|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 12 2016 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On February 12 2016 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 12 2016 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
The idea of pretending that the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist because matrices will become a thing 10 years down the line is pretty stupid. It adds unnecessary complexity and teaches nothing in a country where people are already pretty bad at math as a whole. I think you'll be happy to know that that's literally never an issue in elementary school. Students are generally introduced to the terms "commutative" and "associative" in grades 4-6, and they'll surely have discussions over which basic operations are commutative/ associative and which aren't... but I've never heard of a teacher say that "the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist" because eventually they'll learn about matrices. And if a teacher did say that, it would be her fault for being remiss in her explanation, rather than the fault of the curriculum or Common Core. So don't worry  It never should be an issue, that much is true. Indeed, there are few problems with CC in principle - it's a good idea to have a standardized curriculum that ensures a minimum quality of education everywhere. Problem is that my example was actually a real one, where students were told that visualizing 3x5 as 5x3 is wrong. It's not, and an exercise like that doesn't teach you math on any useful level. A teacher who understands enough analysis even at a rudimentary level would have been able to understand that and teach it properly, but that isn't exactly an expected qualification at an elementary school level. A teacher who doesn't get it would just be imposing arbitrary rules and pissing people off. Other issues I heard from teachers is about poor implementation and more arbitrary rules which seem to have merit at first glance, but that make students really miss the greater point if things are forced to be taught a certain way. No, I mean, it's literally not an issue relevant to Common Core. No should/ ought/ could/ would. Isn't. Common Core does not dictate anything about 3x5 being different from 5x3. That is an educational error with the teacher, not Common Core. My point is that there are a lot of errors in the classroom, but a specific math problem that's ambiguous or misleading, or a statement that a teacher makes about an operation or procedure, is not the fault of Common Core. If we're going to criticize Common Core, we want to criticize the things that Common Core is actually responsible for... not everything that goes wrong on a daily basis.
I disagree with the idea that CC isn't responsible for the ways that it isn't properly implemented. The curriculum it tries to teach is fairly reasonable, and the idea of standardizing what is taught is a good one. But to say that CC is absolved of any responsibility for it being implemented badly is unreasonable.
I see a lot of good in the curriculum itself and in what it tries to accomplish. But its implementation has been quite a mess in most of the country. And I can't say that I think that you can just dismiss that fact as irrelevant to CC.
On February 12 2016 04:50 Simberto wrote:
I am also not saying that the US school system is perfect systemically. I don't really have a lot of experience with it, but a lot of things that i heard suggest elsewise. Especially a focus on large amounts of standardized tests, and misusing those to judge teachers instead of students, is problematic. I am not entirely against standardized tests, if done in a reasonable way and in moderation, and if those tests are then used to judge what they are designed to, not things they are not designed to do.
US system of education could use a lot of work. Especially terrible is US mathematics education, which has contributed very strongly to the misguided and idiotic perception among many if not most Americans that math is a terrible field not worth knowing anything about. That definitely wasn't the case in the USSR, for example, where math was respected and treated like any other subject which was useful and had to be learned.
Wealth gap for education is also quite apparent. Living in a high-quality neighborhood gives you a good education, while living in worse neighborhoods will lead to some rather awful schooling. That needs a lot of work.
|
|
|
On February 12 2016 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 07:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Lee Fang is going hard on the CBC PAC endorsement. Exposing that the PAC is full of lobbyist, for everything from private prisons to drug companies.
