|
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. |
I found this to be an insightful read about Clinton and her approach to policy:
The future of America is being written in this tiny office
[...] Ultimately, Clinton settled on a scheme the campaign named the “New College Compact.” The goal, making public college debt-free, was simple. The mechanics were not. Families would pay “realistic” fees based on income, with poorer families paying nothing at all. Students would contribute directly through work-study programs. Washington would provide most of the money, but states would have to kick in some funds and hold the line on tuition increases. The feds would also crack down on for-profit colleges where too many students were getting substandard degrees and defaulting on their loans. All in all, the proposal would require some $350 billion in new spending over 10 years, which Clinton planned to pay for by raising taxes on the rich. James Kvaal, a former Obama administration adviser who consulted on the initiative, described it in an email as “a once-in-a-century change in the relationship between the federal government and colleges, on par with the Morrill Act (which created land grant colleges in the 19th Century) and the G.I. Bill.”
A few days before Clinton’s speech, O’Leary convened a final conference call to discuss media strategy. Anticipating a lot of attention, she instructed the team to be ready by the phones. Clinton delivered her address at a high school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and afterward, held a press conference in the gym. She got just one query about the plan. Earlier that week, Trump had described Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” during a debate, and so Clinton was grilled on whether Trump should apologize to Kelly, whether he had a problem with women, and what Clinton thought of the fact that Trump had retweeted someone who called Kelly a bimbo.
Over the next 24 hours, the tuition plan received only perfunctory coverage. “The calls just never came,” recalls Gene Sperling, another one of Clinton’s advisers. “It was all Kelly-Trump, 24/7.” Even many professional policy types didn’t grasp the full scope of her proposal; I didn’t realize it myself until I began researching this article.
Source
|
On September 23 2016 02:05 kwizach wrote:I found this to be an insightful read about Clinton and her approach to policy: Show nested quote +The future of America is being written in this tiny office
[...] Ultimately, Clinton settled on a scheme the campaign named the “New College Compact.” The goal, making public college debt-free, was simple. The mechanics were not. Families would pay “realistic” fees based on income, with poorer families paying nothing at all. Students would contribute directly through work-study programs. Washington would provide most of the money, but states would have to kick in some funds and hold the line on tuition increases. The feds would also crack down on for-profit colleges where too many students were getting substandard degrees and defaulting on their loans. All in all, the proposal would require some $350 billion in new spending over 10 years, which Clinton planned to pay for by raising taxes on the rich. James Kvaal, a former Obama administration adviser who consulted on the initiative, described it in an email as “a once-in-a-century change in the relationship between the federal government and colleges, on par with the Morrill Act (which created land grant colleges in the 19th Century) and the G.I. Bill.”
A few days before Clinton’s speech, O’Leary convened a final conference call to discuss media strategy. Anticipating a lot of attention, she instructed the team to be ready by the phones. Clinton delivered her address at a high school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and afterward, held a press conference in the gym. She got just one query about the plan. Earlier that week, Trump had described Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” during a debate, and so Clinton was grilled on whether Trump should apologize to Kelly, whether he had a problem with women, and what Clinton thought of the fact that Trump had retweeted someone who called Kelly a bimbo.
Over the next 24 hours, the tuition plan received only perfunctory coverage. “The calls just never came,” recalls Gene Sperling, another one of Clinton’s advisers. “It was all Kelly-Trump, 24/7.” Even many professional policy types didn’t grasp the full scope of her proposal; I didn’t realize it myself until I began researching this article. Source
This should make anyone incredibly sad about the state of public discourse in this country.
|
On September 23 2016 00:44 xDaunt wrote:Have y'all seen this clip of Hillary? So embarrassingly bad.
Are you just saying that Hillary has negative charisma? I think if this were a transcript I would be totally confused about why you are even pointing to it.
|
On September 23 2016 01:29 Plansix wrote:The Trump campaign has given us so many shining examples of the failing public education system. Especially when it comes to US history. Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 01:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Reminder that Trump hasn't had a press conference for 56 days now. Weird how he has been dodging the press now that the real election is going on and all these issues are cropping about possible criminal behavior by his foundation.
And he resigned over the comment that Obama invested racism.
