Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

[TwiceHorn 32108]

8 minutes ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

That's great and all. Ohio went twice for Obama and twice for Trump. It aint race. I know yall want to believe it is race. Look at other things. Be logical. CR is crazy... 

You fucking moron.

[Willfully Horn 8284]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

They can also decline. 

And it doesn't have to be economies.  Check out the higher education thread.  There's only so many seats at the table, as it were. And if you don't get that seat, well, there's always aggy I guess.

Falling markets are but another opportunity. If we limit the discussion to top 25 college admissions, I’ll concede your point. But, I think the question is much larger. 

[TwiceHorn 32108]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ah, well, that nothing unique to the US. I always viewed it more thru a political lens. 

Yeah, it's an upper-class/lower-class thing that goes on everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  Pretty sure the cartoon is of British origin, anyway.  

Trump was masterful at it.

And that's not political?

 

[UpperWestside 6285]

1 hour ago, mchookem said:

ok, you may not be racist, but your character is questionable.

i don't get it. never will. and i don't want to get it bc that would mean i have some of that same rot. fuck that.

I am trying to think of a good way to phrase this when talking about what you are saying. I think the most straightforward way is that if you value money, things, personal wealth while ignoring the inherent racism then yes that makes people who do that part of the problem we have in America and worldwide. 
 

This isn’t a new phenomenon by any means, but now people who feel this way can connect with millions of like-minded people through social media who choose money over decency and sitting on the sidelines versus doing the right thing by our fellow human beings. In the end your money doesn’t matter. What you leave behind in possessions does not matter. What matters is when the moment arose in your life to do the right thing and help those the downtrodden in society did you answer the call and make an effort to do something positive for others or did you ignore the situation, say it isn’t your problem and move on?

I will gladly admit that before the summer of 2020 I did not back up my words with near enough action. I still feel like I need to do more for others because helping others is a gigantic part of the human experience. People who willfully neglect others are people I just feel sad for. They will live out their days arguing about stuff that does not matter and they’ll miss out on so many incredible things solely because of being selfish. 

[tchookem 3986]

Well, and they also really haven't succeeded in doing shit for the working man in at least 20 years.  So, a fair number of the working men went with their baser instincts.

I would say that a lot of working men didn't have affordable health insurance. Obamacare attempted to do that. Of course both my working man, Obama-hating stepbrothers jumped at the chance to save some money on insuring their 7 kids. Then they voted for Trump because they hate socialism (and Mexicans).

[mchookem 16784]

jfc somebody kick PAC, he's stuck in a loop.

 

[TwiceHorn 32108]

8 minutes ago, tchookem said:

I would say that a lot of working men didn't have affordable health insurance. Obamacare attempted to do that. Of course both my working man, Obama-hating stepbrothers jumped at the chance to save some money on insuring their 7 kids. Then they voted for Trump because they hate socialism (and Mexicans).

Yeah, if you don't make much money (qualify for subsidy) and don't have an employer-sponsored plan, Obamacare is probably tits.

I'm curious, though, had they been forced (by the tax penalty) to get insurance pre-Obamacare whether it would have been less expensive.

[tchookem 3986]

Yeah, if you don't make much money (qualify for subsidy) and don't have an employer-sponsored plan, Obamacare is probably tits.
I'm curious, though, had they been forced (by the tax penalty) to get insurance pre-Obamacare whether it would have been less expensive.

To be honest, I don't know those details of their family finances. I just know that they were happy to use ACA, but not happy enough to vote for the party that made it happen.

[Satchel 6983]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I don't think we wonder about that at all. 

And as far as Congress is concerned, that will keep swinging back and forth for the foreseeable future. So will the White House.

And at some point, Americans will tire of losing presidential elections while winning the popular vote by wide margins. 

[henrygandorf 29229]

things i just recently learned:

1. states as a whole can be racist or not racist

2. those states vote or don’t vote for candidates based on said racism

3. 100% of the citizens in these states vote 

4. the same exact people voted in 2008 as 2020

i am fully caught up now. as you were. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6598]

5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

things i just recently learned:

1. states as a whole can be racist or not racist

2. those states vote or don’t vote for candidates based on said racism

3. 100% of the citizens in these states vote 

4. the same exact people voted in 2008 as 2020

i am fully caught up now. as you were. 

Not quite.  You need to post that same thing 100 more times even when others on this board attempt to explain why it is incorrect.   Once you are finished you will receive your degree in Masters of Trolling.  Good luck sir!

[babysdaddy 2731]

10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

My starter wife was from Cleveland.  She wasn't at all racist.  The rest of her family was overtly so.  Notre Dame grads, too.  N-words flew like "please" and "thank you".  It was surprising, but really quite common for Ohio.

