2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
The question for the poll is who do you plan to vote for?
It may be time to send Face "THAT PM".
Quote: MichaelBluejayIn my state (Texas) the Republican usually wins by a landslide, so I typically vote for a third-party candidate, like a Green. But there's a chance that the Texas race will be close this year, and if so, I plan on voting for Hillary. Which is a long way of saying, I didn't vote in the poll, because my answer isn't listed. ("Undecided")
I don't think that there is much of a chance of the race being close in Texas. There were 2.8 million Republican votes in the primary; the Democrat party had a little over 1.4 million votes. Even with a huge Cruz victory, Trump only was behind the landslide Democrat winner by less than 200,000 votes. The 1.2 million Cruz voters may not vote, but the ones that vote won't do so in large numbers for Hillary.
I do see Texas heading towards a possible change in direction in the future; I just don't think this is the year or Hillary is the candidate. Outside of Austin and some other liberal enclaves, Democrats on the national level seem to only come here for money. There would have to be a lot of money spent to have a chance at changing Texas: I just don't see a campaign doing that this year.
Quote: WizardofnothingIn all seriousness can someone explain or persuade me why I should vote for Hillary? I'd love to have a serious discussion thread
What are you looking for in a candidate? Do her positions fit what you are looking for better than her opponent's? You can make arguments for her getting your vote based on experience, her positions, etc., but first it helps to know what you want in a candidate.
Quote: WizardofnothingIn all seriousness can someone explain or persuade me why I should vote for Hillary? I'd love to have a serious discussion thread
All I ever hear is that she is a woman or she was married to Bill and somehow that qualifies her for the job.
Quote: AZDuffmanAll I ever hear is that she is a woman or she was married to Bill and somehow that qualifies her for the job.
He asked about discussing "why" he should vote for her, not why you (presumably) and I won't. That is a fair question and it deserves a answer deeper than our usual answers about her.
--Senator
--Secretary of State
Two pieces of experience that Trump, for example, does not have.
Quote: WizardofnothingIn all seriousness can someone explain or persuade me why I should vote for Hillary? I'd love to have a serious discussion thread
I may break this off to a new thread if it gets a few more replies, but I think the most important part of voting is to know what the party intends to do if they get in office. And then vote for what's important to you. Because the candidates are each only one person, and they take their positions from the party platform.
You want a bunch of people blocked by walls, kept out for their religion ,or thrown out of the country, vote for Trump.
You want to allow immigrants, fix what's wrong with the system, but bring in the fresh blood to continue American growth, vote for Hillary.
You want billionaires running the country, vote for Trump.
You want bank regulation strengthened, Dodd Frank enforced, vote for Hillary .
You want the affordable care act to continue, get improved, and you can stop paying for uninsured people showing up in emergency rooms and public hospitals for free care, vote for Hillary.
You want to continue private insurance and who cares how the others live, vote for Trump.
You want affordable college for the next generation, vote for Hillary. You don't care, don't have kids, or whatever, vote for Trump.
You want women to be prosecuted for having an abortion, and doctors, vote for Trump. You want women to continue to have a choice, vote for Hillary.
That's what, 4 opposing subjects out of dozens of things both the Republican and Democrat parties are planning to do. Not even the most important ones to me, but maybe one or more is to you. More to come.
However, one thing somebody said this week caught my ear. No matter who you vote for in November there's gonna be a nasty old man in the White House come January. One who's a known serial adulterer, grabb-azz sleezebucket all his life. Me, I prefer Bill's southern come - on to Trump's frat-boy bully gone bad act, but your mileage may differ. Either way, it's a stupid thing for anyone to focus on. So here's hoping we, and the campaigns, don't.
I don't necessarily agree with the 'slant' on the subjects but it's catchy, it's sound bite material and valuable.
You should consider reaching out to the DNC, they playin' with hundreds of millions over there (RNC too).
THEY might be willing to PAY for good ideas and hard work.
You might be able to sell to both sides ;-)
<edit> my Walker / Rubio bet lost, same with Kasich /Rubio, but I'm working a progressive so I may break even yet;-)
<watch for Trump to call a press conference, offer Hillary the VP spot to unite the country and 'make it great again' by compromise and working together as Americans. Even if it really is just to see if her head explodes!
< go easy on the grab-azz sleazebuckets in the world. God made me this way, maybe ;-)
However, that's the real problem I have. I cannot truly believe that nowadays there are still people that are on board with either parties agenda fully.
For instance I can't in my heart believe that trump is not in favor of abortion,
I have been at lunches back in the day with him. Most of his views then were much more moderate, especially if you are a Howard stern fan and remember his dozens of phone calls to the show.
Hillary seems extremely unlikable to me. (The way she dresses bothers me- side note)
I don't consider myself a dem or rep. I view it more of a realist . Some of trumps views bother me/ some of hillarys. I think trump has some extreme views, but I also think that he does care about the country . I can't say I support republicans because although I am not against guns fully, I can for one second fathom why anyone needs let's say more then 10. Or semi automatic assault weapons.
Trump seems like he's on a roll right now, but I expect his momentum to wane in the next three months. Hillary has been under the microscope for a while now and, it seems to me, most of her dirty laundry has been aired already. Trump's hasn't come close, and I think once all his shady dealing in the past comes to light, many of his fanboys will realize his true colors. For one, he's mobbed up:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910
Best reply to a question I've seen on this forum in quite a while.Quote: RonCWhat are you looking for in a candidate? Do her positions fit what you are looking for better than her opponent's? You can make arguments for her getting your vote based on experience, her positions, etc., but first it helps to know what you want in a candidate.
