2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
yes and there's massive levels of fraud in private colleges - the good ones that we all attend and are familiar with are the select few
there are over 2,000 for profit universities in the us which are just degree mills with little to no value to their graduates
if i were charge i'd outlaw those as well - but at least the people attending them are making that idiotic decision on their own whereas with fraudulent primary school it's the children who suffer when the adults make bad decisions on their
There are plenty of idiotic decisions parents make for their own children and there is no escaping that. And currently many public schools are horrifically bad, it's not like we are talking about something the government does well are we?
Horrifically bad even when the resources spent on them are by far the highest worldwide for public schools per pupil, at 17k and growing per pupil per year in k12 in the USA.
I am not sure what else than fraud you can call public schools where 50% or more of students fail basic proficiency levels for main subjects, and i don't see how anything other than competition (=alternatives for parents) can fix that.
Maybe even with competition things won't become "super", but it's very very very hard to believe they won't improve at least a little, just removing the bottom 3% of schools from the map (through market mechanisms, with parents just leaving them in drove the moment they have options) would be better than the current situation.
As for fraud in private colleges, the problem there is simply that the state shouldn't pay anything direct or indirect. If you keep state financing of trash, trash will keep being produced.
Then if fraud in commerce exists, (and it can certainly be the case with lies, broken promises and so on) it should be prosecuted as in any other sale of goods and services.
Agreed. The irony is that Trump wouldn't be caught dead hanging out with any of his supporters, at least any of the non-wealthy / non-celebrity ones.
yeah of course
but trump has long been aware of the fact that he fits in perfectly with the working class and doesn't fit in with the upper class
in part of fire and fury the author is interviewing some other billionaire who trump was friends with and iirc the guy was talking about how trump had terrible tastes and then says "but he knows it, one time were in a jet with some models and they were flying over some trailer parks and someone mentioned "that's where all the white trash live" and some euro model was unfamiliar with the term and asked "what are white trash" and immediately trump jumps in "they are just like me but without money"
Dems have been pretty anti-labor since NAFTA.
Trump, at least superficially favors more protectionist trade policies wheras most other politicians think lobbyists should write our trade policy.
In the past he talked a lot about keeping jobs and creating more. It seems like he talks about it less now, but I guess it's still part of his deal.
His jobs record even precovid was really bad. It's easier to bash Obama or Bill Clinton on jobs, until you have a record and it's worse.
I'd like to start this by saying I'm still undecided and have no allegiance to either party. I've voted for Republican, Democrat, and Independent presidential candidates in the past.
That said, my biggest complaint in general (not here necessarily) is the large nunber of people using personal attacks (especially based on appearance) towards the candidates, and then wondering why they can't get someone to take their opinion seriously. There are more than enough complaints without sinking to pers
You must be repulsed by Trump's propensity to comment on the appearance of people he dislikes.
Idk how you can honestly be undecided at this point unless you’ve just had your head in the sand for the past decade.
Well, I have concerns on both sides based on issues for myself personally. If I'm being selfish, I have troubles deciding which one is more important over the next 4-8 years. The saving grace is that no matter who wins, it still takes congress to work together for most major changes, and that is something that seems to be difficult to achieve lately.
Dems have been pretty anti-labor since NAFTA.
Trump, at least superficially favors more protectionist trade policies wheras most other politicians think lobbyists should write our trade policy.
In the past he talked a lot about keeping jobs and creating more. It seems like he talks about it less now, but I guess it's still part of his deal.
Protectionist policies favor a few hundred thousand workers in dying industries. They also raise prices enormously. The only argument that makes sense for them is national security and retaliatory protectionism.
People blame everything on NAFTA because they have no idea how trade actually works.
You must be repulsed by Trump's propensity to comment on the appearance of people he dislikes.
I am not a fan of that, but my post was more in regards to everyday people trying to sway me to their side or explain why one side is better than the other. If they just do the same thing, how are they any better than him? It makes no sense to me.
I am not a fan of that, but my post was more in regards to everyday people trying to sway me to their side or explain why one side is better than the other. If they just do the same thing, how are they any better than him? It makes no sense to me.
