|
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 States43210 Posts
On March 03 2016 05:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:20 Plansix wrote:Already proven to be inaccurate because different states voted in 2008. Like New York and California. That doesn't make those numbers inaccurate.
It makes any comparison meaningless.
If I were to do a comparison of our dick sizes side by side and misleadingly present your flaccid shriveled member's length against that of my glorious throbbing staff you'd not say"those numbers, as presented, are totally accurate". You'd want context taken into account.
|
On March 03 2016 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population. Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples? Not more than a single parent. There should be no perks for families staying together. That is some judo-Christian bullshit creeping into law. Knocking someone up does not create a family or even a functional relationship. No perks for families staying together, despite evidence suggesting a much more well-off population base when families stay together? I mean, there are already built in perks of marriage in the government, such as tax deductions, legal representation, etc etc. I'm actually of the opinion Government should leave the business of marriage all together, but I think there's a pretty good point regarding government assistance to promote 2 parent households. Sounds like there are enough perks already. Why add more when there are clear downsides like people entering horrible relationships just to try and make ends meet? Do you have a desperate need to see the numbers of people who stay in bad relationships for a little extra monthly?
Because for the poor, there are more incentives to being single.
Like, tax deductions doesn't mean shit to a poor family, because they don't make enough money to make use of that tax deduction.
On March 03 2016 05:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:22 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 05:20 Plansix wrote:Already proven to be inaccurate because different states voted in 2008. Like New York and California. That doesn't make those numbers inaccurate. It makes any comparison meaningless. If I were to do a comparison of our dick sizes side by side and present your flaccid shriveled member alongside my glorious throbbing staff you'd not go "those numbers are totally accurate". You'd want context taken into account.
Jokes on you, he's a shower not a grower.
|
United States43210 Posts
On March 03 2016 05:28 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:27 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population. Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples? Not more than a single parent. There should be no perks for families staying together. That is some judo-Christian bullshit creeping into law. Knocking someone up does not create a family or even a functional relationship. No perks for families staying together, despite evidence suggesting a much more well-off population base when families stay together? I mean, there are already built in perks of marriage in the government, such as tax deductions, legal representation, etc etc. I'm actually of the opinion Government should leave the business of marriage all together, but I think there's a pretty good point regarding government assistance to promote 2 parent households. Sounds like there are enough perks already. Why add more when there are clear downsides like people entering horrible relationships just to try and make ends meet? Do you have a desperate need to see the numbers of people who stay in bad relationships for a little extra monthly? Because for the poor, there are more incentives to being single. Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:27 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 05:22 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 05:20 Plansix wrote:Already proven to be inaccurate because different states voted in 2008. Like New York and California. That doesn't make those numbers inaccurate. It makes any comparison meaningless. If I were to do a comparison of our dick sizes side by side and present your flaccid shriveled member alongside my glorious throbbing staff you'd not go "those numbers are totally accurate". You'd want context taken into account. Jokes on you, he's a shower not a grower.
He's Asian. Pretty sure I've got this.
|
People should not be punished for getting married through governments subsidies, but we should never be encouraging relationships either.
|
On March 03 2016 05:31 Plansix wrote:
People should not be punished for getting married through governments subsidies, but we should never be encouraging relationships either.
Why not?
RE: Financial incentives I can see its a bad idea, but IMHO family relationships should be encouraged.
|
On March 03 2016 05:31 Plansix wrote:
People should not be punished for getting married through governments subsidies, but we should never be encouraging relationships either.
Problem is, for the poor communities there's an incentive to break relationships right now.
|
On March 03 2016 05:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:02 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 04:57 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming.
Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". A lot of the problem has to do with the perceived ineffectiveness of these subsidies and welfare programs. But we should base the decision on if the programs are effective or not. Perception is something that can be fixed without altering an effective program. Cutting the program all together is not a solution. The problem also has to do with trust of the government. Any expansion of any program always means giving more money to the government. The inherent distrust of government's ability to handle tax payer money is a very real problem for a majority of people. Don't get me wrong, these programs are necessary, but the problem is willingness to hand money over to a middleman, who's been notorious about mishandling money. I distrust banks and the government. I still a have a checking account and mortgage. I find the argument that we can’t trust government to be weak at best, since oversight is easier than just not addressing the problem. And not addressing these problems costs us more long term because these children will grow up and become adults. Yes, but I'm saying these are also the kind of people who limit their bank account usage, and have their money invested in gold, or hidden in their mattresses. I just think it's pretty disingenuous to frame their arguments as "oh all conservatives hate poor people", or anything along those lines. I don’t think they hate the poor, but don’t feel their taxes should go to support the poor. I view them as exactly like the people who voted against building a new school in my town because “it was good enough for them.” Of course, all these people didn’t have kids. They didn’t hate kids. The just don’t want to pay for them through taxes. Then the state condemned the school for building violations and forced the town to build a new one. Its cool the don’t want to pay. There are lots of things in government I don’t like, like the development of fighter jets. I deal with it. On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population. Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples? Not more than a single parent. There should be no perks for families staying together. That is some judo-Christian bullshit creeping into law. Knocking someone up does not create a family or even a functional relationship. Because religion encourages something doesn't mean its automatically bad. There are other reasons, sound economic and social reasons for keeping families together. Doesn't mean there should be incentives, but don't rule them out because they sound vaguely like something religious people would like.
Religion in this discussion is not about the staying together. Its about religions problem with education and abortions that create single parents in the first place.
|
On March 03 2016 05:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:31 Plansix wrote:
People should not be punished for getting married through governments subsidies, but we should never be encouraging relationships either. Why not? RE: Financial incentives I can see its a bad idea, but IMHO family relationships should be encouraged.
Encouraging families and then leaving them on their own is a recipe for disaster because nobody has any choice about what situation they are born into. It's the worst of both worlds. And the "family is the core unit of society" ideology seems to come almost exclusively from people who at the same time want to withdraw other forms of public support.
|
United States43210 Posts
There are more than enough fantastic reasons to be in a partnership with another human being to justify doing it. If someone has actively chosen not to be in a partnership with the other parent of their child, for example, they almost certainly have very good reasons for it. Bribing someone to be in a relationship that does not stand on its own merit is not going to encourage healthy relationships, it's going to exclusively encourage unhealthy ones.
|
On March 03 2016 05:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2016 04:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". Some twentysomething professional talking shit about hard work while opposing systems that promote hard work loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes. A mistake that in a black kid results in a record and ineligibility for scholarships and government jobs could just be a warning for a white kid for example. It basically comes down to what that Jesus guy said about judging others. The vast majority of successful people did not succeed in a vacuum, I know from my own life that I was insulated from the consequences of some of my educational mistakes by my parents. I don't depend on them, I'm independently successful but had they not had my back earlier on smaller mistakes could have snowballed and changed a lot in my life today. I got lucky to have the background I have, not everybody gets so lucky. The government should be better at promoting strong family structure so that it gives more incentive to stay as a couple than to break up. Ignoring the host of mal-incentives is where the soft-heart soft-head types lose me. Single mothers deserves this and that welfare program on the road back, so let's get to work creating more single mothers and increasing the numbers of those stuck in poverty and the list goes on. There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it. Another issue is the patronizing view that one must first chose to acknowlege "their own privilege." It's an abrupt switch from compassion for the poor to own up to your evil you hateful, prejudiced sob. Well, if you can't have an educated discussion on welfare assistance policies without resorting to bashing your opponents, I can see why the debate remains stuck on stupid. It's usually paired with the even more sanctimonious, "I'd like to see your point of view, but I just can't look past your own privileged viewpoints, which would honestly be the first step to solving the problem." Privilege isn't a hammer to hit people with. It's an understanding that your experiences may not be universally applicable. And that's all it is. If you were to call me a nigger I'd give absolutely no shits because I'm as white as snow and the word means nothing to me. However I understand that other people have a different relationship with the word to me and therefore if I were to start telling black people that they're overreacting, based upon my own experience of what a normal reaction was, I'd be guilty of not understanding my own privilege. Make sense? As for this idea that single mothers only exist due to incentives to be single mothers, I seriously doubt that that's really what's going through their heads. If it was the Republican party wouldn't have to fight so hard to shut down abortion clinics that service all those pregnant teens desperate not to become a single mother.
