|
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 09 2016 06:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 03:29 zlefin wrote:On August 09 2016 03:24 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:19 farvacola wrote:On August 09 2016 03:13 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:09 farvacola wrote:Depending on the definition of knowledge being used, the internet hasn't actually democratized knowledge so much as pretend to. Personally, I think understanding knowledge as an inherently trust-based, contingent hierarchy of communication makes the most sense, and in thinking along those lines, the Internet is hardly a wholly positive phenomena. Call me a bad Marxist, but I think that some hierarchies are helpful and even necessary, particularly with regards to education. This is not to say that education in the US is not overly-hierarchilized  Obviously hierarchies and networks have advantages and disadvantages. But when knowledge flows are dominated by one so thoroughly (in this case hierarchies) you amplify the disadvantages of hierarchies and lose the advantages of networks (citation to Manuel DeLanda). And come on. The internet has every book ever written on it. I think you are coming from a privileged Western position of media-hyped "information overload" and "echo chambers" when you make comments about how it hasn't democratized knowledge. Compare the knowledge opportunities of those living in the third world 50 years ago to what they have now on refurbished internet-capable laptops. While I'm at work and accordingly unable to respond in appropriate length, I'm certain that we're talking about two different kinds of knowledge. Access to information is one thing, knowledge of the thing that said information regards is something else. Privilege has nothing to do with it, particularly when an accusation therewith can be made in the opposite direction vis a vie what can be characterized as an overly-simple view of what knowledge actually is. (Nice DeLanda reference though, I'll need to refresh my reading of him when I get the chance.) Information is the stuff of knowledge-making. You have a point, but my post is directed to the technocratic folks here who view public education as a perpetual economics machine. am I one of those people? I don't know you tell me. Not clear on what you are not clear on.
ok, you're being intentional unhelpful, so waste of time, noted. gonna ignore your claims then.
|
On August 09 2016 03:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2016 03:21 oBlade wrote:
They did take tax reform off his site, probably redoing it. Interesting development. If he repudiates his primary-debate-era tax cutting plan, he'll take away one of the final reasons I'd consider voting for him. He's still committing unforced errors alienating segments of his base if you ask me. Would you want the primary era tax plan with the spending plans he has? Surely fiscal responsibility (ie not increasing the deficit further) trumps lowering taxes. If he is to raise spending then at least have him not slash revenues.
I plain don't want his current spending proposals, and I know he isn't serious about the debt the way he disavows entitlement reform.
On August 09 2016 05:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2016 03:21 oBlade wrote:
They did take tax reform off his site, probably redoing it. Interesting development. If he repudiates his primary-debate-era tax cutting plan, he'll take away one of the final reasons I'd consider voting for him. He's still committing unforced errors alienating segments of his base if you ask me. His main points before were simplifying the tax code, cutting loopholes and exemptions, and corporate repatriation. I doubt those are changing. Didn't he say he might have to raise taxes in his plan, and then journalists jumped, and he said he meant raise from where his plan was, but still be a cut in general? 10 20 25 -> 12 25 33 doesn't seem like it would be a lot. Show nested quote +My plan will reduce the current number of brackets from 7 to 3, and dramatically streamline the process. We will work with House Republicans on this plan, using the same brackets they have proposed: 12, 25 and 33 percent. For many American workers, their tax rate will be zero. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-economic-plan-winning-the-global-competition/It looks like "House Republicans" is the operative phrase. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/08/brief-august-8-2016/Show nested quote +“From Team Bush, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you help the man that won, and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton,” Bush said to state Republican activists on Saturday, addressing them as Texas GOP's victory chairman, the Tribune’s Patrick Svitek reports.
