Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 6/10/2019 at 11:09 PM, David Dennison said:

 What does history tell you about unregulated capitalism?

Expand  

Day care is in its current form unregulated capitalism? Oh wait, not that. It's anarcho-capitalism run amok. What we require is the arc of human history to provide the proper perspective on a federal government takeover of baby sitting.  

Posted

If the government provides universal healthcare, they will arrest all stay-at-home mothers and grandparents taking care of grandkids. High school juniors watching kids for a few extra bucks will be murdered by the Gestapo.

I am normal and my brain is strong.

Posted
  On 6/10/2019 at 8:40 PM, Anastasis said:

What does modern American history tell you about the potential for unintended consequences when the federal bureaucracy takes over the national regulation and financing of a industry?  Anything informative about total costs, quality, choice, or federal spending?

Expand  

It showed us that the government can be the driving force behind the greatest leap forward in standard of living in human history. 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/11/2019 at 10:35 PM, Incredulity said:
Old enough to remember gas rationing, inflation and malaise.


I don’t think that’s it. They remember relying on their own efforts and determination to get ahead and succeed, not on the government. They just haven’t figured out that it has become wayyy harder for people today to do it versus 20 or 30 years ago. I’m in this age demographic and hear them all day long spout out very simplistic views of the world.

Oh, and those that didn’t succeed economically are still among the biggest promoters of the Trump train. They realize they didn’t achieve economic success because of their own decisions, but haven’t figured out that many today can’t do it even with the best intentions of making the right decisions.

There is also an element of being sick of problems not being addressed: Immigration, China taking advantage of the US, the US picking up the bill for way more than we should as a country, etc. They haven’t figured out that Trump is pretty much all talk and no real action.
  • Like 3
Posted

Image result for it's happening gif

Warren surges into 2nd behind Biden in the newest Economist/YouGov poll.

Biden 26% (-1)
Warren 16% (+5)
Bernie 12% (-4)
Pete 8% (-1)
Harris 6% (-1)

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 2:01 PM, bad_teammate said:

Interesting data point, let's see where the trends go.

Am I stupid for constantly expected Harris to surge? That's rhetorical, of course I'm stupid.

Expand  

Harris is in a weird place.  She checks all the right boxes but can’t seem to articulate something to make herself stand out and separate herself from the pack.  

If all else fails, go after Trump hard as a motherfucker.  

That’s the one card everyone has and Biden decided to use it first.  

Posted

She is so full of shit.

 

From her Two-Income Trap book:

  Quote

An all-voucher or all-school choice system would be a shock to the educational system, but the shake out might be just what the system needs…But over time, the whole concept of “the Beverly Hills schools” or “Newton schools” would die out, replaced in the hierarchy by schools that offer a variety of programs that parents want for their children, regardless of the geographic boundaries. By selecting where to send their children (and where to spend their vouchers), parents would take control over schools’ tax dollars, making them the de facto owners of those schools.

Expand  

 

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 2:20 PM, Fozzz said:

She is so full of shit.

Expand  

I don't think her evolving on these things is cynical. I think she's very genuine, but also inconstant. That's not a bad way for a person to be, but it's a little worrying if I think about what will happen when she's surrounded by shitlibs screaming at her to become a centrist once she has power. She doesn't have a progressive bedrock.

Better than everyone who isn't Bernie, but Bernie's bedrock is immovable.

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 2:24 PM, bad_teammate said:

I don't think her evolving on these things is cynical. I think she's very genuine, but also inconstant. That's not a bad way for a person to be, but it's a little worrying if I think about what will happen when she's surrounded by shitlibs screaming at her to become a centrist once she has power. She doesn't have a progressive bedrock.

Better than everyone who isn't Bernie, but Bernie's bedrock is immovable.

Expand  

I do think it's cynical.  There is really no ideological reason why she should not support marketizing primary and secondary education.  Her critiques of charters in the past have always been about better policing without questioning the concept itself.  That's really her in a nutshell - she supports current structures but believes their regulation should be better. 

