|
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. |
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 17 2016 16:53 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 16:45 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2016 16:38 Slaughter wrote:
And what Congress has been doing is? Congress isn't obliged to pass what he wants but they also are not supposed to actively try to undermine him either. Says who? That's not in the Constitution. The executive was designed as the weakest branch, the legislative the strongest. I'm not even sure what you mean by undermine. If Congress doesn't pass the law, you don't get to do it. Then why the fuck do we make such big deal out of the policies of the president and they put so much effort to show us plans they have? They influence and set the agenda heavily for the legislative branch. Idgaf what the wording of the constitution is in this case, we haven't been strictly sticking to it for many years because its so vague and outdated. In practice it matters.
Because the President is the head of state, he is the main representative of the American people in the public eye. He gets all the spotlight(and shit). The perception is that he can actually change things. Recocgnize that Obama too had great ideas but got fucked hard by congress in the past few years.
The truth is he doesnt pass laws, Congress does, he doesn't enact/protect gay marriage, the Supreme court does.
President actually has very little power(and there are great arguments as to why thats a good thing too).
Presidents van set foreign policy, nominate an SC judge, set certain points on the agenda/influence public discourse. Iirc he also can appoint certain people to positions to "run" things.
But in reality he has very little power. Its a fucking miracle Obama got remotely anything done with this congress honestly.
|
What has congress been doing?
I mean it's almost a quarter into the year, they will have made as much as some guy installing cable will all year, what have they accomplished this year? Hell, what have they accomplished in the last 2?
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 17 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
What has congress been doing?
I mean it's almost a quarter into the year, they will have made as much as some guy installing cable will all year, what have they accomplished this year? Hell, what have they accomplished in the last 2?
Rewrote the No child left behind act for federal children education and improved medicare among other things, suprisingly effective in late 2015 early 2016 but utterly obstructionist in early 2015 if i remember correctly.
If polls of approval rate(of congress) are any indication then congress is in for a rude awakening come the reelection.
|
On April 17 2016 17:08 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 16:53 Slaughter wrote:On April 17 2016 16:45 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2016 16:38 Slaughter wrote:
And what Congress has been doing is? Congress isn't obliged to pass what he wants but they also are not supposed to actively try to undermine him either. Says who? That's not in the Constitution. The executive was designed as the weakest branch, the legislative the strongest. I'm not even sure what you mean by undermine. If Congress doesn't pass the law, you don't get to do it. Then why the fuck do we make such big deal out of the policies of the president and they put so much effort to show us plans they have? They influence and set the agenda heavily for the legislative branch. Idgaf what the wording of the constitution is in this case, we haven't been strictly sticking to it for many years because its so vague and outdated. In practice it matters. Because the President is the head of state, he is the main representative of the American people in the public eye. He gets all the spotlight(and shit). The perception is that he can actually change things. Recocgnize that Obama too had great ideas but got fucked hard by congress in the past few years. The truth is he doesnt pass laws, Congress does, he doesn't enact/protect gay marriage, the Supreme court does. President actually has very little power(and there are great arguments as to why thats a good thing too). Presidents van set foreign policy, nominate an SC judge, set certain points on the agenda/influence public discourse. Iirc he also can appoint certain people to positions to "run" things. But in reality he has very little power. Its a fucking miracle Obama got remotely anything done with this congress honestly.
In the month that Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Two years later the House of Representatives had the largest number of Republican members (242) since 1947.
What does this tell you about the Obama presidency?
Why do Republicans now hold the largest majority in the House and Senate since 1921?
|
On April 17 2016 18:16 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 17:08 Kipsate wrote:On April 17 2016 16:53 Slaughter wrote:On April 17 2016 16:45 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2016 16:38 Slaughter wrote:
And what Congress has been doing is? Congress isn't obliged to pass what he wants but they also are not supposed to actively try to undermine him either. Says who? That's not in the Constitution. The executive was designed as the weakest branch, the legislative the strongest. I'm not even sure what you mean by undermine. If Congress doesn't pass the law, you don't get to do it. Then why the fuck do we make such big deal out of the policies of the president and they put so much effort to show us plans they have? They influence and set the agenda heavily for the legislative branch. Idgaf what the wording of the constitution is in this case, we haven't been strictly sticking to it for many years because its so vague and outdated. In practice it matters. Because the President is the head of state, he is the main representative of the American people in the public eye. He gets all the spotlight(and shit). The perception is that he can actually change things. Recocgnize that Obama too had great ideas but got fucked hard by congress in the past few years. The truth is he doesnt pass laws, Congress does, he doesn't enact/protect gay marriage, the Supreme court does. President actually has very little power(and there are great arguments as to why thats a good thing too). Presidents van set foreign policy, nominate an SC judge, set certain points on the agenda/influence public discourse. Iirc he also can appoint certain people to positions to "run" things. But in reality he has very little power. Its a fucking miracle Obama got remotely anything done with this congress honestly. In the month that Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Two years later the House of Representatives had the largest number of Republican members (242) since 1947. What does this tell you about the Obama presidency? Why do Republicans now hold the largest majority in the House and Senate since 1921?
