US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8143

On July 21 2017 04:09 Logo wrote:
What's being said in that video? The line is hard to make out with all the background noise.

On July 21 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:

The celebrity “political expert” of the likes of Coulter and Milo created this climate speaking to inflame and anger, rather than substance. To these people, the Hollywood adage “all press is good press” is true. They court anger, rage and seek to inflame their opponents through belittling and dehumanizing them. Their viewpoints are molded to engage the most controversial issues of the moment with the grace of an air horn. There is no good faith argument to be had here. No exchange of ideas or moderated debate.

This and the police response is simply theater. This style of politics as entertainment has been mirrored by Fox News, MSNBC and CNN well over a decade now. And it all has been done with this attitude that there would be no consequences for screaming at and picking a fight with your political opponents on CNN each night. Don’t get me wrong, speaking truth to power is important. Freedom of speech is the core of our democracy. I’m not convinced that government needs to burden itself with assure a headline chase like Coulter her venue of choice when she has so many other outlets for her message.


I was taught that being a Nazi was a risky life choice and not recommended. Genocide is pretty unpopular. Right up there with having sex with 10 year old children and other horrible things. I don't feel when they get assaulted and laugh while thinking the police should arrest the person who punched the Nazi.

besides i find the idea that they "need" security to protect them from college kids a little silly and really just those two puffing up their own importance.

The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.

On July 21 2017 04:13 mozoku wrote:
@Plansix and zlefin
Who decides what is good speech and what is bad speech though?

Under the status quo, it's a combination of violent mobs and university administrators (who can apparently buckle to the mob if they think it's too expensive to restrain). I'm not sure I really like that for the system that's charged with educating our youth.

I'd rather universities simply set a strong precedent that violent protests will not be tolerated. That is how a functioning democracy should work, after all. It doesn't matter what the speaker is saying; violence has no place in our society. Isn't that a lesson the protesters should be learning at university anyway?

At any of these Milo or Ann Coulter events, has any student been expelled or otherwise punished by the universities? At the very least, you'd think a solution like making protesters where large name tags, holding the event in a venue with security cameras, and taking disciplinary action (for those who are acting belligerently) would be feasible and fairly cheap. The fear of being kicked out of uni, in combination with a moderate-sized security force, would probably be enough to keep the speakers safe.

I'm not very informed about universities efforts to keep the speakers safe. Has there been any real effort from them? I vaguely remember hearing from someone that Milo paid for a security force at DePaul last year (as DePaul refused to pay iirc) and they stood by while the protesters rushed past them.

On July 21 2017 04:13 mozoku wrote:
@Plansix and zlefin
Who decides what is good speech and what is bad speech though?

Under the status quo, it's a combination of violent mobs and university administrators (who can apparently buckle to the mob if they think it's too expensive to restrain). I'm not sure I really like that for the system that's charged with educating our youth.

I'd rather universities simply set a strong precedent that violent protests will not be tolerated. That is how a functioning democracy should work, after all. It doesn't matter what the speaker is saying; violence has no place in our society. Isn't that a lesson the protesters should be learning at university anyway?

At any of these Milo or Ann Coulter events, has any student been expelled or otherwise punished by the universities? At the very least, you'd think a solution like making protesters where large name tags, holding the event in a venue with security cameras, and taking disciplinary action (for those who are acting belligerently) would be feasible and fairly cheap. The fear of being kicked out of uni, in combination with a moderate-sized security force, would probably be enough to keep the speakers safe.

I'm not very informed about universities efforts to keep the speakers safe. Has there been any real effort from them? I vaguely remember hearing from someone that Milo paid for a security force at DePaul last year (as DePaul refused to pay iirc) and they stood by while the protesters rushed past them.

On July 21 2017 04:30 Falling wrote:

I was talking about Charles Murray who, while I don't know a lot about him, I do know from listening to his interview on Sam Harris' podcast that he is quite the opposite of an inflammatory person. If anything, I think he wants desperately to explain what his research actually was and how people are misconstruing- both the protestors and the race 'realists'. Charles didn't create this firestorm whatever you may think of his research. Therefore, in such cases, I think it's a mistake to blame the people getting shouted down for the people doing the shouting.

I mean, you say that but in the Murray case, they put a college professor into the hospital for a bit, Washington Post. Dunno. Seems like security or the police was kinda needed. Very rarely do I think speech warrants physical violence- even if they are outrage artists, or if they are discussing dishonestly, or if they are arguing in bad faith, and I don't think Murray is any of those and certainly not the professor that was actually injured. But suppose there was no violence and just shouting down- I don't that does any good. It is far better to let them speak into the void: debate or ignore, but the shouting shutdown, I don't think is effective except to harden ideological lines.

