Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A Day In The Life

A Day In The Life (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's the crux, innit?
No, not to me.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm open to fair criticism. That one party lacks decency isn't a fair criticism, so I object.
As I said, I wouldn't go that far, no single party has a monopoly of good ideas.

But the strategic bets the GOP has placed over the last 15, 20 years haven't paid off, quite the opposite. And now they are also losing their marketing slogans, that they are the party of Reagan and the party of fiscal responsibility — cutting social programs and other sensible agencies while increasing the budget makes no sense to anyone, not to the person in favor of social programs nor to the person who wants more fiscal restraint. The fact that the ACA has significantly increased coverage is a bell that can't be unrung — people want to have health insurance coverage.

I don't think the Democrats are perfect, but their bets on a more diverse society, tolerance of homosexuality and the like, and working towards universal health care coverage are all no-brainers to me, especially if you look towards other developed countries — and they seem to be paying off, because they are supported by the population.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How is this different from the assertion the non-polarized model no longer works because it is an unsustainable business model?
I disagree that it is the unpolarized part that is the key to unsustainability and I think it is the perception that the NYT or FT are hugely polarized that is wrong. Right now, there are two recipes to survive: you either appeal to a very, very large audience or you target a very specific niche. The NYT, FT and WP's of the world are clearly going for size which means they want to cover people from across the political spectrum and not “polarize your coverage too much”. (The “left-leaning” The Atlantic has contributors like the neo con David Frum for crying out loud.) Sites like Breitbart and Alex Jones's Infowars on the other hand go for the niche. The sites in the middle get squeezed out, the ones who are too small to be big and too big to be small. Most of the big aforementioned big publications are pivoting towards a subscription + paywall + ad business, and I think this is the future.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The resistance from me is because claims of decency on behalf of the Republicans are being met with "that's not decency because it's not like Democratic decency".
I understand what you are saying, but as someone from the outside with no stakes and affiliation to either “team”, you come across as defensive because it is “your team”. Blame and responsibility are not always distributed in equal amounts, and I think this is one of those cases. Instead of being defensive about it, I think you should be more vigorous if you want the GOP to change and adhere to the principles you mentioned. Because they don't and are moving farther away from them. You should fight for your political home and for your principles, for otherwise, who would you like to vote for? And your fight will be quite hard, because (electoral) success hides problems — just look at how little the GOP got done despite the trifecta.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Going up against the Soviet Union was decency. Believing in free trade is decency. Creating jobs through innovation is decency. Innovation is decency.
Yes, and to how many of those does the GOP still adhere? Putin is more popular than Obama amongst Republicans. The current Republican President stopped TPP and TTIP, and called for 1930s-style protectionism through tariffs. And there is tons of condescension of colleges and universities as places of “liberal indoctrination” and science at large — the engines of innovation.

To be fair, at least the first three were staples of Republican policy, but “thanks” to Trump are no longer. I would personally applaud if the GOP returned to these principles, I think they are universal (well, apart from the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Law.
I'm confused. You said he was taking more courses to get into law school a year early...?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2017, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I understand what you are saying, but as someone from the outside with no stakes and affiliation to either “team”, you come across as defensive because it is “your team”. Blame and responsibility are not always distributed in equal amounts, and I think this is one of those cases. Instead of being defensive about it, I think you should be more vigorous if you want the GOP to change and adhere to the principles you mentioned. Because they don't and are moving farther away from them. You should fight for your political home and for your principles, for otherwise, who would you like to vote for? And your fight will be quite hard, because (electoral) success hides problems — just look at how little the GOP got done despite the trifecta.

Yes, and to how many of those does the GOP still adhere? Putin is more popular than Obama amongst Republicans. The current Republican President stopped TPP and TTIP, and called for 1930s-style protectionism through tariffs. And there is tons of condescension of colleges and universities as places of “liberal indoctrination” and science at large — the engines of innovation.

To be fair, at least the first three were staples of Republican policy, but “thanks” to Trump are no longer. I would personally applaud if the GOP returned to these principles, I think they are universal (well, apart from the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists).
What's making me defensive is good faith attempts to lay the foundation for what would be in a (hopefully less snotty) Republican version of the OP are being disqualified for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

For instance, my current examples are now apparently disqualified because Trump has taken the party off the rails.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2017, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's making me defensive is good faith attempts to lay the foundation for what would be in a (hopefully less snotty) Republican version of the OP are being disqualified for seemingly arbitrary reasons.
I don't think my reasons were arbitrary — at least you did not point out in what way they were. Do you think it is factually incorrect to say that support for the idea of global climate change is much less supported in the GOP than the Democrats? Which of the two parties embraces the reality of a multiethnic, more inclusive society? Do you agree or disagree that the GOP has made those strategic bets? Do you think those bets will pay off in the long run?

Just to be clear, I think you may read this as “none of the GOP's traditional policy positions have merit” nor “the Democrats have it made”, neither is true and I haven't claimed it either. I think there should be phases where old regulations are cut, not as a blanket rule, but to clean out the cobwebs and allow new things to grow. Financial responsibility is good, because we need to live in a system that is sustainable. Unfortunately, it is my observation that the GOP has embraced an increasingly old fashioned idea of society, shared by an ever shrinking part of the population, and is in the process of jettisoning financial responsibility, free trade and the like.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For instance, my current examples are now apparently disqualified because Trump has taken the party off the rails.
Isn't Trump's influence on what the GOP stands for one of the main points of our exchange here? As I wrote, I agree with the large scale ideas that you posited. But it is fair to point out that the GOP is moving away from them now, and if I were you and believed in those tenets, I'd fight tooth and nail against Trump and the GOP leadership.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2017, 11:14 AM
 
I was challenged to provide examples of Republican policy rooted in decency.