It's the wrong direction, however small. Any tax cutting plan will face strong political opposition. The right signals now is starting with one plan and hash out compromises for votes when it comes to that. Hedging back now for seemingly no reason (if you didn't like it before, you still won't like it now) makes no sense. He already has deep troubles convincing voters which campaign promises he will fight for or even believes in ... which version of Trump will show up on issues beyond trade and immigration.
|
On August 09 2016 06:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 06:40 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:29 zlefin wrote:On August 09 2016 03:24 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:19 farvacola wrote:On August 09 2016 03:13 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:09 farvacola wrote:Depending on the definition of knowledge being used, the internet hasn't actually democratized knowledge so much as pretend to. Personally, I think understanding knowledge as an inherently trust-based, contingent hierarchy of communication makes the most sense, and in thinking along those lines, the Internet is hardly a wholly positive phenomena. Call me a bad Marxist, but I think that some hierarchies are helpful and even necessary, particularly with regards to education. This is not to say that education in the US is not overly-hierarchilized Obviously hierarchies and networks have advantages and disadvantages. But when knowledge flows are dominated by one so thoroughly (in this case hierarchies) you amplify the disadvantages of hierarchies and lose the advantages of networks (citation to Manuel DeLanda). And come on. The internet has every book ever written on it. I think you are coming from a privileged Western position of media-hyped "information overload" and "echo chambers" when you make comments about how it hasn't democratized knowledge. Compare the knowledge opportunities of those living in the third world 50 years ago to what they have now on refurbished internet-capable laptops. While I'm at work and accordingly unable to respond in appropriate length, I'm certain that we're talking about two different kinds of knowledge. Access to information is one thing, knowledge of the thing that said information regards is something else. Privilege has nothing to do with it, particularly when an accusation therewith can be made in the opposite direction vis a vie what can be characterized as an overly-simple view of what knowledge actually is. (Nice DeLanda reference though, I'll need to refresh my reading of him when I get the chance.) Information is the stuff of knowledge-making. You have a point, but my post is directed to the technocratic folks here who view public education as a perpetual economics machine. am I one of those people? I don't know you tell me. also not clear on what your statement is trying to say.
Not clear on what you are not clear on. ok, you're being intentional unhelpful, so waste of time, noted. gonna ignore your claims then.
so you want to know what my conversation w another forumer meant and you asked what my statement means when i made at least two
|
igne -> The quote chain indicates it was a conversation I was a part of. anyways, moving on.
|
On August 09 2016 06:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 06:40 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:29 zlefin wrote:On August 09 2016 03:24 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:19 farvacola wrote:On August 09 2016 03:13 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:09 farvacola wrote:Depending on the definition of knowledge being used, the internet hasn't actually democratized knowledge so much as pretend to. Personally, I think understanding knowledge as an inherently trust-based, contingent hierarchy of communication makes the most sense, and in thinking along those lines, the Internet is hardly a wholly positive phenomena. Call me a bad Marxist, but I think that some hierarchies are helpful and even necessary, particularly with regards to education. This is not to say that education in the US is not overly-hierarchilized Obviously hierarchies and networks have advantages and disadvantages. But when knowledge flows are dominated by one so thoroughly (in this case hierarchies) you amplify the disadvantages of hierarchies and lose the advantages of networks (citation to Manuel DeLanda). And come on. The internet has every book ever written on it. I think you are coming from a privileged Western position of media-hyped "information overload" and "echo chambers" when you make comments about how it hasn't democratized knowledge. Compare the knowledge opportunities of those living in the third world 50 years ago to what they have now on refurbished internet-capable laptops. While I'm at work and accordingly unable to respond in appropriate length, I'm certain that we're talking about two different kinds of knowledge. Access to information is one thing, knowledge of the thing that said information regards is something else. Privilege has nothing to do with it, particularly when an accusation therewith can be made in the opposite direction vis a vie what can be characterized as an overly-simple view of what knowledge actually is. (Nice DeLanda reference though, I'll need to refresh my reading of him when I get the chance.) Information is the stuff of knowledge-making. You have a point, but my post is directed to the technocratic folks here who view public education as a perpetual economics machine. am I one of those people? I don't know you tell me. also not clear on what your statement is trying to say.