Side note, the man said he was in the real estate business. Real estate was considered one of the cornerstones of institutionalized racism during the 1960s through to today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/28/evidence-that-banks-still-deny-black-borrowers-just-as-they-did-50-years-ago/
|
On September 23 2016 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:05 kwizach wrote:I found this to be an insightful read about Clinton and her approach to policy: The future of America is being written in this tiny office
[...] Ultimately, Clinton settled on a scheme the campaign named the “New College Compact.” The goal, making public college debt-free, was simple. The mechanics were not. Families would pay “realistic” fees based on income, with poorer families paying nothing at all. Students would contribute directly through work-study programs. Washington would provide most of the money, but states would have to kick in some funds and hold the line on tuition increases. The feds would also crack down on for-profit colleges where too many students were getting substandard degrees and defaulting on their loans. All in all, the proposal would require some $350 billion in new spending over 10 years, which Clinton planned to pay for by raising taxes on the rich. James Kvaal, a former Obama administration adviser who consulted on the initiative, described it in an email as “a once-in-a-century change in the relationship between the federal government and colleges, on par with the Morrill Act (which created land grant colleges in the 19th Century) and the G.I. Bill.”
A few days before Clinton’s speech, O’Leary convened a final conference call to discuss media strategy. Anticipating a lot of attention, she instructed the team to be ready by the phones. Clinton delivered her address at a high school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and afterward, held a press conference in the gym. She got just one query about the plan. Earlier that week, Trump had described Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” during a debate, and so Clinton was grilled on whether Trump should apologize to Kelly, whether he had a problem with women, and what Clinton thought of the fact that Trump had retweeted someone who called Kelly a bimbo.
Over the next 24 hours, the tuition plan received only perfunctory coverage. “The calls just never came,” recalls Gene Sperling, another one of Clinton’s advisers. “It was all Kelly-Trump, 24/7.” Even many professional policy types didn’t grasp the full scope of her proposal; I didn’t realize it myself until I began researching this article. Source This should make anyone incredibly sad about the state of public discourse in this country.
If Trump loses this is the true lasting effect he has on politics, I would bet. Taking the TV/media controversy discourse to its logical extreme, to the detriment of policy substance.
|
On September 23 2016 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:05 kwizach wrote:I found this to be an insightful read about Clinton and her approach to policy: The future of America is being written in this tiny office
[...] Ultimately, Clinton settled on a scheme the campaign named the “New College Compact.” The goal, making public college debt-free, was simple. The mechanics were not. Families would pay “realistic” fees based on income, with poorer families paying nothing at all. Students would contribute directly through work-study programs. Washington would provide most of the money, but states would have to kick in some funds and hold the line on tuition increases. The feds would also crack down on for-profit colleges where too many students were getting substandard degrees and defaulting on their loans. All in all, the proposal would require some $350 billion in new spending over 10 years, which Clinton planned to pay for by raising taxes on the rich. James Kvaal, a former Obama administration adviser who consulted on the initiative, described it in an email as “a once-in-a-century change in the relationship between the federal government and colleges, on par with the Morrill Act (which created land grant colleges in the 19th Century) and the G.I. Bill.”
A few days before Clinton’s speech, O’Leary convened a final conference call to discuss media strategy. Anticipating a lot of attention, she instructed the team to be ready by the phones. Clinton delivered her address at a high school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and afterward, held a press conference in the gym. She got just one query about the plan. Earlier that week, Trump had described Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” during a debate, and so Clinton was grilled on whether Trump should apologize to Kelly, whether he had a problem with women, and what Clinton thought of the fact that Trump had retweeted someone who called Kelly a bimbo.
Over the next 24 hours, the tuition plan received only perfunctory coverage. “The calls just never came,” recalls Gene Sperling, another one of Clinton’s advisers. “It was all Kelly-Trump, 24/7.” Even many professional policy types didn’t grasp the full scope of her proposal; I didn’t realize it myself until I began researching this article. Source This should make anyone incredibly sad about the state of public discourse in this country.