Because we are in a major crisis and the only thing the GOP has done in the last half century was to exploit people's resentment.
That people are increasingly biggoted, egoistic and mean when they are suffering is not a novelty.
|
On April 17 2016 11:05 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 10:59 Nebuchad wrote:On April 17 2016 10:43 ragz_gt wrote:On April 17 2016 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On April 17 2016 09:24 ragz_gt wrote:Not saying if the statement is true or not, but "YEAH WELL BERNIE SUCKS MORE" is a perfectly valid argument when it's choosing one of them On April 17 2016 07:27 Velr wrote:
Breaking up companies so big that their, purely profit driven, fuckups could treaten whole countries can't be a bad thing.
You can argue how but if you argue anything more your just waiting for m.a.d. There are legit reasons why big bank can be beneficial. It gives them the leverage to compete internationally. Unless US can also break up Deutsche bank, HSBC, or any of the big bank in China (all which are bigger than any US bank), it is a problem. This argument doesn't stand on its own. If someone tells you that banks that are too big to fail cause a danger to society, you can't just say that it allows them to be competitive. That's like saying that doping products are fine because it allows athletes to be competitive. You recognize that the argument in this analogy is fallacious because it's acknowledged that doping is a problem in sports. In the same way, unless you demonstrate that these banks aren't too big to fail (or that being too big to fail isn't a problem), in other words unless you address the argument that is made, then being competitive doesn't hold weight as an argument. That's not what I'm saying at all. OP said that it can't be a bad thing but there are negatives associated to it. I'm not saying there ain't good reasons to break them, which there are a lot of, I'm just saying there are other factors to consider and we shouldn't just go "big = evil, let's fuck them up" without consider all implications. So why don't you think my answer applies? I'm saying you should only consider being competitive as an argument that holds weight if there are no overwhelming negatives associated to what allows you to stay competitive. So the discussion should revolve around whether or not it's true that the banks as they are now pose a threat to society or not, which in my view would be an overwhelming negative. Unless your argument is that it's worth it for society to take this risk to allow the banks to stay number one, but I doubt that's what you're saying. You are just not getting it are you.... I'm NOT saying that it's bad to break up banks. I'm NOT saying there aren't a lot of negatives to big banks. I'm NOT saying that the negatives are less than positives. All I'm saying is that positives do exist and we shouldn't just ignore them altogether.
So what am I not getting? I really don't understand why you don't think my answer applies. Our discussion is me telling you that the positive that you mention is irrelevant if the negatives are too high, and you're answering that I don't get it because you're just saying that there's a positive. Well duh.
|
On April 17 2016 18:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 18:16 zeo wrote:On April 17 2016 17:08 Kipsate wrote:On April 17 2016 16:53 Slaughter wrote:On April 17 2016 16:45 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2016 16:38 Slaughter wrote:
And what Congress has been doing is? Congress isn't obliged to pass what he wants but they also are not supposed to actively try to undermine him either. Says who? That's not in the Constitution. The executive was designed as the weakest branch, the legislative the strongest. I'm not even sure what you mean by undermine. If Congress doesn't pass the law, you don't get to do it. Then why the fuck do we make such big deal out of the policies of the president and they put so much effort to show us plans they have? They influence and set the agenda heavily for the legislative branch. Idgaf what the wording of the constitution is in this case, we haven't been strictly sticking to it for many years because its so vague and outdated. In practice it matters. Because the President is the head of state, he is the main representative of the American people in the public eye. He gets all the spotlight(and shit). The perception is that he can actually change things. Recocgnize that Obama too had great ideas but got fucked hard by congress in the past few years. The truth is he doesnt pass laws, Congress does, he doesn't enact/protect gay marriage, the Supreme court does. President actually has very little power(and there are great arguments as to why thats a good thing too). Presidents van set foreign policy, nominate an SC judge, set certain points on the agenda/influence public discourse. Iirc he also can appoint certain people to positions to "run" things. But in reality he has very little power. Its a fucking miracle Obama got remotely anything done with this congress honestly. In the month that Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Two years later the House of Representatives had the largest number of Republican members (242) since 1947. What does this tell you about the Obama presidency? Why do Republicans now hold the largest majority in the House and Senate since 1921? Because we are in a major crisis and the only thing the GOP has done in the last half century was to exploit people's resentment. That people are increasingly biggoted, egoistic and mean when they are suffering is not a novelty.
