|
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. |
Well that isn't a huge shock and he is right.
|
On July 07 2017 01:49 NewSunshine wrote:That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this.
Well, obviously it's deceitful. But in a way... I mean, if you produce a bunch of coal nobody wants, but you just keep piling it up to the point that the coal is devalued, eventually people will say "free coal? sure, I guess..."
BAM! Supply creates demand! It's just the usual huckster logic.
re: for-profit schools. I worked for a while as an instructor for some classes for an online "institute" owned by Education Management Corporation. It's funny to hear that they are being charged for "making illegal payments to recruiters." When I worked there I found that they were doing some unethical advising practices for their students. + Show Spoiler [story] +
Math is by far the greatest barrier to student retention, so advisers were told to plan out student schedules to only take math classes at the very end of their program. Aside from milking students for as long as possible before putting them through "the math gauntlet," where they are likely to fail and have to retake classes (and pay more) or drop out (and not get their certificate), it also created a situation where a huge number of students all needed to take the same math class at the same time, so there was a huge scramble for qualified (or even, not so qualified?) math instructors.
Ultimately, as someone very familiar with academia, every online or for-profit education institution I've ever experienced has come off as a "technically legal" way to dupe people out of their money and not give them anything of value in return. They lure in students who obviously can't afford what they're charging, or who are simply very unlikely to pass their classes, fill them with hope and dreams, take their money, and let them (most likely) crash. It's pretty shameful. "Real" colleges and universities do this too in all honesty, but to a much smaller degree.
|
On July 07 2017 02:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:18 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won. Do you know care about collateral damage? Honest question. You have to look at each foreign policy facet comprehensively and weigh the pros and cons. I think Obama hurt America's image abroad even despite the foreign media and polls reaction to his impressive oration and tone. You give away free stuff and deflect criticism (if believed) and nations might love yet not respect you or your interests. So when you say collateral damage, apart from the usual heartless conservative playbook line, I'd have to know more of what you meant to respond. Let's start with possible mistreatment of American citizens abroad. Or countries closing military bases. Or trade agreements being restructured that harms American goods more. Or any other possibility that may come to fruition. It's a guessing game really but I would like your opinion on it. Edit: As for Obama, go back to fiefdom. If I'm the king and I give you free food or more land to farm on, would you hate me?
The first would matter for what cause. Is it just anger at not getting freebies or something more substancial from policy? I agree that protective trade agreements represent acts against America's interest. Like before, it would matter the comprehensive outlook of what we gained for the collateral damage to other areas. Maybe the travel ban hurts certain state sponsors of terrorism and we enjoy greater safety at the expense of hatred for the burdens on travel. Maybe the countries treating our citizens well is not worth the costs to appease their citizenry and government; it would have to be looked at. I know bribery is not always effective long-term.
I think you understood my comment on America's image abroad. Suckers are well liked because you can trample all over them. There's even people today that would prefer an easy life of servanthood than the pain of standing on your feet and giving and demanding respect.
|
On July 07 2017 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:18 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won. Do you know care about collateral damage? Honest question. You have to look at each foreign policy facet comprehensively and weigh the pros and cons. I think Obama hurt America's image abroad even despite the foreign media and polls reaction to his impressive oration and tone. You give away free stuff and deflect criticism (if believed) and nations might love yet not respect you or your interests. So when you say collateral damage, apart from the usual heartless conservative playbook line, I'd have to know more of what you meant to respond. Obama was loved by not respected abroad? As opposed to Trump? Who has turned the US into a literal laughing stock in the world? NK sure looks to be 'respecting' Trump. They completely stopped missile tests after he threatened them... oh wait...
