|
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 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape.
Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status.
Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. I'm not saying Bernie can't win. He may well do so, but its a very wide field and currently there is nothing to on except name recognition and media exposure.
A lot can, and probably will change in the 10 orso months until the first voting even happens.
|
On April 24 2019 00:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 00:22 On_Slaught wrote:
Teachers absolutely should get paid a lot more (attracting higher quality ones as a side benefit), but one problem is paying for it. Unlike lawyers, engineers, doctors, accountants, and the like, the vast majority of teachers are public employees (pre college). Few are the municipalities that can pay thousands of teachers an engineers wage, especially in poor neighborhoods where they are most needed. For us the Teachers are paid provincially, so that helps in the poorer neighborhoods. But the police and fire are paid municipally and they take up over half of the cities budget, because they get paid well and have early retirement with good pensions. But then they probably should get paid well, so what you gonna do?
This is an important point. One of the reasons teachers are so poorly paid in the US is because local towns are required to fund their own schools. Rich towns get nice schools. Poor towns get less than nice schools. The argument for this is that the locals have more control over their schools. But the cost of that control is the state is not required to fund the school, but makes all the rules for how the school functions. Canada does not function on this system, so they have more uniform school funding.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On April 24 2019 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 23:17 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2019 23:00 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t think what you pay them is all that important vs identifying and getting rid of bad teachers, or giving them the assistance to not be bad.
In a way you don’t want it to be too lucrative necessarily, in that people who are good teachers tend to be intrinsically motivated to teach to some degree. I mean obviously I’m exaggerating but you don’t want the kinds of folks who go into finance for the money ending up in teaching
But yes they should be paid more considering the importance of what they do. On basically every way of thinking about it from the moralistic to the ruthlessly pragmatic ‘we are dogs of the capitalist machine’, good teachers help you get better cogs. On April 23 2019 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
Pay over here could be better, I have a lot of family who teach, both in Norn Iron and England.
Their chief gripe isn’t pay, obviously everyone would like to be paid more if it was an option, but it’s continuous changes to the curriculum that are based on political whims rather than good evidence-based tweaks informed by any expertise on how children optimally learn. My thoughts exactly. Pay can attract better teachers. It can't remove bad ones, or retrain them. Kid's educations are not first priority. I'd be interested to know what you've seen in political whims influencing education curriculums abroad, from the family you know teaching in NI & England. You're right that paying teachers more doesn't remove the existing bad ones, but the existing bad ones is a temporary problem. If we suddenly start hiring extremely good teachers, our average teacher quality will only go up with time. 50 years later, all the previous bad teachers have already retired. In my current position, there is a reason 95% of my coworkers are really good at their jobs. It is very difficult to get a job where I work because we pay a lot and have great benefits. As a result, there are quite a few applicants, so we have the luxury of only accepting great people. If being a teacher meant really good pay and great benefits, I'd totally be a teacher. I'm a really good tutor and a great lecturer. There are other people I know in the same boat. "Oh I'd love to be a teacher, but I also want to be at least somewhat respected and be able to afford my mortgage", so that's where it stops. Sure, we end up overpaying shitty teachers for a little bit. But 500 years from now, we would look back at the fact that we haven't been overpaying shitty teachers for the past 450 years. We shouldn't be discouraged by momentarily overpaying bad people when we have so much data showing high pay attracts great people. We could have a really good fleet of teachers over 10-20 years if we drastically increased pay to be competitive with industries we are trying to take people from.
I mean it’ll vary, for me pay isn’t a super big deal.
There are other barriers to entry, namely retraining. It’s something I’d like to do/am semi-decent at (which I only discovered relatively late in life) and enjoy doing anyway.
In the UK they do help ease that process but in specific problem areas, maths especially I believe.
As it is I want to retrain anyway, but I have to pay fees out of pocket, so I mean I can go back to school and be flat broke for 3 years, or do that and then do the additional teaching stuff on top and be flat broke for another 2-3 years on top of that.
That’s a lot of stress and pressure to be able to commit to, especially as the courses themselves are pretty demanding and stringent.
|
On April 23 2019 23:48 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 23:17 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2019 23:00 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t think what you pay them is all that important vs identifying and getting rid of bad teachers, or giving them the assistance to not be bad.