I provided examples

How does, say, being on the wrong side of inclusivity invalidate my examples?
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2017, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How does, say, being on the wrong side of inclusivity invalidate my examples?
Being on the wrong side of inclusivity doesn't, but the fact that these examples are arguably no longer GOP policies does.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2017, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

Going up against the Soviet Union was decency. Believing in free trade is decency. Creating jobs through innovation is decency. Innovation is decency.
I'm certainly not going to say any of your suggestions are indecent, or bad. Was the Soviet Union really the terrible foe it was made out to be? Or are they just the Muslims/Mexicans of a prior era? Assuming they were a real threat, I'm still not convinced the GOP deserves exclusive credit since apparently what they did was win a spending war and when it comes to spending on military, they do that all the time anyway.
I don't want to be too harsh, I acknowledge I'm being super cynical here. But even if we say ok, yes going against them and winning was deliberate, calculated, warranted and decent, does it really stack up that well? Its points on the board, but is it worth that many points when you consider potential mitigating motives?
Is free trade decency? Free trade often means no regulation, environmental abuse, corruption, bribery and abusive monopolies. Its not without its pros, but again it doesn't stack up all that well against equal rights and affordable healthcare etc. Again I'll award points but the scores are still light years apart. Can you really debate that?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2017, 08:32 PM
 
Also, I don't want you to feel I'm dismissing or invalidating your contribution here. You're either the only one who's trying or the only one who's managed to find the slightest shred at all to try with, so good on you for that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2017, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Is free trade decency? Free trade often means no regulation, environmental abuse, corruption, bribery and abusive monopolies. Its not without its pros, but again it doesn't stack up all that well against equal rights and affordable healthcare etc. Again I'll award points but the scores are still light years apart.
Just a qualification on my post in support of “free trade”: I think it is a net benefit to human society, but we have not done a good job at mitigating some of its negative effects (including environmental issues, human rights in third-world countries, economic side effects). I am against TTIP because I don't think the negotiation process was democratic. But overall, freeer trade has reduced global poverty tremendously.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Also, I don't want you to feel I'm dismissing or invalidating your contribution here. You're either the only one who's trying or the only one who's managed to find the slightest shred at all to try with, so good on you for that.

Yes, subego, put me in that category as well, I appreciate your willingness to debate this.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
but we have not done a good job at mitigating some of its negative effects (including environmental issues, human rights in third-world countries, economic side effects).
That's for damn sure. What we call "free" trade really only works if we get to exploit resources that have been designated as having little or no economic value.Thus large wealthy corporations are able to trade as if human capital overseas and the planets resources have a zero cost.

The actual trade itself is also far from free. in essence "free trade" means trade that produces overly cheap goods for developed world consumers. The negotiations that produce free trade are massively skewed against the developed world.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 01:32 PM
 
Great 1st post. I'll retaliate to it if I get some more time.
Waragainstsleep The thing is when you hear about the kinds of lobbying that make you angry, its usually Republicans. When you hear about gerrymandering, or laws to impede demographics from voting, its almost always Republicans. If someone is screwing the environment for profit? Reps. War for profit? Reps.
wasn't Clinton at war his whole term, bombing Europe and Iraq? Bush finishes Iraq once and for all and it's called "war for profit". Seems unfair.

Civil liberties being trampled? Reps. Stacking courts in their favour? Reps. Courts ruling based on partisan politics instead of the law? Reps. When those courts vote against partisan politics in favour of the letter of the law? Dems. Victimising immigrants or minorities? Reps. In individual terms, most of the sex scandals, and incidents of corruption and gross negligence seem to be Reps as well.
To me this is just an example of republicans being more honest; they're evil and they kinda know they're evil. Democrats are guilty of everything you mentioned above but with clever marketing they hide it just enough that the low info voters dont notice. If we simply raised the voting age to 24, liberal extremism wouldnt exist at its current state in the democratic party. Dems are dependent on the low info, less educated, inexperienced voter for their win. And by education Im referring to the education you get from real life, not college.

Much of the corrupt things the GOP do doesn't even get reported as being corruption, just political business but when you take campaign donations from oil companies and then vote against environmental protections, its corruption plain and simple. And you don't ever tend to hear about Dems doing this.
So you didnt hear about Hillary taking donations from insurance companies preceding the ACA? Anytime politicians take money from lobbying or whatever it's corruption. Both parties do it... it's a government thing. The US government is set up to make corruption official. We dont need to report this constantly because it's just understood, especially to republicans who dont trust government to begin with.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Going back in the direction of the OP, can we all happily agree that Republicans are basically bad and have achieved little or nothing positive for the people of America in fifty years or so and Democrats are basically good and responsible for virtually every positive change to society and the law for the last half century?
First of all, half a century ago dems would be considered conservative today. And before you say doesnt matter because they're the same in each context... it does.. because the polarization we have now, didnt exist back then. Our society was getting on board with some liberal and conservative policies regardless of ideology at the time. Modern day conservatives and liberals arent the same animal they were half a century ago. Modern dems didnt invent highways or any of the things you're giving them credit for. Due to excess litigation & bureaucracy our government isnt even capable of accomplishing what it used to.

