|
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. |
On March 04 2016 05:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 05:02 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 05:00 frazzle wrote:On March 04 2016 04:26 Seuss wrote:On March 04 2016 04:12 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 03:53 Seuss wrote:On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership. Here's a good perspective on Romney's tut tutting of Trump: https://goplifer.com/2016/03/02/why-republican-criticism-of-trump-fails/Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.
Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that. That's a perspective; I wouldn't say it's a good one (a superficial clue is someone seriously used the word "whitesplain"). It's more like decrying "racism" is a tactic the establishment can try and use to discredit an outsider they're scared of. I mostly liked the point that calling out Trump on tone is dumb since a lot of his "controversial" statements come straight from past GOP platforms, Trump's just more blunt about it. But yeah "good" wasn't the correct word, and there's definitely an undercurrent of "conservatives are all racists" in the article that xDaunt is justified in calling out. Call it racism, or call it entitlement resentment, dogwhistle politics revolving around the premise that many if not most blacks are part of a moocher mentality, that they are 'bought' by the Democratic party through promises of welfare state giveaways, is a staple of Republican politics. This often extends to a criticism of black culture and a belief that Democrat policies serve to enable supposed counter-productive gangsta elements, whether it's an epidemic of black men not raising their children to a refusal of African-Americans to adopt societal norms in order to secure employment (i.e. pull up their pants), obsession with these topics is a central part of the Republican message . Well, are the Democrats pandering to the black community by giving them more benefits or are they not? it's called caring for the people who need help.
Also called pandering. And it depends if the people that needs these 'help' are putting more efforts themselves too.
|
We should end all political pandering based on the amount we spend on it. First: Useless defense spending. Second: poor states that received to much federal aid compared to their economic output. Third: Businesses that are not viable without federal subsidies.
I’m sure we will get to the black community somewhere around like 70 or so.
|
On March 04 2016 05:13 Plansix wrote:
We should end all political pandering based on the amount we spend on it. First: Useless defense spending. Second: poor states that received to much federal aid compared to their economic output. Third: Businesses that are not viable without federal subsidies.
I’m sure we will get to the black community somewhere around like 70 or so.
Are you blaming Democrats for not spending enough on black issues?
|
United States43219 Posts
On March 04 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 05:13 Plansix wrote:
We should end all political pandering based on the amount we spend on it. First: Useless defense spending. Second: poor states that received to much federal aid compared to their economic output. Third: Businesses that are not viable without federal subsidies.
I’m sure we will get to the black community somewhere around like 70 or so.
Are you blaming Democrats for not spending enough on black issues?
He's pointing out that if it's about money and not about race then the Republicans seem to have skipped an awful lot of groups that really should be receiving their attention first.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's the basic function of government to help people who need help. welfare can be better designed but it is also far far not enough.
|
A US government agency says it has attained the “holy grail” of energy – the next-generation system of battery storage, that has has been hotly pursued by the likes of Bill Gates and Elon Musk.
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (Arpa-E) – a branch of the Department of Energy – says it achieved its breakthrough technology in seven years.
Ellen Williams, Arpa-E’s director, said: “I think we have reached some holy grails in batteries – just in the sense of demonstrating that we can create a totally new approach to battery technology, make it work, make it commercially viable, and get it out there to let it do its thing,”
If that’s the case, Arpa-E has come out ahead of Gates and Musk in the multi-billion-dollar race to build the next generation battery for power companies and home storage.
Arpa-E was founded in 2009 under Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan to fund early stage research into the generation and storage of energy.
Such projects, or so-called moonshots, were widely seen as too risky for regular investors, but – if they succeed – could potentially be game-changing.
Many of the projects fostered by the agency were already in sight of getting funding, Williams said. Several have now secured private sector follow-on funding. Others are being taken up by the State Department or the Pentagon, she said.
But the biggest breakthrough is in the area of energy storage. “I think that’s one area where we have delivered big time,” Williams told the Guardian.
Source
|
On March 04 2016 05:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 05:13 Plansix wrote:
We should end all political pandering based on the amount we spend on it. First: Useless defense spending. Second: poor states that received to much federal aid compared to their economic output. Third: Businesses that are not viable without federal subsidies.
I’m sure we will get to the black community somewhere around like 70 or so.
Are you blaming Democrats for not spending enough on black issues? He's pointing out that if it's about money and not about race then the Republicans seem to have skipped an awful lot of groups that really should be receiving their attention first.