If you must bring it up time after time, it's part of your overall argument and in the front of your mind with the economics of wages. I would be very sympathetic if your manner matched your professed standpoint. Just take "[someone talking shit about hard work] loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes." Those aren't the words of a person that merely understands alternative worldviews and upbringings. That's an assertion of bad thinking, your hammer, that you attack the character of your opponent's argument that it blames others and it is ignorant of privilege. You can't have it both ways. I think owning up to how you currently use the term and concept would make for a better appeal to compassion, for you.
Cute strawman with "single mothers only exist due to incentives." We were talking mal-incentives that affect their population. If you meet someone that thinks the government created all single mothers, let me know.
On March 03 2016 05:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2016 04:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". Some twentysomething professional talking shit about hard work while opposing systems that promote hard work loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes. A mistake that in a black kid results in a record and ineligibility for scholarships and government jobs could just be a warning for a white kid for example. It basically comes down to what that Jesus guy said about judging others. The vast majority of successful people did not succeed in a vacuum, I know from my own life that I was insulated from the consequences of some of my educational mistakes by my parents. I don't depend on them, I'm independently successful but had they not had my back earlier on smaller mistakes could have snowballed and changed a lot in my life today. I got lucky to have the background I have, not everybody gets so lucky. The government should be better at promoting strong family structure so that it gives more incentive to stay as a couple than to break up. Ignoring the host of mal-incentives is where the soft-heart soft-head types lose me. Single mothers deserves this and that welfare program on the road back, so let's get to work creating more single mothers and increasing the numbers of those stuck in poverty and the list goes on. There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it. Another issue is the patronizing view that one must first chose to acknowlege "their own privilege." It's an abrupt switch from compassion for the poor to own up to your evil you hateful, prejudiced sob. Well, if you can't have an educated discussion on welfare assistance policies without resorting to bashing your opponents, I can see why the debate remains stuck on stupid. It's usually paired with the even more sanctimonious, "I'd like to see your point of view, but I just can't look past your own privileged viewpoints, which would honestly be the first step to solving the problem." 1: Attack the opponent "soft -heart soft-head types" 2. Insist that the debate remains stuck on stupid because of people attacking their opponents 3. Refuse to actually say anything of substance at all, and literally nothing at all to add to the debate, just using sarcastic over reactions and and insulting words directed at anyone who disagrees. Nicely done I'm ready to get in the mud, to a point, if that's where everybody's already at. It's the appeals to higher thinking or attitudes while interspersing the most base of partisan attacks and political pablum that brought me in.
If anybody was bringing in statistics, showed an interest in engaging with poverty statistics and discussing the various welfare programs instituted and in the past, that would inspire another sort of response. If its the casual appeals to emotion followed by vilification, you can expect responses in kind. You show your own share when you chose to characterize it as "sarcastic over reactions."
Did you perhaps have a thought on the matter? I do see you decrying the lack of substance. At this juncture, Jockmcplop, I'd take even a tiny recognition on BisuDagger's point. When he looks to who we really do expect to fix wage problems, and gives the personal evidence, can that be rooted in something other than a privileged existence and a desire to blame others?
|
Possibly more bad news for Rubio.
Retired neurosurgeon and flagging presidential candidate Ben Carson announced that he will not attend the next GOP debate Thursday night and that he does not see a "political path forward" for his campaign.
The news was first reported by the Washington Post.
"I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit. Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America," Carson said in a statement. "I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening's Super Tuesday primary results."
The statement echoed what longtime Carson confidant Armstrong Williams said about the campaign's poor prospects earlier Wednesday.
Carson said he appreciated all support "financial and otherwise."
Carson was a Tea Party darling who came to prominence for criticizing the Affordable Care Act during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast while Obama looked on. He announced his candidacy in May.
Source
|
On March 03 2016 05:08 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:53 strongwind wrote:On March 03 2016 04:22 strongwind wrote:
Clinton has been winning by ridiculous margins in red states, which will probably stay red in the general election. That's concerning because it's what largely has been propping up Hillary's campaign so far. Bernie has been tying or winning in blue states. I don't understand how people don't see this as a problem for Hillary in the general election.
Plus, more Republicans are turning out to vote than Democrats. We all know Democrats suffer when turnout is low, and I don't see that changing much in the general. If people are expecting an Obama-like surge for Hillary in the general, they are smoking some good stuff.
