| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 10 2016 22:09 Gorsameth wrote: He has been hosed for a long long time but lets be real. 80% empty stands would not have looked any better. Football stadium is a bold strategy for any candidate | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 16:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: The number of bernie bots who will vote for trump over hillary is mind boggling. Like why the fuck would you flip to to the other exereme end of the spectrum. On the bright side at least most of them can't legally vote yet anyways. bernie does draw a fair bit of 'independents,' as in not democrats. it's invariably people who have a rather conspiratorial view of the world and the economy. they are attracted to the 'outsider' status of trump, nevermind his practice of actual literal political corruption. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 15:36 wei2coolman wrote: Yes, this is why free university is fucking dumb idea. So many of the jobs in America, don't need a university degree. They need vocational training for higher end manufacturing job. Vocational schooling in America is a complete joke right now. yea this is really on the community college system to fill in the space. education differentiation may not look nice in that it gives an overt display of class, but having more direct and cheaper vocational schools is just more helpful. liberal arts education is still important and all, but charging people who can ill afford it to teach liberal arts isn't good either. i'd just throw in a philosophy course in high school, MANDATORY lol | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
some important things: she has some hedgefunds supporting, but no investment banking. whereas in her senatorial campaigns she received a lot of support from banking sector workers. this is pretty significant as it shows that she has pissed off actual banking on wall street. the hedge funds she has support from are also not these 'technical finance' types. this is in line with her regulatory stance. she has support from media IP type places. this is probably just TPP. a lot of mainline dem organizations, but you already know that. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On March 10 2016 23:31 farvacola wrote: Wanna scale back the emphasis on undergrad education? Take k-12 away from the states and administrate it properly. but big government is gonna teach our kids EVOLUTION | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Mr. Sanders peddles fiction on free trade That’s unfortunate, as Mr. Sanders’s populist rhetoric doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. His insistence, for example, that the North American Free Trade Agreement led to 800,000 job losses ignores analyses from unbiased sources such as the Congressional Research Service. “In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics,” a 2015 CRS analysis found. Blaming freer trade for the loss of manufacturing jobs fails to tell the much bigger story of economic transformation that has swept the world over the past several decades. Technological change, automation, productivity improvements and other factors have eliminated old-school manufacturing jobs all over the world. Mr. Sanders cannot bring back the U.S. economy of the 1960s, and it would be harmful to try. Mr. Sanders’s story also neglects to mention the broad benefits that free trade brings. It pulls foreign trading partners out of poverty. It helps U.S. exporters, who account for an increasingly large share of American output. It enriches U.S. consumers, who get cheaper goods and greater selection. Economists resoundingly agree that these sorts of diffuse benefits outweigh the costs over time. Moreover, there are non-economic benefits, as well. NAFTA helped turn Mexico from an antagonist into a regional partner. The much-maligned Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would knit the United States into the Asia-Pacific region for decades to come. Source | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 10 2016 18:04 wei2coolman wrote: yes, because those countries have a much higher base level of education, insanely strong vocational education programs that prepare for job readiness, and have a significantly smaller portion of their population attending college. Exactly. Fix K-12 education to make it actually meaningful. Instead of indoctrinating every kid with, "You have to go to college", teach them about community college/vocational school, where plenty of jobs make a very comfortable salary. The reason these countries have less people going to college is precisely because they have options. "Free" college isn't a bad idea by any means. Most of the world shows us that. The only difficulty for us is that our entire education system is a mess. If there's any weakness in Bernie's education platform, it's not that he's trying to make public college free; it's that he doesn't address the fact that college is almost necessary now, which is a bad thing. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
And how are we going to control costs? Private colleges will continue to exist, will the government do anything to make costs ok? | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Free university. It is a nice idea. Obviously in the US it has gotten completely out of hand in terms of loans and debt. But not everyone is cut out to go to university. People that go to university should go there to study hard and to study something that society needs. Make it free and tons and tons of people will go do liberal arts and go party. Yes, they will be better rounded people, but university is free for the students, not free for the factory worker who never got any education opportunities and who pay for it through taxes. There are too many people going to university. We need more vocational education. And the talented hard-working people who want to go into engineering and who will be the brains behind our innovative manifacturing and IT products, they need to be able to study despite their poor parents. Students going into a bit of debt is no huge problem. Most of them will be able to earn it back fine. If you want to get a degree in arts, you have to worry if the debt you will take on is worth the value of the degree. There should be some incenive against getting a degree you as a student and society don't need. If you make it free, there is zero incentive. Students should have some debt when they get out of college. But poor students shouldn't be forced to work a job while they study. Of course then there need to be jobs waiting for them when they get their degree. There should be selection on academic merit. People that don't cut being an intellectual should go to vocational school and learn something that can be applied | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On March 10 2016 16:29 kwizach wrote: Don't pay too much attention to claims like that. Polls indicate the vast majority of the people voting in the Democratic primary would be satisfied with Hillary as the nominee (more so than Bernie). this is not a good thing | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11752 Posts