Can't say I'm surprised it's true or that mainstream media outlets have totally ignored it. Aaaaaand you're wrong. The board of the CBC PAC is made up of 7 Congresspeople, 11 directors and 2 employees of the PAC. The 11 directors, which you refer to as lobbyists, are successful businesspeople. You know, because they have careers. Typically, a board of directors of ANY organization is made up of engaged and successful people with something to contribute [hint, it's not always money]. Obviously they have interests related to their businesses, but to dismiss and essentially slander them as a bunch of lobbyists is pretty shameful behavior. The vote was 18 for Hillary, 2 abstaining and zero for Sanders. The CBC, as a CMO is NOT allowed to endorse a candidate because they receive support and funding from the federal government. Hence the fact they have a PAC, same reason we have the Senate Democratic PAC and many others. However, 37 (or something like that) or the 40-something members have endorsed Clinton. 2 have endorsed Sanders, and the others haven't declared-- one is Republican and probably won't endorse either. The CBC PAC endorsement is the closest you're going to get to an endorsement from the CBC itself. They're putting people on the ground and putting money into this. By the way, how do you feel about John Lewis, who was one of Freedom Riders and the last living member of the big six behind the March on Washington? He's getting fucking railed by your fellow supporters for what he said today. You really going to tell me they aren't lobbyists? The members of the Congressional Black Caucus weren't consulted. Many initial reports neglected to even make the distinction between the caucus and the PAC. John Lewis is capable of dealing with far worse than anything he's gotten today. Infantilizing him is more offensive to me than the few out of line comments I've seen. I'm disappointed that he would endorse Hillary after she is backing Rahm (among other problems) but I'm not surprised, he backed her against Obama too. He's a civil rights era hero but it doesn't mean he can't be called out for things like his unnecessary jab at Sanders or talking about meeting with Hillary and Bill when his own book says he met Bill in the 70's. I wouldn't personally call him a "Sell-out" but one would have to be oblivious to politics to think money had nothing to do with it. I mean he literally did it right after "the money" said it was endorsing Hillary too. Even if it's exclusively an issues based endorsement (incredibly hard to believe) at minimum it was terrible optics. Of course they're lobbyists. The CBC PAC is a lobbying organization. They have other interests of course, but you know as well as I you mean to call them lobbyists to undermine the their and the organization's credentials. The bolded parts were for you too you know. I suggest you read them. A vast majority of the CBC has endorsed Hillary Clinton. There was an error in the media about the CBC endorsing her, but their PAC doing so is all but an endorsement from them. Instead of burying your head in the sand, think about WHY they endorsed Hillary (the answer is not because they're establishment schills) and how to actually win support. Oh, I know he's a tough guy. He's my representative now that I'm in Atlanta and I've met the man (sidenote: previously when I was in New Orleans, Cedric Richmond who sits on the CBC board was my rep, he gave me a Courage to Lead award named after himself which was a tad egotistical considering he'd just been elected to the House). So your logic is just because someone can take a punch means it's okay to punch them? + Show Spoiler +No wonder you feel it's okay to talk so much shit about Hillary.
I'm calling them what they are.
Yeah an "error"...
They are supporting Hillary because most of them were/are dependent on the political machine Hillary is more or less in control of. I give them the benefit of the doubt with the whole "can't help get stuff done if I'm not in the position to make the decisions" As with Lewis this isn't their first time coming out for Hillary, only to endorse someone else when her inevitable victory looked less inevitable. Notice the people who haven't endorsed have their own strong organizations (Clyburn for example).
No one not endorsing Hillary thinks her civil rights record is better than Bernie's (including people who consistently criticize Bernie's). Her superpredator shtick was ridiculous, only slightly more ridiculous than the defense of it by saying Bernie voted for the crime bill.
See the problem is that people are seeing right through all this typical political nonsense. Unfortunately when folks like John Lewis say the things he did, he makes the attacks inevitable (which was obviously the purpose), but it doesn't mean I think it's ok to "punch someone because they can take a punch", but I do think it's ok to punch someone who punches you (even though Bernie has taken the high road) especially when one keeps it above the belt, even if Lewis' attack was below the belt.
The way he and the CBC have been trotted out and "defended" makes me pretty disgusted with Hillary's campaign. If she really gave a shit (beyond political expediency) she wouldn't have said she supported Rahm among plenty of other stuff.
Making Hillary out to be a victim in all this is disingenuous and comes off as making her look pathetic to me. For someone who's pitch is how she can take all the stuff Republicans will throw at her, she and her supporters seem exceptionally sensitive to much less harsh and more accurate attacks from the left.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 12 2016 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Making Hillary out to be a victim in all this is disingenuous and comes off as making her look pathetic to me. For someone who's pitch is how she can take all the stuff Republicans will throw at her, she and her supporters seem exceptionally sensitive to much less harsh and more accurate attacks from the left.
Yeah, her tendency to revert to identity politics at the first sign of danger is a massive turn-off. I like her less and less the more this campaign goes on.
|
On February 12 2016 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 07:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Lee Fang is going hard on the CBC PAC endorsement. Exposing that the PAC is full of lobbyist, for everything from private prisons to drug companies.
