|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 21 2018 07:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On April 21 2018 07:15 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2018 07:08 Gahlo wrote:On April 21 2018 07:07 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2018 06:02 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote:
Another state right to work state is faced with a teachers over education funding. We should not expect this to stop and it will like move over to other state employees pushed for more funding and support. My bet is these right to work states are going to continue to prompt strikes for the foreseeable future. I don't get how people expect public servants work for no pay. We care about our kids! just as long as we don't have to pay for them. We care about roads!! just as long as we never pay for it. We care about all these things! As long as we never have to pay for it A lot of people see teachers as glorified babysitters. It is a very sad situation. I'm not really sure how you convince people education is something that can have enormous benefits with increasing funding/importance. If people see teachers as babysitters they should be paid like one. Min wage per child per hour. inb4 all the good teachers move to states with high min. wage. And then they would be like the students they were teaching in their old state, fleeing it for better pay and more employment options. That is the part that convinces me that these Republicans have no idea how to govern states. Education is the number one things families moving to a new area care about. How do you cut education budgets while your own young adults are fleeing the state? A shrinking population will cause the state economy to implode. And then they somehow hope that cutting taxes will stimulate growth by attracting businesses. Rather than having well educated potential employees to attract business. If I understand correctly, though, Republicans don't want to govern states, right? They'd rather power was decentralised to whatever extreme they can get away with, right? That, and the Republicans have been the party of opposition for too long. They pretty clearly weren't ready to win this Presidency, and had been planning ahead to all the delightful opposition bitching they were going to do. Now they'd still doing that... only they're the ones who are expected to get things done at the same time. Not a good combo. they only like decentralised power when they're the ones benefiting from it. republican state governments often dislike devolving power to the localities, despite the rhetoric they sometimes use, especially if it's a locality they disagree with. there's been a number of disputes between state and local government over such matters on more politically sensitive areas (because cities tend to be far more Democratic, so there's some Dem cities in Republican states)
Republicans like when unions are political entities that are fighting for their rights and are pushing to make sure their voice is heard and that they are getting the things that they want. I believe that, generally speaking, on the local level, unions have a lot of power in terms of making sure that things are the way that they figure is right. Whether they are conservative or liberal shouldn't matter, although clearly it does matter to some degree. I guess I'm aware that presidential & national politics is more exciting in general and people don't care that much about local elections these days. That's sad, because that is where ppl can have the most impact! People need to get more involved in their clubs in general.
|
On April 22 2018 03:25 micronesia wrote:
ShoCkeyy I'm not really taking issue with how you feel about it. I'm taking issue (personally, not for TL) with what you choose to say in a public discussion. You are only making the 'problem' worse. zlefin has a point but that's not the whole issue. Complaining generically about the 'other side' may feel therapeutic but it's not.
I'm not complaining about the other side, I'm complaining about what my party turned into in the past 10 years. The hyper partisan levels is just too much, the denying of science is too much, the evangelical portion is 100x worse. All of this affects the outlook of how the GOP is looking, and it's future.
I don't feel like I need to be posting specifics because anybody with eyes can see what they're doing, and where they're heading. They say they love minimal government, but then turn around and use that same government to enforce garbage rules on people they dislike aka Women, "African Americans", and minorities.
I can also "vent" or "complain" about democrats too, but at least they try to be "progressive"...
