EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6790
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 08 2017 04:53 Logo wrote: You are right that I should trust someone who writes, "I did not seek this battle, and I confess, in my gloomier moments in recent days, that I envy those returning Somali green-card holders denied re-entry to the United States" on an article about a libel suit as a good source. @Bucky no I went and found my own sources elsewhere so in the search I could find a wider range of sources because it's clear the only sources Steyn would quote would be unabashedly pro-steyn. Holy shit, I would never have expected this sort of honesty. Thank you a million times over for being so clear on your reasoning. | ||
|
brian
United States9618 Posts
On February 08 2017 04:03 LegalLord wrote: So, for everyone here, I have a question, in poll form, about what you think of Trump so far. + Show Spoiler + Poll: How does a Trump presidency compare to what you expected? It's worse than expected. (19) I expected about the same as we have. (16) It's better than expected. (5) 40 total votes Your vote: How does a Trump presidency compare to what you expected? (Vote): It's better than expected. this is interesting to me because my biggest and only fear about a trump presidency is not only coming true, but in spectacular fashion. if trump did his own job like he was supposed to i fully believed we could get through this administration without any backsliding. but instead he's just signing shit he's advised to and by all appearances having his strings pulled like a marionette. by both advisors(Steve Bannon LOL) and antagonists because he's so easy to manipulate. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44313 Posts
On February 08 2017 04:57 Nevuk wrote: I think Betsy Devos will singlehandedly undo all arguments for charter schools for decades after some extremely poor policy choices.. Good long term for democrats, bad short term. Good long term for American education as a whole, I suppose... I just hate that it has to go through the Republican way of "let's try something that everyone else knows is super screwed up and waste time and resources and jeopardize our children's future" before acknowledging the Democratic way. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 08 2017 04:58 Danglars wrote: Holy shit, I would never have expected this sort of honesty. Thank you a million times over for being so clear on your reasoning. Lol you're amusing. But the blogs seem mostly focused around whether or not Manns findings are accurate or not which seems different than whether or not Mann engaged in misconduct (Scientists are allowed to be wrong after all). It's an interesting question about clearing your name. If the National Review had just accused a random scientist of being a fraud without evidence then it seems pretty clearly libel? But once a someone has been accused of being a fraud at what point is their reputation restored enough where claims of them being maliciously fraudulent are more in the camp of libel again. None of the sources either make a good breakdown of public/private figure either which is disappointing. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Sure, the defendant is a good source. If you're writing a research paper or newspaper article. Because his is a first hand account. He is also the one person in the world whose opinion will be entirely against the validity of the court case, and has zero motivation or interest in presenting anything except his side of the story. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On February 08 2017 04:56 zlefin wrote: clutz -> in what way would the department of education itself be unconstitutional? I can see how a number of the actions and programs that are under it would be unconstitutional, but a number of them aren't, so I don't see how the dept itself would be unconstitutional. 1. For why the spending programs are unconstitutional, see two cases: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (PPACA case) read the Medicaid sections about unconstitutional coercion by putting requirements on funding. (see also Printz v. United States). This activity makes up most of DOE's purpose: incentivizing schools to bend to their policy desires for cash. The dividing line between unconstitutional and constitutional seems to be whether its more like a "gun to the head" or a carrot. But what this means in practice is if it is effective, its unconstitutional. 2. For the policy and why the remaining laws and regulations (not tied to spending) are also unconstitutional, see United States v. Morrison (Violence against Women Act) and United States v. Lopez (Gun Free School Zones) opinions. The logic in both should be controlling as to why Congress cannot directly legislate in areas reserved to the states (which education certainly is). Those two parts make up most of DOE. There are other minor parts such as academic studies and policy recommendations, that could survive, but those are tiny. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
Op-eds and stump speeches frequently feature terms like “fraud,” “scam,” “misconduct,” and even “treason.” Whether such characterizations are apt or not is for readers and listeners to judge, but until now few imagined that using them could lead to years of litigation and a costly libel verdict. Similarly, calls for investigation and accusations of whitewashing have a long history dating back to Emile Zola’s J’accuse…! and continuing today with debates over the trials of O.J. Simpson, George Zimmerman, and many others. If Mann’s critics committed actionable libel, then so might everyone who has voiced disagreement with such verdicts, as well as everyone who has called for politicians to be investigated for corruption, fraud, or war crimes. (Source: Cato Institute legal brief) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 08 2017 04:57 Nevuk wrote: I think Betsy Devos will singlehandedly undo all arguments for charter schools for decades after some extremely poor policy choices.. Good long term for democrats, bad short term. this wont happen and the reason is that parents will like charters more. bottomline of this issue is that charters give certain parents the ability to move kids away from undesirables. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:15 cLutZ wrote: 1. For why the spending programs are unconstitutional, see two cases: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (PPACA case) read the Medicaid sections about unconstitutional coercion by putting requirements on funding. (see also Printz v. United States). This activity makes up most of DOE's purpose: incentivizing schools to bend to their policy desires for cash. The dividing line between unconstitutional and constitutional seems to be whether its more like a "gun to the head" or a carrot. But what this means in practice is if it is effective, its unconstitutional. 2. For the policy and why the remaining laws and regulations (not tied to spending) are also unconstitutional, see United States v. Morrison (Violence against Women Act) and United States v. Lopez (Gun Free School Zones) opinions. The logic in both should be controlling as to why Congress cannot directly legislate in areas reserved to the states (which education certainly is). Those two parts make up most of DOE. There are other minor parts such as academic studies and policy recommendations, that could survive, but those are tiny. ok, I see what you're getting at. reminds me of the question of what to do as president if you believe something is unconstitutional, but the supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional. if I ever become president I'll have to have an answer for that. I'm assuming there's been litigation and people have tried citing those cases to try to get much of the DoE stuff declared unconstitutional, why did such arguments fail? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:21 oneofthem wrote: this wont happen and the reason is that parents will like charters more. bottomline of this issue is that charters give certain parents the ability to move kids away from undesirables. Oh, that's would only be the case at best(assuming philosophy is sound) if it is well implemented. The best idea in the world with awful implemention is useless. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Devos will be capable of implementing anything effectively, let alone a massive overhaul of the charter school system, and her answers were of such poor quality as to make me feel assured in her complete lack of ability. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Which is all well and good, but I don't see why you and Danglar are so insistent on quoting the defendant's side of the case? Again, good sources for a research paper or newspaper article if you want quotes and first-hand accounts. Not so much if you're trying to prove a point. After all, these are the opinions already seen by two separate judges and the DC court of appeals and all three agreed that the case should move ahead, so as compelling as you might find these arguments, obviously the plaintiff's side had arguments that were just as good, if not better. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Yeah I saw that one too, and it seemed ok, but I wish they, or other sources would dig more into the differences of different public figures, or the lack thereof. There's a big difference between the sort of nebulous claims about a politician being a fraud (which is kind of a loose claim on their conduct) and claiming a scientist is a fraud (which has some serious implications about how they do work). Doubly so in the sense that a scientist's conclusions can be wrong in an entirely honest way. Though I'm not really sure why all this is being brought up? I never even 'sided' with Mann or Steyn on the case, I only pointed out the initial bringing up of the case was very lopsided, there may be reason for this case to actually be litigated on some level, and that the Steyn blog was of low quality (on top of being a defendant making a defense for themselves). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:28 Nevuk wrote: implementation will be farmed out to states and whatever edu policy think tank that is involved. the question is simply whether there will be a large enough group that wont like the likely results. my answer to that is no because americans are generally selfish and cynical and pay a lot to be able to live selfishlyOh, that's would only be the case at best(assuming philosophy is sound) if it is well implemented. The best idea in the world with awful implemention is useless. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Devos will be capable of implementing anything effectively, let alone a massive overhaul of the charter school system, and her answers were of such poor quality as to make me feel assured in her complete lack of ability. this issue is important in the larger context of eroding sense of community, from an already dismally low base. there is a segment of vulnerable families and children that will face even lower resources and political attention. the stairway to further social stratification is greased and there is no coming back. to be more precise, there are both pro and counter cyclic mechanisms at play but the procyclic, self reinforcing side is dominant | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:33 Logo wrote: Though I'm not really sure why all this is being brought up? I never even 'sided' with Mann or Steyn on the case, I only pointed out the initial bringing up of the case was very lopsided, there may be reason for this case to actually be litigated on some level, and that the Steyn blog was of low quality (on top of being a defendant making a defense for themselves). And I didn't intend to discuss the entire case when I brought it up, just the claims that Penn State covered up alleged misconduct in response to a post that asked about exactly that sort of behavior. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: Wait, is Danglars seriously trying to argue that a case is bad just because the defendant says it is? Sure, the defendant is a good source. If you're writing a research paper or newspaper article. Because his is a first hand account. He is also the one person in the world whose opinion will be entirely against the validity of the court case, and has zero motivation or interest in presenting anything except his side of the story. Did you take into account Steyn's sources or just his writing? Is it worth discounting Steyns sources because "it's clear the only sources Steyn would quote would be unabashedly pro-steyn?" I'm more of a many-source kind of guy, first interested in understanding what the author is saying and what he uses to back it up. Buckyman's question and response gives much insight into alternative research ideas. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:39 Buckyman wrote: And I didn't intend to discuss the entire case when I brought it up, just the claims that Penn State covered up alleged misconduct in response to a post that asked about exactly that sort of behavior. But there's very little evidence that there was any cover up? The original articles of the case seem to mostly imply the investigation could have been more thorough and that hey look this school covered up something else at some point. On February 08 2017 05:41 Danglars wrote: Did you take into account Steyn's sources or just his writing? Is it worth discounting Steyns sources because "it's clear the only sources Steyn would quote would be unabashedly pro-steyn?" I'm more of a many-source kind of guy, first interested in understanding what the author is saying and what he uses to back it up. Buckyman's question and response gives much insight into alternative research ideas. The Judith Curry statement wasn't particularly compelling and the other sources he quotes he does so based on something nice they said about him or the fact they quoted his book. There are much better sources on the topic (like Caito Institute and the WaPo article) that have been linked here and they make a much better defense of Steyn than he does himself. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:25 zlefin wrote: ok, I see what you're getting at. reminds me of the question of what to do as president if you believe something is unconstitutional, but the supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional. if I ever become president I'll have to have an answer for that. I'm assuming there's been litigation and people have tried citing those cases to try to get much of the DoE stuff declared unconstitutional, why did such arguments fail? I'm actually not aware of any such cases that made it too high in the court system. One problem is that individual teachers or taxpayers would not have standing. Instead, to prompt a suit, a state or school district would have to refuse one of the conditions imposed for funding, then be denied funding, then sue. But most of these places are happy to just vacuum up all the money they can because this kind of funding is a classic "Diner's Dilemma" issue. To get a plaintiff, you need someone who is willing to "cut off their nose to spite the face" then fund a long suit (that needs to get to SCOTUS for you to win because lower courts almost never rule against the Federal Government on spending). | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On February 08 2017 05:21 oneofthem wrote: this wont happen and the reason is that parents will like charters more. bottomline of this issue is that charters give certain parents the ability to move kids away from undesirables. Yeah...I'm an ultra democrat and I totally intend to send my kids to private schools. By the time my girlfriend and I have kids old enough to go to school, we'll have no problem ditching public education altogether. | ||
| ||