Can't say I'm surprised it's true or that mainstream media outlets have totally ignored it. Aaaaaand you're wrong. The board of the CBC PAC is made up of 7 Congresspeople, 11 directors and 2 employees of the PAC. The 11 directors, which you refer to as lobbyists, are successful businesspeople. You know, because they have careers. Typically, a board of directors of ANY organization is made up of engaged and successful people with something to contribute [hint, it's not always money]. Obviously they have interests related to their businesses, but to dismiss and essentially slander them as a bunch of lobbyists is pretty shameful behavior. The vote was 18 for Hillary, 2 abstaining and zero for Sanders. The CBC, as a CMO is NOT allowed to endorse a candidate because they receive support and funding from the federal government. Hence the fact they have a PAC, same reason we have the Senate Democratic PAC and many others. However, 37 (or something like that) or the 40-something members have endorsed Clinton. 2 have endorsed Sanders, and the others haven't declared-- one is Republican and probably won't endorse either. The CBC PAC endorsement is the closest you're going to get to an endorsement from the CBC itself. They're putting people on the ground and putting money into this. By the way, how do you feel about John Lewis, who was one of Freedom Riders and the last living member of the big six behind the March on Washington? He's getting fucking railed by your fellow supporters for what he said today. You really going to tell me they aren't lobbyists? The members of the Congressional Black Caucus weren't consulted. Many initial reports neglected to even make the distinction between the caucus and the PAC. John Lewis is capable of dealing with far worse than anything he's gotten today. Infantilizing him is more offensive to me than the few out of line comments I've seen. I'm disappointed that he would endorse Hillary after she is backing Rahm (among other problems) but I'm not surprised, he backed her against Obama too. He's a civil rights era hero but it doesn't mean he can't be called out for things like his unnecessary jab at Sanders or talking about meeting with Hillary and Bill when his own book says he met Bill in the 70's. I wouldn't personally call him a "Sell-out" but one would have to be oblivious to politics to think money had nothing to do with it. I mean he literally did it right after "the money" said it was endorsing Hillary too. Even if it's exclusively an issues based endorsement (incredibly hard to believe) at minimum it was terrible optics. Of course they're lobbyists. The CBC PAC is a lobbying organization. They have other interests of course, but you know as well as I you mean to call them lobbyists to undermine the their and the organization's credentials.
To be clear, I hated PACs long before this.
But that is a pile of shit. Its a organization that is named after an entity that is bared from endorsing anyone due to federal regulation. So they created a PAC with the exact same name and funnel money through that, employee lobbyist. I am sure everyone employees is very skilled at their job, but right now the members of the original CBC are talking about how they didn't endorse Hilary, the PAC did, which is separate and they totally are not involved.
The only bight spot to this is how nakedly abusive it is. How the PAC is being used to straight up dodge a federal regulation. How do we even have a discussion about these two entities when they have the same god damn name and several over lapping members? And a bunch of lobbyist. Like how do we have intelligent discussion with anyone who is supporting which candidate with shit like this? I would need a flow chart to explain this one PAC, its relationship to its lobbyist and the original CBC for this one PAC.
|
On February 12 2016 08:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 12 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On February 12 2016 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 12 2016 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
The idea of pretending that the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist because matrices will become a thing 10 years down the line is pretty stupid. It adds unnecessary complexity and teaches nothing in a country where people are already pretty bad at math as a whole. I think you'll be happy to know that that's literally never an issue in elementary school. Students are generally introduced to the terms "commutative" and "associative" in grades 4-6, and they'll surely have discussions over which basic operations are commutative/ associative and which aren't... but I've never heard of a teacher say that "the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist" because eventually they'll learn about matrices. And if a teacher did say that, it would be her fault for being remiss in her explanation, rather than the fault of the curriculum or Common Core. So don't worry It never should be an issue, that much is true. Indeed, there are few problems with CC in principle - it's a good idea to have a standardized curriculum that ensures a minimum quality of education everywhere. Problem is that my example was actually a real one, where students were told that visualizing 3x5 as 5x3 is wrong. It's not, and an exercise like that doesn't teach you math on any useful level. A teacher who understands enough analysis even at a rudimentary level would have been able to understand that and teach it properly, but that isn't exactly an expected qualification at an elementary school level. A teacher who doesn't get it would just be imposing arbitrary rules and pissing people off. Other issues I heard from teachers is about poor implementation and more arbitrary rules which seem to have merit at first glance, but that make students really miss the greater point if things are forced to be taught a certain way. No, I mean, it's literally not an issue relevant to Common Core. No should/ ought/ could/ would. Isn't. Common Core does not dictate anything about 3x5 being different from 5x3. That is an educational error with the teacher, not Common Core. My point is that there are a lot of errors in the classroom, but a specific math problem that's ambiguous or misleading, or a statement that a teacher makes about an operation or procedure, is not the fault of Common Core. If we're going to criticize Common Core, we want to criticize the things that Common Core is actually responsible for... not everything that goes wrong on a daily basis. I disagree with the idea that CC isn't responsible for the ways that it isn't properly implemented. The curriculum it tries to teach is fairly reasonable, and the idea of standardizing what is taught is a good one. But to say that CC is absolved of any responsibility for it being implemented badly is unreasonable. I see a lot of good in the curriculum itself and in what it tries to accomplish. But its implementation has been quite a mess in most of the country. And I can't say that I think that you can just dismiss that fact as irrelevant to CC.
Can you please explain why Common Core is partially responsible for the idea that 3*5 =/= 5*3? I don't understand why it would deserve some blame.