Fair enough. I just think you should take into account the extent to which Trump himself is responsible for the degradation in tone that is bothering you.
Social media is full of people on both sides attacking candidates....racists attacking Kamala Harris, or those attacking Donald Trump calling him "orange man", "cheeto", etc.
Am I the only one who finds these things repulsive? It's hard to take a criticism seriously if you attack someone's personal appearance, especially as someone who was bullied in high school.
Just my thoughts. Carry on. I am trying to soak up as much info as I can and make an educated decision before election day.
Not sure why anybody would look to social media for help on which candidate to vote for....unless you're just looking for reasons to be undecided and say well both sides behave online like typical online people so both sides same.
Both sides do x so both sides same seems to be a more common logical fallacy than I would have expected.
Not sure why anybody would look to social media for help on which candidate to vote for....unless you're just looking for reasons to be undecided and say well both sides behave online like typical online people so both sides same.
I'm not using it to decide who to vote for. My point is more that people are trying to sway someone to their side, or explain why they are voting the way they do, are making personal attacks based off of appearances. How would anyone expect that to make them look good? Especially the democrats who criticized Trump for mocking people, for making fun of appearances, and then they call him sheets or orange man. How does being hypocritical make them better?
The Republicans don't even hide who they are, or what they are. That's not surprising.
I'm not using it to decide who to vote for. My point is more that people are trying to sway someone to their side, or explain why they are voting the way they do, are making personal attacks based off of appearances. How would anyone expect that to make them look good? Especially the democrats who criticized Trump for mocking people, for making fun of appearances, and then they call him sheets or orange man. How does being hypocritical make them better?
The Republicans don't even hide who the
Sure. If you're grading on such a curve that things the actual candidate say carry the same weight as random internet trolls it might be hard to decide. If you don't actually want to decide, that's a fine (but honestly not very convincing) tactic. If you actually want to decide, and not concern troll, the baavior and statements of Trump and Harris should be far more important. But that might require admitting both sides aren't the same which can be psychologically difficult if you're a member of that religion.
Sure. If you're grading on such a curve that things the actual candidate say carry the same weight as random internet trolls it might be hard to decide. If you don't actually want to decide, that's a fine (but honestly not very convincing) tactic. If you actually want to decide, and not concern troll, the baavior and statements of Trump and Harris should be far more important. But that might require admitting both sides aren't the same which can be psychologically difficult if you're a membe
Trump incited an insurrection but then someone on Twitter called him a fat orange moron, so it's just hard to know what to think any more.
I'm trying to decide who was better for mankind - Stalin or Gandhi. Still on the fence but trying to keep an open mind and be objective.
Shifting a bit to another very relevant topic this election, which is under discussed in this forum, the Senate is looking more republican by the day.
Manchin seat as everyone expects is almost certainly going to switch republican, and Tester is performing worse every time they poll him
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/18...
Senate is currently 47+4 (democrats + left leaning independents) v 49.
Switching 2 seats gives republicans the majority.
Purple seats are 10, 9 hold by the left one by the right.
Given Manchin seat is as good as gone, democrats have to hold every other one.
The seat in Montana is very hard to hold. Tester is a hold school, decent (ie non leftist) democrat, but he is still running in a state trump is going to win by 15-20 points, and this time at least here republicans didn't choose a maniac as the opponent, and that should be enough to flip the seat.
Nothing is written in stone yet, odds in betting markets are around 80% chances for republicans to gain the majority on the Senate, bit even with Harris increasing her chances slightly with better polls in PA and other purple states, for democrats as per politico article, it's Tester or bust.
Protectionist policies favor a few hundred thousand workers in dying industries. They also raise prices enormously. The only argument that makes sense for them is national security and retaliatory protectionism.
People blame everything on NAFTA because they have no idea how trade actually works.
Some people blame a lot of stuff on NAFTA (always on the mexico side, the Canada side is never mentioned) because they have a fetish for manufacturing.