As has been said many times, no one cares about policy anymore. Its all there if people want to look at it but the news simply doesn't talk about.
|
On September 23 2016 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:05 kwizach wrote:I found this to be an insightful read about Clinton and her approach to policy: The future of America is being written in this tiny office
[...] Ultimately, Clinton settled on a scheme the campaign named the “New College Compact.” The goal, making public college debt-free, was simple. The mechanics were not. Families would pay “realistic” fees based on income, with poorer families paying nothing at all. Students would contribute directly through work-study programs. Washington would provide most of the money, but states would have to kick in some funds and hold the line on tuition increases. The feds would also crack down on for-profit colleges where too many students were getting substandard degrees and defaulting on their loans. All in all, the proposal would require some $350 billion in new spending over 10 years, which Clinton planned to pay for by raising taxes on the rich. James Kvaal, a former Obama administration adviser who consulted on the initiative, described it in an email as “a once-in-a-century change in the relationship between the federal government and colleges, on par with the Morrill Act (which created land grant colleges in the 19th Century) and the G.I. Bill.”
A few days before Clinton’s speech, O’Leary convened a final conference call to discuss media strategy. Anticipating a lot of attention, she instructed the team to be ready by the phones. Clinton delivered her address at a high school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and afterward, held a press conference in the gym. She got just one query about the plan. Earlier that week, Trump had described Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” during a debate, and so Clinton was grilled on whether Trump should apologize to Kelly, whether he had a problem with women, and what Clinton thought of the fact that Trump had retweeted someone who called Kelly a bimbo.
Over the next 24 hours, the tuition plan received only perfunctory coverage. “The calls just never came,” recalls Gene Sperling, another one of Clinton’s advisers. “It was all Kelly-Trump, 24/7.” Even many professional policy types didn’t grasp the full scope of her proposal; I didn’t realize it myself until I began researching this article. Source This should make anyone incredibly sad about the state of public discourse in this country.
Ok, that thing is a fucking bummer and I don't even know what to say or how to fix it. For profit news has completely fails this country so badly they don't even know they are failing it.
On September 23 2016 02:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2016 02:05 kwizach wrote:I found this to be an insightful read about Clinton and her approach to policy: The future of America is being written in this tiny office
[...] Ultimately, Clinton settled on a scheme the campaign named the “New College Compact.” The goal, making public college debt-free, was simple. The mechanics were not. Families would pay “realistic” fees based on income, with poorer families paying nothing at all. Students would contribute directly through work-study programs. Washington would provide most of the money, but states would have to kick in some funds and hold the line on tuition increases. The feds would also crack down on for-profit colleges where too many students were getting substandard degrees and defaulting on their loans. All in all, the proposal would require some $350 billion in new spending over 10 years, which Clinton planned to pay for by raising taxes on the rich. James Kvaal, a former Obama administration adviser who consulted on the initiative, described it in an email as “a once-in-a-century change in the relationship between the federal government and colleges, on par with the Morrill Act (which created land grant colleges in the 19th Century) and the G.I. Bill.”
A few days before Clinton’s speech, O’Leary convened a final conference call to discuss media strategy. Anticipating a lot of attention, she instructed the team to be ready by the phones. Clinton delivered her address at a high school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and afterward, held a press conference in the gym. She got just one query about the plan. Earlier that week, Trump had described Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” during a debate, and so Clinton was grilled on whether Trump should apologize to Kelly, whether he had a problem with women, and what Clinton thought of the fact that Trump had retweeted someone who called Kelly a bimbo.
Over the next 24 hours, the tuition plan received only perfunctory coverage. “The calls just never came,” recalls Gene Sperling, another one of Clinton’s advisers. “It was all Kelly-Trump, 24/7.” Even many professional policy types didn’t grasp the full scope of her proposal; I didn’t realize it myself until I began researching this article. Source This should make anyone incredibly sad about the state of public discourse in this country. As has been said many times, no one cares about policy anymore. Its all there if people want to look at it but the news simply doesn't talk about.
https://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech
...I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests on the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: both good business and good television.
Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--and I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporations that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or their listeners, or themselves.
I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.
We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small fraction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure might well grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.
This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it's nothing but wires and lights in a box....