Do you think calling everyone that doesn't agree with Obama an egotistical bigot causes partisanship?
|
On April 17 2016 17:50 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
What has congress been doing?
I mean it's almost a quarter into the year, they will have made as much as some guy installing cable will all year, what have they accomplished this year? Hell, what have they accomplished in the last 2? Rewrote the No child left behind act for federal children education and improved medicare among other things, suprisingly effective in late 2015 early 2016 but utterly obstructionist in early 2015 if i remember correctly. If polls of approval rate(of congress) are any indication then congress is in for a rude awakening come the reelection.
The problem is that the people disapprove of congress, but approve of their congressman. You can only vote out your congressman, not congress itself.
|
On April 17 2016 18:16 zeo wrote:
In the month that Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Two years later the House of Representatives had the largest number of Republican members (242) since 1947.
What does this tell you about the Obama presidency?
Why do Republicans now hold the largest majority in the House and Senate since 1921?
Frankly, it says about as much as geographical distribution of Republican and Democratic support and off-year election dynamics than it does about popular unhappiness with Obama's policies.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
gh yes there are problems with big banks and capture is a real risk but this doesnt say much about solutions. like sanders, his supporters have no clue about current reforms and regulation and act like nothing has changed since 2007. this is just utter bullshit
sanders or his supporters are not even aware which big banks are foreign and which are domestic
|
On April 17 2016 17:50 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
What has congress been doing?
I mean it's almost a quarter into the year, they will have made as much as some guy installing cable will all year, what have they accomplished this year? Hell, what have they accomplished in the last 2? Rewrote the No child left behind act for federal children education and improved medicare among other things, suprisingly effective in late 2015 early 2016 but utterly obstructionist in early 2015 if i remember correctly. If polls of approval rate(of congress) are any indication then congress is in for a rude awakening come the reelection.
Yeah, that part is unsurprising though, because every few years Congress always reassesses and updates the federal education policies. It's been happening ever since Lyndon B. Johnson was president back in 1965. Instead of NCLB, we're now calling it ESSA. Here's a post I wrote about that new education policies back in January, if anyone is interested:
New U.S. Education Policy: NCLB Out; ESSA In!
In the national education system, equity-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In the United States, the dedicated educators who promote learning despite a political obsession with standardized testing are members of an elite squad known as the Special Teachers Unit.
These are their stories.
I’ve been closely following the new national changes in education that have been occurring over the past month. A new federal education bill has received bipartisan support, was overwhelmingly passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Obama. It’s called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and this is what you need to know about it:
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and Congress’s “War on Poverty” involved passing the most significant piece of education legislature that the United States has ever known, called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Every five(-ish) years, the government reauthorizes it and updates it to keep the educational policies current. In 2001, President George W. Bush reauthorized it with the expected provisions (that, at the time, sounded appropriate), which was called the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Last month, President Obama reauthorized ESEA yet again, with new modifications, and this is called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). So NCLB in 2001 was basically ESEA Version 9.0, and ESSA in 2015 is basically ESEA Version 11.0. Here’s more information on the ESEA if you’re interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act
This is what you need to know about ESSA in 2015, as it starts to slowly take effect throughout the country in 2016 and onwards:
1. While standardized testing is not (and will probably never be) completely removed, ESSA allows each state to set a cap limiting the amount of time schools focus on standardized test preparation, and also requires school districts to tell families about opt-out policies.
In theory, this should allow teachers to have more time teaching curricula and what they deem most important for the year, rather than feeling as much pressure to teach to the upcoming national tests. It should also allow students and parents to feel less pressured about standardized testing.