Posted

If Warren is actually anti-charter now,  then why is she being introduced at campaign events by charter school lobbyists? lol.  

  Quote

There has been much discussion on this blog and elsewhere regarding Elizabeth Warren’s campaign’s choice of a former charter school teacher to introduce Ms. Warren in Oakland. She was a fellow at GO Oakland, an organization funded by billionaires such as the Walton Family, Arthur Rock and Michael Bloomberg–billionaires who are bound and determined to charterize American public schools. After leaving as a fellow, she continued her relationship by blogging for the organization in 2018, including in her blog links to get readers to sign up for GO emails.
Why does any of this matter? 
It matters because when a presidential campaign asks someone to introduce their candidate. It is a carefully vetted and deliberate choice.  It is naive to think the introducer is picked from the air in any competent campaign, and the Warren campaign is highly competent. 
When Bernie Sanders issued his bold platform calling for a charter moratorium, Elizabeth Warren responded by saying that she too was against for-profit charter schools with no response on Sanders’ call for a moratorium.
Warren said she does not want to fund for -profits. Well, the only funding program she could influence as President, the Charter Schools Program, already does not.
 
No bold, progressive stand there.

Expand  

https://dianeravitch.net/2019/06/07/carol-burris-a-message-for-elizabeth-warren/

Posted (edited)

And so it begins.

With actual targets, the GOPs can play the game they're so wickedly good at. Focus on a detail and harp on it endlessly. It's a well-oiled hate engine.

Warren has changed positions, so she's full of shit. Laughable. Dismissible. You don't even have to bother thinking about your own team's candidate, this full-of-shit bitch is a flip-flopper.

Or... the engine runs on lies just as well:

John Kerry didn't earn his medals. He just went to Vietnam for political reasons. Ignore the avoidance of service by our team's candidate.

Hillary is evil incarnate. Murders people. Killed our guys in Benghazi, wherever that is. Gave all our uranium to the Russians. EMAILS! She's spastic and dying! Nothing worse than her. I'm stickin' with the team!

Even if the GOP loses, there are still so many of them.

Edited by RomaVicta
Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 2:20 PM, Fozzz said:

She is so full of shit.

 

From her Two-Income Trap book:

 

Expand  

 

  On 6/12/2019 at 2:26 PM, Huckleberry said:

Exactly. A person updating their beliefs based on 15 years of data and experience isn't inherently a bad thing.

Expand  

Yeah, she just got it wrong, a misunderstanding if you will, it happens a lot:

 

Posted (edited)
  On 6/11/2019 at 5:15 PM, Mojo Hand said:

It showed us that the government can be the driving force behind the greatest leap forward in standard of living in human history. 

Expand  

Yes, advances in quality of life and standard of living during the 19th and 20th century resulting from the enlightenment and spread of liberal democracy, and the industrial and technological revolutions, makes it foolish on its face to question the potential for unintended consequences associated with the federal government taking over regulation and financing of day care. Silly centrist anarcho capitalist extremist thinking.    

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 2:27 PM, Fozzz said:

That's really her in a nutshell - she supports current structures but believes their regulation should be better. 

Expand  

Absolutely.

If you project these candidates forward and imagine them in the White House and relying on their bedrock core beliefs in tough moments, Elizabeth Warren is less scary than most of her opponents, but she's still kind of scary. A lot will depend on who she surrounds herself with, which isn't extremely confidence-inspiring.

Like all other white libs, I want to believe in the touching conversion story.

She's a good compromise candidate between Bernie and the shitlibs. (Bernie is ALREADY a compromise between capitalist whores and actual, meaningful socialism, but hey.)

1. Bernie
.
.
2. Warren



3. Shitlibs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4. Biden
.
.
5. Trump

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 2:54 PM, Anastasis said:

Yes, advances in quality of life and standard of living during the 19th and 20th century resulting from the enlightenment and spread of liberal democracy, and the industrial and technological revolutions, makes it foolish on its face to question the potential for unintended consequences associated with the federal government taking over regulation and financing of day care. Silly centrist anarcho capitalist extremist thinking.    