Mmhm. NK likes goodies too and relies on the forbearance of the US and South Korea. For Europe, Obama's apology tours certainly appeased some who think poorly of America.
|
If you’re assessment is that the travel ban makes us safer, I question your ability to measure our safety all together. All evidence points to recruitment taking place on US soil, not overseas. Believe all terrorists attacks in the last 10 years that could be linked to the middle east were preformed long term residents in our country.
|
|
|
Is comparing Bush to Trump a fair comparison? It seems like a lot of people dismiss the intelligence community as a wing of the democratic party, but comparison to Bush should be fair.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The intelligence wing isn't a bunch of Democrat shills, I'm not sure who said that. They are if anything establishment old guard. Democrats are hypocrites for dickriding intelligence after every overreach of the past, for little reason beyond that they are against Trump together. Or because they were scummy hypocrites the whole time who never really cared about any of that and are now just showing their true colors.
|
On July 07 2017 02:30 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:49 NewSunshine wrote:That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this. Well, obviously it's deceitful. But in a way... I mean, if you produce a bunch of coal nobody wants, but you just keep piling it up to the point that the coal is devalued, eventually people will say "free coal? sure, I guess..." BAM! Supply creates demand! It's just the usual huckster logic. re: for-profit schools. I worked for a while as an instructor for some classes for an online "institute" owned by Education Management Corporation. It's funny to hear that they are being charged for "making illegal payments to recruiters." When I worked there I found that they were doing some unethical advising practices for their students. + Show Spoiler [story] +
Math is by far the greatest barrier to student retention, so advisers were told to plan out student schedules to only take math classes at the very end of their program. Aside from milking students for as long as possible before putting them through "the math gauntlet," where they are likely to fail and have to retake classes (and pay more) or drop out (and not get their certificate), it also created a situation where a huge number of students all needed to take the same math class at the same time, so there was a huge scramble for qualified (or even, not so qualified?) math instructors.
Ultimately, as someone very familiar with academia, every online or for-profit education institution I've ever experienced has come off as a "technically legal" way to dupe people out of their money and not give them anything of value in return. They lure in students who obviously can't afford what they're charging, or who are simply very unlikely to pass their classes, fill them with hope and dreams, take their money, and let them (most likely) crash. It's pretty shameful. "Real" colleges and universities do this too in all honesty, but to a much smaller degree.
The entire "education" industry is a massive scam for the most part, in my country it's even worse. Entire universities where 90% of the curriculum has no prospective field to work in.
Given that, maybe we should stop subsidizing with taxpayers money this massive fraud and not continue compounding the problem with infinite demand?
|
Trump admin officials using the media to keep his dumbassery in check. NYT, CNN and MSNBC all experiencing Trump era booms.
And they've been singing like birds to CNN.
|
The continued attempts to push groups like CIA and FBI into ring that is the WWE style politics has grown tiresome. In general these groups are not as partisan as people make them out to be and trying to paint them as such is reductive. They fucked up over 10 years ago and will mess up again. That isn’t an excuse to disregard everything they say. The same goes for other government groups like the EPA.
|
On July 07 2017 02:58 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:30 Dromar wrote:On July 07 2017 01:49 NewSunshine wrote:That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this. Well, obviously it's deceitful. But in a way... I mean, if you produce a bunch of coal nobody wants, but you just keep piling it up to the point that the coal is devalued, eventually people will say "free coal? sure, I guess..." BAM! Supply creates demand! It's just the usual huckster logic. re: for-profit schools. I worked for a while as an instructor for some classes for an online "institute" owned by Education Management Corporation. It's funny to hear that they are being charged for "making illegal payments to recruiters." When I worked there I found that they were doing some unethical advising practices for their students. + Show Spoiler [story] +
Math is by far the greatest barrier to student retention, so advisers were told to plan out student schedules to only take math classes at the very end of their program. Aside from milking students for as long as possible before putting them through "the math gauntlet," where they are likely to fail and have to retake classes (and pay more) or drop out (and not get their certificate), it also created a situation where a huge number of students all needed to take the same math class at the same time, so there was a huge scramble for qualified (or even, not so qualified?) math instructors.
Ultimately, as someone very familiar with academia, every online or for-profit education institution I've ever experienced has come off as a "technically legal" way to dupe people out of their money and not give them anything of value in return. They lure in students who obviously can't afford what they're charging, or who are simply very unlikely to pass their classes, fill them with hope and dreams, take their money, and let them (most likely) crash. It's pretty shameful. "Real" colleges and universities do this too in all honesty, but to a much smaller degree. The entire "education" industry is a massive scam for the most part, in my country it's even worse. Entire universities where 90% of the curriculum has no prospective field to work in. Given that, maybe we should stop subsidizing with taxpayers money this massive fraud and not continue compounding the problem with infinite demand?
