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.
Sanders wants to abolish fees in public universities only, right? So that's the roughly 9k tuition fee (there's about the same cost in living costs as well and whether that's charged by the uni depends on the conditions I guess - Berkeley famously makes up what it loses in being allowed to ask for a small tuition fee by asking for a lot of additional fees), right?
Does this entail the out of state fee, i.e., when someone who isn't a resident goes to public uni? Or would you still need to pay that? Or does the other state transfer that fee somehow?
On March 11 2016 01:21 oneofthem wrote: sanders as prez would be worse than trump probably
Worse for you? Yeah, probably.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, so I'm assuming you're super rich. Given your posts in this thread, you're either rich and childless, or a complete retard.
On March 11 2016 01:57 Hexe wrote: that 1980s interview about castro is gg for sanders, can't believe hillary didnt jump harder on that
I watched the back half of the full interview this morning - he seems incredibly thoughtful during the whole thing. I missed the debate last night, but from what it sounds like, it seems that snippet was mischaracterized?
On March 11 2016 01:57 Hexe wrote: that 1980s interview about castro is gg for sanders, can't believe hillary didnt jump harder on that
I watched the back half of the full interview this morning - he seems incredibly thoughtful during the whole thing. I missed the debate last night, but from what it sounds like, it seems that snippet was mischaracterized?
Oh course it was. American politics doesn't have room for nuance or intellect these days. It's why people can still spout BS about Benghazi or Hillary's emails or about Sanders being a socialist.
Well, Trump may still be a carnival barker, but he’s looking more and more like a president! Along with most media pundits in the Northeast, I found it improbable if not impossible that Trump could survive his klutz-o-rama cascade of foot-in-mouth flubs, from carelessly categorizing Mexican immigrants as rapists to hallucinating about “thousands’ of Muslims cheering the fall of the twin towers from the mean streets of New Jersey. Surely he would soon implode and pouf into fairy dust!
But only a few weeks after that interview of mine in Salon, I suddenly realized that Trump’s candidacy had a broad support that few had expected or discerned. The agent of my revelation was a hilariously scathing, viral Web blog video posted by Diamond and Silk–Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, two African-American sisters and former Democrats in Fayetteville, North Carolina. They were reacting with indignant outrage to the first GOP debate, broadcast by Fox News from Cleveland on August 6 and hosted by Megyn Kelly, whose loaded questions had impugned Trump as a sexist.
If Trump wins the White House, that no-holds-barred video will go down in history as “the shot heard round the world,” Ralph Waldo Emerson’s phrase for the first salvo of the American Revolution by rural insurgents at Concord. The video signaled a popular uprising and furious pushback against the major media and political elites, who had controlled the national agenda and messaging for far too long. Diamond and Silk threw zinger after zinger in defending Trump: “Here’s the damn deal, Megyn Kelly—or Kelly Megyn, whatever your name is!…. Go back and report news on Sesame Street!…You hit below the belt, Kelly!…He was the only one up there on that stage with any common sense!… He’s going to be the next president, whether you like it or not. Get used to it, girl! Get used to it!”
This fiery endorsement blew me away because it demonstrated how Trump was directly engaging with a diverse coalition in ways that the mainstream media had completely missed. I felt, and still do, that Trump is far too impetuous and thin-skinned in his amusingly rambling, improvisational style. The American president, who can spook markets or spark a war with a rash phrase, must be more coolly circumspect. And aspirants to the presidency shouldn’t care what small fry like bobble-head TV hosts say or do. A leader must have the long view and show an instinctive capacity to focus and prioritize.
Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely “damn the torpedoes” attitude. He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal. He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra. But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women. As for a debasement of the presidency by Trump’s slanging matches about penis size, that sorry process was initiated by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who chatted about his underwear on TV, let Hollywood pals jump up and down on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and played lewd cigar games with an intern in the White House offices.
Primary voters nationwide are clearly responding to Trump’s brand of classic can-do American moxie. There has been a sense of weary paralysis in our increasingly Byzantine and monstrously wasteful government bureaucracies. Putting a bottom-line businessman with executive experience into the White House has probably been long overdue. If Mitt Romney had boldly talked business more (and chosen a woman VP), he would have won the last election. Although the rampant Hitler and Mussolini analogies to Trump are wildly exaggerated–he has no organized fascist brigades at his beck and call—there is reason for worry about his impatient authoritarian tendencies. We have had more than enough of Obama’s constitutionally questionable executive orders. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s mastery of a hyper-personalized art of the deal will work in the sluggish, murky, incestuously intertwined power realms of Washington.
From my perspective as a fervent supporter of the ruggedly honest and principled Bernie Sanders, Trump with his pragmatic real-life record is a far more palatable national figure than Ted Cruz, whose unctuous, vainglorious professions of Christian piety don’t pass the smell test. Trump is a blunt, no-crap mensch, while Cruz is a ham actor, doling out fake compassion like chopped liver. Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting. This guy doesn’t know who the hell he is—and the White House is no place for him and us to find out.
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.
I think i'd be fine with something like 1000€/year tuition.