Where in this breakdown does it say to promote the idea that "the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist", which is your example? http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
Because what I found is this (under Grade 3):
"Understand properties of multiplication and the relationship between multiplication and division.
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5
Apply properties of operations as strategies to multiply and divide.2
Examples: If 6 × 4 = 24 is known, then 4 × 6 = 24 is also known. (Commutative property of multiplication.) 3 × 5 × 2 can be found by 3 × 5 = 15, then 15 × 2 = 30, or by 5 × 2 = 10, then 3 × 10 = 30. (Associative property of multiplication.) Knowing that 8 × 5 = 40 and 8 × 2 = 16, one can find 8 × 7 as 8 × (5 + 2) = (8 × 5) + (8 × 2) = 40 + 16 = 56. (Distributive property.)"
And that's a perfectly fine and clear set of recommendations, in my opinion... especially when reviewed and interpreted by a math educator.
Or if you want to come up with a different "Bad Common Core Math Problem" that is circulating the internet as a testament to how inappropriate CC is, please show me where in the above site that math problem would be created.
I'm just asking you to basically cite a part of the CC standards/ skills that would clearly cause a bad math problem to emerge. I'm not saying CC is perfect, but I haven't found any evidence to suggest that it's to blame for the bad math problems that occasionally surface, so I'm asking for evidence
|
On February 12 2016 09:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 07:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Lee Fang is going hard on the CBC PAC endorsement. Exposing that the PAC is full of lobbyist, for everything from private prisons to drug companies.
Can't say I'm surprised it's true or that mainstream media outlets have totally ignored it. Aaaaaand you're wrong. The board of the CBC PAC is made up of 7 Congresspeople, 11 directors and 2 employees of the PAC. The 11 directors, which you refer to as lobbyists, are successful businesspeople. You know, because they have careers. Typically, a board of directors of ANY organization is made up of engaged and successful people with something to contribute [hint, it's not always money]. Obviously they have interests related to their businesses, but to dismiss and essentially slander them as a bunch of lobbyists is pretty shameful behavior. The vote was 18 for Hillary, 2 abstaining and zero for Sanders. The CBC, as a CMO is NOT allowed to endorse a candidate because they receive support and funding from the federal government. Hence the fact they have a PAC, same reason we have the Senate Democratic PAC and many others. However, 37 (or something like that) or the 40-something members have endorsed Clinton. 2 have endorsed Sanders, and the others haven't declared-- one is Republican and probably won't endorse either. The CBC PAC endorsement is the closest you're going to get to an endorsement from the CBC itself. They're putting people on the ground and putting money into this. By the way, how do you feel about John Lewis, who was one of Freedom Riders and the last living member of the big six behind the March on Washington? He's getting fucking railed by your fellow supporters for what he said today. You really going to tell me they aren't lobbyists? The members of the Congressional Black Caucus weren't consulted. Many initial reports neglected to even make the distinction between the caucus and the PAC. John Lewis is capable of dealing with far worse than anything he's gotten today. Infantilizing him is more offensive to me than the few out of line comments I've seen. I'm disappointed that he would endorse Hillary after she is backing Rahm (among other problems) but I'm not surprised, he backed her against Obama too. He's a civil rights era hero but it doesn't mean he can't be called out for things like his unnecessary jab at Sanders or talking about meeting with Hillary and Bill when his own book says he met Bill in the 70's. I wouldn't personally call him a "Sell-out" but one would have to be oblivious to politics to think money had nothing to do with it. I mean he literally did it right after "the money" said it was endorsing Hillary too. Even if it's exclusively an issues based endorsement (incredibly hard to believe) at minimum it was terrible optics. Of course they're lobbyists. The CBC PAC is a lobbying organization. They have other interests of course, but you know as well as I you mean to call them lobbyists to undermine the their and the organization's credentials. To be clear, I hated PACs long before this. But that is a pile of shit. Its a organization that is named after an entity that is bared from endorsing anyone due to federal regulation. So they created a PAC with the exact same name and funnel money through that, employee lobbyist. I am sure everyone employees is very skilled at their job, but right now the members of the original CBC are talking about how they didn't endorse Hilary, the PAC did, which is separate and they totally are not involved. The only bight spot to this is how nakedly abusive it is. How the PAC is being used to straight up dodge a federal regulation. How do we even have a discussion about these two entities when they have the same god damn name and several over lapping members? And a bunch of lobbyist. Like how do we have intelligent discussion with anyone who is supporting which candidate with shit like this? I would need a flow chart to explain this one PAC, its relationship to its lobbyist and the original CBC for this one PAC.