Conservatives of the past spoiled their kids wanting them to have it better than they had. That created a monster, these kids dont appreciate what they had because 'better' is their norm, they never knew what it was like to work hard for a particular lifestyle like their parents. It's kinda insane that liberals think essentials should be provided free, & work generated income should be reserved for luxuries. Conservatives now feel they need to push back hard from the resulting leftist extremism culture.

I think the D/R balance is good. In it's best times it prevents one side from going psycho with poor thought out ideologies. It has its bad times though, like what we're seeing now. A time when people are taking sides just to grid lock the other without compromise. Keep in mind this nonsense in government is a reflection of the American people right now; this is what they want. It's a cycle and it will end at some point. On the "Alt Right" side I see it as the last stand of this culture mind set. Like the 60's, the age of the hippie peaked in 1969; there was Woodstock the biggest & best... At the time they felt powerful & didnt realize it would be their last stand. What Im saying is... I believe one whole side of the right, will cease to exist after the age of Trump. The rise & provocation of this "alt right" was brought about by Obama. Obama wasnt the worst president, but he clearly was trying to deliberately anger republicans. He took the pendulum too far and when it swung back Trump was the result. Trump didnt have to happen. Part of the fault lies with dems. They put up an extremely weak candidate with no platform aside from "because sexism & because racism". Meanwhile Sanders was too extreme. Any number of more moderate democrats would have crushed Trump. Hell even Jill Stein would have crushed him if she simply had a D by her name. I would have even voted for her, in spirit. Our liberals arent as smart as you seem to think they are if they cant beat Trump...

I feel like in this thread I might actually be getting my point some way towards home for a change because it feels like I'm asking questions which Republicans/conservatives cant answer and I really hope its making a few people think.
Nope you're not. You're premise is based on a fallacy.

1) The philosophy of conservationism doesnt trust government (even R's) and doesn't spend much time giving credit for 'good things' to either side of government. Conservatism pays more attention to individual responsibility rather than philosophizing what government can do to fix their own personal problems. IOW conservatives dont trust republicans like you seem to think. Conservatives view their politician choices/votes as a lesser of 2 evils; where they pick the one who will do the least & interfere with society the least... Democrats view it as a vote between 2 messiahs of which one is evil and the other the epitome of all good of which they place all their trust to fix society, doing the most to fix their personal problems & bring about utopia.

2) There are what? 3-4 republicans on this forum? I can only think of 2 off the top of my head, so I think Im being generous by saying there's 4. Since some are confused as to who isn't, I'll remind you that subego, capn', and me, aren't republicans. Now, while I'M to important to be wasting time voting, I did vote for Obama in spirit (Of course I was confident Obama would win. I was confident Trump would win too. All instincts told us Trump would win, but FACTS from our untrustworthy media told us Hillary would win. I understand now this was a peer pressure tactic, I wont let it happen again. By the end I really did think Hillary would win based on dishonest liberal FACTS [/ramble).

So you're basically trying to call out about 2 people so you can cyber bully them. So typical of leftists. You should come to America and join the SJWs

On the issue of trustworthiness and the media, things seem to have devolved to a point where whoever gets the most attention wins, regardless of whether its praise or criticism.
It's always been this way given the chance. It's human nature to follow the candidate that garners the most emotion. It's been Obama, Clinton, Reagan (I dont know how W got elected...). Part of my shtick has always been humans cant avoid their nature any more than animals. We're just a thinking animal...
I can already hear the groans at me saying this but its worth pointing out which side is still actively telling the people not to listen to experts or the media. Its only one side.
Thats because the media has been exposed for being overwhelmingly untrustworthy. The problem is most arent smart enough to handle it; most cant, or are too lazy to filter through to find the truth. Thats whats causing the problems, which makes the communist in me question how much unrestrained info (fake or accurate), the middle class & poor should have access to.

If tighter immigration controls had a positive effect on some aspect of the country, that absolutely qualifies too.
This is complicated. The US has become too bureaucratic and safety obsessed to get real work done. In the past it was acceptable for 100's to die building something like a dam. Now days employers get sued for employee back-aches or hurt wrists from typing incorrectly. Not even a hard floor is acceptable any more. Our gov has responded by 'designing' a system making it easy for certain demographics to visit the US for "illegal" work. As they are "illegal", employees keep their head down & we can still get that old school manual work without constant law suits and safety regs.

You could have education reforms if Republicans championed science and technology instead of helping push religious crap into schools and writing off colleges and liberal indoctrination centres.
Low info voter marketing trick here. Our schools teach evolution, not religion. As we are a large country there are many cultures. A few cultures of back woods country school systems teach creationism. Why is this a problem? Why cant culturally sensitive liberals let this minority be?
You could protect the environment instead of selling it to the highest bidder.
Liberals are hypocrites with the environment like with everything. The typical inner city liberal drinks how many cups of coffee, bottled water, and alcohol a day? a week? Liberals are massive consumerists / throw-away culture compared to conservatives. How much rain-forest is destroyed for coffee alone? How much oil drilling and global warming is required for bottled water? What happens to the bottles when liberals are done with them? We know the answer to the last question simply by visiting California & seeing garbage all over the place. Consumerism is the number 1 destroyer of the environment. Liberals want to punish local business but have no answer when those businesses cant compete with over seas, or when those business simply move to Canada where environmental regulations are practically nonexistent. Conservatives believe if you care about the environment why not start by looking at yourself. If each liberal became anti consumerist on an individual level, the environment would be saved. No government needed.

A factory can only pollute as much as the junk it's selling.
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Mar 8, 2017 at 01:46 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I'm confused. You said he was taking more courses to get into law school a year early...?
Confused? Pre-law obviously, I just shortened it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post

A factory can only pollute as much as the junk it's selling.
Yup. That part of the market is free. You are free to buy as much or as little of whatever you want. Bad practises are only supported by consumers, who have choices.