|
On April 22 2018 03:52 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 07:38 zlefin wrote:On April 21 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On April 21 2018 07:15 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2018 07:08 Gahlo wrote:On April 21 2018 07:07 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2018 06:02 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/987411831248576512Another state right to work state is faced with a teachers over education funding. We should not expect this to stop and it will like move over to other state employees pushed for more funding and support. My bet is these right to work states are going to continue to prompt strikes for the foreseeable future. I don't get how people expect public servants work for no pay. We care about our kids! just as long as we don't have to pay for them. We care about roads!! just as long as we never pay for it. We care about all these things! As long as we never have to pay for it A lot of people see teachers as glorified babysitters. It is a very sad situation. I'm not really sure how you convince people education is something that can have enormous benefits with increasing funding/importance. If people see teachers as babysitters they should be paid like one. Min wage per child per hour. inb4 all the good teachers move to states with high min. wage. And then they would be like the students they were teaching in their old state, fleeing it for better pay and more employment options. That is the part that convinces me that these Republicans have no idea how to govern states. Education is the number one things families moving to a new area care about. How do you cut education budgets while your own young adults are fleeing the state? A shrinking population will cause the state economy to implode. And then they somehow hope that cutting taxes will stimulate growth by attracting businesses. Rather than having well educated potential employees to attract business. If I understand correctly, though, Republicans don't want to govern states, right? They'd rather power was decentralised to whatever extreme they can get away with, right? That, and the Republicans have been the party of opposition for too long. They pretty clearly weren't ready to win this Presidency, and had been planning ahead to all the delightful opposition bitching they were going to do. Now they'd still doing that... only they're the ones who are expected to get things done at the same time. Not a good combo. they only like decentralised power when they're the ones benefiting from it. republican state governments often dislike devolving power to the localities, despite the rhetoric they sometimes use, especially if it's a locality they disagree with. there's been a number of disputes between state and local government over such matters on more politically sensitive areas (because cities tend to be far more Democratic, so there's some Dem cities in Republican states) Republicans like when unions are political entities that are fighting for their rights and are pushing to make sure their voice is heard and that they are getting the things that they want. I believe that, generally speaking, on the local level, unions have a lot of power in terms of making sure that things are the way that they figure is right. Whether they are conservative or liberal shouldn't matter, although clearly it does matter to some degree. I guess I'm aware that presidential & national politics is more exciting in general and people don't care that much about local elections these days. That's sad, because that is where ppl can have the most impact! People need to get more involved in their clubs in general.
republicans are opposed to unions; so i'm not sure where you're getting them liking them from (if i'm even parsing that right, it's hard to tell)
I agree that more local attention would be good as people are more effective there; it's partly because it's harder to get good local news than good national news (at least to do so cheaply).
|
United States24680 Posts
On April 22 2018 04:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 03:25 micronesia wrote:
ShoCkeyy I'm not really taking issue with how you feel about it. I'm taking issue (personally, not for TL) with what you choose to say in a public discussion. You are only making the 'problem' worse. zlefin has a point but that's not the whole issue. Complaining generically about the 'other side' may feel therapeutic but it's not. I'm not complaining about the other side, I'm complaining about what my party turned into in the past 10 years. The hyper partisan levels is just too much, the denying of science is too much, the evangelical portion is 100x worse. All of this affects the outlook of how the GOP is looking, and it's future. I don't feel like I need to be posting specifics because anybody with eyes can see what they're doing, and where they're heading. They say they love minimal government, but then turn around and use that same government to enforce garbage rules on people they dislike aka Women, "African Americans", and minorities. I can also "vent" or "complain" about democrats too, but at least they try to be "progressive"...
I share some frustration but note that you are contributing to the elevated 'hyper partisan' levels for the reasons I gave before.
|
On April 22 2018 04:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 04:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 22 2018 03:25 micronesia wrote:
ShoCkeyy I'm not really taking issue with how you feel about it. I'm taking issue (personally, not for TL) with what you choose to say in a public discussion. You are only making the 'problem' worse. zlefin has a point but that's not the whole issue. Complaining generically about the 'other side' may feel therapeutic but it's not. I'm not complaining about the other side, I'm complaining about what my party turned into in the past 10 years. The hyper partisan levels is just too much, the denying of science is too much, the evangelical portion is 100x worse. All of this affects the outlook of how the GOP is looking, and it's future. I don't feel like I need to be posting specifics because anybody with eyes can see what they're doing, and where they're heading. They say they love minimal government, but then turn around and use that same government to enforce garbage rules on people they dislike aka Women, "African Americans", and minorities. I can also "vent" or "complain" about democrats too, but at least they try to be "progressive"... I share some frustration but note that you are contributing to the elevated 'hyper partisan' levels for the reasons I gave before.
is he contributing to it? or merely calling it out?
he's being hyperbolic, yes; but hyper partisan?
what would you have him do instead? and would that truly make a difference?
sometimes bad things need to be called out for what they are.
|
United States24680 Posts
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down.
|
On April 22 2018 05:14 micronesia wrote:
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down.
yes it can; but isn't the point here that they doubled down long long ago, and already entered the corner, and we're far past that point now?
also, are his points true or not?
if they're true, then even if impolitic, they are true. so I stand by my issue of it being a question of whether or not telling the truth is constructive.
and if you have to shade the truth in order to make it not a problem, then that's not telling the truth.
it sounds like you're endorsing ignoring/not saying the truth because it's impolitic; which is not an unreasonable stance, but be sure it's the one you intend to make.
|
United States24680 Posts
On April 22 2018 05:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 05:14 micronesia wrote:
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down. yes it can; but isn't the point here that they doubled down long long ago, and already entered the corner, and we're far past that point now?