Okay, it's fine to not like PAC's, though I accept them as part of political reality. In that context, it's pretty clear support of Hillary. 37 members of the CBC endorsed Hillary out of 43, which in most situations is more than enough. Far as I know, it's just Keith Ellison complaining about the CBC not actually endorsing her.
|
On February 12 2016 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 07:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Lee Fang is going hard on the CBC PAC endorsement. Exposing that the PAC is full of lobbyist, for everything from private prisons to drug companies.
Can't say I'm surprised it's true or that mainstream media outlets have totally ignored it. Aaaaaand you're wrong. The board of the CBC PAC is made up of 7 Congresspeople, 11 directors and 2 employees of the PAC. The 11 directors, which you refer to as lobbyists, are successful businesspeople. You know, because they have careers. Typically, a board of directors of ANY organization is made up of engaged and successful people with something to contribute [hint, it's not always money]. Obviously they have interests related to their businesses, but to dismiss and essentially slander them as a bunch of lobbyists is pretty shameful behavior. The vote was 18 for Hillary, 2 abstaining and zero for Sanders. The CBC, as a CMO is NOT allowed to endorse a candidate because they receive support and funding from the federal government. Hence the fact they have a PAC, same reason we have the Senate Democratic PAC and many others. However, 37 (or something like that) or the 40-something members have endorsed Clinton. 2 have endorsed Sanders, and the others haven't declared-- one is Republican and probably won't endorse either. The CBC PAC endorsement is the closest you're going to get to an endorsement from the CBC itself. They're putting people on the ground and putting money into this. By the way, how do you feel about John Lewis, who was one of Freedom Riders and the last living member of the big six behind the March on Washington? He's getting fucking railed by your fellow supporters for what he said today. You really going to tell me they aren't lobbyists? The members of the Congressional Black Caucus weren't consulted. Many initial reports neglected to even make the distinction between the caucus and the PAC. John Lewis is capable of dealing with far worse than anything he's gotten today. Infantilizing him is more offensive to me than the few out of line comments I've seen. I'm disappointed that he would endorse Hillary after she is backing Rahm (among other problems) but I'm not surprised, he backed her against Obama too. He's a civil rights era hero but it doesn't mean he can't be called out for things like his unnecessary jab at Sanders or talking about meeting with Hillary and Bill when his own book says he met Bill in the 70's. I wouldn't personally call him a "Sell-out" but one would have to be oblivious to politics to think money had nothing to do with it. I mean he literally did it right after "the money" said it was endorsing Hillary too. Even if it's exclusively an issues based endorsement (incredibly hard to believe) at minimum it was terrible optics. Of course they're lobbyists. The CBC PAC is a lobbying organization. They have other interests of course, but you know as well as I you mean to call them lobbyists to undermine the their and the organization's credentials. The bolded parts were for you too you know. I suggest you read them. A vast majority of the CBC has endorsed Hillary Clinton. There was an error in the media about the CBC endorsing her, but their PAC doing so is all but an endorsement from them. Instead of burying your head in the sand, think about WHY they endorsed Hillary (the answer is not because they're establishment schills) and how to actually win support. Oh, I know he's a tough guy. He's my representative now that I'm in Atlanta and I've met the man (sidenote: previously when I was in New Orleans, Cedric Richmond who sits on the CBC board was my rep, he gave me a Courage to Lead award named after himself which was a tad egotistical considering he'd just been elected to the House). So your logic is just because someone can take a punch means it's okay to punch them? + Show Spoiler +No wonder you feel it's okay to talk so much shit about Hillary. I'm calling them what they are. Yeah an "error"... They are supporting Hillary because most of them were/are dependent on the political machine Hillary is more or less in control of. I give them the benefit of the doubt with the whole "can't help get stuff done if I'm not in the position to make the decisions" As with Lewis this isn't their first time coming out for Hillary, only to endorse someone else when her inevitable victory looked less inevitable. Notice the people who haven't endorsed have their own strong organizations (Clyburn for example). No one not endorsing Hillary thinks her civil rights record is better than Bernie's (including people who consistently criticize Bernie's). Her superpredator shtick was ridiculous, only slightly more ridiculous than the defense of it by saying Bernie voted for the crime bill. See the problem is that people are seeing right through all this typical political nonsense. Unfortunately when folks like John Lewis say the things he did, he makes the attacks inevitable (which was obviously the purpose), but it doesn't mean I think it's ok to "punch someone because they can take a punch", but I do think it's ok to punch someone who punches you (even though Bernie has taken the high road) especially when one keeps it above the belt, even if Lewis' attack was below the belt. The way he and the CBC have been trotted out and "defended" makes me pretty disgusted with Hillary's campaign. If she really gave a shit (beyond political expediency) she wouldn't have said she supported Rahm among plenty of other stuff. Making Hillary out to be a victim in all this is disingenuous and comes off as making her look pathetic to me. For someone who's pitch is how she can take all the stuff Republicans will throw at her, she and her supporters seem exceptionally sensitive to much less harsh and more accurate attacks from the left.