I’ve posted before about how Williamstown (Kentucky) officials are instituting a “safety fee” for ticket-taking attractions in the city.
If implemented, the city would charge Ark Encounter 50 cents per ticket to go towards things like fire trucks and police cars — all the things that make the city a safer place for residents and tourists. Using the estimate of 1.4 million visitors a year, this would amount to approximately $700,000 that Ark Encounter would owe the city annually.
The Creationists at Ark Encounter, however, say they should be exempt from that charge because they run a non-profit ministry. You wouldn’t force a church to pay taxes, now, would you?!
The problem is that up until now, Ark Encounter has legally been a for-profit business in order to receive a number of tax incentives from the city and state. That’s why officials in Williamstown figured they could ask Ark Encounter to pay up. It’s not a church; it’s a money-making tourist attraction. They recently went ahead with their plans to make Ark Encounter pay the fee.
City leaders are now bracing for a lawsuit from the very organization that was supposed to save the local economy.
Meanwhile, Ark Encounter just took the boldest step yet to avoid paying the 50 cent surcharge.
According to the Lexington Herald-Leader‘s Linda Blackford, the team behind Ark Encounter recently sold the land on which the giant boat rests for a whopping $10.
… Ark Encounter LLC sold its main parcel of land — the one with the life-size Noah’s Ark — for $10 to their non-profit affiliate, Crosswater Canyon. Although the property is worth $48 million according to the Grant County Property Valuation Administrator, the deed says its value is only $18.5 million.
That’s the latest salvo in an escalating argument between local officials and Ark Encounter, but some are worried Ark Encounter’s maneuver is a precursor to declaring itself exempt from all taxes, including property taxes that help fund Grant County schools.
Just to summarize here, Ark Encounter used its for-profit status to receive all sorts of tax breaks. Then the Creationists told Williamstown officials that they ran a non-profit ministry to avoid paying more taxes. And now they’re basically confessing that they were a for-profit business this whole time because they just sold the boat to the non-profit entity that oversees it.
If that’s confusing… well, welcome to how Creationists think.
Let’s suppose for a moment that all of this is legal. At best, it suggests that Ark Encounter is incredibly unethical. Williamstown gave the Creationists cheap land and tax breaks galore over the next few decades with the hope that Ark Encounter would eventually create lots of jobs and bring in tourists who would spend money at surrounding businesses.
Ken Ham is paying them back by restricting jobs to his anti-gay Creationist buddies, threatening to sue the city over the safety fee, and finding a way to possibly withhold taxes that would fund local schools.
[Mayor Rick] Skinner said losing all of Ark Encounter’s property taxes would hurt the city, county, and most of all, schools.
“It would be a huge hit to the schools,” he said.
Skinner said he is “disappointed” in how much the town’s relationship with Ark officials has deteriorated, but said he would wait to comment further until Tuesday’s meeting.
Here’s a statement that will surprise nobody: Ken Ham doesn’t care about public schools. When you’re playing the game of Christian indoctrination, education is the enemy. You think Ham gives a damn about public schools not getting money from his business? Not a chance. He’ll consider that a victory.
Once again, Creationists are screwing over the city that bent over backwards to give them a home. Critics have been saying that for years. Unfortunately, it looks like local officials are finally realizing it when it’s too late.

On July 21 2017 03:45 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Check out the President of the United State's deep understanding of how health insurance works. The man is a dangerous imbecile who has health insurance confused with term life insurance. If you still defend him, that makes you as dumb as he is.

(NYT interview this week)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/20/what-was-trump-talking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/?utm_term=.ed05321922a7

(Economist interview in May)

https://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

On July 21 2017 05:28 crms wrote:


Answers like this are why I find the 'i voted for Trump because of policy' to be pretty hard to believe. The guy has no fucking clue what he's talking about in regards to anything. You could listen to him speak at any point of the election cycle and figure that out. Remove all the Trump scandals and he'd still be a totally inept President, that's been painfully obvious from the start.

On July 21 2017 05:28 crms wrote:


Answers like this are why I find the 'i voted for Trump because of policy' to be pretty hard to believe. The guy has no fucking clue what he's talking about in regards to anything. You could listen to him speak at any point of the election cycle and figure that out. Remove all the Trump scandals and he'd still be a totally inept President, that's been painfully obvious from the start.

On July 21 2017 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:


Voting for Trump's "policy" was always a leap of faith completely unsupported by observable information. If someone voted for Trump the right response as to why is "I wanted a conservative Judge (more conservative than Merrick Garland) on the SC and I was wiling to risk the rest".

On July 21 2017 05:28 crms wrote:


Answers like this are why I find the 'i voted for Trump because of policy' to be pretty hard to believe. The guy has no fucking clue what he's talking about in regards to anything. You could listen to him speak at any point of the election cycle and figure that out. Remove all the Trump scandals and he'd still be a totally inept President which has been painfully obvious from the start.

