|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
nobody would begrudge paying more in taxes for kids to go to college (as if the tax difference would even be perceptible anyway...) except bitter assholes like go to any community in the nation and most parents will want their kids to go to college. even better if they don't have to pay anything for it. it is an issue that would unite literally everyone with children
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
Jazerus posted:nobody would begrudge paying more in taxes for kids to go to college (as if the tax difference would even be perceptible anyway...) except Fixed. See: old people voting down school levies because they don’t have kids in school anymore, their property values be damned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:All this bullshit from middle class fucks about the horrors of free college is all the evidence you need that liberals will support social programs if and only if they don't feel personally inconvenienced even the tiniest bit by them. While most of KingNastidon's posts are tiresome because it's just him faking this pollyannaish worldview about how the status quo is the real benefactor of the poor and unfortunate, but he has no interest in even half-assing the kind of faux concern necessary to pull that off so it's just a mishmash of pitifully stupid arguments, affected innumeracy, glaring self-contradictions, and doubling and tripling down in the face of contrary evidence. But every once in a while his poker hand tips forward a bit and he makes an insightful post that I genuinely appreciate like this: KingNastidon posted:This is because there is currently some value in having any bachelor's degree relative to none. The value becomes increasing diminished as more and more people have a bachelor's degree. The social mobility of those degrees will decrease because there aren't enough jobs, even low paying ones, to match the increased supply of bachelor's degrees. That doesn't mean the optimal four-year graduation rate is what it is today, but it's probably not that much higher given US four-year graduation rates don't significantly lag peer countries and often exceed them in the case where there are other forms of quota to limit attendance eg Switzerland/Germany. where he shows his ignorance of how the world works is just an act, in reality he understands exactly how our unjust system works, how it must feed and sustain itself on staggering human misery and hopelessness, exactly how this benefits him, and he coldly and shrewdly lays out in a matter-of-fact way that there is no limit to how hard he will grind that boot onto countless faces in order to keep his wine cellar well stocked. Everything in that quoted post is absolutely true. Our system can only support so many winners and their success is entirely due to ensuring the creation of orders of magnitude more losers, and if you're born a winner and wish to remain so, you use your social position to deny any opportunity to the lowborn or their more capable members will replace you since the gentry don't have a monopoly on brains or skill and for every well-connected failson with the right pedigree there are a million smarter harder-working poors. And boy does he wish to remain a winner. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:This is because there is currently some value in having any bachelor's degree relative to none. The value becomes increasing diminished as more and more people have a bachelor's degree. The social mobility of those degrees will decrease because there aren't enough jobs, even low paying ones, to match the increased supply of bachelor's degrees. That doesn't mean the optimal four-year graduation rate is what it is today, but it's probably not that much higher given US four-year graduation rates don't significantly lag peer countries and often exceed them in the case where there are other forms of quota to limit attendance eg Switzerland/Germany. but i thought education increased opportunity by giving people the skills to start their own businesses, thus increasing the number of jobs seem to recall the clintons and obama talking about that a lot
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:but i thought education increased opportunity by giving people the skills to start their own businesses, thus increasing the number of jobs They all know that's a lie, that's why they preach education, but make sure most people aren't allowed to obtain it, the ultimate aim being that society (and the poor themselves) blame the victims of the rigged game for losing at it. Like I said above KN laid it all out clearly and succinctly, a perfect post in every way, except for the morality underlying his normative conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
if the value of a degree is entirely scarcity value, then the degree is really just a way of excluding the poor from employment. your degree should be teaching you the information and skills you need for jobs that require it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
This whole aregument is just another verion of the: If you want more money get a better job -> if you want a better job get a better education -> If you didn't want to be in debt you shouldn't have wasted time at college -> what are you TOO GOOD for McDonalds?? -> [Repeat] bullshit circle where there's no way to win since the point if for people to be in a state of indebted servitude to be exploited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Political Butt is pretty much the opposite of Goatse Butt. Political Butt started off kind of endearing, but the more I see of him the more horrifying he gets. Goatse Butt started off kind of horrifying, but the more I see it the more it feels like an old friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While most of KingNastidon's posts are tiresome because it's just him faking this pollyannaish worldview about how the status quo is the real benefactor of the poor and unfortunate, but he has no interest in even half-assing the kind of faux concern necessary to pull that off so it's just a mishmash of pitifully stupid arguments, affected innumeracy, glaring self-contradictions, and doubling and tripling down in the face of contrary evidence. Lets dispel with this fiction that KingNastidon doesn't know what he's doing, he knows exactly what he's doing