In a way you don’t want it to be too lucrative necessarily, in that people who are good teachers tend to be intrinsically motivated to teach to some degree. I mean obviously I’m exaggerating but you don’t want the kinds of folks who go into finance for the money ending up in teaching
But yes they should be paid more considering the importance of what they do. On basically every way of thinking about it from the moralistic to the ruthlessly pragmatic ‘we are dogs of the capitalist machine’, good teachers help you get better cogs. On April 23 2019 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
Pay over here could be better, I have a lot of family who teach, both in Norn Iron and England.
Their chief gripe isn’t pay, obviously everyone would like to be paid more if it was an option, but it’s continuous changes to the curriculum that are based on political whims rather than good evidence-based tweaks informed by any expertise on how children optimally learn. My thoughts exactly. Pay can attract better teachers. It can't remove bad ones, or retrain them. Kid's educations are not first priority. I'd be interested to know what you've seen in political whims influencing education curriculums abroad, from the family you know teaching in NI & England. It basically bounces between moving to more continuous assessment, back to being more exam focused and back again depending if Labour or the Conservatives are in. I mean I’m broad brushing but basically it’s not just that changes are always bad, it’s that they’re continually being changed, nothing is left to settle and a lot of the changes being made are purely political signalling rather than being good changes. Then theirs individual changes to curriculums in specific subjects, to the detriment of education IMO. So our English curriculum lost socially interesting books because apparently we needed more British authors. I can’t remember off hand 100% what books were swapped out, I think to Kill a Mockingbird was one, and they weren’t really replaced with stuff of equivalent social value IMO (and a lot of people’s Meanwhile all evidence I’ve ever seen shows people, not just children learn better in short chunks with frequent short breaks, but we don’t make changes like those part of these ‘reforms’. Or deal with the problem of expanding class sizes.
This is good to know. I know a lot on my country’s debate, reform, signaling, political involvement, but no too much about the UK.
|
On April 24 2019 00:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. I'm not saying Bernie can't win. He may well do so, but its a very wide field and currently there is nothing to on except name recognition and media exposure. A lot can, and probably will change in the 10 orso months until the first voting even happens.
Well...
It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen".
He's the prohibitive front runner and it's going to take a massive shift in support (that hasn't been explained or even imagined at all) to change that.
Bernie's support is most definitely not just name recognition and media exposure, otherwise Biden would have over 500,000 volunteers and thousands of organizing events (more than 2016) set up all across the country this weekend too. As well as crushing the competition in grassroots fundraising
|
Norway28691 Posts
I gotta echo simberto's feelings. I mean, as a Norwegian teacher I don't feel underpaid (I earn above median below average salary), and I'm sure there are other groups that do less important and valued and difficult and time consuming jobs that earn more, but my salary is high enough for me to be happy with it.
Stuff like smaller classes and up to date&functional learning equipment (also online stuff you have to pay for), more assistants, that would definitely be more important than increasing teacher salary. But it depends where your point of departure is - if engineers are making twice as much and not just 25% more then I can see how it detracts some would-be competent teachers from going down that career path. At the same time, I also don't want teachers to choose teaching because of the pay, as that'd attract the type of person I wouldn't want to be responsible for teaching kids - give me gentle hippie pedagogues any day of the week. 
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On April 24 2019 00:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 23:48 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 23 2019 23:17 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2019 23:00 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t think what you pay them is all that important vs identifying and getting rid of bad teachers, or giving them the assistance to not be bad.
In a way you don’t want it to be too lucrative necessarily, in that people who are good teachers tend to be intrinsically motivated to teach to some degree. I mean obviously I’m exaggerating but you don’t want the kinds of folks who go into finance for the money ending up in teaching
But yes they should be paid more considering the importance of what they do. On basically every way of thinking about it from the moralistic to the ruthlessly pragmatic ‘we are dogs of the capitalist machine’, good teachers help you get better cogs. On April 23 2019 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
Pay over here could be better, I have a lot of family who teach, both in Norn Iron and England.
Their chief gripe isn’t pay, obviously everyone would like to be paid more if it was an option, but it’s continuous changes to the curriculum that are based on political whims rather than good evidence-based tweaks informed by any expertise on how children optimally learn. My thoughts exactly. Pay can attract better teachers. It can't remove bad ones, or retrain them. Kid's educations are not first priority. I'd be interested to know what you've seen in political whims influencing education curriculums abroad, from the family you know teaching in NI & England. It basically bounces between moving to more continuous assessment, back to being more exam focused and back again depending if Labour or the Conservatives are in. I mean I’m broad brushing but basically it’s not just that changes are always bad, it’s that they’re continually being changed, nothing is left to settle and a lot of the changes being made are purely political signalling rather than being good changes. Then theirs individual changes to curriculums in specific subjects, to the detriment of education IMO. So our English curriculum lost socially interesting books because apparently we needed more British authors. I can’t remember off hand 100% what books were swapped out, I think to Kill a Mockingbird was one, and they weren’t really replaced with stuff of equivalent social value IMO (and a lot of people’s Meanwhile all evidence I’ve ever seen shows people, not just children learn better in short chunks with frequent short breaks, but we don’t make changes like those part of these ‘reforms’. Or deal with the problem of expanding class sizes. This is good to know. I know a lot on my country’s debate, reform, signaling, political involvement, but no too much about the UK.