On July 21 2017 06:11 Tachion wrote:

Border wall, trade deals, Muslim ban, repeal, deregulate, NATO. Trump had plenty of policy positions, they were just extremely simplified because Trump is a simpleton. People who bought into these simplistic policy positions aren't exclusively Trump voters either. How well do you think Bernie would be doing right now trying to get free college and single payer healthcare reform passed? People here still give Hillary shit for being pragmatic and not some starry-eyed idealist.

On July 21 2017 05:46 Doodsmack wrote:


Don't forget sticking it to the liberals and the media.

On July 21 2017 06:11 Tachion wrote:

Border wall, trade deals, Muslim ban, repeal, deregulate, NATO. Trump had plenty of policy positions, they were just extremely simplified because Trump is a simpleton. People who bought into these simplistic policy positions aren't exclusively Trump voters either. How well do you think Bernie would be doing right now trying to get free college and single payer healthcare reform passed? And people here still give Hillary shit for being pragmatic and not some starry-eyed idealist.

On July 21 2017 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:


If Bernie was there Democrats would be rallying in 2018 to pass those things and since they are popular, they would probably do a lot better than what Democrats are doing now.

On July 21 2017 06:11 Tachion wrote:

Border wall, trade deals, Muslim ban, repeal, deregulate, NATO. Trump had plenty of policy positions, they were just extremely simplified because Trump is a simpleton. People who bought into these simplistic policy positions aren't exclusively Trump voters either. How well do you think Bernie would be doing right now trying to get free college and single payer healthcare reform passed? And people here still give Hillary shit for being pragmatic and not some starry-eyed idealist.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos spoke to the annual meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, on Thursday in Denver, but protests from left-wing activists and teacher groups started Wednesday.

Hundreds marched from the state Capitol in Denver to the Hyatt Regency, the site of the speech, with signs reading: "Dump Betsy DeVos," "Take Devouchers Elsewhere" and "Stop School Privatization!"

DeVos' speeches have drawn notable protests before, as when she gave the commencement address at a historically black college. This time, her entire policy agenda is at issue. Ties between the DeVos family and ALEC go back decades. And there is barely any daylight between ALEC's education policies and the ones DeVos has advanced in her role as secretary.

Inez Feltscher, director of ALEC's education policy work, tells NPR Ed that DeVos "has been a wonderful champion for school choice both before and after becoming secretary of education, and advancing educational choice is one of the key issues we work on here at ALEC."

Every year ALEC brings together state legislators, free-market conservative lobbyist groups and corporate sponsors. Currently listed on the "leadership" page of its website are executives from the insurance, pharmaceutical, energy and telecom industries, as well as Don Lee, a former Republican legislator from Colorado turned head lobbyist for the for-profit online education company K12 Inc.

Together, these groups collaborate on model legislation. ALEC has a track record of getting the laws that it writes on the books in dozens of states with few changes.

"We see the same pieces of legislation being proposed in state, after state, after state," says Julie Underwood, an endowed chair in education policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has been investigating ALEC's actions in education for the past five years. She has tracked versions of ALEC bills through public records in state libraries.

In education, says Underwood, ALEC backs "vouchers, vouchers, vouchers," with variants such as education tax credits and tax-credit scholarships. They have written policies that make it easier to open charter schools, and to run for-profit and virtual schools. Other model bills weaken teacher tenure and other protections associated with unions, and also promote digital learning.

ALEC created the original school voucher bill in 1984. Free-market economist Milton Friedman, widely credited as the originator of the idea, spoke at the annual gathering in 2006. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, an organization critical of ALEC, Friedman said the ultimate goal was "abolishing the public school system," but that vouchers form a "politically feasible" way of getting there.

He argued that instead of using government money "to finance schools and buildings," money should go directly to parents, "so the parents can choose a school that they regard as best for their child."

During her speech today, DeVos also drew that distinction between supporting schools and supporting individual students. She displayed a critical Tweet about her from the American Federation of Teachers, the nation's largest teacher union, and said:

"They have made clear that they care more about a system – one that was created in the 1800s – than about individual students. They are saying education is not an investment in individual students. And they are totally wrong. What, exactly, is education if not an investment in students?"

Her rhetoric was more fiery than it's been since she assumed her post, as she talked about a "fight", a "struggle," and being on the "front lines". She invoked Margaret Thatcher's famous line that "there is no such thing" as "society." And she defended her decision to push reset on two higher ed regulations, gainful employment and borrower defense to repayment. She's being sued by 18 states and D.C. for the latter move.