Not clear on what you are not clear on. ok, you're being intentional unhelpful, so waste of time, noted. gonna ignore your claims then.
mabye just ask reasonable questions
|
On August 09 2016 07:56 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 06:46 zlefin wrote:On August 09 2016 06:40 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:29 zlefin wrote:On August 09 2016 03:24 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:19 farvacola wrote:On August 09 2016 03:13 IgnE wrote:On August 09 2016 03:09 farvacola wrote:Depending on the definition of knowledge being used, the internet hasn't actually democratized knowledge so much as pretend to. Personally, I think understanding knowledge as an inherently trust-based, contingent hierarchy of communication makes the most sense, and in thinking along those lines, the Internet is hardly a wholly positive phenomena. Call me a bad Marxist, but I think that some hierarchies are helpful and even necessary, particularly with regards to education. This is not to say that education in the US is not overly-hierarchilized Obviously hierarchies and networks have advantages and disadvantages. But when knowledge flows are dominated by one so thoroughly (in this case hierarchies) you amplify the disadvantages of hierarchies and lose the advantages of networks (citation to Manuel DeLanda). And come on. The internet has every book ever written on it. I think you are coming from a privileged Western position of media-hyped "information overload" and "echo chambers" when you make comments about how it hasn't democratized knowledge. Compare the knowledge opportunities of those living in the third world 50 years ago to what they have now on refurbished internet-capable laptops. While I'm at work and accordingly unable to respond in appropriate length, I'm certain that we're talking about two different kinds of knowledge. Access to information is one thing, knowledge of the thing that said information regards is something else. Privilege has nothing to do with it, particularly when an accusation therewith can be made in the opposite direction vis a vie what can be characterized as an overly-simple view of what knowledge actually is. (Nice DeLanda reference though, I'll need to refresh my reading of him when I get the chance.) Information is the stuff of knowledge-making. You have a point, but my post is directed to the technocratic folks here who view public education as a perpetual economics machine. am I one of those people? I don't know you tell me. also not clear on what your statement is trying to say.
Not clear on what you are not clear on. ok, you're being intentional unhelpful, so waste of time, noted. gonna ignore your claims then. mabye just ask reasonable questions
I did, and you're not helping, but are intentionally trying to create a problem.
|
On August 09 2016 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 06:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On August 09 2016 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2016 04:13 Naracs_Duc wrote:On August 09 2016 03:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2016 03:00 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2016 02:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2016 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2016 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Those are interesting inconsistencies that may or may not be a part of Bernie's evaluation!
Now, back on topic: Is there any reason to dispute the fact that Trump has had far more scandals, made more unprofessional and dirty deals, and is more "crooked" than Hillary Clinton? Well, if you add in the Clinton foundation she would probably give him a run for his money, but the CF enjoys a much higher level of protection from investigation/reprimand than Trumps businesses. But that's what's so sad about this all. She (or yall) shouldn't compare herself to the worst candidate to be nominated in modern times and be able to say "well I'm better than that, so you must vote for me". This is such a utter failing of the voting public it should go down as one of our worst elections. I completely agree that Hillary is not ideal, but the fact of the matter is that either Hillary or Trump will become president. That's the mathematical reality that we face right now, and so I feel an obligation to figure out which of those two candidates I prefer- which some may view as voting for the lesser of two evils- and to vote for them to make sure the worse candidate isn't elected president. That's being a realist and a pragmatist. People keep saying that not voting or voting third-party are sensible alternatives, as if there's a secret third option to who's going to become president in this election, and it just blows my mind. I'm equally astonished at those who can't understand why someone should pick the lesser of two evils. The problem with the "lesser of two evils" argument is that if it is applied consistently, then you make no progress. It just tells politicians that they can be as bad as they want, but as long as they're slightly better than "the enemy" then you have to vote for them. The "lesser of two evils" argument has been consistently applied for many election cycles now, and while it's valid for any one of them it starts to become a real problem if you keep on applying it over and over again every single election, slowly voting against any real progress. That would be an issue if the president was the entire government. It is just one of many offices we get to vote for on election day. The ticket is larger than just that office and we can vote for other people that more closely reflect our world views. The president is supposed to represent all of the US, not everyone will get everything they want. The president is by far the most important representative of the people on a national level. Yes, it's pretty clear that local elections also determine public policy, and that you also get to vote on 1-2 representatives to the