Barring a huge misstep from Trump (which is always a distinct possibility), this will be a lot more competitive than people think. Using your line of thinking, "blue" states hardly matters either. In reality though, it's the battlegrounds that matter, specifically Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire are of secondary importance to the above). Clinton has already won Virginia, and has a very strong lead in both Ohio and Florida based on current polls. In Florida in particular, her popularity with Hispanic voters (or at least, their indifference to Sanders), will be critical, given that Florida in the 2016 elections is now increasingly a "must-win" state for the Republicans to have a prayer of winning the White House. I'm talking about the general election, not the primaries. I'm assuming Hillary wins the nomination. First, I find his analysis of the electoral college lacking. He's posited a scenario where Trump COULD win, but he's basing it all on current polling, when pre-convention polling on candidate matchups is notoriously bad, and gives away the top three battlegrounds (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida) as well as several others (North Carolina is likely highly competitive in a Trump v. Clinton campaign) to Trump immediately, based on aforementioned polling that is within margin of errors, when demographics have increasingly driven the aforementioned three towards the Democrats. I can post random articles too. And mine tends towards a more reasonable breakdown of the demographic challenges the GOP faces. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/06/the-gops-2016-problem-in-3-maps/
Comparing this election with 2012 voter turnout is sketchy at best. Like i said, if u expect Clinton to get obama turnouts, even in 2012, you're in for a surprise.
And the random article u mention still come with a ton of caveats, which the author mentions at the end. Like i said, I'm not saying trump will necessarily win the election, I'm saying it's going to be a lot closer than people on here think.
|
United States43210 Posts
If you don't want to argue that incentives create single mothers then don't literally make that argument. You can't subsequently go "that's an absurd argument". I know it's an absurd argument, everyone knows it's an absurd argument, but it's also the argument that you made.
If you don't want to be called out for saying really dumb things then don't say those things. Don't blame people for calling you out and then try to discreetly cross the table and join them arguing against your own position. If you can't show any sense then at least show some backbone.
|
On March 03 2016 05:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:11 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2016 04:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". Some twentysomething professional talking shit about hard work while opposing systems that promote hard work loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes. A mistake that in a black kid results in a record and ineligibility for scholarships and government jobs could just be a warning for a white kid for example. It basically comes down to what that Jesus guy said about judging others. The vast majority of successful people did not succeed in a vacuum, I know from my own life that I was insulated from the consequences of some of my educational mistakes by my parents. I don't depend on them, I'm independently successful but had they not had my back earlier on smaller mistakes could have snowballed and changed a lot in my life today. I got lucky to have the background I have, not everybody gets so lucky. The government should be better at promoting strong family structure so that it gives more incentive to stay as a couple than to break up. Ignoring the host of mal-incentives is where the soft-heart soft-head types lose me. Single mothers deserves this and that welfare program on the road back, so let's get to work creating more single mothers and increasing the numbers of those stuck in poverty and the list goes on. There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it. Another issue is the patronizing view that one must first chose to acknowlege "their own privilege." It's an abrupt switch from compassion for the poor to own up to your evil you hateful, prejudiced sob. Well, if you can't have an educated discussion on welfare assistance policies without resorting to bashing your opponents, I can see why the debate remains stuck on stupid. It's usually paired with the even more sanctimonious, "I'd like to see your point of view, but I just can't look past your own privileged viewpoints, which would honestly be the first step to solving the problem." Privilege isn't a hammer to hit people with. It's an understanding that your experiences may not be universally applicable. And that's all it is. If you were to call me a nigger I'd give absolutely no shits because I'm as white as snow and the word means nothing to me. However I understand that other people have a different relationship with the word to me and therefore if I were to start telling black people that they're overreacting, based upon my own experience of what a normal reaction was, I'd be guilty of not understanding my own privilege. Make sense? As for this idea that single mothers only exist due to incentives to be single mothers, I seriously doubt that that's really what's going through their heads. If it was the Republican party wouldn't have to fight so hard to shut down abortion clinics that service all those pregnant teens desperate not to become a single mother. If you must bring it up time after time, it's part of your overall argument and in the front of your mind with the economics of wages. I would be very sympathetic if your manner matched your professed standpoint. Just take Show nested quote +"[someone talking shit about hard work] loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes." Those aren't the words of a person that merely understands alternative worldviews and upbringings. That's an assertion of bad thinking, your hammer, that you attack the character of your opponent's argument that it blames others and it is ignorant of privilege. You can't have it both ways. I think owning up to how you currently use the term and concept would make for a better appeal to compassion, for you. Cute strawman with "single mothers only exist due to incentives." We were talking mal-incentives that affect their population. If you meet someone that thinks the government created all single mothers, let me know. Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2016 04:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". Some twentysomething professional talking shit about hard work while opposing systems that promote hard work loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes. A mistake that in a black kid results in a record and ineligibility for scholarships and government jobs could just be a warning for a white kid for example. It basically comes down to what that Jesus guy said about judging others. The vast majority of successful people did not succeed in a vacuum, I know from my own life that I was insulated from the consequences of some of my educational mistakes by my parents. I don't depend on them, I'm independently successful but had they not had my back earlier on smaller mistakes could have snowballed and changed a lot in my life today. I got lucky to have the background I have, not everybody gets so lucky. The government should be better at promoting strong family structure so that it gives more incentive to stay as a couple than to break up. Ignoring the host of mal-incentives is where the soft-heart soft-head types lose me. Single mothers deserves this and that welfare program on the road back, so let's get to work creating more single mothers and increasing the numbers of those stuck in poverty and the list goes on. There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it. Another issue is the patronizing view that one must first chose to acknowlege "their own privilege." It's an abrupt switch from compassion for the poor to own up to your evil you hateful, prejudiced sob. Well, if you can't have an educated discussion on welfare assistance policies without resorting to bashing your opponents, I can see why the debate remains stuck on stupid. It's usually paired with the even more sanctimonious, "I'd like to see your point of view, but I just can't look past your own privileged viewpoints, which would honestly be the first step to solving the problem." 1: Attack the opponent "soft -heart soft-head types" 2. Insist that the debate remains stuck on stupid because of people attacking their opponents 3. Refuse to actually say anything of substance at all, and literally nothing at all to add to the debate, just using sarcastic over reactions and and insulting words directed at anyone who disagrees. Nicely done I'm ready to get in the mud, to a point, if that's where everybody's already at. It's the appeals to higher thinking or attitudes while interspersing the most base of partisan attacks and political pablum that brought me in. If anybody was bringing in statistics, showed an interest in engaging with poverty statistics and discussing the various welfare programs instituted and in the past, that would inspire another sort of response. If its the casual appeals to emotion followed by vilification, you can expect responses in kind. You show your own share when you chose to characterize it as "sarcastic over reactions." Did you perhaps have a thought on the matter? I do see you decrying the lack of substance. At this juncture, Jockmcplop, I'd take even a tiny recognition on BisuDagger's point. When he looks to who we really do expect to fix wage problems, and gives the personal evidence, can that be rooted in something other than a privileged existence and a desire to blame others?
OK sorry about that post but I read yours and it genuinely amused me, there's a bit of irony in it.
Regarding BisuDagger's post here's my opinion:
You only have your own experience to rely on in this world and although its necessary to use your experience to form generalizations about what other people should think, feel and act like that doesn't necessarily hold much water when it comes to more subtle points like the matter of whether people who are suffering deserve help.
Alot of it comes from a few points namely:
1: Do you really care what happens to nameless, faceless 'people' who are always the subject of these conversations
2: How do you think a society should be judged, by how well off its most well off people are, or by the quality of life of the poorest and most vulnerable?
Any sensible person would say a mix of the two, but where you come down on this scale isn't a clear cut case of left vs right politics as many would assume it is. As Kwark (I think) pointed out, personal experience has alot to do with where you land on this issue, and when there are such a variety of paths through life, many of which rely on blind luck as much as hard work, it can be very counter productive to rely on personal experience.
3.Who do we look to to solve wage problems? Well for a start the question itself acknowledges that there is a problem, so that's a start I guess.
Surely you have to define the problem you want to solve. If it is a single person's wages that are the problem then sure, tell them to get their shit together, work harder, or demand more money. That's fine.
If you look at a society and see that there is a common experience of wage problems, surely you should look to your government to do something about it, and to hold these people to account and do their job, which is to create a better world.