Polite racists are a humorous concept.  "Please pass the gravy while we make sure the blacks can't vote.  thank you". 

Did you point out to them that Catholics (I assume they were/are) were held in similar regard to black folks by the Klan?

[Gourmand 7778]

1 hour ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

Read your article from the Washington Post. Doesn't explain any of it. How did Trump carry Ohio a historic swing state by more points than TX? It isnt race. It's blue collar switching. If you can't see that then good luck. 

That article explains what you keep demanding everyone answer, maybe you just refuse to listen? No one denies that a sizable chunk of blue collar whites voted for Trump, but you are delusional if you think race and gender did not play a big role in Trump winning Ohio in 2016. Also, Trump didn't carry Ohio (+8) by more points than Texas (+9) and Texas had 78% voter turnout in 2016 to Ohio's 71%, so that comparison doesn't exactly carry the weight you think it does. Black voter turnout in Ohio in 2016 was lower compared to black voter turnout in 2008 and 2012 for one very obvious reason (Obama) and some less obvious reasons as well--1) the voter ID law Ohio passed in 2012 also drove black voter turnout 2) that voter ID law aimed at voter suppression likely was effective in 2016 and beyond, along with voter purges that happened last year. Do you think stories like this have an effect on voter turnout in Ohio?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/ohio-voter-purge.html

And if race wasn't a factor, why did the Trump campaign target 3.5 million black Americans with facebook and other social media ads aimed at getting them to sit out the election?

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-trump-campaign-strategy-to-deter-millions-of-black-americans-from-voting-in-2016

 

[wildcat09 29600]

Reading PAC's posts the past few pages, it's pretty clear he's not working with a full deck upstairs. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 hours ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

OK, the people that voted for the 1st black woman in VA in state office are secretly racist? 

These Virginians voted for a racist.

[JimmyJames 12271]

43 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

These Virginians voted for a racist.

Which pic are you in? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Reading PAC's posts the past few pages, it's pretty clear he's not working with a full deck upstairs. 

He’s being a passive aggressive bitchass like always. Says it right in the handle. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19331]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

 

This is the kind of Johnny Sack post I could get behind.

[Willfully Horn 8284]

27 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

This is the kind of Johnny Sack post I could get behind.

Well, he’s just not speaking about the thing he and the other terrorists have, is all. Something he learned as a Mafia fanboi.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Claro

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Reading PAC's posts the past few pages, it's pretty clear he's not working with a full deck upstairs. 

pretty sure he is only playing with jokers and the instruction cards most people throw away

Edited January 31, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[David Dennison 19569]

Let's all take a trip down memory lane and remember what Lee Atwater had to say about attracting Republican voters:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, *****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

[Satchel 6983]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

These Virginians voted for a racist.

What is it that triggers you to make this kind of post? 

[David Dennison 19569]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What is it that triggers you to make this kind of post? 

It's the old Democrats are the true racists Republican talking point. They need to trot it out because they know Lee Atwater told the truth about Republican politics and the white vote decades ago.

[washparkhorn 9974]

7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What is it that triggers you to make this kind of post? 

He’s a troll. Trolls want a reaction - positive or negative. They feed on it.
 

Trolls are positively correlated with sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914000324

[gmr548 16704]

On 1/27/2022 at 8:54 AM, Anastasis said:

Any sense of the impacts from administrative costs, compliance related costs, and other related costs that have been rising over the last few decades relative to reductions in state funding?

It seems like a complex multi-faceted problem that can't be explained by any one thing in isolation.   

 

On 1/27/2022 at 8:59 AM, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.....that argument would make a lot more sense if similar rises in tuition didn't also track for private universities, that never had and thus never lost state funding.  I agree that the loss of state funding is a material part of the picture for state universities, but there's a whole lot more contributing to the rise in tuition across the board.

 

On 1/27/2022 at 9:13 AM, Johnny Sack said:

Is this even true?  According to this chart inflation adjusted state funding per student has increased since 1980 (this is Texas).

 

I will look for stats across the country.

I haven't been on Surly a ton recently but did want to address valid points from good faith posters. Note that I did not say state funding cuts are the only reason tuition has increased. I said that it explains the majority of cost increases.

From 2000 to 2014, the median ratio of state funding cuts to tuition increases at public schools was 87 percent; i.e. for every dollar of tuition increases, 87 cents of state funding was lost. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/

Now, as acknowledged in the article that's certainly not a directly clean comparison as we don't know what schools would have done if funding hadn't been cut. And the fact that there are states with ratios north of 100 percent, sometimes significantly so, shows there is some inherent cushion.

