldn't they just sell it to the highest bidder?  Certainly his family would pay millions for some solid evidence.

That said, I don't really care either way, it's not a story I'm following at all.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What are your expectations for the future of both parties?

The Republican Party is completely f**ked for at least a generation.  After Trump, they'll be led by the nose by the next populist demagogue to come along.  The tea party controls the entire media except for a few #NeverTrumpers at very serious publications like NYT or National Review.  They completely dominate social media.  They're being bankrolled and given a major technological advantage by a group of billionaires led by the Mercer family.  And as a result of all this, they are free to terrorize any Republican with the threat of a primary challenge, forcing them all to fall in line, meaning the tea party has full control over policy and legislation.

If serious Republicans were capable of banding together and standing up to it, that could be the only chance to rescue the party.  Instead, most seem to think they can wait out the storm and their party will return to normal by the mid-2020s.  It's really not going to happen.  Populism is a cancer and once  it completely takes hold of a political movement, it's almost impossible to shake.  When you look at populist movements throughout history around the globe, it's almost always taken some sort of massive disaster, economic collapse, or some other hard-hitting illustration of its complete ideological failure.  Nobody just decides to stop believing things that make them feel good and have social proof.

As for the Democratic Party, it is threatened by the "socialists" but they do not yet have the advantages the tea party had.  They do not have control of the mainstream media.  They do not have a bunch of billionaires bankrolling them.  They do have complete control over alternative media and social media, a pretty substantial technological advantage over the mainstream of the party, and a fundraising advantage.  So I don't think they'll be able to completely take over the party the way the tea party did.  It's tough to imagine MSNBC, for example, promoting a socialist's march the way Fox News promoted the tea party rallies in 2009.

My optimistic vision of the future is this whole movement shifting to more of a Warrenite thing once Sanders retires or dies.  Take the populist pillars of the occupy movement and match them up with some more standard left-wing class-warfare and welfare-state ideas.  Get it away from the extreme-left, the socialism, and of course the cult of personality around Sanders himself.

My pessimistic vision of the future?  After Sanders the cult of personality just shifts to AOC or some other charismatic demagogue, and the party has to spend the next generation enduring a sustained assault from an anti-intellectual extremist minority demanding we sacrifice our integrity and common sense and take all sorts of toxic positions.

[Xing]

How would you react to Sanders winning decisively against Trump?

[Crumpets]

What part of Washington are you from?

(I'm also from Washington, although I've lived in DC for the past two years.)

[Santander]

Why do people hate you? (serious question, and I'm asking for your POV)

How did you, in your opinion, acquire your worldview?

[GeneralMacArthur]

How would you react to Sanders winning decisively against Trump?

I wouldn't be that surprised since I think there are plenty of scenarios where Trump becomes very beatable.  For instance if there's some sort of national disaster, like a hurricane or a recession, Trump would inevitably f*** it up and see his numbers collapse.

I realize that is a cop-out though, and the question you probably want is: If everything stays the same as today, Sanders and Trump stay exactly who they are today, everything plays out as I predict (with the Republicans unleashing a barrage of oppo on Sanders) and he wins decisively anyway, how would I react?  Honestly it's hard to say because it would all depend on the circumstances around his victory.  Did the party completely surrender to his movement, endorse socialism, and build a coalition around extreme-left policies?  I'd probably be really depressed because this would mean both parties have abandoned reason.  On the other hand, if the party stayed where it was and treated Sanders as some sort of quirky figurehead, and he won mostly off anyone-but-Trump votes, then I'd be reasonably optimistic and hopeful.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What part of Washington are you from?

(I'm also from Washington, although I've lived in DC for the past two years.)

I live in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle.

[KaiserDave]

Thoughts on Phil Scott?


Thoughts on Michael Bennet and his candidacy?



Finally, thoughts on Michael Bloomberg's candidacy?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why do people hate you? (serious question, and I'm asking for your POV)

Because typically it's the extremists who are aggressive and passionate about enforcing their worldview, while centrists and moderates want to avoid confrontation and stay silent.  I'm flipping that on its head by being aggressive and passionate about a centrist/moderate worldview.  The extremists obviously hate me for it, and a lot of centrists/moderates are uncomfortable with it because it's not something they're used to seeing from their side.

How did you, in your opinion, acquire your worldview?