Business will only display as much ethics as the consumer/customer demands. No more, no less.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm certainly not going to say any of your suggestions are indecent, or bad. Was the Soviet Union really the terrible foe it was made out to be? Or are they just the Muslims/Mexicans of a prior era? Assuming they were a real threat, I'm still not convinced the GOP deserves exclusive credit since apparently what they did was win a spending war and when it comes to spending on military, they do that all the time anyway.
I was thinking about this bit of your post over the last few days, and I have to say, re-reading my reply to this bit of subego's post reads too jingoistic, something which I did not intend. I should have distinguished better between the threat of nuclear annihilation and a reflexive hatred of Soviet/Russian peoples.

Bush 1 and Thatcher promised a “peace dividend” thanks to the Cold War coming to an end — but that never happened. Blame incentives such as communities having become dependent on large military bases or companies with large military contracts (the famed military-industrial complex). Plus, outside of the US, the view of what ended the Cold War is a bit different: in Germany, a big part of it were the lines of communication that were opened during the 1970s and early 1980s by the Social Democratic-led government (and which was decried by conservatives). That proved to be quite useful to the next, conservative Kohl government when they entered negotiations.
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
That's for damn sure. What we call "free" trade really only works if we get to exploit resources that have been designated as having little or no economic value.Thus large wealthy corporations are able to trade as if human capital overseas and the planets resources have a zero cost.
All good points, and the reason why I put free trade in quotation marks. It is also why I support more trade, but we need to do a better job to be fair, attempt to develop African, South American and Asian countries in the process even if it hurts our own self interests in the short term.
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
The actual trade itself is also far from free. in essence "free trade" means trade that produces overly cheap goods for developed world consumers. The negotiations that produce free trade are massively skewed against the developed world.
This is one of the biggest problems that I should have mentioned: now Europe is complaining about hundreds of thousands of refugees coming, but this has been a crisis decades in the making. (And it was made worse by persistent droughts due to climate change … it is all connected.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Confused? Pre-law obviously, I just shortened it.
Lol...there is no degree called "pre-law" last time I checked. So he's doing a regular old undergraduate degree...?

Pre-law is just a fake, made-up term for undergrads hoping to get into law school (and a way for schools to encourage them to pay even more than $140,000 a year to stay in school, I guess). In fact I would never recommend that route at all - go do something like a B.Comm or engineering which is far more rigorous, a better knowledge base, and can actually be a much better base for a law career if you do it right.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Yup. That part of the market is free. You are free to buy as much or as little of whatever you want. Bad practises are only supported by consumers, who have choices.

Business will only display as much ethics as the consumer/customer demands. No more, no less.
Consumers rarely know the half of what businesses get up to. Arguably you shouldn't have to spend hours of research before you buy a coffee from a new vendor.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2017, 11:38 PM
 
Well then republicans shouldnt have to research and care about the environment either. If you do care about the environment you shouldnt consume coffee except for rare occassions. Same goes for soda, tobacco, and marijuana. No reaearch needed. It's common sense any crop destroys natural lands, forests, and kills species somewhere. The rate that these nutritionless luxuries are being consumed is unsustainable. You seem to want government intervention with the environment, how bout they take the most efficient noble unbiased approach, ban all these things. I would support that. Im with saving the virment, problem is liberals arent any more onboard than republicans. You guys are trying to get even more useless crops of no nutritional value legalized.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2017, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post

wasn't Clinton at war his whole term, bombing Europe and Iraq? Bush finishes Iraq once and for all and it's called "war for profit". Seems unfair.
Was Clinton bombing Iraq and Europe? Even if he was we're looking for good things Republicans have done rather than bad things Democrats have done. I'm not saying they are only good, they are still politicians after all.


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
To me this is just an example of republicans being more honest; they're evil and they kinda know they're evil. Democrats are guilty of everything you mentioned above but with clever marketing they hide it just enough that the low info voters dont notice. If we simply raised the voting age to 24, liberal extremism wouldnt exist at its current state in the democratic party. Dems are dependent on the low info, less educated, inexperienced voter for their win. And by education Im referring to the education you get from real life, not college.
This is an interesting perspective. I'm not sure how you can paint Republicans as more honest when they paint themselves as the party of religious moral virtue and family values, while running around being evil, screwing the poor, generally being un-Christian and regularly getting caught in sex scandals etc etc. Meanwhile the Democrats are hiding their own evil behind a raft of good deeds?
You're probably not wrong about people getting more conservative as they get older and more jaded. Its easy being an idealist when you have a bright future ahead of you. Once you've been kicked a few times (by older, richer Republicans ) you just decide to screw everyone else for your own benefit.