This is giving up, and won't lead to anything good.
Also, are his points true or not? They are so generalized they honestly can't be evaluated fairly. I totally understand where his frustration is coming from though.
if they're true, then even if impolitic, they are true. so I stand by my issue of it being a question of whether or not telling the truth is constructive. As I said, the issue is usually how you tell the truth. What you include and what you omit can affect whether or not the person you are talking to or about takes you seriously.
and if you have to shade the truth in order to make it not a problem, then that's not telling the truth.
it sounds like you're endorsing ignoring/not saying the truth because it's impolitic; which is not an unreasonable stance, but be sure it's the one you intend to make.
I wasn't calling for shading the truth... if you look back I was talking about adding supporting information.
|
On April 22 2018 05:41 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 05:18 zlefin wrote:On April 22 2018 05:14 micronesia wrote:
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down. yes it can; but isn't the point here that they doubled down long long ago, and already entered the corner, and we're far past that point now? This is giving up, and won't lead to anything good. They are so generalized they honestly can't be evaluated fairly. I totally understand where his frustration is coming from though. Show nested quote +if they're true, then even if impolitic, they are true. so I stand by my issue of it being a question of whether or not telling the truth is constructive. As I said, the issue is usually how you tell the truth. What you include and what you omit can affect whether or not the person you are talking to or about takes you seriously. Show nested quote +and if you have to shade the truth in order to make it not a problem, then that's not telling the truth.
it sounds like you're endorsing ignoring/not saying the truth because it's impolitic; which is not an unreasonable stance, but be sure it's the one you intend to make. I wasn't calling for shading the truth... if you look back I was talking about adding supporting information.
and what does the supporting information change?
sure, it leaves a bit more to discuss over often; but it can also simply affirm the statement. people can and will be defensive regardless of the truth of the statement; why would supporting information prevent that?
sometimes giving up is the correct thing to do; or at least the best choice in a series of bad options. especially when one gets into the practical nature of politics.
I would say they can't be evaluted perfectly; but even a generalized statement can be evaluated somewhat. especially if it's reasonably clear what they mean and what they're referring to, or if the case is simply so well known.
whether the other person takes you seriously has no bearing on whether or not it is the truth. and I don't see him talking to anybody where it's going to make a difference here one way or the other anyways.
if you want to change how you tell the truth, then you are advocating changing the truth to a more palatable form by shading; you're just refusing to call it what it is because you don't want to admit it's shading the truth. it's still a fine and reasonable tactic; and effective.
also, this is getting too meta, do you have any objections to his reasonably clear points of substance?
|
Wow. Please free Danglars? This thread has become a complete "Republicans suck" circlejerk.
|
United States42685 Posts
On April 22 2018 14:11 Acrofales wrote:
Wow. Please free Danglars? This thread has become a complete "Republicans suck" circlejerk.
Take it to website feedback.
|
On April 21 2018 07:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 07:08 Gahlo wrote:On April 21 2018 07:07 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2018 06:02 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/987411831248576512Another state right to work state is faced with a teachers over education funding. We should not expect this to stop and it will like move over to other state employees pushed for more funding and support. My bet is these right to work states are going to continue to prompt strikes for the foreseeable future. I don't get how people expect public servants work for no pay. We care about our kids! just as long as we don't have to pay for them. We care about roads!! just as long as we never pay for it. We care about all these things! As long as we never have to pay for it A lot of people see teachers as glorified babysitters. It is a very sad situation. I'm not really sure how you convince people education is something that can have enormous benefits with increasing funding/importance. If people see teachers as babysitters they should be paid like one. Min wage per child per hour. inb4 all the good teachers move to states with high min. wage. And then they would be like the students they were teaching in their old state, fleeing it for better pay and more employment options. That is the part that convinces me that these Republicans have no idea how to govern states. Education is the number one things families moving to a new area care about. How do you cut education budgets while your own young adults are fleeing the state? A shrinking population will cause the state economy to implode. And then they somehow hope that cutting taxes will stimulate growth by attracting businesses. Rather than having well educated potential employees to attract business.
You say this, but you have no facts. If you look at census data per capita more people migrate from Democratic states to Republican (e.g. look at the rate of people fleeing places like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, etc.). If you look at the same per capita rates for places like Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, etc. you will see an upward trend. It's not like this information is difficult to find either, and for someone such as yourself that is a lawyer, this should be a no-brainer to enter this arena with the bare minimum of facts. Like someone else said, this thread is basically a circle-jerk fest, and I harbor very little affinity for the GOP, but outrageous claims like P6's need to be combated (esp. for its characterization that Government is the glue of society). Carry-on though flailing and wailing about GOP partisanry while speaking two-tongued.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/06/the-states-gaining-and-losing-the-most-migrants-and-money/#5faef15c52d7
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html
|
I haven't looked at the numbers in a few years (which is why I didn't comment on that claim), but anecdotally it seems like every Californian knows at least one person who's left the state recently.