I sincerely hope in several years you will come back, read some of the stuff you wrote and see some of the points I'm trying to make.
|
On February 12 2016 09:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 07:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Lee Fang is going hard on the CBC PAC endorsement. Exposing that the PAC is full of lobbyist, for everything from private prisons to drug companies.
Can't say I'm surprised it's true or that mainstream media outlets have totally ignored it. Aaaaaand you're wrong. The board of the CBC PAC is made up of 7 Congresspeople, 11 directors and 2 employees of the PAC. The 11 directors, which you refer to as lobbyists, are successful businesspeople. You know, because they have careers. Typically, a board of directors of ANY organization is made up of engaged and successful people with something to contribute [hint, it's not always money]. Obviously they have interests related to their businesses, but to dismiss and essentially slander them as a bunch of lobbyists is pretty shameful behavior. The vote was 18 for Hillary, 2 abstaining and zero for Sanders. The CBC, as a CMO is NOT allowed to endorse a candidate because they receive support and funding from the federal government. Hence the fact they have a PAC, same reason we have the Senate Democratic PAC and many others. However, 37 (or something like that) or the 40-something members have endorsed Clinton. 2 have endorsed Sanders, and the others haven't declared-- one is Republican and probably won't endorse either. The CBC PAC endorsement is the closest you're going to get to an endorsement from the CBC itself. They're putting people on the ground and putting money into this. By the way, how do you feel about John Lewis, who was one of Freedom Riders and the last living member of the big six behind the March on Washington? He's getting fucking railed by your fellow supporters for what he said today. You really going to tell me they aren't lobbyists? The members of the Congressional Black Caucus weren't consulted. Many initial reports neglected to even make the distinction between the caucus and the PAC. John Lewis is capable of dealing with far worse than anything he's gotten today. Infantilizing him is more offensive to me than the few out of line comments I've seen. I'm disappointed that he would endorse Hillary after she is backing Rahm (among other problems) but I'm not surprised, he backed her against Obama too. He's a civil rights era hero but it doesn't mean he can't be called out for things like his unnecessary jab at Sanders or talking about meeting with Hillary and Bill when his own book says he met Bill in the 70's. I wouldn't personally call him a "Sell-out" but one would have to be oblivious to politics to think money had nothing to do with it. I mean he literally did it right after "the money" said it was endorsing Hillary too. Even if it's exclusively an issues based endorsement (incredibly hard to believe) at minimum it was terrible optics. Of course they're lobbyists. The CBC PAC is a lobbying organization. They have other interests of course, but you know as well as I you mean to call them lobbyists to undermine the their and the organization's credentials. The bolded parts were for you too you know. I suggest you read them. A vast majority of the CBC has endorsed Hillary Clinton. There was an error in the media about the CBC endorsing her, but their PAC doing so is all but an endorsement from them. Instead of burying your head in the sand, think about WHY they endorsed Hillary (the answer is not because they're establishment schills) and how to actually win support. Oh, I know he's a tough guy. He's my representative now that I'm in Atlanta and I've met the man (sidenote: previously when I was in New Orleans, Cedric Richmond who sits on the CBC board was my rep, he gave me a Courage to Lead award named after himself which was a tad egotistical considering he'd just been elected to the House). So your logic is just because someone can take a punch means it's okay to punch them? + Show Spoiler +No wonder you feel it's okay to talk so much shit about Hillary. I'm calling them what they are. Yeah an "error"... They are supporting Hillary because most of them were/are dependent on the political machine Hillary is more or less in control of. I give them the benefit of the doubt with the whole "can't help get stuff done if I'm not in the position to make the decisions" As with Lewis this isn't their first time coming out for Hillary, only to endorse someone else when her inevitable victory looked less inevitable. Notice the people who haven't endorsed have their own strong organizations (Clyburn for example). No one not endorsing Hillary thinks her civil rights record is better than Bernie's (including people who consistently criticize Bernie's). Her superpredator shtick was ridiculous, only slightly more ridiculous than the defense of it by saying Bernie voted for the crime bill. See the problem is that people are seeing right through all this typical political nonsense. Unfortunately when folks like John Lewis say the things he did, he makes the attacks inevitable (which was obviously the purpose), but it doesn't mean I think it's ok to "punch someone because they can take a punch", but I do think it's ok to punch someone who punches you (even though Bernie has taken the high road) especially when one keeps it above the belt, even if Lewis' attack was below the belt. The way he and the CBC have been trotted out and "defended" makes me pretty disgusted with Hillary's campaign. If she really gave a shit (beyond political expediency) she wouldn't have said she supported Rahm among plenty of other stuff. Making Hillary out to be a victim in all this is disingenuous and comes off as making her look pathetic to me. For someone who's pitch is how she can take all the stuff Republicans will throw at her, she and her supporters seem exceptionally sensitive to much less harsh and more accurate attacks from the left. I sincerely hope in several years you will come back, read some of the stuff you wrote and see some of the points I'm trying to make.