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
So you didnt hear about Hillary taking donations from insurance companies preceding the ACA? Anytime politicians take money from lobbying or whatever it's corruption. Both parties do it... it's a government thing. The US government is set up to make corruption official. We dont need to report this constantly because it's just understood, especially to republicans who dont trust government to begin with.
I didn't hear about Hillary taking donations but again I never pretended she was any kind of saint. I also know that corruption or "lobbying" is systematic in US politics. Politicians suck. Some more than others. This still isn't providing anything for the Republican's Nice List.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
First of all, half a century ago dems would be considered conservative today. And before you say doesnt matter because they're the same in each context... it does.. because the polarization we have now, didnt exist back then. Our society was getting on board with some liberal and conservative policies regardless of ideology at the time. Modern day conservatives and liberals arent the same animal they were half a century ago. Modern dems didnt invent highways or any of the things you're giving them credit for. Due to excess litigation & bureaucracy our government isnt even capable of accomplishing what it used to.
I confined the discussion to recent history because I know the parties sort of swapped over ideologically some time ago. Did the OP give credit to Dems for highways? If its wrong its wrong. I apologise for that. Since excess bureaucracy is such an issue, maybe it would be good if the Reps were less inclined to do things like clogging up the senate and refusing to do their jobs by having hearings on SC nominees.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Conservatives of the past spoiled their kids wanting them to have it better than they had. That created a monster, these kids dont appreciate what they had because 'better' is their norm, they never knew what it was like to work hard for a particular lifestyle like their parents. It's kinda insane that liberals think essentials should be provided free, & work generated income should be reserved for luxuries. Conservatives now feel they need to push back hard from the resulting leftist extremism culture.
I'm not sure wanting more for your kids is an exclusively conservative problem.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I think the D/R balance is good. In it's best times it prevents one side from going psycho with poor thought out ideologies. It has its bad times though, like what we're seeing now. A time when people are taking sides just to grid lock the other without compromise. Keep in mind this nonsense in government is a reflection of the American people right now; this is what they want. It's a cycle and it will end at some point. On the "Alt Right" side I see it as the last stand of this culture mind set. Like the 60's, the age of the hippie peaked in 1969; there was Woodstock the biggest & best... At the time they felt powerful & didnt realize it would be their last stand. What Im saying is... I believe one whole side of the right, will cease to exist after the age of Trump. The rise & provocation of this "alt right" was brought about by Obama. Obama wasnt the worst president, but he clearly was trying to deliberately anger republicans. He took the pendulum too far and when it swung back Trump was the result. Trump didnt have to happen. Part of the fault lies with dems. They put up an extremely weak candidate with no platform aside from "because sexism & because racism". Meanwhile Sanders was too extreme. Any number of more moderate democrats would have crushed Trump. Hell even Jill Stein would have crushed him if she simply had a D by her name. I would have even voted for her, in spirit. Our liberals arent as smart as you seem to think they are if they cant beat Trump...
What did he do to anger them so much? They were certainly furious but as far as I could tell they were that way before he moved into the white house. We all know why that really was.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
1) The philosophy of conservationism doesnt trust government (even R's) and doesn't spend much time giving credit for 'good things' to either side of government. Conservatism pays more attention to individual responsibility rather than philosophizing what government can do to fix their own personal problems. IOW conservatives dont trust republicans like you seem to think. Conservatives view their politician choices/votes as a lesser of 2 evils; where they pick the one who will do the least & interfere with society the least... Democrats view it as a vote between 2 messiahs of which one is evil and the other the epitome of all good of which they place all their trust to fix society, doing the most to fix their personal problems & bring about utopia.
I always thought distrust of government was more a libertarian thing. That said, most libertarians tend to sound like Republicans most of the time. Small government is a cornerstone of libertarianism but for conservatism its a selective half truth at best. The Republicans never seem to care about out of control spending on the military, or when they are allowing or actively pushing religion into schools or government institutions. Or when they are imposing government control over women's bodies etc etc.
Republicans don't really care about most of the stuff they claim to care about. Their actions betray this continuously. Cut their taxes and they are happy to let most other things slide.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
2) There are what? 3-4 republicans on this forum? I can only think of 2 off the top of my head, so I think Im being generous by saying there's 4. Since some are confused as to who isn't, I'll remind you that subego, capn', and me, aren't republicans. Now, while I'M to important to be wasting time voting, I did vote for Obama in spirit (Of course I was confident Obama would win. I was confident Trump would win too. All instincts told us Trump would win, but FACTS from our untrustworthy media told us Hillary would win. I understand now this was a peer pressure tactic, I wont let it happen again. By the end I really did think Hillary would win based on dishonest liberal FACTS [/ramble).
Only 2? Wasn't so long ago I felt completely outnumbered by a big margin. I feel like a lot of Republicans don't like to admit it. Almost like they know its worth being ashamed of.
Funnily enough I put the inaccuracy of the polls down to this phenomenon too. The Dems got no benefit from trying to convince people that the result was a foregone conclusion. If anything it inspires complacency on one side and motivates the other. Media conspiracy makes no sense. People voting for Trump for selfish or stupid reasons and being too ashamed to admit it does.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
So you're basically trying to call out about 2 people so you can cyber bully them. So typical of leftists. You should come to America and join the SJWs
I hope this is supposed to be funny. Otherwise it lets down your whole post.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
It's always been this way given the chance. It's human nature to follow the candidate that garners the most emotion. It's been Obama, Clinton, Reagan (I dont know how W got elected...). Part of my shtick has always been humans cant avoid their nature any more than animals. We're just a thinking animal...
I think W was a legacy. And he wasn't up against a big enough personality.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Thats because the media has been exposed for being overwhelmingly untrustworthy. The problem is most arent smart enough to handle it; most cant, or are too lazy to filter through to find the truth. Thats whats causing the problems, which makes the communist in me question how much unrestrained info (fake or accurate), the middle class & poor should have access to.
The media is a mess for sure. People have been conned into running away from a barking dog on the end of a chain straight into a den of free roaming lions.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
This is complicated. The US has become too bureaucratic and safety obsessed to get real work done. In the past it was acceptable for 100's to die building something like a dam. Nowadays employers get sued for employee back-aches or hurt wrists from typing incorrectly. Not even a hard floor is acceptable any more. Our gov has responded by 'designing' a system making it easy for certain demographics to visit the US for "illegal" work. As they are "illegal", employees keep their head down & we can still get that old school manual work without constant law suits and safety regs.
Do you see this as a partisan issue? Its been happening for a long time. There was an episode of Quincy ME lamenting the culture of litigation leading down this path. We have it in the UK too.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Low info voter marketing trick here. Our schools teach evolution, not religion. As we are a large country there are many cultures. A few cultures of back woods country school systems teach creationism. Why is this a problem? Why cant culturally sensitive liberals let this minority be?
Minority yes, but isn't it whole states in some cases? Or is it just counties? Its still hundreds or thousands of kids being gravely let down.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Liberals are hypocrites with the environment like with everything. The typical inner city liberal drinks how many cups of coffee, bottled water, and alcohol a day? a week? Liberals are massive consumerists / throw-away culture compared to conservatives. How much rain-forest is destroyed for coffee alone? How much oil drilling and global warming is required for bottled water? What happens to the bottles when liberals are done with them? We know the answer to the last question simply by visiting California & seeing garbage all over the place. Consumerism is the number 1 destroyer of the environment. Liberals want to punish local business but have no answer when those businesses cant compete with over seas, or when those business simply move to Canada where environmental regulations are practically nonexistent. Conservatives believe if you care about the environment why not start by looking at yourself. If each liberal became anti consumerist on an individual level, the environment would be saved. No government needed.

