|
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 August 02 2016 10:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 09:59 Deathstar wrote:
Of course there are other selling points Hillary can use. But the most obvious and effective tool right now is to contrast herself with Donald Trump. People have a finite attention span. What's sad is how far Trump has come in the Republican party. This isn't a 50/50 matter of opinion. One side of objectively bad for the country and its people. Hillary isn't exactly good for the country either. Most people see her as a lesser evil but many see Trump as a lesser evil because Hillary is so bad. She needs more than that, and I hoped the DNC could be an example of all the ways that Hillary would push the country forward, and laid out a solid policy palatable to the progressive and independent voters she needs to win over. But nah, just anti-Trump and identity politics. As it stands she isn't quite where she needs to be to really have a safe margin for victory.
that's a somewhat silly hope, because that's not what the conventions are for.
You should at least wait for something that's actually meant to be for winning over voters.
|
They know she's been lying this whole time. Most of them think she isn't lying about pushing progressive policy because they are more or less taking her account of how what she's done helped people, instead of looking at how time after time those policies have had "unintended consequences" that seem eerily familiar to the "unintended consequences" of the version of the drug war or other failed police that preceded it, or in the case of the 9/11 bill left Jon Stewart hanging when he needed to pressure congress to renew the bill she brags about more often than she helped get renewed. .
Hillary's performance is resting on convincing people that she's just less bad than Trump. Again the problem is despite Trumps compulsive lying, he's still more trusted than her or the media trying to convince people. Ivanka and Trump at the RNC proved he can get applause out of stuff totally contrary to their principles if he words it right. Trump isn't trying to dodge the debates (though both camps teased the idea a while ago), he just already started the hype train.
This election is an example of how Democracy, even in a two party system, can give you a choice between two candidates, neither supported by a majority of the country. I just wish more Americans would refuse to choose between them, just out of fear/hatred of the other side.
TLDR: Hillary lies a lot, Trump lies more but is more trusted. Even the 2 party system is still giving us 2 candidates without a majority. America needs to work on it's own democracy before it tries to "give" it to any other countries. (fixed for Zlefin)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Speaking of which, who if anyone do you think is a potential rising star as showcased during the conventions? A lot of people mentioned Cory Booker but I personally was not so impressed. The RNC was basically a Trump Family show, but I'm not sure too many of them are going into politics. The rest were old timers. Anyone else of note?
|
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coz6wK3WcAEeh5n.jpg)
The gift that keeps on giving
|
On August 02 2016 10:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, who if anyone do you think is a potential rising star as showcased during the conventions? A lot of people mentioned Cory Booker but I personally was not so impressed. The RNC was basically a Trump Family show, but I'm not sure too many of them are going into politics. The rest were old timers. Anyone else of note?
Nina Turner, but Hillary and the DNC shut her out. Tulsi Gabbard has some promise too, she's got some votes to account for though.
That's part of what the democrats have wanted to avoid is that the next generations of voters aren't going to be democrats, ~70% supported Bernie over Hillary, and as her camp makes a point to mention whenever they can, they aren't going to fall into the Democratic party, now or anytime soon.
|
GH, that tldr is not really an actual tldr. Please keep tldr's accurate if you use them.
though your statement about democratic design has some merit.
|
This might be an idea whose time has come: Nearly two-thirds of Americans are in favor of free college for everyone, and about three-quarters think at least some people should be eligible for free college, a new survey shows.
As the labor market increasingly benefits the better educated, and as college education and earnings potential become more tightly linked, people are coming around to an idea that seemed radical until very recently.
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders touted the idea as a central plank of his primary platform, and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton recently announced her own version, which includes a household income cap of $85,000 that rises to $125,000 in the future, while Republican nominee Donald Trump has not released a detailed plan to address tuition costs.
But beyond talking points on the campaign trail, college costs clearly are an issue resonating with Americans today. According to a new survey of nearly 5,000 adults conducted by Bankrate.com, 62 percent think tuition at public colleges and universities should be free for all students, and about a quarter of those who oppose making college free for everyone think it should be available to families with incomes below $50,000.
Even among many who do graduate college, the trade-off is entering adulthood with an average of nearly $30,000 in debt. For millennials under the age of 30 — 77 percent of whom backed free college for all in Bankrate's survey — beginning their adult life as borrowers has a domino effect: Unlike their parents, these young adults aren't forming new households, buying homes, having kids, building investment portfolios and participating in other activities that enrich not only them personally, but the U.S. economy, as well.
Source
|
I'd happily provide free college under an actual sound plan, if elected president! vote for me, I promise to create a sound, well thought-out system of free college!
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Most of the electorate would flip their shits if told what they would actually have to give up to be able to implement an effective system of free college.
|
On August 02 2016 10:18 kidleaderr wrote: The gift that keeps on giving
Its like he can't help himself. It's like he can't let it go. That he is just a thin skinned baby who cannot deal with someone criticizing his terrible, unconstitutional plan to ban Muslim immigration.
|
On August 02 2016 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
Most of the electorate would flip their shits if told what they would actually have to give up to be able to implement an effective system of free college.