As for the people going into liberal arts and partying, can you explain to me why those people that would do that without any goal of actually getting anything useful out of their education don't simply NOT go to college, NOT pay tuition, life a student lifestyle, work ~10 hours a week to finance that, and party all the time? There does not seem to be a large population that does that currently. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On March 11 2016 01:20 Simberto wrote: Even if college is free, the time spent doing it isn't exactly free. You still have to pay for rent, food, probably some books or something, and whatever you spend your free time with. All while studying, which is basically a full time job anyways, but doesn't really help with paying the bills. So either you have your parents pay for that, you go into debt, or you have to work a job while studying, even with 0 tuition. As for the people going into liberal arts and partying, can you explain to me why those people that would do that without any goal of actually getting anything useful out of their education don't simply NOT go to college, NOT pay tuition, life a student lifestyle, work ~10 hours a week to finance that, and party all the time? There does not seem to be a large population that does that currently. social stigma is probably a large part of that. Student life till death is not exactly an accepted lifestyle. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
On March 11 2016 01:20 Simberto wrote: Even if college is free, the time spent doing it isn't exactly free. You still have to pay for rent, food, probably some books or something, and whatever you spend your free time with. All while studying, which is basically a full time job anyways, but doesn't really help with paying the bills. So either you have your parents pay for that, you go into debt, or you have to work a job while studying, even with 0 tuition. As for the people going into liberal arts and partying, can you explain to me why those people that would do that without any goal of actually getting anything useful out of their education don't simply NOT go to college, NOT pay tuition, life a student lifestyle, work ~10 hours a week to finance that, and party all the time? There does not seem to be a large population that does that currently. Because they honestly want an education. And you can't work, then hang out with college students. As for not going to classes, live a student lifestyle and have a side job to pay for partying, that's already happening. It is going to be worse if there is 0 tuition. There is a big difference between 0 tuition and 100,000 a year tuition. Make it 1000 dollars a year. It is fine to have 10,000 dollar of debt when you finish your hopefully very valuable degree. And those people come out as better people, not worse, if you ignore their debt. Nothing is more mind-numbing to a young person that getting a job out of high school and hanging around with old people all the time and not updating your childhood friends with people that are more interesting. The question is, should ther rest of society pay for it. As liberal and left-wing as I am, I do not think we should subsidize all education no matter what. Their are other very radical ways to be truly and correctly left wing. | ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On March 10 2016 19:35 puerk wrote: since i think many here may have not seen it yet it is a good summary: I really don't want to have kids now. I have no idea what their world is gonna look like. Just insane how quickly technology is moving. This plus global warming means we could definitely see drastic global changes in our lifetimes. Scary thought. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On March 11 2016 01:21 oneofthem wrote: sanders as prez would be worse than trump probably Would you support Trump over Sanders if that was the general election? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 11 2016 01:38 The_Templar wrote: Would you support Trump over Sanders if that was the general election? I cannot think of a world where Sanders is worse than Trump. Sanders respects freedom of the press for one. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 11 2016 01:11 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Hey, that means they still think Sanders is important. Free university. It is a nice idea. Obviously in the US it has gotten completely out of hand in terms of loans and debt. But not everyone is cut out to go to university. People that go to university should go there to study hard and to study something that society needs. Make it free and tons and tons of people will go do liberal arts and go party. Yes, they will be better rounded people, but university is free for the students, not free for the factory worker who never got any education opportunities and who pay for it through taxes. There are too many people going to university. We need more vocational education. And the talented hard-working people who want to go into engineering and who will be the brains behind our innovative manifacturing and IT products, they need to be able to study despite their poor parents. Students going into a bit of debt is no huge problem. Most of them will be able to earn it back fine. If you want to get a degree in arts, you have to worry if the debt you will take on is worth the value of the degree. There should be some incenive against getting a degree you as a student and society don't need. If you make it free, there is zero incentive. Students should have some debt when they get out of college. But poor students shouldn't be forced to work a job while they study. Of course then there need to be jobs waiting for them when they get their degree. There should be selection on academic merit. People that don't cut being an intellectual should go to vocational school and learn something that can be applied Basically every point you've made has been refuted. Free education doesn't flood the universities of other countries with lazy students that don't want to do anything else. Also, the idea that "students going into a bit of debt is no huge problem" is horribly naive. The massive amount of student debt that Gen Y has accrued stops them from investing, saving, buying property, etc. It's an incredible economic problem that too many people take for granted. Just curious, if public college is made free do we know what happens to in-state/ out-of-state tuition? If I wanted to go to UC Berkeley if I say lived in Louisiana, would it be free to me? And how are we going to control costs? Private colleges will continue to exist, will the government do anything to make costs ok Well, in/out-of-state tuition is generally a tool to try to keep people in their communities and keeping educated individuals in those communities by making them go to college there. It also "compensates" for the fact that the out-of-state student/their family didn't pay taxes to support the university in the first place. If public education was free, then you could either 1) make out-of-state tuition free as well (since it doesn't really actually cost the university more to educate out-of-state students) or 2) charge a small out-of-state fee to incentivize staying in-state. As for private colleges, look at it this way; I went to a very regionally prestigious private college at around $50k/year for my degree ($42k just for tuition). I am now going to my nearby public university for about $12k/year (tuition only) and I notice very little difference in the quality of education (class size being pretty much the only difference). It seems to me that a private college would have to make one hell of a good argument to charge my kid $50k/year when he could get a very similar education for "free" at a public university. And let's also remember that the majority of costs for a college are bullshit administrative, sports, and expansion costs that have nothing to do with the actual education. The vast majority of the problems with college costs are due to the incredible amount of bloated, arbitrary, and useless administrative offices and positions we have on campuses now. The cost of actually educating students is entirely affordable. The cost of making a giant playground for them and making a bunch of arbitrary administrative positions, not so much. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
OSC
SC Evo Complete
DaveTesta Events
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