Legislative Branch every election, but those don't set the policy anywhere near as much as the leadership of the party (which is very strongly influenced by the president). It's very easy for the president to tie the hands of the lower level representatives of the people through the significant influence the president holds, both explicit powers and implicit coercion, so it's really a pretty unfortunate turn of events if the president is a downward spiral of a consistent "lesser of two evils" line of argument. If you care about laws you yourself have to follow, then put energy into local elections (Mayor, Chief of Police, Judges, etc...) If you care about the laws others in your sphere of influence follow, or about laws that affect your job/business, then you put energy into the state elections that actually govern that. If you care about supreme court nominations, the military, or having a stopgap to prevent "bad" laws from being passed--then you put energy into the presidency. You don't even have to vote party line in any of it. You can have as widespread a pool of politicians as you'd like. The power to shape the laws of the land and who enforces it is 100% in the power of the populace. Only if they take it back. As of now they are largely stuck in a paradigm that means they have to vote for evil, because it's less evil than the alternative. Really? Is that the case? Local elections only have 10%-20% attendance rate--you really think that the 80%-90% of the voting population can't get a third or fourth party candidate in a local election? Presidential elections, sure, 60+% of the voting public means that the 40% of what's left over won't be able to fully make a change to the end result. But we are talking about a 10-90 difference in most local elections. Do you really think that 3rd party candidates don't have a shot then? The issue is not the system in place but the unwillingness of voters to show up to ALL elections at ALL times. I think of voting somewhat like "mail-in rebates". There are hundreds of millions of dollars that go unclaimed every year. One could argue "it's not the system", but when a system works like that (when the human element is included), it's hard to ignore the problems presented by the system/participant interactions. Showing up (like mailing them in) is a significant part of "taking it back" in my view. But we'd be lying to ourselves if we didn't confront the reality that if we work on "the system" we'll also improve our results (and expose those who see the lack of engagement as a feature, not a bug). There are additional hurdles for third-party candidates at local levels, but participation would go a hell of a long way. Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 06:26 zlefin wrote:
People might show up to local elections more if there was better info; one of mayn things in need of fixing.
Or just switch to systems which do a better job. Voter education is absolutely pathetic in this country. As in facts about the system and candidates, not just general knowledge.
Combination of lack of knowledge and resistance to knowledge has been my issue. I can't tell you how many hundreds of doors I've knocked and phones I've called telling voters "Hey, the guy who will determine the rules and regulations of how you buy and sell goods, how to start and end businesses, the person in charge of defining what the police force looks like and what funding goes into the eduction of the schools and business in your literal neighborhood--I have information on him, do you want to learn more?"
So many of them just actively resist the information being given to them. Its infuriating listening them talk about how there's only two parties when there's literally 2-3 non-backed progressives on the ticket, each of whom has a fantastic chance of winning being that district is usually only decided by 2000-3000 votes out of the 500,000 populace. Gah! its just maddening.
|
|
|
Well, it's another in a long string of Trump attacking his critics, but in this case I would have probably responded the same way .
|
On August 09 2016 01:43 zlefin wrote:
I've been pondering how to address the issues caused by the ever more rapidly changing economy, and globalization. I'm thinking that, just as educational availability has expanded over time; it may be time to have some sort of public, free, continuing education option, to ensure that everyone can retrain to get the skills for whatever jobs are available.
Not at all sure yet that it's the best approach, but it seems like a better idea than protectionism; and people switch jobs and careers so much more these days, that a continuing ed approach seems worthwhile. And I'm not sure how many poor people would be able to afford the private continuing ed options that are available, so it may be better for society to offer such options free, just as we have free K-12 for everyone. These days so much just changes from when you were last in school that continuing ed is more important than it used to be.
I think if companies were more willing to train people themselves it would help. I remember when I was looking at jobs most of the time the listings looked like they wanted someone they would have to put the least amount of effort into. IE multi years experience in a similar job already. I think there would be plenty of people that have raw ability that companies could mold but companies don't want that.
|
On August 09 2016 06:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 05:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Donald Trump's effort to appeal to establishment Republicans suffered another setback on Monday, as 50 senior GOP national security officials warned in a new letter that Trump would "risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
The signatories of the letter, which was first reported by The New York Times, all worked in Republican administrations, with many serving as top aides to President George W. Bush. They said none of them would be voting for Trump.
“Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President,” they wrote. “He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”
The letter signers include Michael Hayden, the former director of the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, two former secretaries of homeland security, and John Negroponte, who served as the director of national intelligence and deputy secretary of state. None of the living Republican former secretaries of state signed the letter.
Although the signatories said they would not be voting for Trump, they did express concerns about Hillary Clinton as well.
“We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us,” they wrote. “But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.” Source The letter itself: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3007589/Nationalsecurityletter.pdf
What is this, like the 3rd or 4th large group of experts to denounce Trump on matter one or another?
|
|
|
On August 09 2016 09:18 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 01:43 zlefin wrote:
I've been pondering how to address the issues caused by the ever more rapidly changing economy, and globalization. I'm thinking that, just as educational availability has expanded over time; it may be time to have some sort of public, free, continuing education option, to ensure that everyone can retrain to get the skills for whatever jobs are available.
Not at all sure yet that it's the best approach, but it seems like a better idea than protectionism; and people switch jobs and careers so much more these days, that a continuing ed approach seems worthwhile. And I'm not sure how many poor people would be able to afford the private continuing ed options that are available, so it may be better for society to offer such options free, just as we have free K-12 for everyone. These days so much just changes from when you were last in school that continuing ed is more important than it used to be.
I think if companies were more willing to train people themselves it would help. I remember when I was looking at jobs most of the time the listings looked like they wanted someone they would have to put the least amount of effort into. IE multi years experience in a similar job already. I think there would be plenty of people that have raw ability that companies could mold but companies don't want that.
why do you think that is?
|
On August 09 2016 09:18 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 01:43 zlefin wrote:
I've been pondering how to address the issues caused by the ever more rapidly changing economy, and globalization. I'm thinking that, just as educational availability has expanded over time; it may be time to have some sort of public, free, continuing education option, to ensure that everyone can retrain to get the skills for whatever jobs are available.
Not at all sure yet that it's the best approach, but it seems like a better idea than protectionism; and people switch jobs and careers so much more these days, that a continuing ed approach seems worthwhile. And I'm not sure how many poor people would be able to afford the private continuing ed options that are available, so it may be better for society to offer such options free, just as we have free K-12 for everyone. These days so much just changes from when you were last in school that continuing ed is more important than it used to be.
I think if companies were more willing to train people themselves it would help. I remember when I was looking at jobs most of the time the listings looked like they wanted someone they would have to put the least amount of effort into. IE multi years experience in a similar job already. I think there would be plenty of people that have raw ability that companies could mold but companies don't want that.
This is why you say screw it and apply anyways. The ideal candidate qualities are for someone who's held the job for a few years and would probably be looking for a promo already.
|
Well it's good for Trump that he now has someone writing a response statement like that for him, that's a good strategy move from them. The substance of saying "things are bad right now and the person I'm presently arguing with is to blame" still is insanely simplistic and ignores the expertise of these people.
What conservative would have subscribed to Trump's FP positions in the days before Trump was a candidate? It's absurd. When Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for not listening to the more senior advisers in deciding to do things like not intervene in the Arab Spring, you can tell that someone with experience in FP really values that. And probably knows better, most of the time. That of course doesn't mean they need to invade Iraq, but there are lots of other things that happen in the Middle East. It's a complex place. These guys writing the level are part of the upper echelon of US FP for a long time. They know a lot of things, notwithstanding the single strategic decision to invade Iraq.
|
|
|
I looked at the Complaint. It wasn't particularly compelling. The wrongful death claims look particularly problematic.
|
It would be hard for anything to stink more of political timing and motivation.
|
What Republican would take seriously, in the days before Trump's campaign, a candidate who says they want to "promote peace over war" as part of their FP policies?
|
On August 09 2016 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:
What Republican would take seriously, in the days before Trump's campaign, a candidate who says they want to "promote peace over war" as part of their FP policies?
George W. Bush said a lot of stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