The noted tax and spend liberals at the Cato Institute, who I am sure had no agenda at all, also could not produce a report that attributed any less of 57 percent of cost increases to state funding cuts. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa_810.pdf 

It obviously is, as Anastasis noted, a complex, multi-faceted issue. I wouldn't argue against that - it's pretty clear from the data that funding cuts are the predominant reason for increasing costs at publics, but far from the only reason. I also agree that what he mentioned as far as administrative costs and the overall expansion of what universities offer is probably a more likely culprit than student loan money. But, as shown earlier in this thread, there is a very intellectually lazy tendency for some to argue that the problem is simply attributed to student loan money being readily available, which is silly when it comes to public schools. Also worth noting that federal student loans have been available since the 60's and that college costs did not start their out of control rise until well over a decade after that. It's pretty clear that students are taking out more loans to cover increasing costs, not that costs are increasing because students can take out loans.

And for Johnny Sack specifically, I am not going to get into it over one chart from the deeply ideological TPFF, but this interactive page from the organization they are citing as a source has a more complete picture of that data for the nation, as well as state profiles: https://shef.sheeo.org/report/

For TX, you'll see that current funding levels are well below what they were for most of the 90's and early 2000's.

Now back to your regularly scheduled poo flinging over Joe Biden.

Edited February 1, 2022 by gmr548

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

I haven't been on Surly a ton recently but did want to address valid points from good faith posters. Note that I did not say state funding cuts are the only reason tuition has increased. I said that it explains the majority of cost increases.

From 2000 to 2014, the median ratio of state funding cuts to tuition increases at public schools was 87 percent; i.e. for every dollar of tuition increases, 87 cents of state funding was lost. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/

Now, as acknowledged in the article that's certainly not a directly clean comparison as we don't know what schools would have done if funding hadn't been cut. And the fact that there are states with ratios north of 100 percent, sometimes significantly so, shows there is some inherent cushion.

The noted tax and spend liberals at the Cato Institute, who I am sure had no agenda at all, also could not produce a report that attributed any less of 57 percent of cost increases to state funding cuts. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa_810.pdf 

It obviously is, as Anastasis noted, a complex, multi-faceted issue. I wouldn't argue against that - it's pretty clear from the data that funding cuts are the predominant reason for increasing costs at publics, but far from the only reason. I also agree that what he mentioned as far as administrative costs and the overall expansion of what universities offer is probably a more likely culprit than student loan money. But, as shown earlier in this thread, there is a very intellectually lazy tendency for some to argue that the problem is simply attributed to student loan money being readily available, which is silly when it comes to public schools. Also worth noting that federal student loans have been available since the 60's and that college costs did not start their out of control rise until well over a decade after that. It's pretty clear that students are taking out more loans to cover increasing costs, not that costs are increasing because students can take out loans.

And for Johnny Sack specifically, I am not going to get into it over one chart from the deeply ideological TPFF, but this interactive page from the organization they are citing as a source has a more complete picture of that data for the nation, as well as state profiles: https://shef.sheeo.org/report/

For TX, you'll see that current funding levels are well below what they were for most of the 90's and early 2000's.

Now back to your regularly scheduled poo flinging over Joe Biden.

But above what they were in 1980?

[TurkeyChew 383]

On 1/25/2022 at 1:09 PM, henrygandorf said:

it's my understanding that most poor people are born into willy wonka types of situations.  they are unavoidable.

 

[TexEx15 17959]

I wasn’t sure where to post this (SIAP) but with all the MAGAts in here I figured I would start here. This was sent to me by a family member recently that thought he totally got me and I would be appalled as a veteran. Tell me why y’all think shit like this is real? My favorite is the “fact checked” at the bottom. Good fucking grief. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by TexEx15

[Biff Tannen 46203]

5 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

I wasn’t sure where to post this (SIAP) but with all the MAGAts in here I figured I would start here. This was sent to me by a family member recently that thought he totally got me and I would be appalled as a veteran. Tell me why y’all think shit like this is real? My favorite is the “fact checked” at the bottom. Good fucking grief. 

torbush.  I fully expect my MIL to have seen that on FB already and fully believed it.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

6 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

I wasn’t sure where to post this (SIAP) but with all the MAGAts in here I figured I would start here. This was sent to me by a family member recently that thought he totally got me and I would be appalled as a veteran. Tell me why y’all think shit like this is real? My favorite is the “fact checked” at the bottom. Good fucking grief. 

did that come as a fwd:fwd:fwd: email?

[TexEx15 17959]

18 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

did that come as a fwd:fwd:fwd: email?