He's suggesting that "pandering" is measured by dollars spent rather than votes gleaned.
I also disagree with frazzle's original assumption that a central part Republicanism is made up of things like fighting saggy pants.
|
It is sort of hard not to “pander” when one side is listening to black and attempting to address the issue they feel are import. And the other side refusing to do those things and accusing the other side of pandering. That is the lowest bar possible for pandering. It just sounds like sour grapes from Republicans who are sad they can’t get the black vote just by saying “I’m not racist”.
|
House GOP leaders made their latest attempt Thursday to fashion a budget to pass conservative muster, but it was quickly dismissed by hard-right lawmakers as not nearly good enough.
“Anything that doesn’t do something today about mandatory spending is going to be very hard for conservatives to adopt,” said Idaho Rep. Raúl Labrador, a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus. “The real problem is that we have a deficit that is going up. We have a debt … and we need to address those things."
Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said he won’t support the plan, which was presented by GOP leaders to the House Republican Conference Thursday morning.
“I’m not enthused about the proposal. Nothing’s changed," he said. "They are still spending more money, which I don’t support. I’m not inclined to support” it.
Passing a budget is a top priority for House GOP leaders this year, but they've been struggling for more than a month to get the rank and file fully behind a plan. Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) told lawmakers Thursday that his committee would attempt to pass a budget that funds the government at $1.070 trillion, but includes $30 billion in mandatory savings, likely by making cuts to mandatory spending, which include programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps.
That top-line number is squarely in line with the budget package passed last fall through a compromise with the White House and Democrats in the House and Senate — and is avidly opposed by members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus.
Defense hawks also have requested additional funds for military spending not in the newest package of the budget.
Source
|
On March 04 2016 05:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 05:19 KwarK wrote:On March 04 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 05:13 Plansix wrote:
We should end all political pandering based on the amount we spend on it. First: Useless defense spending. Second: poor states that received to much federal aid compared to their economic output. Third: Businesses that are not viable without federal subsidies.
I’m sure we will get to the black community somewhere around like 70 or so.
Are you blaming Democrats for not spending enough on black issues? He's pointing out that if it's about money and not about race then the Republicans seem to have skipped an awful lot of groups that really should be receiving their attention first. He's suggesting that "pandering" is measured by dollars spent rather than votes gleaned. I also disagree with frazzle's original assumption that a central part Republicanism is made up of things like fighting saggy pants.
Pulling up of the pants has literally been the central part of many many many conversations I have had with Republican friends and relatives, but yeah, that's anecdotal. But "personal responsibility" is most certainly a central part of the Republican brand. And it usually doesn't take more than 1 or 2 conversational back and forths to get from "personal responsibility" to the pants discussion.
|
On March 04 2016 05:13 Plansix wrote:
We should end all political pandering based on the amount we spend on it. First: Useless defense spending. Second: poor states that received to much federal aid compared to their economic output. Third: Businesses that are not viable without federal subsidies.
I’m sure we will get to the black community somewhere around like 70 or so.
All spending/laws are political pandering....The fact that the income tax rate is less than 100% for certain groups, the abolition of slavery, etc. giving something to one group at the cost of another so that the first group will vote for you.
|
On March 04 2016 04:57 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 04:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 04 2016 04:43 wei2coolman wrote:On March 04 2016 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote:
even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies. Free college is dumb idea anyways. The base education for Americans is so shit, the jobs that are open that we need filled in America don't require college education, but specialized job placement education. I'd argue that both are important... specialized job/ vocation training is very important, as is improving public education (at the primary, secondary, and undergraduate levels). Argue away.
A solid primary and secondary education can lead to:
1. Well-rounded and all-around intelligent individuals in terms of content and procedure
2. Well-informed citizens and adults
3. A good understanding of whether university is the ideal path for them, vocational training is an ideal option, or to jump straight into the work force (or military or whatever else one might wish to pursue).
(To ensure that these 3 things- as well as other positive things- occur in our students, we need to continue to reform education. As of right now, I don't think we do a particularly great job of attaining these goals in most schools, but we should strive to make these happen!)
Certainly, school and formal education need to be supplemented by real-world experience outside of school (ideally from family and community assistance and jobs and other opportunities), as schools are not, cannot, and should not be seen as the only path to a successful, mature, and responsible individual.
We need blue collar workers, white collar workers, creative innovators, daily grinders, and every other criterion or descriptor for the multitude of jobs out there. There is no single mold that creates the perfect employee in all situations. We can't generalize to say that college is always useless or always perfect.