The US had amazing higher education in the past and most of the universities/colleges still exist. Broad education is a benefit to all of the nation. The problem with the US is we didn’t keep the cost under control or make sure the new colleges kept their standards up. The scam is the costs, not making programmers take civics classes.
|
On July 07 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:58 GoTuNk! wrote:On July 07 2017 02:30 Dromar wrote:On July 07 2017 01:49 NewSunshine wrote:That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this. Well, obviously it's deceitful. But in a way... I mean, if you produce a bunch of coal nobody wants, but you just keep piling it up to the point that the coal is devalued, eventually people will say "free coal? sure, I guess..." BAM! Supply creates demand! It's just the usual huckster logic. re: for-profit schools. I worked for a while as an instructor for some classes for an online "institute" owned by Education Management Corporation. It's funny to hear that they are being charged for "making illegal payments to recruiters." When I worked there I found that they were doing some unethical advising practices for their students. + Show Spoiler [story] +
Math is by far the greatest barrier to student retention, so advisers were told to plan out student schedules to only take math classes at the very end of their program. Aside from milking students for as long as possible before putting them through "the math gauntlet," where they are likely to fail and have to retake classes (and pay more) or drop out (and not get their certificate), it also created a situation where a huge number of students all needed to take the same math class at the same time, so there was a huge scramble for qualified (or even, not so qualified?) math instructors.
Ultimately, as someone very familiar with academia, every online or for-profit education institution I've ever experienced has come off as a "technically legal" way to dupe people out of their money and not give them anything of value in return. They lure in students who obviously can't afford what they're charging, or who are simply very unlikely to pass their classes, fill them with hope and dreams, take their money, and let them (most likely) crash. It's pretty shameful. "Real" colleges and universities do this too in all honesty, but to a much smaller degree. The entire "education" industry is a massive scam for the most part, in my country it's even worse. Entire universities where 90% of the curriculum has no prospective field to work in. Given that, maybe we should stop subsidizing with taxpayers money this massive fraud and not continue compounding the problem with infinite demand? The US had amazing higher education in the past and most of the universities/colleges still exist. Broad education is a benefit to all of the nation. The problem with the US is we didn’t keep the cost under control or make sure the new colleges kept their standards up. The scam is the costs, not making programmers take civics classes.
Don't you think the costs (prices) skyrocketed because of subsidized demand?
|
United States42695 Posts
It's a combination of factors.
|
On July 07 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 02:18 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized.
Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won. Do you know care about collateral damage? Honest question. You have to look at each foreign policy facet comprehensively and weigh the pros and cons. I think Obama hurt America's image abroad even despite the foreign media and polls reaction to his impressive oration and tone. You give away free stuff and deflect criticism (if believed) and nations might love yet not respect you or your interests. So when you say collateral damage, apart from the usual heartless conservative playbook line, I'd have to know more of what you meant to respond. Let's start with possible mistreatment of American citizens abroad. Or countries closing military bases. Or trade agreements being restructured that harms American goods more. Or any other possibility that may come to fruition. It's a guessing game really but I would like your opinion on it. Edit: As for Obama, go back to fiefdom. If I'm the king and I give you free food or more land to farm on, would you hate me? The first would matter for what cause. Is it just anger at not getting freebies or something more substancial from policy? I agree that protective trade agreements represent acts against America's interest. Like before, it would matter the comprehensive outlook of what we gained for the collateral damage to other areas. Maybe the travel ban hurts certain state sponsors of terrorism and we enjoy greater safety at the expense of hatred for the burdens on travel. Maybe the countries treating our citizens well is not worth the costs to appease their citizenry and government; it would have to be looked at. I know bribery is not always effective long-term. I think you understood my comment on America's image abroad. Suckers are well liked because you can trample all over them. There's even people today that would prefer an easy life of servanthood than the pain of standing on your feet and giving and demanding respect.