In practice, we'll have to see if teachers and students feel any more relieved than usual when it comes to teaching and learning an already-overwhelming amount of material for their subjects. Furthermore, competitive administrations and districts may still emphasize comparative testing so that their schools are ranked higher on public school lists.
2. ESSA strives to decrease the importance of high-stakes testing by using more evaluation measures for students.
In theory, this is a step in the right direction, considering colleges and employers have been focusing less on SAT and ACT scores for admissions and job opportunities, and really looking for well-roundedness, uniqueness, and the motivation and aptitude to learn appropriate skills.
In practice, we'll have to see how much emphasis is still put on standardized tests as a student evaluation measure, and what all these other evaluation measures end up being (and if they're any good).
3. ESSA attempts to properly scrutinize gaps in equity by recognizing and promoting additional resources in a district's arsenal and calling it the school's "opportunity dashboard".
In theory, this should act as yet another opportunity for schools to obtain necessary resources to help students, especially those in less affluent districts.
In practice, we'll have to see if this really changes anything or truly offers anything new that wasn't attempted in the past. Previously, mismanaging funds and working/ learning in a hostile environment have been key issues preventing growth in certain areas, and so these will need to be properly addressed.
4. ESSA pushes to ensure that teachers have a voice in the decision-making process from the national to the state to local levels regarding education.
In theory, this is exactly what we need, because nobody understands what happens- and what needs to happen- in the classroom better than educators.
In practice, I worry that teachers will continue to get screwed because of politics and non-experts with money.
5. A really good compilation of PDFs further elaborating on ESSA specifics: http://www.nea.org/hotresourcesesea
6. Mostly fluff, but also shows some distinctions between NLCB and ESSA: http://www.ed.gov/essa
|
The federal government is cleaning up a long legacy of uranium mining within the Navajo Nation — some 27,000 square miles spread across Utah, New Mexico and Arizona that is home to more than 250,000 people.
Many Navajo people have died of kidney failure and cancer, conditions linked to uranium contamination. And new research from the CDC shows uranium in babies born now.
Mining companies blasted 4 million tons of uranium out of Navajo land between 1944 and 1986. The federal government purchased the ore to make atomic weapons. As the Cold War threat petered out the companies left, abandoning more than 500 mines.
Maria Welch is a field researcher with the Southwest Research Information Center, which is working with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state and local groups to gauge the impacts of uranium on Navajo families today. She surveys Navajo families for the Navajo Birth Cohort Study, which has 599 participants so far.
On a recent day in Flagstaff, Ariz., she asks a mother about feeding practices for her baby. Forty percent of the tribe lacks running water. Welch learns that the mother mixes baby formula with tap water.
One of the study's findings: 27 percent of the participants have high levels of uranium in their urine, compared to 5 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.
Welch, who is Navajo, got involved in the study because of her own family's exposure to uranium. Both of her parents grew up next to mines, even playing in contaminated water.
"When they did the mining, there would be these pools that would fill up," she says. "And all of the kids swam in them. And my dad did, too."
Many Navajo unwittingly let their livestock drink from those pools, and their children play in mine debris piles. Some even built their homes out of uranium.
Source
|
On April 17 2016 18:16 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 17:08 Kipsate wrote:On April 17 2016 16:53 Slaughter wrote:On April 17 2016 16:45 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2016 16:38 Slaughter wrote:
And what Congress has been doing is? Congress isn't obliged to pass what he wants but they also are not supposed to actively try to undermine him either. Says who? That's not in the Constitution. The executive was designed as the weakest branch, the legislative the strongest. I'm not even sure what you mean by undermine. If Congress doesn't pass the law, you don't get to do it. Then why the fuck do we make such big deal out of the policies of the president and they put so much effort to show us plans they have? They influence and set the agenda heavily for the legislative branch. Idgaf what the wording of the constitution is in this case, we haven't been strictly sticking to it for many years because its so vague and outdated. In practice it matters. Because the President is the head of state, he is the main representative of the American people in the public eye. He gets all the spotlight(and shit). The perception is that he can actually change things. Recocgnize that Obama too had great ideas but got fucked hard by congress in the past few years. The truth is he doesnt pass laws, Congress does, he doesn't enact/protect gay marriage, the Supreme court does. President actually has very little power(and there are great arguments as to why thats a good thing too). Presidents van set foreign policy, nominate an SC judge, set certain points on the agenda/influence public discourse. Iirc he also can appoint certain people to positions to "run" things. But in reality he has very little power. Its a fucking miracle Obama got remotely anything done with this congress honestly. In the month that Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Two years later the House of Representatives had the largest number of Republican members (242) since 1947. What does this tell you about the Obama presidency? Why do Republicans now hold the largest majority in the House and Senate since 1921?