I imagine it’s broadly similar, here there’s a lot of ‘rote learning was good enough in my day’ kind of close-mindedness
I recall criticisms of Common Core that I’ve seen being often from a position like that, maths especially.
From what I’ve read, and talking to friends who do advanced maths, they all say that changes mightn’t seem intuitive to many but they form a better relationship with numbers that ultimately eases the transition to more advanced mathematics.
I’m broad brushing as Common Core covers a lot as I understand it, but those were generally my experience in discussions around it.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On April 24 2019 00:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:I gotta echo simberto's feelings. I mean, as a Norwegian teacher I don't feel underpaid (I earn above median below average salary), and I'm sure there are other groups that do less important and valued and difficult and time consuming jobs that earn more, but my salary is high enough for me to be happy with it. Stuff like smaller classes and up to date&functional learning equipment (also online stuff you have to pay for), more assistants, that would definitely be more important than increasing teacher salary. But it depends where your point of departure is - if engineers are making twice as much and not just 25% more then I can see how it detracts some would-be competent teachers from going down that career path. At the same time, I also don't want teachers to choose teaching because of the pay, as that'd attract the type of person I wouldn't want to be responsible for teaching kids - give me gentle hippie pedagogues any day of the week.
Yeah that’s kind of my position on pay.
There is definitely a sweet spot somewhere between it being too low as it is now, and attracting more talent, vs attracting people without an intrinsic desire to teach.
|
On April 24 2019 01:00 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 00:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:I gotta echo simberto's feelings. I mean, as a Norwegian teacher I don't feel underpaid (I earn above median below average salary), and I'm sure there are other groups that do less important and valued and difficult and time consuming jobs that earn more, but my salary is high enough for me to be happy with it. Stuff like smaller classes and up to date&functional learning equipment (also online stuff you have to pay for), more assistants, that would definitely be more important than increasing teacher salary. But it depends where your point of departure is - if engineers are making twice as much and not just 25% more then I can see how it detracts some would-be competent teachers from going down that career path. At the same time, I also don't want teachers to choose teaching because of the pay, as that'd attract the type of person I wouldn't want to be responsible for teaching kids - give me gentle hippie pedagogues any day of the week. Yeah that’s kind of my position on pay. There is definitely a sweet spot somewhere between it being too low as it is now, and attracting more talent, vs attracting people without an intrinsic desire to teach.
I don't really see how that is relevant at all. People who don't actually want to teach, but are just doing it for the money will either suck at it, and be replaced because there is no longer a shortage of teachers due to the awesome pay. Or they won't suck at it, and be good teachers despite only doing it "as a job", rather than as a calling.
I'm pretty sure that right now there are also people who choose to teach despite not being good at it. And because there's a shortage of teachers, they can't really be replaced, so the shitty teachers stay there. It being your "calling" doesn't make you good at it (although it does make it more likely).
|
If we could get to Norway levels of education funding and teacher pay, the US would be kick ass. Right now we can barely keep good teachers from leaving and there is a low key push to turn education over to the private sector.
|
On April 24 2019 01:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 01:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 24 2019 00:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:I gotta echo simberto's feelings. I mean, as a Norwegian teacher I don't feel underpaid (I earn above median below average salary), and I'm sure there are other groups that do less important and valued and difficult and time consuming jobs that earn more, but my salary is high enough for me to be happy with it. Stuff like smaller classes and up to date&functional learning equipment (also online stuff you have to pay for), more assistants, that would definitely be more important than increasing teacher salary. But it depends where your point of departure is - if engineers are making twice as much and not just 25% more then I can see how it detracts some would-be competent teachers from going down that career path. At the same time, I also don't want teachers to choose teaching because of the pay, as that'd attract the type of person I wouldn't want to be responsible for teaching kids - give me gentle hippie pedagogues any day of the week. Yeah that’s kind of my position on pay. There is definitely a sweet spot somewhere between it being too low as it is now, and attracting more talent, vs attracting people without an intrinsic desire to teach. I don't really see how that is relevant at all. People who don't actually want to teach, but are just doing it for the money will either suck at it, and be replaced because there is no longer a shortage of teachers due to the awesome pay. Or they won't suck at it, and be good teachers despite only doing it "as a job", rather than as a calling. I'm pretty sure that right now there are also people who choose to teach despite not being good at it. And because there's a shortage of teachers, they can't really be replaced, so the shitty teachers stay there. It being your "calling" doesn't make you good at it (although it does make it more likely).