DeVos highlighted that in the first six months of 2017, 23 states have passed 40 laws expanding school choice in some way. ALEC releases an annual "report card," ranking states by to how far they have gone in adopting policies ALEC supports. The state's friendliness toward charter and voucher schools gets the most weight; the list also includes test scores, deregulation of home schooling and access to technology in the classroom.

States that top other lists for student performance, like Massachusetts and Connecticut, earn a C and C-minus on this list. Head of the class are Arizona, which has "one of the most expansive school-voucher programs in the nation," and Florida, which has been called a "choice mecca." The connection between promoting vouchers and technology in the classroom may not be obvious. The common thread is a quest for profit, argues Underwood, the scholar who researches ALEC. "If you diminish the public system, the money will flow to private for-profit providers."

One model bill introduced in 2005, the "Virtual Public Schools Act," provides a particularly clear benefit to companies like K12 Inc.

Per ALEC's website, the policy says "virtual schools" that provide instruction completely online should receive the same state resources per pupil as a public school that must provide classrooms, transportation and lunch. This despite recurring questions about the performance of many online for-profit schools.

DeVos' ties to ALEC and K12 Inc are longstanding. The organization she founded and led, the American Federation for Children, has long been listed as a financial contributor to ALEC. She and her husband, Dick DeVos, have disclosed that they owned stock in K12 Inc. And Richard DeVos, Betsy DeVos' father-in-law, received ALEC's "Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award" in 1993, for his promotion of market-based school reform.

Still, the timing is interesting. Recent studies have shown mixed-to-negative results for voucher programs and there have been successful fights against voucher expansion even in staunchly red states like Texas. And, House Republicans have just rejected the school choice expansions in Trump's initial budget request.

If school choice does increase on DeVos' watch, it is likely to happen as it has been happening for decades: state-by-state, rather than on the federal level, with ALEC's guidance along the way.

On July 21 2017 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:

I once again point to the Democratic Primary where Bernie had an interview about policy and was shown to have pretty much no idea how to implement his banking reform, which was a big point in his campaign.

You saw a noticeable change in opinion of Bernie in this thread before and after this interview where a lot of Bernie fans switched to Hillary because of his lack of knowledge on how to get it done.

NEW YORK ― Al Gore called for single-payer health care on Tuesday, one day after a revolt by GOP senators dashed Republican hopes of passing a bill to repeal Obamacare.

Speaking at an event to promote his new climate change documentary, the former vice president said health insurance companies have failed to offer cost-effective coverage, even under the Affordable Care Act. A government-run, single-payer system would provide taxpayer-funded basic health care coverage for everyone.

“The private sector has not shown any ability to provide good, affordable health care for all,” Gore told a packed auditorium at Borough of Manhattan Community College. “I believe we ought to have single-payer health care.”

The statement makes the 2000 presidential nominee one of the first high-profile Democrats to advocate the so-called Medicare-for-all option since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) failed yet again this week to rally at least 50 of 52 Republican senators to pass a bill to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. Lacking the votes to flat-out repeal the law without a replacement, President Donald Trump vowed to stand by and allow Obamacare to collapse without the support needed from his agencies.

Gore blamed what he called the “morass” surrounding the passage of Obamacare in 2009 for tanking a cap-and-trade bill at the time in the Senate. The legislation would have established a limit on planet-warming carbon emissions and a system in which big companies could trade permits to pollute.

“In 2009, President Obama passed it in the House and he succeeded, but it was different when it came to the Senate,” Gore said at the 90-minute talk hosted by The New York Times to publicize his new movie, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” “I think we could have passed it in the Senate in 2009, and we could have gone to the climate negotiation in Copenhagen with a stronger hand, but that’s water under the dam.”

Gore did not include a universal government health care option in his platform during his unsuccessful bid for the White House in 2000. But, in 2002, indicated he “favored” such a policy.

“I think we’ve reached a point where the entire health care system is in impending crisis,” Gore said at an ABC News panel at the time. “I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we should begin drafting a single-payer national health insurance plan.”

Progressives, backed by strong grassroots support from the party’s base, moved swiftly to embrace single-payer proposals as the long-anticipated Republican assault on Obamacare began this year. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) launched a “Medicare for all” push in March. In June, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called it “the next step” for Democrats. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) endorsed the policy last month, declaring, “we should have Medicare for all.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), widely considered a contender for the 2020 presidential race, said earlier this month that “as a concept, I’m completely in support of single pay,” but insisted, “we’ve got to work out the details, and the details matter on that.”

Others on the establishment wing of the party have been more reluctant. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) ducked questions about universal government care, saying only that he was “looking at” Sanders’ bill, which hasn’t yet been publicly released. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to sign on to Ellison’s bill, and flatly said “no” when asked in May if single-payer health care should be part of the party’s 2018 platform.