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:This whole aregument is just another verion of the: Don't forget: stop complaining about costs and work your way through the summers and the school year -> if you wanted a job in your field you should have done unpaid internships for the experience E: come to think of it, that's likely a major part of the upper class resistance to free college. Being able to buff that resume with unpaid internships thanks to daddy paying the bills while the other 90% have to get jobs for money in order to stay in school is a huge leg-up for the scions of upper middle class families who aren't quite wealthy enough that daddy can just take Jamie Dimon out for a round of golf to get junior a job. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
 jesus christ, thats pretty much the death blow
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Don't forget: stop complaining about costs and work your way through the summers and the school year -> if you wanted a job in your field you should have done unpaid internships for the experience All of those bullshit circular arguments make the tiniest bit of sense until you think about them for a second. The Hillary Clinton/Butt logic of "well we WOULD give you something but if we did those Rich People you hate, why they would benefit too! We are going to do you a solid and not help out those richies, you're welcome" is so obviously absurd it's frankly insulting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:if the value of a degree is entirely scarcity value, then the degree is really just a way of excluding the poor from employment. your degree should be teaching you the information and skills you need for jobs that require it. A lot of college degrees aren’t really about job training though or are at the very least job training for uncommon jobs where we already have way too many applicants for the number of positions, like ‘philosophy professor’ or ‘bassoon player’.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
college as job training and college for just general personal improvement and college for studying something you have a passion for are all good and valid and should be free
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:A lot of college degrees aren’t really about job training though or are at the very least job training for uncommon jobs where we already have way too many applicants for the number of positions, like ‘philosophy professor’ or ‘bassoon player’. Is doling out that gate-access degree based on social status the moral thing to do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:A lot of college degrees aren’t really about job training though or are at the very least job training for uncommon jobs where we already have way too many applicants for the number of positions, like ‘philosophy professor’ or ‘bassoon player’. gently caress this i'm trying to pick up the violin cause i love it. should i be denied an education cause the world already has a lot of violin players?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:gently caress this Hard to say, please submit your familial pedigree and the contact info of your asset manager
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
On the issue of Buttigieg being good or the devil made flesh, everything about him feels focus grouped to hell and back. If it sounds like he's saying things you like I can guarantee you it's because he saw a poll somewhere that suggested it was the right thing to say. His entire life and career has been about building a resume and you just can't trust that sort of ladder climber to do the right thing except where the right thing happens to coincide with their personal interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Radish posted:All of those bullshit circular arguments make the tiniest bit of sense until you think about them for a second. The Hillary Clinton/Butt logic of "well we WOULD give you something but if we did those Rich People you hate, why they would benefit too! We are going to do you a solid and not help out those richies, you're welcome" is so obviously absurd it's frankly insulting. It's funny when they try this with healthcare. "Look I could just give you this insulin, but if I charge $3,000 then Bill Gates will have to pay $3,000 haha, sock it to him right?" "I can't afford $3,000! Just give it to me!" "But then I'd have to give it away to Bill Gates! Do you really want to see Bill Gates get free stuff?" "If it means I don't die, then yes!" "Oh nonononono I can't in good conscience tax you to give Bill Gates free stuff. Good luck with that untreated diabetes, I have an appointment to bail out JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs with $700 billion in public money, ta-ta!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:So essentially it's ok to have a system that systematically excludes the poor because if we didn't systematically exclude the poor the non-poor wouldn't have an inherent advantage anymore? It's almost an amusingly bizarre sort of logic. Even if you take his point for granted, the people without degrees are generally worse off and stand to benefit from any "flattening" that occurs through the value of degrees more well off people hold losing value. KingNastidon's logic only makes sense as the sort of thing you'd come up with if you were actively searching for some line of reasoning to argue against the free college idea. edit: His argument is actually very similar to the argument against just "printing money" and giving it to the poor. He's basically arguing that a sort of inflation would occur, but just like in a "giving money to the poor" scenario the benefit to the poor specifically would outweigh any loss in the value of money that occurs (assuming you don't end up with some runaway inflation scenario, which wouldn't occur in the college situation). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Apr 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Radish posted:Pence has always been hot garbage which is why he jumped onto the Trump train when everyone thought it was going to crash and burn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Radish posted:All of those bullshit circular arguments make the tiniest bit of sense until you think about them for a second. The Hillary Clinton/Butt logic of "well we WOULD give you something but if we did those Rich People you hate, why they would benefit too! We are going to do you a solid and not help out those richies, you're welcome" is so obviously absurd it's frankly insulting. The cherry on the top is that the exact same assholes suddenly start protesting extremely loudly whenever somebody proposes actually taxing those rich people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Colleges are paid per student that completes a degree. That's it, that's all you need. I can't tell if this is a joke post or if you're serious, but no, it isn't all you need. If all you do is reimburse students for tuition you've done nothing to put pressure on prices. For the same reason universal health care systems provide reimbursement and also implement strict cost controls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The cherry on the top is that the exact same assholes suddenly start protesting extremely loudly whenever somebody proposes actually taxing those rich people. I'm not joking when I say part of why I want Bernie to win is to watch as the ideology of these fuckers is shattered and read their wailing opeds littering the New York Times and Washington Post since that's the only comeuppance they will ever face at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
The next Democratic president must absolutely pack all the courts at all levels. Mitch has begun preparing 6 more judges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:On the issue of Buttigieg being good or the devil made flesh, everything about him feels focus grouped to hell and back. If it sounds like he's saying things you like I can guarantee you it's because he saw a poll somewhere that suggested it was the right thing to say. His entire life and career has been about building a resume and you just can't trust that sort of ladder climber to do the right thing except where the right thing happens to coincide with their personal interest. I'm halfway through that long-rear end Current Affairs article and am starting to wonder if he's even really gay. I feel lovely to even think it (fwiw, I'm a homo), but I wouldn't count out the possibility that he crunched the numbers at some point in his life and determined it would give him an n-percent advantage in his political career to be gay over being just another straight white dude. He comes across as a self-absorbed robot who doesn't care about anyone/anything unless it's something that would look good on his CV/Wikipedia page. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's almost an amusingly bizarre sort of logic. It's really only bizarre if you assume his goal is helping the poor, he's quite explicit that his only concern is protecting the wealth and social status of the affluent, and while it would be nice to help the poor gee golly gosh it's impossible to do it without inconveniencing the affluent in some way (even if that inconvenience is wholly emotional such as seeing the poor get something for free even if it has no material affect on the wealthy person at all)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I can't tell if this is a joke post or if you're serious, but no, it isn't all you need. If all you do is reimburse students for tuition you've done nothing to put pressure on prices. Public colleges dude. Their tuition is set by the government already. jfc is it that hard to read the proposal before you diarrhea all over the keyboard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
I'm not really sure I buy Butt as a singularly-focused ladder-climber who believes in nothing except that which furthers his political career - he's a gay Democrat from South Bend, Indiana who decided his next step after Mayor should be President. He's self-absorbed, sure, but compared to actual ladder-climbers like O'Rourke he just seems like an idiosyncratic weirdo who honestly believes in the handful of good things he believes in addition to the iron-fisted imperialist poo poo he also believes. Granted, I don't think he comes off any better in this view, probably worse, but I doubt Butt is pretending to be anything that he isn't. He doesn't even appear to be presenting himself as a progressive, much less someone left-adjacent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
i refuse to believe mr. "all lives matter" has any good beliefs he's probably just paying lipservice and would degrade into ultra-decorum mode like he was with pence before the trump admin
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
Yeah Obama burned a lot of good will with people paying lip service to leftist stuff and then suddenly hiring a bunch of uber conservatives to plan out his agenda once they are no longer beholden to the public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Pete is a piece of poo poo and is absolute human garbage who shouldn’t be anywhere near the presidency .