It would appear this is still true, as CA gains from other blue states and loses residents to red states. It's gaining higher income people who can afford to live here and losing those who make less or have less education... which contributes to another trend: the social stratification that is really strong in CA right now.
Which reminds of another interesting point that I haven't looked into more, but it involves tax "leeching" states. You often here about how CA pays more to the federal government than it gets back, but it some ways this is deceiving. What happens is people work and pay taxes here then go and retire in states like Florida. So while you work you live in someplace like CA, but when you leave and start collecting what you are "owed" you are counted as part of a "tax drain" state. I haven't investigated this a lot but it's an interesting aside.
|
As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998
For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun.
(Have to read the article to see the survey data)
|
On April 22 2018 05:41 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 05:18 zlefin wrote:On April 22 2018 05:14 micronesia wrote:
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down. yes it can; but isn't the point here that they doubled down long long ago, and already entered the corner, and we're far past that point now? This is giving up, and won't lead to anything good. They are so generalized they honestly can't be evaluated fairly. I totally understand where his frustration is coming from though. Show nested quote +if they're true, then even if impolitic, they are true. so I stand by my issue of it being a question of whether or not telling the truth is constructive. As I said, the issue is usually how you tell the truth. What you include and what you omit can affect whether or not the person you are talking to or about takes you seriously. Show nested quote +and if you have to shade the truth in order to make it not a problem, then that's not telling the truth.
it sounds like you're endorsing ignoring/not saying the truth because it's impolitic; which is not an unreasonable stance, but be sure it's the one you intend to make. I wasn't calling for shading the truth... if you look back I was talking about adding supporting information.
I'm just going to note again that you're fucking terrible at this.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oShow nested quote +Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 Show nested quote +For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data)
Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)?
Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine.
|
On April 22 2018 20:37 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 05:41 micronesia wrote:On April 22 2018 05:18 zlefin wrote:On April 22 2018 05:14 micronesia wrote:
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down. yes it can; but isn't the point here that they doubled down long long ago, and already entered the corner, and we're far past that point now? This is giving up, and won't lead to anything good. Also, are his points true or not? They are so generalized they honestly can't be evaluated fairly. I totally understand where his frustration is coming from though. if they're true, then even if impolitic, they are true. so I stand by my issue of it being a question of whether or not telling the truth is constructive. As I said, the issue is usually how you tell the truth. What you include and what you omit can affect whether or not the person you are talking to or about takes you seriously. and if you have to shade the truth in order to make it not a problem, then that's not telling the truth.
it sounds like you're endorsing ignoring/not saying the truth because it's impolitic; which is not an unreasonable stance, but be sure it's the one you intend to make. I wasn't calling for shading the truth... if you look back I was talking about adding supporting information. I'm just going to note again that you're fucking terrible at this.
could you clarify what point you're trying to make? I can't tell; and I don't see you commenting on him in the last couple of pages, so I have no idea what you're referring back to.
|
On April 22 2018 22:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 20:37 Leporello wrote:On April 22 2018 05:41 micronesia wrote:On April 22 2018 05:18 zlefin wrote:On April 22 2018 05:14 micronesia wrote:
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down. yes it can; but isn't the point here that they doubled down long long ago, and already entered the corner, and we're far past that point now? This is giving up, and won't lead to anything good. Also, are his points true or not? They are so generalized they honestly can't be evaluated fairly. I totally understand where his frustration is coming from though. if they're true, then even if impolitic, they are true. so I stand by my issue of it being a question of whether or not telling the truth is constructive. As I said, the issue is usually how you tell the truth. What you include and what you omit can affect whether or not the person you are talking to or about takes you seriously. and if you have to shade the truth in order to make it not a problem, then that's not telling the truth.
it sounds like you're endorsing ignoring/not saying the truth because it's impolitic; which is not an unreasonable stance, but be sure it's the one you intend to make. I wasn't calling for shading the truth... if you look back I was talking about adding supporting information. I'm just going to note again that you're fucking terrible at this. could you clarify what point you're trying to make? I can't tell; and I don't see you commenting on him in the last couple of pages, so I have no idea what you're referring back to.