A factory can only pollute as much as the junk it's selling.
Everyone is a hypocrite with the environment. Again though, one side fails to do enough personal research to avoid Starbucks in favour of a local, organic, fair-trade shop, the other is trying to disband the EPA, abandon the Kyoto agreement and is screwing native Americans by building oil pipelines.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2017, 01:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Lol...there is no degree called "pre-law" last time I checked. So he's doing a regular old undergraduate degree...?.
WTF? I didn't say he was getting a "pre-law" degree, I said he was studying pre-law. His degree is technically in accounting.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2017, 10:04 PM
 
Well then he's studying accounting....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 11:23 AM
 
While waiting to get into law school.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 04:23 PM
 
Thank you for the kind words!

Sorry for the delay... RL interference.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm certainly not going to say any of your suggestions are indecent, or bad. Was the Soviet Union really the terrible foe it was made out to be? Or are they just the Muslims/Mexicans of a prior era? Assuming they were a real threat, I'm still not convinced the GOP deserves exclusive credit since apparently what they did was win a spending war and when it comes to spending on military, they do that all the time anyway.
I don't want to be too harsh, I acknowledge I'm being super cynical here. But even if we say ok, yes going against them and winning was deliberate, calculated, warranted and decent, does it really stack up that well? Its points on the board, but is it worth that many points when you consider potential mitigating motives?
I'm not sure I get the calculus being used here.

A sound argument can be made for the Soviets being less of a threat to the West than they were made out to be. They weren't any more interested in precipitating World War III than we were.

However, ultimately, millions of people were freed from the yoke of totalitarianism.


Help me to connect the dots here.

A certain segment of American society is weirded-out by homosexuals getting married. Scorn is heaped upon these people for their beliefs. I'll question whether this is the right approach, but I don't question whether the rage is legitimate, nor do I argue there's a lack of justice in the inequality.

There's also a lack of justice in secret police and gulags, under which millions and millions suffered. Enough so I'm slightly disturbed by the idea of discussing it in terms of points on the board.

Get me from there to "not many".


The rational (which I fully admit can be distinct from the GOP) argument for aggressive U.S. defense spending is it ultimately makes the world a better place. This is exactly what it did in this circumstance, by a considerable margin.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The rational (which I fully admit can be distinct from the GOP) argument for aggressive U.S. defense spending is it ultimately makes the world a better place. This is exactly what it did in this circumstance, by a considerable margin.
Did it though? I'm not arguing that the USSR wasn't bad, but is the world really a better place- by a considerable margin? Russia, at best, has moved from a totalitarian regime to an authoritarian one. The Middle East has gone to shit. Africa is, by and large, a mess.

Is it possible that collapse of the Soviet Union is as much of a victory, in real terms, as the toppling of Saddam Hussein? It's great that they're gone- they were really terrible, but what have we gotten in return?

My intention here is discussion, not argument- perhaps taking a page out of your Devil's Advocate Handbook.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Is free trade decency? Free trade often means no regulation, environmental abuse, corruption, bribery and abusive monopolies. Its not without its pros, but again it doesn't stack up all that well against equal rights and affordable healthcare etc. Again I'll award points but the scores are still light years apart. Can you really debate that?
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just a qualification on my post in support of “free trade”: I think it is a net benefit to human society, but we have not done a good job at mitigating some of its negative effects (including environmental issues, human rights in third-world countries, economic side effects). I am against TTIP because I don't think the negotiation process was democratic. But overall, freeer trade has reduced global poverty tremendously.


Yes, subego, put me in that category as well, I appreciate your willingness to debate this.
Thank you for the kind words as well!

I'm obviously going to agree with free trade being a net benefit, but I also agree with the assessment there's been a failure to mitigate the effects. A huge one on the part of the U.S.

I'm not seeing much love for the transformative technologies which all mysteriously get invented in our capitalist nightmare rather than in socialist utopias.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Did it though? I'm not arguing that the USSR wasn't bad, but is the world really a better place- by a considerable margin? Russia, at best, has moved from a totalitarian regime to an authoritarian one. The Middle East has gone to shit. Africa is, by and large, a mess.