Edward R Murrow's retirement speech. The media bares as much responsibility as the public, if not more.
|
And Trump supporters think he'll blow up the media establishment with a win, when in fact he just inflames and feeds it. They are rolling in the money right now.
|
|
|
Funny part is that quote of hers was actually the least damning part of what she said.
|
On September 23 2016 01:34 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 00:04 zlefin wrote:On September 23 2016 00:01 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2016 23:58 Rebs wrote:On September 22 2016 23:53 farvacola wrote:Naturally, I'm pretty sure we can save the baby, but I'm glad we've honed in on the disagreement  He's throwing the baby out because he never wanted to save it in the first place. Its basically a classic case of the kind of legitimacy "the assholes/' get to claim because PC culture went to far. No, that's not the case. I do believe that a certain level of decency is appropriate and culturally required, which is why there are certain things that I won't say or do. The problem, however, is that the PC crowd has so polarized the debate and the discussion that everyone is now forced to choose a side. And I'm not siding with them. why can there only be 2 sides? why can't you be part of the reasonable middle? or the fairly reasonable right of center but still kinda middleish group? I disagree on it being soooo polarized that you have to choose one of the two extreme sides. Well in this whole speaking political correctness on "social issues", there are 4 groups just using plain logic: 1. Those who support it radically. 2. Those who support it conditionally. 3. Those who don't care for it. 4. Those against it radically. The mean of people are in the 2nd and 3rd categories. Those who proudly call themselves "SJW" are in the first categories. Those who are against it radically includes religious folks. Most people just say "Okay who the fuck cares? That's not the biggest issue here, the biggest issue is that we are scared of where this country is going while navigating around the world."
agreed; so go groups 2 & 3. down with groups 1 & 4!
on the other thing, we need more newscasters with the cred of Murrow these days.
|
On September 23 2016 02:30 Doodsmack wrote:
And Trump supporters think he'll blow up the media establishment with a win, when in fact he just inflames and feeds it. They are rolling in the money right now.
Trump's success this election is due in no small part to his ability to manipulate the media. Even when they think they are delivering negative coverage, they are actually just unwittingly playing into his hands.
|
On September 23 2016 02:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:30 Doodsmack wrote:
And Trump supporters think he'll blow up the media establishment with a win, when in fact he just inflames and feeds it. They are rolling in the money right now. Trump's success this election is due in no small part to his ability to manipulate the media. Even when they think they are delivering negative coverage, they are actually just unwittingly playing into his hands.
The current crop is so easy to manipulate, which helps.
|
On September 23 2016 02:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:30 Doodsmack wrote:
And Trump supporters think he'll blow up the media establishment with a win, when in fact he just inflames and feeds it. They are rolling in the money right now. Trump's success this election is due in no small part to his ability to manipulate the media. Even when they think they are delivering negative coverage, they are actually just unwittingly playing into his hands.
And they seem so bewildered by it, but continue to cover him and allow his every gaff to dominate the news cycle. While everyone else talks about policy for days and even get a reporter to ask about it in an interview. Because they have unlimited air time and the ability to cover anything endlessly, the press has lost any ability to make editorial decisions. Before, with limited time on air or space in a paper, they had to choose what was worth covering. But they no longer have to do that, so they just cover everything and then drill in on whatever generates the most clicks.
|
On September 23 2016 02:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2016 02:30 Doodsmack wrote:
And Trump supporters think he'll blow up the media establishment with a win, when in fact he just inflames and feeds it. They are rolling in the money right now. Trump's success this election is due in no small part to his ability to manipulate the media. Even when they think they are delivering negative coverage, they are actually just unwittingly playing into his hands.
Trump isn't really manipulating anything, it's just money. As long as people watch it the news will air it. The problem is that everybody is tuning in to watch that stuff in the first place
|
On September 23 2016 02:23 IgnE wrote:Are you just saying that Hillary has negative charisma? I think if this were a transcript I would be totally confused about why you are even pointing to it.
Not just that she has negative charisma, but that she also is condescendingly disingenuous in her attempts to connect with the average joe.
|
What I didn't like about page 5092 through 5095 is that I tried to get a discussion going about something truly horrible. Something that amounts to essentially slavery in 2016, and it basically got sidetracked by some stupid bullshit about halloween costumes that nobody actually gives a shit about. This feels a lot like what is happening in the media and politics today. Arguing about stupid nonsensical bullshit, while leaving out the things that actually matter. A command-in-chief forum with Hillary and Trump where they discuss e-mails instead of warfare. Why do these stupid & obvious things rank so highly on the list of things that have to be discussed, while leaving out the potential death of hundreds of soldiers.
|
No one here really wants to discuss US prisons because, for the most part, that's one of the few policy areas where practically everyone here agrees. The current system sucks.
|
On September 23 2016 02:59 farvacola wrote:
No one here really wants to discuss US prisons because, for the most part, that's one of the few policy areas where practically everyone here agrees.
Was there some national debate because of the prisoners strike?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