I see the points your trying to make. I just don't view it the way you do. I think we should stop playing fools to the games being played but I see the advantages to keeping things the way they are.
|
The 80% plus in Iowa 17-29 for Bernie was remarkable too. The numbers are so sky high they're up with the rigged elections of dictators that pretend they had that support.
|
On February 12 2016 09:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 08:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2016 07:53 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 12 2016 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
Lee Fang is going hard on the CBC PAC endorsement. Exposing that the PAC is full of lobbyist, for everything from private prisons to drug companies.
Can't say I'm surprised it's true or that mainstream media outlets have totally ignored it. Aaaaaand you're wrong. The board of the CBC PAC is made up of 7 Congresspeople, 11 directors and 2 employees of the PAC. The 11 directors, which you refer to as lobbyists, are successful businesspeople. You know, because they have careers. Typically, a board of directors of ANY organization is made up of engaged and successful people with something to contribute [hint, it's not always money]. Obviously they have interests related to their businesses, but to dismiss and essentially slander them as a bunch of lobbyists is pretty shameful behavior. The vote was 18 for Hillary, 2 abstaining and zero for Sanders. The CBC, as a CMO is NOT allowed to endorse a candidate because they receive support and funding from the federal government. Hence the fact they have a PAC, same reason we have the Senate Democratic PAC and many others. However, 37 (or something like that) or the 40-something members have endorsed Clinton. 2 have endorsed Sanders, and the others haven't declared-- one is Republican and probably won't endorse either. The CBC PAC endorsement is the closest you're going to get to an endorsement from the CBC itself. They're putting people on the ground and putting money into this. By the way, how do you feel about John Lewis, who was one of Freedom Riders and the last living member of the big six behind the March on Washington? He's getting fucking railed by your fellow supporters for what he said today. You really going to tell me they aren't lobbyists? The members of the Congressional Black Caucus weren't consulted. Many initial reports neglected to even make the distinction between the caucus and the PAC. John Lewis is capable of dealing with far worse than anything he's gotten today. Infantilizing him is more offensive to me than the few out of line comments I've seen. I'm disappointed that he would endorse Hillary after she is backing Rahm (among other problems) but I'm not surprised, he backed her against Obama too. He's a civil rights era hero but it doesn't mean he can't be called out for things like his unnecessary jab at Sanders or talking about meeting with Hillary and Bill when his own book says he met Bill in the 70's. I wouldn't personally call him a "Sell-out" but one would have to be oblivious to politics to think money had nothing to do with it. I mean he literally did it right after "the money" said it was endorsing Hillary too. Even if it's exclusively an issues based endorsement (incredibly hard to believe) at minimum it was terrible optics. Of course they're lobbyists. The CBC PAC is a lobbying organization. They have other interests of course, but you know as well as I you mean to call them lobbyists to undermine the their and the organization's credentials. The bolded parts were for you too you know. I suggest you read them. A vast majority of the CBC has endorsed Hillary Clinton. There was an error in the media about the CBC endorsing her, but their PAC doing so is all but an endorsement from them. Instead of burying your head in the sand, think about WHY they endorsed Hillary (the answer is not because they're establishment schills) and how to actually win support. Oh, I know he's a tough guy. He's my representative now that I'm in Atlanta and I've met the man (sidenote: previously when I was in New Orleans, Cedric Richmond who sits on the CBC board was my rep, he gave me a Courage to Lead award named after himself which was a tad egotistical considering he'd just been elected to the House). So your logic is just because someone can take a punch means it's okay to punch them? + Show Spoiler +No wonder you feel it's okay to talk so much shit about Hillary. I'm calling them what they are. Yeah an "error"... They are supporting Hillary because most of them were/are dependent on the political machine Hillary is more or less in control of. I give them the benefit of the doubt with the whole "can't help get stuff done if I'm not in the position to make the decisions" As with Lewis this isn't their first time coming out for Hillary, only to endorse someone else when her inevitable victory looked less inevitable. Notice the people who haven't endorsed have their own strong organizations (Clyburn for example). No one not endorsing Hillary thinks her civil rights record is better than Bernie's (including people who consistently criticize Bernie's). Her superpredator shtick was ridiculous, only slightly more ridiculous than the defense of it by saying Bernie voted for the crime bill. See the problem is that people are seeing right through all this typical political nonsense. Unfortunately when folks like John Lewis say the things he did, he makes the attacks inevitable (which was obviously the purpose), but it doesn't mean I think it's ok to "punch someone because they can take a punch", but I do think it's ok to punch someone who punches you (even though Bernie has taken the high road) especially when one keeps it above the belt, even if Lewis' attack was below the belt. The way he and the CBC have been trotted out and "defended" makes me pretty disgusted with Hillary's campaign. If she really gave a shit (beyond political expediency) she wouldn't have said she supported Rahm among plenty of other stuff. Making Hillary out to be a victim in all this is disingenuous and comes off as making her look pathetic to me. For someone who's pitch is how she can take all the stuff Republicans will throw at her, she and her supporters seem exceptionally sensitive to much less harsh and more accurate attacks from the left. I sincerely hope in several years you will come back, read some of the stuff you wrote and see some of the points I'm trying to make.