If it was being paid to schools under the current system where kids are marketed an "animal house" style college life, yes. If it was part of a rebuilt job and skills training with solid oversight, they would be fine.
Tax payers do not mind paying for things that are well designed and they currently hate the student loan system.
|
On August 02 2016 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
Most of the electorate would flip their shits if told what they would actually have to give up to be able to implement an effective system of free college.
well, for a sound, well-thought out system, the price wouldn't be too bad. considerable, but not too bad.
but I don't think I'm going to get elected.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 02 2016 10:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
Most of the electorate would flip their shits if told what they would actually have to give up to be able to implement an effective system of free college. If it was being paid to schools under the current system where kids are marketed an "animal house" style college life, yes. If it was part of a rebuilt job and skills training with solid oversight, they would be fine. Tax payers do not mind paying for things that are well designed and they currently hate the student loan system.
The system that works is basically to give up the "college life" and to implement something resembling socialist education systems. A lot of details to fit it to the unique situation of the US but that's what it would be in a nutshell.
Try suggesting that in public. Would end badly.
|
Why not a middle ground? Lower interest rates, like 3% and down, and interests that don't accrue while you are still in school. Taking grad loans is seriously some feels bad man level stuff.
|
Hmm, digging into the numbers, and using extensive cost-cutting plans to keep costs down, free college is actually looking pretty feasible.
I wish I were in congress, so I could have the CBO actually score up how my plans would cost.
|
Free college is one of the things I think Clinton could work out pretty decently. It falls into her particular bailiwick of expertise in making and executing ridiculously complex plans with a ton of variables. Notice she already adapted Sander's version to a <85,000-125,000 household income version. Plus the economy is totally fucked in a couple of decades if nothing changes on that front, it's unsustainable to have the majority of adults starting their career with the equivalent of a mortgage.
I did hear it put interestingly once, that due to the way the loans are structured it's effectively a tax on young adults, as it provides a massive amount of income to the government.
Keep her far away from email though.
|
I don't think we can address college education without first addressing pre-k through 12.
As it stands now, some kids are getting a 2-year degree by their senior year in high school and other kids are getting 3.0+'s and not meeting basic college level English and math standards.
The most simple way I can describe my plan is basically shifting the current k-12 system 2 years earlier with some modernizations and accommodations for the impact that would have on the physical development aspects of education. Along with connecting the access to educational opportunities like getting the equivalent of an associate degree by ~18 y.o. to those who want them regardless of their parentage.
I'm not sure everyone here has an appreciation for how different the education process can be for reasons beyond the control of the child but totally within the realm of control of society. Or what kind of affect that has on children around the country who work harder, are just as smart, more dedicated, etc... and who's biggest obstacles in life are parents who've failed them (often despite their best efforts), and a society who doesn't deem them worthy of the opportunities granted their own children because those children's parents didn't earn them.
For what it's worth, I recognize that patching our problem with free college with a crappy plan is no solution and likely a step backward, instead of forward.
|
There's so much heterogeneity in K-12 funding between and even within states that the situation is borderline-hopeless bar mass raising of societal awareness. Sadly it's a lot more difficult to raise awareness about the problems because of their nigh-invisible nature and the resulting lack of clickbait, as well as the general way we as a society treat people coming from areas of poverty (whatever their skin color).
We need a mega-idealist or paradigm shift, and no amount of band-aids in the form of charter schools or tax increases or Teach for America teachers is going to do it. It's just like healthcare, really.
|
Yeah, that's not a problem best fixed through free college, but best fixed through other methods.
And we can totally address free college without addressing k-12.
Though realistically, we can easily address both at the same time, and how well the things work will vary. But the problems aren't too highly intertwined.
And iirc you can't shift it all 2 years earlier, that just doesn't work based on the mental development that occurs with age, you might be able to do some shifting though.
and i'm an idealist/pragmatist, so vote for me!
|
On August 02 2016 10:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 08:30 Dan HH wrote:On August 02 2016 08:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 02 2016 07:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 02 2016 07:01 LegalLord wrote:
Pretty worried about the Rio Olympics. It has the potential to be the spark of a global Zika epidemic and the local government has proven to be quite incapable of successfully addressing the issue. A Zika epidemic isn't exactly on the horizon according to WHO: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2016/zika-third-ec/en/ A substantial enough contingency of doctors around the world say that the WHO is full of shit and has a history of understating risk when it would be politically dangerous to acknowledge it. Remember bird flu? Swine flu? SARS? Ebola? Looks to me like we're not wiped out yet, so I'll continue to not err on the side of the hysterical ones and not worry about this part of the news cycle. New strains of flu can, do, have and will killed millions. They spread fast, kill well and render previous immunities obsolete forcing new vaccines to be developed every year. There was a colossal response to swine and bird flu, neither of which killed millions. But that doesn't mean it was wasted effort or an exaggerated threat. The experts judged it appropriate to prevent a pandemic and second guessing them without knowing what would have happened had they not responded is dumb. Look up the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1919. It killed more people that WW1.
Where have I said we should have no medical response to viral threats? My point was that the WHO have operated on a worst case scenario basis throughout the years and yet people say they are not to be believed when they deny the zombie apocalypse is coming as predicted by the media once a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