Is it possible that collapse of the Soviet Union is as much of a victory, in real terms, as the toppling of Saddam Hussein? It's great that they're gone- they were really terrible, but what have we gotten in return?

My intention here is discussion, not argument- perhaps taking a page out of your Devil's Advocate Handbook.
Am I being unconstructive by proposing we lay the Saddam analogy on some Eastern Europeans?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
The Middle East has gone to shit. Africa is, by and large, a mess.
No argument there. We blew it multiple times.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Being on the wrong side of inclusivity doesn't, but the fact that these examples are arguably no longer GOP policies does.
Oh... no question the Republicans have abandoned pretty much everything at this point, so my arguments don't do a particularly good job of defending the current state of affairs.

I'm not even going to try and defend them now for the most part.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 10:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Oh... no question the Republicans have abandoned pretty much everything at this point, so my arguments don't do a particularly good job of defending the current state of affairs.

I'm not even going to try and defend them now for the most part.
So if the GOP makes a permanent swing towards Trumpian politics, what do you think will happen to these voters? Do they make a push for the Democrats or will they continue to begrudgingly stick to the GOP, selling principles for short-term policy wins?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 11:23 PM
 
That's a good question.

In ye olden days Bill Buckley would take the party out behind the shed every now and again for an attitude adjustment.

The old guard is trying. McCain and the Bushes. Romney was there for a bit, but he must have gotten bought-off or something.

The Democrats aren't helping by blowing their cool every 24 hours.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2017, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No argument there. We blew it multiple times.
The ME has largely been shit for over 1000 years, with tribes killing each other for sport or in the name of God. They do far more harm to each other than anyone from the West could.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 01:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The ME has largely been shit for over 1000 years, with tribes killing each other for sport or in the name of God. They do far more harm to each other than anyone from the West could.
I've noticed the shitty parts exist on an environmental axis with Arrakis on on end and blue sky Mordor on the other.

What gets me really angry about our Middle East involvement is the invasion of Iraq should have worked. The whole affair was succeeding beyond anyone's wildest dreams right up until we fire the Iraqi Army.

This one decision quite literally shot everything to hell. It handily wins the award for Biggest Singular ****up in the Entire World™ during the Bush administration.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 04:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No argument there. We blew it multiple times.
You're not really answering the question. Has the dissolution of the USSR had a material impact on the well-being of the world? For your average person on the street, some places are better (large parts of Eastern Europe), some places are worse (Middle East), and much of the world is pretty much the same.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 11:17 AM
 
Pointing to how much better Eastern Europe was a direct answer.

I can also point to how much better it is for non-Russian members of the Commonwealth.

Despite Russia's issues as a geopolitical force, the Russian people (of which there's a few) are better off as well. They still get to leave if they want.


I need to have the math shown to me where whatever influence the fall of the Soviets had on Middle Eastern stability wasn't totally overwhelmed by our own imperialist designs in the region.


Our Cold War military policy cut a swath from Berlin to Novosibirsk. The "yeah, whatever" reaction puzzles me.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Well then he's studying accounting....
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
While waiting to get into law school.
Well I don't feel we need to continue this rather unimportant point, but this response is just quite nonsense. Unlike other professional disciplines like perhaps medicine or dentistry where you can have "pre-" programs that ensure you meet all the course entrance requirements, law school does not have any specific requirements other than the degree & LSAT. There is no such thing as studying "pre-law" - you're studying whatever undergrad degree you enrolled in and then at some point - or not, if you change your mind - you're going to try to get into law school. It makes zero sense - it's like someone in high school saying that they're studying "pre-college."

Again, it's a made-up, meaningless term designed to try and make undergrads feel more important and impress other people.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 11:55 AM
 
I have no idea how you turned that into an attack against me. WTF?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 12:37 PM
 
Oh, right - forgot who I was talking to. Well, continue to play the victim and ignore my point on your use of the made-up term "pre-law"....but only as long as you also keep lying about how much you spend to pay your nephew's way at Vanderbilt. Deal?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 01:11 PM
 
What point? I'm still trying to figure out how I'm to blame for an admittedly shitty system. The rest is just more flamebait. *yawn*
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Thank you for the kind words!


However, ultimately, millions of people were freed from the yoke of totalitarianism.
OK lets accept for a moment that the GOP deserve the bulk of the credit for collapsing the USSR and literally freeing millions as you say.

It feels like a cop out saying it, but freeing Russians isn't really their job. I don't think I listed any conflicts, invasions or military actions under the Democrats nice list. Even though its a great thing, Americans didn't vote them to power to save the Russians any more than they did to save oppressed Iraqis from Saddam. If anything they voted to bomb the shit out of the latter out of revenge and I'm quite sure many conservative anti-communists had similar feelings towards Russia and were only kept in check by the threat of MAD.

Also, and we have to skirt a fine line here or we will end up with that episode of Friends where they debate the possibility of a selfless act, did the GOP destabilise Russia just to free the Russian people? Was it even a consideration for them? I have to think not.

So yes, they get points for doing a net good, but whether you look at motives or mechanisms, the good part is a happy by product, not a primary goal.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
What point? I'm still trying to figure out how I'm to blame for an admittedly shitty system. The rest is just more flamebait. *yawn*
The "admittedly shitty system" is people like you, and I assume your nephew, who insist on using the term. It's not an organized system; it's accommodation for those special people who want to impress other people.

The rest is you once again being caught is a bald-faced lie, and, instead of apologizing, doubling down on being a shitty person and refusing to acknowledge it.