I am currently paying 250€/year for my free college here in Germany, and ~500€/month living expenses (And i live extremely cheaply, i guess it would be possible to live cheaper in a town that is not as expensive as munich). 1000€/year tuition isn't really that relevant in comparison to living expenses, so if it makes people happy and makes them think that students are not getting stuff for free (Because you can't have other people getting things for free, that would be horrible!), it wouldn't be the worst possible solution.
Of course, i am happier not having to pay that much money, because every € i have to earn is more time i spend on not studying (Or even less free time i have), but i guess that is at least partially related to the fact that i am uncomfortable with debt and would much rather avoid taking on any while studying.
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?
I cannot think of a world where Sanders is worse than Trump. Sanders respects freedom of the press for one.
You can technically hate sanders' policies more.
Personally I will take someone with policies I don’t think are workable over someone who wants to limit the freedom of the press by opening up liable laws. And who’s staff man handles reporters who get in the way.
On March 11 2016 01:57 Hexe wrote: that 1980s interview about castro is gg for sanders, can't believe hillary didnt jump harder on that
Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and she is still in.
On March 11 2016 01:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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.
It does in the country where I was born/went to university.
I have seen it first hand.
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.
Are you also against people going into debt when buying a house?
His ability to damage the press will not be limited to laws in the oval office. I have zero confidence that Trump refrain from abusing the powers of the executive branch to limit press access and public opposition. The rallies are checkered with reports of protesters and press being manhandled and outright assaulted. And his indifference toward those events frightens me.
On March 11 2016 01:57 Hexe wrote: that 1980s interview about castro is gg for sanders, can't believe hillary didnt jump harder on that
I watched the back half of the full interview this morning - he seems incredibly thoughtful during the whole thing. I missed the debate last night, but from what it sounds like, it seems that snippet was mischaracterized?
The issue is electability more than "how well did you handle that interview"
Imagine he goes to the general.
GOP: He's a communist that wants to be a dictator Sanders: wtf? GOP: (plays clip of him praising castro) Sanders: At least Castro has good healthcare Voter Base: single payer bernie cares for healthcare too!
Bernie suddenly loses in a landslide as people think he's going to be castro 2.0
Trump is against free trade. If he is against Sanders, we have two 'commies'. So in that case it won't hurt him.
Anyway, this all only matters because we make it matter.
CNN headlines "Is Sanders comment sexist?", then they had an article explaining it wasn't.
Saying everyone things Sanders is a communist when you know it isn't only enforces it. If you are against that idea, ridicule it and don't take it seriously. The only people who ought to take it seriously is the campaign teams.
MSNBC debating if or if not Sanders looks like a communist in the eyes of idiot voters; that's stupid. Of course they will do it, because Wall Street thinks Sanders is dangerous to them, but it is big money manipulating the election outcome, not journalism. Why are we copying them?
i would probably also take sanders over a gop win. but there is plenty of downside to sanders especially if his election is understood to mean handing over the country to the radical wing of the democrats party.
trump might not do the antitrade stuff he promised but sanders would do everything he thinks
i agree that between evil and naive you gotta take the latter.
Sanders is only radical in that he is not radical, if you look at it from an international perspective. So why does it matter he gets the stamp 'radical'? Name me one recent US president that wasn't a radical by modern western standards.
Yes, it is radical to have a mainstream politician in a land where almost politicians are radicals. But is that really dangerous (with the exception to Wall Street)? You had 17 GOP candidates. All didn't believe in climate change. Most of them supported torture. Most of them wanted to abolish entire wings of the federal government, etc etc.
And so far the GOP voters haven't filtered out the most radical one. On the contrary.
Cruz wants to eliminate five federal agencies. And if you don't include clown Trump, that's the front runner.
As for paying for Sanders' plans. If you don't start a new war in the middle east, costing 2.4 trillion and if you don't let wall street cause another financial crisis, costing 22 trillion, you suddenly have some money to spend.
Now, Clinton voted for the Iraq war and Bill still defends Glass Steagall. So if Clinton wins, first thing to do is write off about 25 trillion dollars. I mean, she did it before. Why won't she do it again?
How much can Clinton actually accomplish when she has to cut 25 trillion of federal spending on top of the current mess of a budget?
On March 11 2016 01:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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.
It does in the country where I was born/went to university.
I have seen it first hand.
Not saying you are wrong, but "I have seen it first hand" has very little value in policy discussions. It's like Jim Inhofe holding a snowball as evidence that climate change does not exist.
On March 11 2016 02:47 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
On March 11 2016 01:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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.
It does in the country where I was born/went to university.
I have seen it first hand.
Not saying you are wrong, but "I have seen it first hand" has very little value in policy discussions. It's like Jim Inhofe holding a snowball as evidence that climate change does not exist.
True, but you clearly acted like I am in an US bubble, repeating old US-centered views. I am not. There is actually data out there. Go look it up. No, it doesn't flood like a tsunami. But you do get 500 psychology grads for every psychology job. And you do get people taking 7 years to complete a 5 year education, on average.
Just look at the current leaders of Europe. Some partied for 3 years, studied for 5, spend almost a decade in university.
EPT