Thank you for responding.
|
On July 07 2017 02:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:34 nojok wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. What do you precisely expect from Trump outside of not running things like Clinton? What did he do until now which satisfies you and what did not? I think it would be a more interesting start for a discussion, let's forget Clinton even exists. We're lacking a bit of conservatives perspective in this thread. The three that Dangermouse found after refreshing the post he initially responded to. For Trump's presidency to be successful for the reasons I voted for him, he would have to add to Gorsuch a border wall (for the shitposters, not stretching every inch through umpassable terrain and sometimes fencing that works in San Diego today) and a full repeal of Obamacare. Trump will share the blame with congressional Republicans on the latter two if left unpassed. You can already show polling that voters are blaming congressional results more than Trump. Conservatives within the GOP that voted for Trump and still support some of what he does are lacking here, but I don't always have the time to formulate and source-search the proof to advance the conservative argument. This is particularly hard in times when six or more people respond in different veins. Oh. Oh dear. You want a border wall across Mexico. Nevermind that Donald Trump has made America less safe after meeting with the Saudis and doing th sword dance and touching the orb and shat on Qatar, possible the most important US military base on foreign soil outside of Japan. Nevermind that that he randomly ordered the biggest non-nuclear bomb to be dropped to distract from his ever present crises surrounding his presidency without regard. Nevermind the travel ban. Nevermind that the Office Office Director literally resigned over Trump enriching himself due to bureaucracy preventing him from doing his job. nevermind that you think Trump's presidency is successful because *campaign promises*. You want the wall wall across Mexico to be built. You truly are living in a post reality world.
|
On July 07 2017 03:20 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2017 02:58 GoTuNk! wrote:On July 07 2017 02:30 Dromar wrote:On July 07 2017 01:49 NewSunshine wrote:That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this. Well, obviously it's deceitful. But in a way... I mean, if you produce a bunch of coal nobody wants, but you just keep piling it up to the point that the coal is devalued, eventually people will say "free coal? sure, I guess..." BAM! Supply creates demand! It's just the usual huckster logic. re: for-profit schools. I worked for a while as an instructor for some classes for an online "institute" owned by Education Management Corporation. It's funny to hear that they are being charged for "making illegal payments to recruiters." When I worked there I found that they were doing some unethical advising practices for their students. + Show Spoiler [story] +
Math is by far the greatest barrier to student retention, so advisers were told to plan out student schedules to only take math classes at the very end of their program. Aside from milking students for as long as possible before putting them through "the math gauntlet," where they are likely to fail and have to retake classes (and pay more) or drop out (and not get their certificate), it also created a situation where a huge number of students all needed to take the same math class at the same time, so there was a huge scramble for qualified (or even, not so qualified?) math instructors.
Ultimately, as someone very familiar with academia, every online or for-profit education institution I've ever experienced has come off as a "technically legal" way to dupe people out of their money and not give them anything of value in return. They lure in students who obviously can't afford what they're charging, or who are simply very unlikely to pass their classes, fill them with hope and dreams, take their money, and let them (most likely) crash. It's pretty shameful. "Real" colleges and universities do this too in all honesty, but to a much smaller degree. The entire "education" industry is a massive scam for the most part, in my country it's even worse. Entire universities where 90% of the curriculum has no prospective field to work in. Given that, maybe we should stop subsidizing with taxpayers money this massive fraud and not continue compounding the problem with infinite demand? The US had amazing higher education in the past and most of the universities/colleges still exist. Broad education is a benefit to all of the nation. The problem with the US is we didn’t keep the cost under control or make sure the new colleges kept their standards up. The scam is the costs, not making programmers take civics classes. Don't you think the costs (prices) skyrocketed because of subsidized demand?
As Kwark said, it is a complex system and a lot of factors played into the rising costs. The government’s laissez faire policy while providing unlimited money(in the form of personal debt) for higher education has done a lot of damage over the decades. That doesn’t mean higher education is flawed(see large parts of the EU)
|
I'm fairly suprised that Americans consider their higher education to be a scam. Aren't American Universities highly sought after by overseas students?
|
On July 07 2017 03:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm fairly suprised that Americans consider their higher education to be a scam. Aren't American Universities highly sought after by overseas students?
I presume that overseas students return to their home country after education, whereupon the American University degree is rated higher than their local degree (usually...).
|
On July 07 2017 03:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm fairly suprised that Americans consider their higher education to be a scam. Aren't American Universities highly sought after by overseas students?
The value of it is well respected. The cost of it is what makes it questionable. When it comes to oversea students looking at American unis, they're looking at the better ones more often than not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