Expand  

Please make an actual argument. With sugar on top.

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 2:54 PM, Anastasis said:

Yes, advances in quality of life and standard of living during the 19th and 20th century resulting from the enlightenment and spread of liberal democracy, and the industrial and technological revolutions, makes it foolish on its face to question the potential for unintended consequences associated with the federal government taking over regulation and financing of day care. Silly centrist anarcho capitalist extremist thinking.    

Expand  

It's not foolish to discuss the potential for unintended consequences from the federal government regulating and financing day care.   It's foolish to suggest that "modern American history tells" us a negative story about "the potential for unintended consequences when the federal bureaucracy takes over the national regulation and financing of a industry."  You know, the actual statement to which I was responding, not the very different position that you are falsely attributing to me. 

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 8:51 PM, elfenix said:

she's the wonkiest of wonks.   wrote two of my law textbooks (bankruptcy and secured financing, iirc). 

Expand  

She's really fucking smart.  It would be nice to have a really fucking smart person as our President again instead of a drooling man baby who communicates through word salad.  

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 3:54 PM, bad_teammate said:

Please make an actual argument. With sugar on top.

Expand  

I outlined some concerns in 2205. I think that a federal takeover of regulation and financing of day care would likely result in increased costs, reductions in quality in some cases, improved quality in others, reduction in diversity of programming  restrictions in choice, and increased federal spending. 

Posted

Federal regulation and control of daycare seems to be reaching waaaaaaaaay deep into something thoroughly imbued with local and state interest and almost completely lacking in federal interest.

Gives me a federalism infarction.

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 10:34 PM, Anastasis said:

I outlined some concerns in 2205. I think that a federal takeover of regulation and financing of day care would likely result in increased costs, reductions in quality in some cases, improved quality in others, reduction in diversity of programming  restrictions in choice, and increased federal spending. 

Expand  

No you didn't. You did not outline any concerns in that post.

Here is the sum total of your "outline" of "concerns":

"Anything informative about total costs, quality, choice, or federal spending?"

That's not you outlining concerns in any kind of detail, that's you offering virtually nothing in the form of a loaded question. But now that you have said some extremely vague things...

- Why would there "likely" be increased costs?
- Why would there be reductions in quality?
- Why would there be "reduction in diversity of programming"?
- Why would there be "restrictions in choice"?

Posted
  On 6/12/2019 at 10:49 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Federal regulation and control of daycare seems to be reaching waaaaaaaaay deep into something thoroughly imbued with local and state interest and almost completely lacking in federal interest.

Gives me a federalism infarction.

Expand  

Promoting the general welfare when the states fail to do so:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Posted

God I want her to debate him in the general.  He literally has nothing except "Pocahontas".  It will be a blood bath.  And he'll probably still win.  Because fuck this world.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/13/2019 at 3:01 AM, Biff Tannen said:

God I want her to debate him in the general.  He literally has nothing except "Pocahontas".  It will be a blood bath.  And he'll probably still win.  Because fuck this world.

Expand  

Trump, despite being rich his entire life, is far better at communicating to ordinary people than Liz.  Professional middle class types may jerk off to her aesthetic but most people don't find her to be very likable.  Look at her favorability in her home state, for instance.

Posted
  On 6/13/2019 at 1:06 PM, Fozzz said:

Trump, despite being rich his entire life, is far better at communicating to ordinary people than Liz.  Professional middle class types may jerk off to her aesthetic but most people don't find her to be very likable.  Look at her favorability in her home state, for instance.

Expand  

So she's too smart for our country and we really just need a fucking moron in charge because he does a better job of communicating to the morons in our country.  Got it.  

Posted
  On 6/13/2019 at 1:21 PM, Longhornfan1024 said:

So she's too smart for our country and we really just need a fucking moron in charge because he does a better job of communicating to the morons in our country.  Got it.  

Expand  

You can be both smart and relatable - look at Obama, for example.  It's not their fault she can't relate or connect with ordinary people.  Have you seen videos of her attempting to act like a normal person? It's not a pretty sight.  



×
×
  • Create New...