Looks like you're gonna have to wait for his response lol
|
On April 22 2018 15:35 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 07:15 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2018 07:08 Gahlo wrote:On April 21 2018 07:07 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2018 06:02 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/987411831248576512Another state right to work state is faced with a teachers over education funding. We should not expect this to stop and it will like move over to other state employees pushed for more funding and support. My bet is these right to work states are going to continue to prompt strikes for the foreseeable future. I don't get how people expect public servants work for no pay. We care about our kids! just as long as we don't have to pay for them. We care about roads!! just as long as we never pay for it. We care about all these things! As long as we never have to pay for it A lot of people see teachers as glorified babysitters. It is a very sad situation. I'm not really sure how you convince people education is something that can have enormous benefits with increasing funding/importance. If people see teachers as babysitters they should be paid like one. Min wage per child per hour. inb4 all the good teachers move to states with high min. wage. And then they would be like the students they were teaching in their old state, fleeing it for better pay and more employment options. That is the part that convinces me that these Republicans have no idea how to govern states. Education is the number one things families moving to a new area care about. How do you cut education budgets while your own young adults are fleeing the state? A shrinking population will cause the state economy to implode. And then they somehow hope that cutting taxes will stimulate growth by attracting businesses. Rather than having well educated potential employees to attract business. You say this, but you have no facts. If you look at census data per capita more people migrate from Democratic states to Republican (e.g. look at the rate of people fleeing places like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, etc.). If you look at the same per capita rates for places like Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, etc. you will see an upward trend. It's not like this information is difficult to find either, and for someone such as yourself that is a lawyer, this should be a no-brainer to enter this arena with the bare minimum of facts. Like someone else said, this thread is basically a circle-jerk fest, and I harbor very little affinity for the GOP, but outrageous claims like P6's need to be combated (esp. for its characterization that Government is the glue of society). Carry-on though flailing and wailing about GOP partisanry while speaking two-tongued. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/06/the-states-gaining-and-losing-the-most-migrants-and-money/#5faef15c52d7https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html
I don't think the trend is quite as clear cut as you or that Forbes guy make it out. It's more a flow of people with means to move from high COL areas to lower COL living areas which still have decent job opportunities. Here's something I think is a little more simple than the "attraction ratio".
![[image loading]](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4616-750-563.png)
You can see some states like Illinois, California and New York losing people because it's stupid expensive. But, it looks like the sort of person moving away from these states is a highly-employable skilled professional who figures they can get more bang for their buck somewhere else. There are plenty of destinations for these people, Texas as mentioned, Georgia, South Carolina, but also Oregon and Washington. Meanwhile, you still see a net outflow from the Midwest and Rust Belt of people as well.
|
United States24680 Posts
On April 22 2018 22:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 20:37 Leporello wrote:On April 22 2018 05:41 micronesia wrote:On April 22 2018 05:18 zlefin wrote:On April 22 2018 05:14 micronesia wrote:
I'm referring to the way it drives the people he's describing further into their corners. On the one hand I agree sometimes it's difficult or impossible in a particular discussion to use logical arguments to convince people to stop voting against their own interests, but describing them using blanket statements does have the ability to convince people to double down. yes it can; but isn't the point here that they doubled down long long ago, and already entered the corner, and we're far past that point now? This is giving up, and won't lead to anything good. Also, are his points true or not? They are so generalized they honestly can't be evaluated fairly. I totally understand where his frustration is coming from though. if they're true, then even if impolitic, they are true. so I stand by my issue of it being a question of whether or not telling the truth is constructive. As I said, the issue is usually how you tell the truth. What you include and what you omit can affect whether or not the person you are talking to or about takes you seriously. and if you have to shade the truth in order to make it not a problem, then that's not telling the truth.
it sounds like you're endorsing ignoring/not saying the truth because it's impolitic; which is not an unreasonable stance, but be sure it's the one you intend to make. I wasn't calling for shading the truth... if you look back I was talking about adding supporting information. I'm just going to note again that you're fucking terrible at this. could you clarify what point you're trying to make? I can't tell; and I don't see you commenting on him in the last couple of pages, so I have no idea what you're referring back to.
He's referring to one or two previous conversations about U.S. gun laws such as this post (also he was warned for it lol): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/313472-if-youre-seeing-this-topic-then-another-mass-shooting-happened-and-people-disagree-on-what-to-do?page=700#13989
It seems my attempts to not entirely agree with the positions or methods of either extreme on these hyperpartisan issues rub him the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