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm not joking when I say part of why I want Bernie to win is to watch as the ideology of these fuckers is shattered and read their wailing opeds littering the New York Times and Washington Post since that's the only comeuppance they will ever face at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:college for just general personal improvement and college for studying something you have a passion for are all good and valid and should be free Being able to go to a 4 year college for your hobby for free is a kind of a luxury, IMO. IMO the government money would be better put to use for the following social programs: silence_kit posted:subsidizing cleaner but more expensive energy generation & industrial techniques to minimize pollution, more public transit, improving the American health care system, public housing, UBI . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CelestialScribe posted:I can't tell if this is a joke post or if you're serious, but no, it isn't all you need. If all you do is reimburse students for tuition you've done nothing to put pressure on prices. For the same reason universal health care systems provide reimbursement and also implement strict cost controls. joepinetree posted:But that is pretty much what would do that: do it like medicare, set a reimbursement rate per students, and prohibit colleges from charging more than the reimbursement rate. joepinetree, Bernie's plan does not exactly do this. It does not set a low reimbursement rate. It just reimburses students for state college tuitions at whatever the 2015-2016 rates were, and require that tuition not increase by too much from year to year from that rate. It does require though that the funds not be spent on new student centers/gyms, or on administrators' salaries, or on college sports programs, which is good IMO, because all of those things are money sinks which have little to do with the education of college students. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Being able to go to a 4 year college for your hobby for free is a kind of a luxury, IMO. IMO the government money would be better put to use for the following social programs: I was something of a free college skeptic insofar as I strongly dislike the 4-year-college model and would prefer to dismantle it rather than further entrench it as a necessary institution *but* I don't see any plausible way to do that in anywhere near the timeframe as just pushing for free college and also I think Darko made a strong case that the social envrionments of college is one of the absolute best hopes we have at opening the minds of swaths of red state kids. It's not just going to a hobby, it's a social force for positive change and the more kids we send to it, the better chance we have at future generations not being absolute garbage. It's not my ideal "wave a magic wand" solution, but I think it's better than any plausible alternative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Being able to go to a 4 year college for your hobby for free is a kind of a luxury, IMO. IMO the government money would be better put to use for the following social programs: Surely if we're prioritizing based on 'luxury', we could find $75 billion in rich people's luxury spending on yachts and private islands and so forth to redirect into the 'luxury' of a poor person getting a career in arts or academia
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Surely if we're prioritizing based on 'luxury', we could find $75 billion in rich people's luxury spending on yachts and private islands and so forth to redirect into the 'luxury' of a poor person getting a career in arts or academia or allowing the poor to have a life beyond being serfs to the economy. apparently it's too luxurious to allow the poor to go to university to pick up new skills
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Surely if we're prioritizing based on 'luxury', we could find $75 billion in rich people's luxury spending on yachts and private islands and so forth to redirect into the 'luxury' of a poor person getting a career in arts or academia Lol, a 4 year college degree in music or philosophy is not a guaranteed ticket to a career in music or as a philosophy professor, unless you also want to fund a music and philosophy government jobs program Condiv posted:or allowing the poor to have a life beyond being serfs to the economy. apparently it's too luxurious to allow the poor to go to university to pick up new skills Taking a class at a 4 year college isn't the only way to have hobbies or to learn new things. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Lol, a college degree in music or philosophy is not a guaranteed ticket to a career in music or as a philosophy professor, unless you also want to fund a music and philosophy government jobs program Well I actually do, but even without a WPA, declaring that poor people are barred from competing for those jobs because Mitt Romney needs another yacht seems unnecessary and pointlessly evil
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Lol, a college degree in music or philosophy is not a guaranteed ticket to a career in music or as a philosophy professor, unless you also want to fund a music and philosophy government jobs program it's a drat good way to improve your skills in those hobbies though but I guess if there's one thing that's wrong with america, it's that the poor have too much luxury and free time
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 00:30
|
|