There is this myth that know-nothing people who barely made high school were able to find splending jobs "making things" "in the time gone" and NAFTA (and later China entering the WTO) took that away from them.
It used to be a leftwing, blue collar union myth but trumpism/maga made it bipartisan
I'm trying to decide who was better for mankind - Stalin or Gandhi. Still on the fence but trying to keep an open mind and be objective.
gandhi was very openly racist and publicly slept with his nieces
they differed quite a bit in policy - but if both stalin and gandhi were regular people working in your office the people would have unanimously considered stalin the better person
Well, I have concerns on both sides based on issues for myself personally. If I'm being selfish, I have troubles deciding which one is more important over the next 4-8 years. The saving grace is that no matter who wins, it still takes congress to work together for most major changes, and that is something that seems to be difficult to achieve lately.
If the Senate is of a different party than the president the country is safe. Partisan agenda can't become law, and disasters are avoided.
That's why given the Senate is very probably going to be republican I think you would be better off with Harris as president (and I say this from the right, some people in this forum would say i am very far right).
If democrats get house senate and POTUS, they are going to nuke the filibuster and actual apocalyptic disaster is possible though
gandhi was very openly racist and publicly slept with his nieces
they differed quite a bit in policy - but if both stalin and gandhi were regular people working in your office the people would have unanimously considered stalin the better person
Stalin was a lot worse even if Gandhi was truly not a good person nor a positive influence for humanity at all.
Instead of Gandhi we would probably have got some violent nationalist and problems would have been bigger.
Instead of Stalin many far less psychopathic leaders were available and a lot fewer people especially inside the USSR would have suffered as much as they did.
The worst Gandhi caused us is to have to debunk the crap made up myth of non violent protesting. Stalin was worse than that, and his legacy is a lot worse than that.
Sure. If you're grading on such a curve that things the actual candidate say carry the same weight as random internet trolls it might be hard to decide. If you don't actually want to decide, that's a fine (but honestly not very convincing) tactic. If you actually want to decide, and not concern troll, the baavior and statements of Trump and Harris should be far more important. But that might require admitting both sides aren't the same which can be psychologically difficult if you're a membe
Let me be clear - I am not using social media to decide who to vote for. This was never about that.
This is about hypocrites who seem to think they will make their side look better while using the same tactics as the side they are bashing (name-calling, lying, etc).
I was merely pointing out that I haven't decided who to vote for yet because I think people on both sides are guilty of this.
I'll determine who I vote for based on issues that have the potential to have a direct effect on me. Nothing more.
Stalin was a lot worse even if Gandhi was truly not a good person nor a positive influence for humanity at all.
Instead of Gandhi we would probably have got some violent nationalist and problems would have been bigger.
Instead of Stalin many far less psychopathic leaders were available and a lot fewer people especially inside the USSR would have suffered as much as they did.
The worst Gandhi caused us is to have to debunk the crap made up myth of non violent protesting. Stalin was worse than that,
oh sorry i wasn't clear about my point
my point is that gandhi's flaws were very open and transparent, something that would come out in interviews and public appearances
he made zero efforts to hide his racism and openly flaunted that he forced his nieces to sleep in his bed each night naked with him - he somehow spun that into proof he was very pure - the old "i have all this child porn on my computer to prove to myself that despite making it easily accessible i don't want it" defense
whereas stalin kept everything close the vest, he was not openly anything
despite that stalin was immeasurably worse - if we had some scifi plotline where their brains were transplanted into modern americans and they both ran for office as opponents then the public would unanimously view the person with gandhis brain as the terrible person whereas stalin would come off as a regular guy
Let me be clear - I am not using social media to decide who to vote for. This was never about that.
This is about hypocrites who seem to think they will make their side look better while using the same tactics as the side they are bashing (name-calling, lying, etc).
I was merely pointing out that I haven't decided who to vote for yet because I think people on both sides are guilty of this.
I'll determine who I vote for based on issues that have the potential to have a direct effect on me. Nothing
At the risk of stating the blindly obvious, you are not voting for the people on Twitter, you are voting for one of the presidential candidates, so I am struggling with where you see this hypocrisy.