Your nephew's tuition costs $25,000 per semester including school expenses. Yet somehow you're paying him an extra $50,000 per semester for food and rent? In Tennessee? Hahaha. Either you're not a good businessman after all, or you're not a good conservative after all, or you're lying. Take your pick.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
The "admittedly shitty system" is people like you, and I assume your nephew, who insist on using the term. It's not an organized system; it's accommodation for those special people who want to impress other people.

The rest is you once again being caught is a bald-faced lie, and, instead of apologizing, doubling down on being a shitty person and refusing to acknowledge it.

Your nephew's tuition costs $25,000 per semester including school expenses. Yet somehow you're paying him an extra $50,000 per semester for food and rent? In Tennessee? Hahaha. Either you're not a good businessman after all, or you're not a good conservative after all, or you're lying. Take your pick.
Pro Tip: He's lying.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Pro Tip: He's lying.
It's just what he does. Routinely and pathologically. I wouldn't even bet money on the existence of this supposed nephew let alone him paying $75K per semester to send him to Vanderbilt.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
The "admittedly shitty system" is people like you, and I assume your nephew, who insist on using the term. It's not an organized system; it's accommodation for those special people who want to impress other people.
The system that schools like Vandy themselves have labeled? I guess it's more gangsta to not use the school's own terms, but it's not like we invented it either, yo.

*more throwing allegations and crying about what people spend on their kid's education*
Now, I can see why you're pissy over it driving up expenses for everyone else, my nephew isn't living on ramen and crackers and does have a relatively posh apartment, but he does work hard and it is within the budget provided for him (I let him make most of his decisions, for good or ill). It's pretty funny that you're going full tilt over it, however, and you probably should learn to just calm down a little.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by paco500 View Post
pro tip: He's lying.
qq

Originally Posted by oaw View Post
it's just what he does. Routinely and pathologically. I wouldn't even bet money on the existence of this supposed nephew let alone him paying $75k per semester to send him to vanderbilt.
qq
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 06:06 PM
 
So, to recap now we've been round the houses.

CTP's nephew is at Vanderbilt. He's studying a plain jane undergrad degree in accounting. Not "Law" or the fabled "pre-law". Accounting. (that's correct CTP?)

According to VB's own website this should roll in at $70K per year (a bit less but rounding up).
CTP is happily throwing down £75K per semester (so $150K a year for a $70K course inc accommodation. Well $60K really since I guess even CTP isn't blasé enough to pay the residence fee AND the rent?

So, after the blow hard justification about fictional law and pre law we get an absurdly over remunerated and privileged undergrad with more money than he can possibly need as a student living the life of luxury.

I imagine Harvard etc is full of similar. It's distasteful in it's needless waste of resources and it's indulgence but hey, rich people...

moving on...

The law, no pre-law, no law, no actually accounting bit WAS funny though.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 09:29 PM
 
$90k a year sounds like it should pay to clean up a lot of dead hookers. Wouldn't a shrink be cheaper?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 09:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Thank you for the kind words as well!

I'm obviously going to agree with free trade being a net benefit, but I also agree with the assessment there's been a failure to mitigate the effects. A huge one on the part of the U.S.

I'm not seeing much love for the transformative technologies which all mysteriously get invented in our capitalist nightmare rather than in socialist utopias.

Theres free trade and theres free trade. Surely the Democrats are also in favour of free trade they just put a few more regulations in to stop the parts that have less to do with trade and more to do with corruption and exploitation etc etc while the Republicans moan that such things increase the costs of doing business.

Don't most of those transformative technologies come from companies whose CEOs and cultures are usually extremely liberal? You could argue their financial departments are more conservative I suppose but Apple, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, Silicon Valley in general are all famously liberal.

I don't see it as fair to assign total ownership of capitalism to conservatives just because liberals are fond of free education (which arguably benefits capitalism,) and free healthcare. If liberals have to forfeit all claims to capitalism for these sins then why shouldn't the Republicans for their love of socialised defence? Given they spend many times over what free healthcare and education for every citizen of America would cost.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 04:39 PM
 
Apple's entire business model is exploiting cheap labor from a country where the government abuses its citizens. These are Democratic Party principles?

Did Clinton's capitalistic tendencies help or harm her stature with her constituency? Why was Sanders able to propel himself as far as he did?

Socialized defense works as well as it does because we suffocate the shortcomings by burying them in money. Most government programs can be fixed this way if they're given the priority. I'd argue socialized policing could use this treatment.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Apple's entire business model is exploiting cheap labor from a country where the government abuses its citizens. These are Democratic Party principles?
People moan that a MacBook Pro costs £2500. I wonder what the cost of one made with non exploited labour would be, or maybe one made from non exploited labour where Apple have more Dell like profit margins on each machine. These are choices.

The fact that mega corps like Nike could probably double the wages they pay and still turn a profit and yet are happy to pay what they pay AND STILL think they are decent organisations amazes me. If you can uplift people through commerce yet fail abjectly to do so...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
*more crying about what others spend*
You're so out of touch, he doesn't even scratch the surface of what other kids from well-to-do families spend while attending top-tier universities, you're simply whining to hear yourself whine.

The law, no pre-law, no law, no actually accounting bit WAS funny though.
Yes, he's getting a degree in finance, because as it's been pointed out there is no official pre-law degree and you need something to show law schools so they'll admit you. It's a screwy system, I didn't invent it, that's just the way it is. I do wish I was as easily amused as you are though, I imagine I could watch cat videos on Facebook and be thoroughly entertained all day.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2