My family is very well-educated and has a lot of government employees and military types, so I paid attention to the world and politics from a really young age.  I would read the newspaper pretty much every day when I was in elementary and middle school.  I also loved history and would always want to watch historical documentaries and TV specials and stuff, or movies set in historical settings, and would read tons and tons of books on historical subjects.  The Obama campaign was what got me politically engaged in high school, and I've been heavily engaged pretty much ever since.  In college I took a lot of classes on world history and foreign policy related topics, although I ended up not majoring in it, but that further developed my understanding of how the world got where it is today and what the United States' role in that is and will continue to be.

So you take a guy who's already got a big well of historical context and policy knowledge to draw from, and put me in a place where I've watched and been a part of 10-12 years of political change in this country, and you get to where I am today where I'm very focused on building up the strength of the Democratic Party, enacting real change that actually makes a difference, and opposing demagoguery and false promises.

I honestly don't understand how anyone who watched the 2016 DNC Convention could ever support Sanders, or how anyone who was around for the original Obamacare fight could ever believe that single-payer Medicare For All has a chance in hell of becoming the law of the land, or how anyone who participated in the 2010 election could believe that going around calling ourselves "socialists" and advocating for tens of trillions of dollars in new spending is a politically viable strategy.  But then, most people under 30 don't remember Obamacare.  Most people didn't watch the convention disaster.  Most people weren't politically engaged enough in 2010 to remember clearly the reasons why the Republicans took back control of this country when we had a Senate supermajority and won the presidential election in a landslide just two years earlier.  All they've got to go in is the last couple years.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Thoughts on Phil Scott?

No opinion.  Don't know much about Vermont.

Thoughts on Michael Bennet and his candidacy?

Waste of time.

Finally, thoughts on Michael Bloomberg's candidacy?

Super interesting.  We've had billionaires run before, but Bloomberg is the first one to really test the idea of, if you went all-in and spent enormous amounts of money to get the top talent, a 50-state organization, and endless advertising, could you buy the presidency?

I like Bloomberg personally although he's very far from perfect.  I think he'd be an effective president.  I worry that his presence in this race is only going to divide the center-left and let Sanders build momentum with a string of 30% victories.

I've listened to a lot of interviews with the Bloomberg people because I'm very curious about him.  So far, everything they've said has really impressed me.  I could definitely see myself becoming a Bloomberg supporter if Biden is struggling down the stretch.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why would you consider taxing a person with one hundred billion dollars 70% of their wealth more immoral than the fact that the richest nation on earth lets its own citizens, including veterans, starve to death on the streets or turn to suicide?

Do you believe that access to decent housing should be a right?

[President Johnson]

If you any, who are your favorite German politicans?


Who do you prefer to be Joe Biden's running mate? Any why?


What's your favorite food?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why would you consider taxing a person with one hundred billion dollars 70% of their wealth more immoral than the fact that the richest nation on earth lets its own citizens, including veterans, starve to death on the streets or turn to suicide?

This question is loaded with false assumptions.

Does the richest nation on earth let its people starve or commit suicide?  It's something that happens, but not because America doesn't make any effort to prevent it.  We have lots of food programs.  Our mental health programs are inadequate but they do exist.  I believe that there is a lot more we could be doing to fix this problem but it's much more complicated than just dumping money.  For instance, drugs are the root cause of a lot of poverty and mental health issues, and that's something we can't just throw money at.

But let's say you showed me a plan that costs $250 billion a year and if I rubber stamp it it will cure poverty, hunger, mental health and homelessness.  I'd smash that button faster than you can say MacArthur.  But I wouldn't pay for it by taxing the 3 guys who have $100,000,000,000 70% of their wealth, because that's terrible policy.  This is a program you need to pay for for decades to come and not only will a one-time wealth tax not give you those ongoing funds, but it will also damage the economy by causing brain drain and lead to wealthy people hiding their wealth.

Personally I would start by raising the social security tax cap on all income past $1,000,000 (so income from $118K - $1M isn't taxed, but the tax resumes on income after $1M) and expanding the benefits of the social security program to provide better food, shelter and medical care for retirees; the funds we currently use on similar programs could then be diverted elsewhere.

Do you believe that access to decent housing should be a right?

Depends how you define "decent housing."  I believe every American should have access to shelter, running water, electricity, hygiene needs, healthy food up to their daily calorie needs, and basic+emergency health care.  "Decent housing" is vague and prone to mission creep.

[OSR stands with Israel]

- How would you Rank these 4 politicians: Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders

- What is your opinion of the 2017 Tax Reform Bill

- Who would you have voted for in the 2004 election

- Do you think the firing of General MacArthur was unjustified and if so why