Can you reiterate them in bullet point format?
|
LOS ANGELES -- Southern California Gas Co. announced Thursday that it has temporarily controlled the flow of natural gas at the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility, which has been leaking for nearly four months.
“We have temporarily controlled the natural gas flow from the leaking well and begun the process of sealing the well and permanently stopping the leak,” said Jimmie Cho, SoCalGas' senior vice president of gas operations, in a statement.
Thousands of residents from the Porter Ranch community, an affluent neighborhood in the suburbs of Los Angeles, have been relocated since October due to the leak. SoCalGas said Thursday that those residents have already been notified about the day’s progress.
In December, the gas company began drilling a relief well in an effort to stop the enormous volume of gas that has been spewing from a broken well since Oct. 23. On Thursday, drill crews intercepted the base of the broken well and began pumping in fluids to temporarily control the leak.
The well is not permanently sealed yet, but the company says that may happen in the coming days following a cement injection. No official timeline has been established for sealing off the well.
Source
|
So I just tuned into the debate randomly and I like that first question. About time someone asked Sanders just how large the government would be. Too bad it turned into a stump speech. Translation: it's going to be yuge.
|
Plenty of crappy small governments too. Arguing the size is a diversion from the argument about effectiveness.
Bernie going HAM, don't tell me we can't do it.
|
On February 12 2016 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
Making Hillary out to be a victim in all this is disingenuous and comes off as making her look pathetic to me. For someone who's pitch is how she can take all the stuff Republicans will throw at her, she and her supporters seem exceptionally sensitive to much less harsh and more accurate attacks from the left. Yeah, her tendency to revert to identity politics at the first sign of danger is a massive turn-off. I like her less and less the more this campaign goes on.
Yep, this describes my feelings as well
|
It's actually a perfectly legitimate question, considering that effectiveness is not only issue. That's Trump. I'm going to have a big government, but I will do it right! So he should be asked that question.
|
On February 12 2016 11:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Plenty of crappy small governments too. Arguing the size is a diversion from the argument about effectiveness.
Bernie going HAM, don't tell me we can't do it.
Think Bernie has come out strong so far. I like it. Hope he's worked on his foreign policy spiel...
|
Glad Hillary is focusing on costs and specifics. Bernie is sticking to talking points about pharma, wall street, college is expensive and dodging. Hillary's on the offensive and it looks good.
|
On February 12 2016 11:18 Introvert wrote:
It's actually a perfectly legitimate question, considering that effectiveness is not only issue. That's Trump. I'm going to have a big government, but I will do it right! So he should be asked that question.
"This big" - Sanders points map of the US, each state with 4% unemployment and $15 minimum wage.
Bait questions aside, Sanders should just focus on talking about the issues he thinks are big problems and need to be addressed. Other, people will decide the metric to measure the size of government and what is good. Currently I am voting for an XL government, built like a line backer. But not an XXXL government, raised on McDonalds. That is to far.
|
On February 12 2016 11:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 11:18 Introvert wrote:
It's actually a perfectly legitimate question, considering that effectiveness is not only issue. That's Trump. I'm going to have a big government, but I will do it right! So he should be asked that question. "This big" - Sanders points map of the US, each state with 4% unemployment and $15 minimum wage. Bait questions aside, Sanders should just focus on talking about the issues he thinks are big problems and need to be addressed. Other, people will decide the metric to measure the size of government and what is good. Currently I am voting for an XL government, built like a line backer. But not an XXXL government, raised on McDonalds. That is to far.
Like the voters? People want to know, I certainly want to know. Not that any answer within the realm of possibility would make me vote for him.
It's small thing, but I like the question. It should be asked of every candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