Because when liberal voters meet any form of resistance they see "abstaining" from voting as an effective message.
|
Progressivism also has a "big tent" problem that conservatism just doesn't have.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
we need more sanders telling folks democrats are no different from republicans. enlightened discourse
|
On April 17 2016 23:36 oneofthem wrote:
we need more sanders telling folks democrats are no different from republicans. enlightened discourse
beacuse the first step to working togeather is to distance yourself from the people you don't agree with.
On April 17 2016 23:32 farvacola wrote:
Progressivism also has a "big tent" problem that conservatism just doesn't have.
Both parties have to have a big tent to survive. It just wouldn't work in a two party system if they didn't.
|
On April 17 2016 19:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 18:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 17 2016 18:16 zeo wrote:On April 17 2016 17:08 Kipsate wrote:On April 17 2016 16:53 Slaughter wrote:On April 17 2016 16:45 Introvert wrote:On April 17 2016 16:38 Slaughter wrote:
And what Congress has been doing is? Congress isn't obliged to pass what he wants but they also are not supposed to actively try to undermine him either. Says who? That's not in the Constitution. The executive was designed as the weakest branch, the legislative the strongest. I'm not even sure what you mean by undermine. If Congress doesn't pass the law, you don't get to do it. Then why the fuck do we make such big deal out of the policies of the president and they put so much effort to show us plans they have? They influence and set the agenda heavily for the legislative branch. Idgaf what the wording of the constitution is in this case, we haven't been strictly sticking to it for many years because its so vague and outdated. In practice it matters. Because the President is the head of state, he is the main representative of the American people in the public eye. He gets all the spotlight(and shit). The perception is that he can actually change things. Recocgnize that Obama too had great ideas but got fucked hard by congress in the past few years. The truth is he doesnt pass laws, Congress does, he doesn't enact/protect gay marriage, the Supreme court does. President actually has very little power(and there are great arguments as to why thats a good thing too). Presidents van set foreign policy, nominate an SC judge, set certain points on the agenda/influence public discourse. Iirc he also can appoint certain people to positions to "run" things. But in reality he has very little power. Its a fucking miracle Obama got remotely anything done with this congress honestly. In the month that Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Two years later the House of Representatives had the largest number of Republican members (242) since 1947. What does this tell you about the Obama presidency? Why do Republicans now hold the largest majority in the House and Senate since 1921? Because we are in a major crisis and the only thing the GOP has done in the last half century was to exploit people's resentment. That people are increasingly biggoted, egoistic and mean when they are suffering is not a novelty. Do you think calling everyone that doesn't agree with Obama an egotistical bigot causes partisanship?
Everything the republicans do and stand for these days is either driven by greed (that's the mean) or biggotry (that's the tool). As I said, the whole platform of the party consists in exploiting the latter in favour of the former. The Republican sole and only agenda is to favour a class of rich and powerful donors by exploiting disgruntled white people's resentment.
Now it's not about not agreeing with Obama, which is fine, (although he has been one of the truly remarkable leaders in american history), it's about voting for the Republicans. The houses elections are not about the president, and when it has been about Obama himself, well, he's won every time.
|
And you're such a good authority on this coming from france where I'm sure the media doesn't get anything lost in translation?
To say that Obama has been a remarkable leader is half the shit I blame you euros for. He doesn't lead on anything at all and thats been his problem from the health care reform days. that and him forgetting how to do speeches.
|
On April 17 2016 20:02 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 18:16 zeo wrote:
In the month that Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Two years later the House of Representatives had the largest number of Republican members (242) since 1947.
What does this tell you about the Obama presidency?
Why do Republicans now hold the largest majority in the House and Senate since 1921? Frankly, it says about as much as geographical distribution of Republican and Democratic support and off-year election dynamics than it does about popular unhappiness with Obama's policies.
Yea, when less than half of the electorate votes in mid-term elections, I don't want to here any bullshit about how midterm elections supposedly signal the public perception of anything political.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