Pshh what is the 90’s… FB Messenger.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

30 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Pshh what is the 90’s… FB Messenger.

some olds never got past 90's tech. I still occasionally get one

[gmr548 16704]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

But above what they were in 1980?

Uh, no, $7,425/student is not > $7,513/student. So right there I know you didn't so much as glance at the link. But yes, similar numbers after adjustment.

What they don't show is funding for research/ag/medical over time. As of 2020, TX allocates 18.7% of funding to these categories, nearly double the 10.4% national average, and for four year schools it is essentially double with Texas allocating 32.2% to the national 16.8%. My hypothesis, given the expansion of many Texas schools like UH, UNT, and several UT system campuses from commuter schools into research institutions, would be that Texas wasn't pumping as much into research 20, 30, 40 years ago, and less of that per student funding is actually utilized for direct instruction, impacting tuition costs to some degree. But I freely admit that is simply a hypothesis and I haven't seen data to prove or disprove that one way or another.

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

On 1/31/2022 at 12:08 PM, Johnny Sack said:

 

 

Poor old dude. He should be sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

At least he's not shitting his depends and drinking water with two hands like a fucking toddler. amazing how much more competent he looks. doesn't take much, basically a pulse, apparently

[Johnny Sack 8397]

23 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

Poor old dude. He should be sitting on a park bench feeding pigeons 

It's elder abuse.

[Biff Tannen 46203]

You all are precious.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You all are precious.

it's not good enough that R's are racist and xenophobic, but add ageist to the list too. 

[Bookman 4769]

Still LMAO that Joe Biden kicked Trump's ass.

[Gourmand 7778]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it's not good enough that R's are racist and xenophobic, but add ageist to the list too. 

Well to be honest, that one is the most bipartisan of all. Plenty of ageists on the left.

 

[Passive Aggressive Coach 87]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:08 PM, Johnny Sack said:

 

"They tell me" Who is "They"?

[Passive Aggressive Coach 87]

The "they" doesn't disturb anyone? Our president is saying "they".... I mean holy fuck. Who is "they"? Manchurian President. Look how is wife guides him off the stage. You think Putin sees that as strength? Be honest. He looks weak as our leader.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Passive Aggressive Coach

[gmr548 16704]

The "they" doesn't disturb anyone? Our president is saying "they".... I mean holy fuck. Who is "they"? Manchurian President. Look how is wife guides him off the stage. You think Putin sees that as strength? Be honest. He looks weak as our leader.

Lmao. Everyone knew this, and yet this 190-year old proceeded to crush your God by 8,000,000 votes, winning in Georgia and Arizona of all places.

Pooooorrrr aggy.

[TwiceHorn 32108]

25 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Lmao. Everyone knew this, and yet this 190-year old proceeded to crush your God by 8,000,000 votes, winning in Georgia and Arizona of all places.

Pooooorrrr aggy.

Shit, everyone knows any kind of presidential address is scripted and prompted and planned out to the nth degree.  By people other than POTUS.

I feel like the fairly constant "They tell me to  . . . ." is kind of a bit by Biden. Hence the smirk.

[Fudge Nuggets 19475]

On 2/1/2022 at 2:22 PM, TexEx15 said:

I wasn’t sure where to post this (SIAP) but with all the MAGAts in here I figured I would start here. This was sent to me by a family member recently that thought he totally got me and I would be appalled as a veteran. Tell me why y’all think shit like this is real? My favorite is the “fact checked” at the bottom. Good fucking grief. 

She’s right.

Wait, wut?

[David Dennison 19569]

6 hours ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

The "they" doesn't disturb anyone? Our president is saying "they".... I mean holy fuck. Who is "they"? Manchurian President. Look how is wife guides him off the stage. You think Putin sees that as strength? Be honest. He looks weak as our leader.

[Mole 4344]

If you’re pushing the “they tell me” or the stuttering stuff as some nefarious sign, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you’ve been duped by people arguing in bad faith. It’s a fundamentally dishonest way of framing things — right wing troll culture run amuck. Be better.

[C-Man 27831]

9 minutes ago, Mole said:

If you’re pushing the “they tell me” or the stuttering stuff as some nefarious sign, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you’ve been duped by people arguing in bad faith. It’s a fundamentally dishonest way of framing things — right wing troll culture run amuck. Be better.

Unpossible

Edited February 3, 2022 by C-Man

[David Dennison 19569]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

If you’re pushing the “they tell me” or the stuttering stuff as some nefarious sign, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you’ve been duped by people arguing in bad faith. It’s a fundamentally dishonest way of framing things — right wing troll culture run amuck. Be better.

These are people who thought making Donald J. Trump president of the United States was a good idea.