Teachers are paid well in Switzerland and we still have a big shortage. You get bad people in every foeld no matter the paycheck, I don't really see the point of this argument.
|
On April 24 2019 01:34 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 01:26 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 01:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 24 2019 00:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:I gotta echo simberto's feelings. I mean, as a Norwegian teacher I don't feel underpaid (I earn above median below average salary), and I'm sure there are other groups that do less important and valued and difficult and time consuming jobs that earn more, but my salary is high enough for me to be happy with it. Stuff like smaller classes and up to date&functional learning equipment (also online stuff you have to pay for), more assistants, that would definitely be more important than increasing teacher salary. But it depends where your point of departure is - if engineers are making twice as much and not just 25% more then I can see how it detracts some would-be competent teachers from going down that career path. At the same time, I also don't want teachers to choose teaching because of the pay, as that'd attract the type of person I wouldn't want to be responsible for teaching kids - give me gentle hippie pedagogues any day of the week. Yeah that’s kind of my position on pay. There is definitely a sweet spot somewhere between it being too low as it is now, and attracting more talent, vs attracting people without an intrinsic desire to teach. I don't really see how that is relevant at all. People who don't actually want to teach, but are just doing it for the money will either suck at it, and be replaced because there is no longer a shortage of teachers due to the awesome pay. Or they won't suck at it, and be good teachers despite only doing it "as a job", rather than as a calling. I'm pretty sure that right now there are also people who choose to teach despite not being good at it. And because there's a shortage of teachers, they can't really be replaced, so the shitty teachers stay there. It being your "calling" doesn't make you good at it (although it does make it more likely). Teachers are paid well in Switzerland and we still have a big shortage. You get bad people in every foeld no matter the paycheck, I don't really see the point of this argument.
That was kinda my point: keeping pay low so only people who have a "calling" to do it in order to keep people out who are only there for the paycheck is a bad argument.
|
United States43017 Posts
On April 23 2019 22:57 Plansix wrote:
The pay for teachers is a joke these days and they should be paid equal to the most valuable professions on the market. A fully licensed plumber can pull down $80-100K a year if they are into the hustle. And education of our children is as valuable as running water.
Trades are harder on your body than people give them credit for. That $100k needs to be averaged across a working career half the length of that of a teacher, and a lifetime of joint problems and pain.
|
United States43017 Posts
On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy.
I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck.
The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing.
|
The vast majority of people have a very poor grasp of how to compare large numbers, as KwarK points out above. That lack of understanding gives monied interests lots of room to deceive all these temporarily embarrassed (bil)millionaires.
|
On April 24 2019 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 22:57 Plansix wrote:
The pay for teachers is a joke these days and they should be paid equal to the most valuable professions on the market. A fully licensed plumber can pull down $80-100K a year if they are into the hustle. And education of our children is as valuable as running water. Trades are harder on your body than people give them credit for. That $100k needs to be averaged across a working career half the length of that of a teacher, and a lifetime of joint problems and pain.
Let me re-phrase that. There is no reason a teacher should be making less than a paralegal or accountant. In fact, they should be making as much as an attorney given the level of education required. That on top of the continuing education they are required to do to keep up with their profession.
And stress is pretty hard on the body. And dealing with other people's children creates stress. Especially when the school is serving as the point of stability in the child's life because the parents are disaster humans.
On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in your paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing.
Just given the quick math on Bernie: If he pulled in one million from that book and his salary as a senator, he could buy each of his grandchildren a house if they were under 150K. A quick search in Vermont leaves me unimpressed.
Get a free million is cool. But nothing compared to a free billion.
|
Word is Biden is officially joining the race this week. Seems he is undeterred by the recent problems he has faced.
Also, all the reporting I'm seeing is that the conservatives on SCOTUS all showed their hand in oral arguments today. We 99% are going to get the citizenship question on the census. The only silver lining is this will hurt red states (like TX, AZ, FL) as much or more than blue states, so hopefully there is some bipartisan backlash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