There's no need to waste $100K on a college education if you know your career goals don't require one and instead favor real-world experience.
On the other hand, there are plenty of professions that require higher education. For example, today in my high school, there was an assembly where a woman came in and talked about the research she's been working on. She was always passionate about mathematics, worked hard and received a PhD in mathematics, and is using her expertise in differential equations and statistics to find ways to optimize cancer treatments and pinpoint which parameters need to be tweaked to increase the likelihood of patients being cured of their diseases. It was one of the best pitches for pursuing undergraduate and graduate level mathematics I've ever heard. Can't do that kind of research unless you're passionate and extremely well-informed at the post-secondary level.
And so, for those students who are well-informed and recognize that they will need to continue their education at the university level, it would be amazing if college were affordable for them. Such a thing is not "a dumb idea". Don't you want to cure cancer? 
|
The U.S. military’s top officer in the Pacific urged Indian officials Wednesday to pursue even closer military ties with the United States — part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to strengthen a relatively new partnership in the region, as China expands its military footprint in ways that alarm its neighbors.
Adm. Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said that expanded cooperation between the United States and India will not only be critical to Washington’s re-balance toward the Pacific, but “will arguably be the defining partnership for America in the 21st century.” He said he shared a vision with U.S. Ambassador to India Richard Verma that Indian and U.S. naval vessels will soon steam together “as we work together to maintain freedom of the seas for all nations.”
The comments came as India has moved to strengthen partnerships not only with the United States, but with Australia, Japan and other U.S. allies in the region. India also has voiced opposition to some of China’s actions in the East and South China seas, where Beijing has attempted to assert its sovereignty.
Source
|
On March 04 2016 05:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 04:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 04:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 04 2016 04:43 wei2coolman wrote:On March 04 2016 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote:
even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies. Free college is dumb idea anyways. The base education for Americans is so shit, the jobs that are open that we need filled in America don't require college education, but specialized job placement education. I'd argue that both are important... specialized job/ vocation training is very important, as is improving public education (at the primary, secondary, and undergraduate levels). Argue away. A solid primary and secondary education can lead to: 1. Well-rounded and all-around intelligent individuals in terms of content and procedure 2. Well-informed citizens and adults 3. A good understanding of whether university is the ideal path for them, vocational training is an ideal option, or to jump straight into the work force (or military or whatever else one might wish to pursue). ... Don't you want to cure cancer?
Kudos. That was almost as good as ticklishmusic's smack down of the big pharma conspiracy discussion a couple of months back. 
|
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house?
|
On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house?
Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that.
|
On March 04 2016 06:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 05:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 04 2016 04:57 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 04:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 04 2016 04:43 wei2coolman wrote:On March 04 2016 04:38 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2016 04:18 oneofthem wrote:
even among economists you have different priorities, held with pretty ideological-like insistence. some who care about inequality and see it as a big threat to the future of democracy and the country would support sanders just on the tone.
But there's also some sort of "anti-populism" populism going on. Looking at the npr piece you linked for example the economists seemed to judge Sanders free college proposal as bad based on the fact that this spares rich kids from paying for college, but it obviously doesn't because in the context of Sanders progressive tax system they're going to pay for public education anyway. It's like there's still some kind of subconscious "red scare" believe system among economists. Sanders economic proposal aren't half as populist as they make it sound. Sure his foreign trade talk about the evil Chinese and so on is a little silly but that's almost irrelevant when compared to the rest of his proposed policies. Free college is dumb idea anyways. The base education for Americans is so shit, the jobs that are open that we need filled in America don't require college education, but specialized job placement education. I'd argue that both are important... specialized job/ vocation training is very important, as is improving public education (at the primary, secondary, and undergraduate levels). Argue away. A solid primary and secondary education can lead to: 1. Well-rounded and all-around intelligent individuals in terms of content and procedure 2. Well-informed citizens and adults 3. A good understanding of whether university is the ideal path for them, vocational training is an ideal option, or to jump straight into the work force (or military or whatever else one might wish to pursue). ... Don't you want to cure cancer? Kudos. That was almost as good as ticklishmusic's smack down of the big pharma conspiracy discussion a couple of months back.
Thank you To be honest though, I just threw this together hastily. I don't really think that wei or EZ truly believes that college is completely useless; they probably just have reasonable complaints about how American education could be better.
|
That is accurate. You just need to read any high school textbook to have the electoral college explained.
|
On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that.
The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP.
|
On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP.
My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