Of course you could just say that's a load of crap and everyone should be more responsible for their shit, at which point the conversation becomes akin to banging your head against a brick wall.
|
On March 03 2016 05:36 KwarK wrote:
There are more than enough fantastic reasons to be in a partnership with another human being to justify doing it. If someone has actively chosen not to be in a partnership with the other parent of their child, for example, they almost certainly have very good reasons for it. Bribing someone to be in a relationship that does not stand on its own merit is not going to encourage healthy relationships, it's going to exclusively encourage unhealthy ones.
This is assuming a lot from a lot of marriages...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this family stuff is not productive unless you have some good policy solutions. it's more like a blame game that lets you discard a group of people as deserving of all the bad stuff.
unless you want to argue for more spending on schools and such. if so then go ahead
|
On March 03 2016 05:53 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:36 KwarK wrote:
There are more than enough fantastic reasons to be in a partnership with another human being to justify doing it. If someone has actively chosen not to be in a partnership with the other parent of their child, for example, they almost certainly have very good reasons for it. Bribing someone to be in a relationship that does not stand on its own merit is not going to encourage healthy relationships, it's going to exclusively encourage unhealthy ones. This is assuming a lot from a lot of marriages...
Do you believe the government should discourage people from leaving unhealthy relationships? Because that is what increased payments for couples that stay together will do at some level.
|
White House Said to Be Vetting Appeals Court Judge for Supreme Court Seat
The White House is vetting Jane L. Kelly, a career public defender turned federal appellate judge, as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court, as President Obama closes in on a decision that could reshape the court for decades and create an election-year showdown with Republicans.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been conducting background interviews on Judge Kelly, 51, according to a person with knowledge of the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House is closely guarding details about Mr. Obama’s search to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The White House declined to comment, and Judge Kelly said through a judicial assistant in her Cedar Rapids, Iowa, chambers that she was not granting interviews on the matter.
Judge Kelly won quick and unanimous confirmation by the Senate three years ago to her current post on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Her nomination could intensify pressure on Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to break with his party and hold hearings on Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court candidate.
Source
Does anyone have any information on her? I can't find much info on her wikipedia page.
|
On March 03 2016 05:56 oneofthem wrote:
this family stuff is not productive unless you have some good policy solutions. it's more like a blame game that lets you discard a group of people as deserving of all the bad stuff.
unless you want to argue for more spending on schools and such. if so then go ahead
No one here is discarding an entire group, and we are talking about policy solutions such as financial incentives for married couples (that are targeted more at the poor demographics), along with perhaps some government message encouraging families to stay together.
On March 03 2016 05:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:53 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:36 KwarK wrote:
There are more than enough fantastic reasons to be in a partnership with another human being to justify doing it. If someone has actively chosen not to be in a partnership with the other parent of their child, for example, they almost certainly have very good reasons for it. Bribing someone to be in a relationship that does not stand on its own merit is not going to encourage healthy relationships, it's going to exclusively encourage unhealthy ones. This is assuming a lot from a lot of marriages... Do you believe the government should discourage people from leaving unhealthy relationships? Because that is what increased payments for couples that stay together will do at some level.
I think it's silly to assume that couples don't seriously consider financial security as part of marriage.
And like you mentioned earlier, financial strain is what tend to encourage unhealthy relationships.
Also, stop attributing these views to me. If you've bothered to read what I wrote. I clearly stated that the government should get out of the business of marriage all together.
|
On March 03 2016 06:00 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:56 oneofthem wrote:
this family stuff is not productive unless you have some good policy solutions. it's more like a blame game that lets you discard a group of people as deserving of all the bad stuff.
unless you want to argue for more spending on schools and such. if so then go ahead No one here is discarding an entire group, and we are talking about policy solutions such as financial incentives for married couples (that are targeted more at the poor demographics), along with perhaps some government message encouraging families to stay together.
I would point out that during this discussion, you have completely ignored the pitfalls of that policy, which is unhealthy relationship remaining together due to that incentive. Shouldn’t we just reward people for living in larger households? Since that is the real thing that provides stability, not the people being married.
Edit: and again, you ignore the issue and claim it isn’t going to be a problem. I assume you have not solution and just want to believe that your policy won’t have a negative effect or cause people to stay in abusive relationships.
Edit 2: I am not talking about marriages in general. That isn't the subject at hand. We are talking about subsidies for poor parents, not joint filing of taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4148
1042
399
204
EPT