Quote: beachbumbabsI may break this off to a new thread if it gets a few more replies, but I think the most important part of voting is to know what the party intends to do if they get in office. And then vote for what's important to you. Because the candidates are each only one person, and they take their positions from the party platform.
Another way to see this election is on a referendum on the DNC position that we should have no choice, other than neoliberalism, mass incarceration, perpetual war, etc. Someone who is worth $100 million from legalized bribery and who knowingly votes for unjust wars isn't acceptable. If you want my vote, do better. The Dems as a right wing party that is socially liberal on some issues, should fail, imo.
I hope Trump wins. Won't vote for him, as I think strategic voting is foolish. I always vote for a candidate I genuinely like, or with whom I agree on many major issues. So, on the question of who to vote for, I think the answer should always be, "the candidate who best represents your positions."
Quote: RigondeauxAnother way to see this election is on a referendum on the DNC position that we should have no choice, other than neoliberalism, mass incarceration, perpetual war, etc. "...
Rig... I appreciate you weighing in, but I don't understand what you said here. I don't know what the term neoliberalism means (new dog whistle maybe)? Mass incarceration and the private prison system (worth 10s of billions to the contractors) is largely Republican legislation and lobbying. Perpetual war is Republican Hawks and the defense industry, also mostly Republican controlled. So how are you throwing that stuff at the Dems?
Quote: beachbumbabsRig... I appreciate you weighing in, but I don't understand what you said here. I don't know what the term neoliberalism means (new dog whistle maybe)? Mass incarceration and the private prison system (worth 10s of billions to the contractors) is largely Republican legislation and lobbying. Perpetual war is Republican Hawks and the defense industry, also mostly Republican controlled. So how are you throwing that stuff at the Dems?
Many of them, including Hillary, voted for the Iraq war, knowing (assuming they had access to as much or more information than I did, as a college kid with an internet connection), that it was being justified on false pretenses. I don't see how someone can knowingly vote for unjust wars, and not be considered a hawk. She's buddy buddy with Kissinger. She has not called for reduced military spending.
"As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican."
"Former administration officials also tell TIME that Clinton was an advocate for maintaining a residual troop force after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq—an issue of renewed interest given al Qaeda’s resurgence there. They also describe her as skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, and firmly opposed to talk of a “containment” policy that would be an alternative to military action should negotiations with Tehran fail."
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/
Hillary has taken a great deal of money from private prison companies. She only recently stopped accepting these bribes after being called out on it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-private-prisons_b_9297568.html
She does not support marijuana legalization. She, along with BIll, has generally been a proponent of the drug war and mass incarceration. She voted for the death penalty for drug dealers. Perhaps I'm a pie in the sky idealist, but I don't think it's too much to ask that the "liberal" candidate opposes the government paying corporations to cage people with substance abuse issues or, shit, even people who use drugs for fun.
There are even some important issues where Trump is far better than Hillary, like TPP. He is a massive jerk, but oh well.
Quote:The Trump International Hotel in Ireland applied for a permit to build a seawall on its golf course to prevent erosion. Politico reports the permit application included an environmental impact statement that explicitly said the wall would need to be built to combat “global warming and its effects.” The golf course is located at Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.
http://time.com/4345367/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course/
Clinton's email and paid speeches bother me immensely, but she is no where near the first high level politician to do those things. Not that it's an excuse.
Quote: gamerfreakTrump's achiellies heal might be his Tax returns.
I think the type of person to vote for Trump wouldn't care.
The Wizard speaks.
I will prolly vote for Trump, whether or not I see his tax returns before November.
Trump sounds crazy, but I think he's going to reel it way in once he's got the nomination on lock. People are afraid of what Trump says he's going to do, but I think it's all an act. I'm really interested to see what the debates are going to be like. If Trump gets some good handlers to nail down his talking points and help him reel in the crazy, I think his charisma and outsider status could trounce Clinton.
Quote: AZDuffmanAll I ever hear is that she is a woman or she was married to Bill and somehow that qualifies her for the job.
Being married to someone who was one of the most powerful people in the world for eight years is nothing to sneeze at... she's made a lot of friends in high places all over the world.
Also, she was a New York State Senator for eight years, and Secretary of State for four. I'd say those qualifications are pretty darn good for someone running for president. Whether or not she'd be any good at it is the real question.
Salon: The Clinton dynasty’s horrific legacy: How “tough-on-crime” politics built the world’s largest prison systemQuote: beachbumbabsMass incarceration and the private prison system (worth 10s of billions to the contractors) is largely Republican legislation and lobbying.
"The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clinton’s version of the “War on Drugs” is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure — or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. “Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined,” states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrat’s term, was 42 per 100,000 — more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagan’s term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bush’s term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI."
Democrats have this *image* of being more liberal than they actually are.
Quote: WizardI think the type of person to vote for Trump wouldn't care.
True, but with both candidates having awful favorability ratings, I think there's an enormous amount of people who are. A lot of factors could tip those people one way or another.
Also we saw record high turnout for the primary, I predict that the turnout will be a record low for the general.
Quote: WizardI think the type of person to vote for Trump wouldn't care.
I don't care about them, I am sure they are in order. I do care more about who the professional begging organization known as The Clinton Foundation has taken donations from and what kind of access it is buying.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou want billionaires running the country, vote for Trump.
Really, Babs? Have you looked at how much billionaires have paid Hillary for short speeches? She should have "PROPERTY OF GOLDMAN SACHS tattooed on her backside. But allow me to retort:
You wand sensible, legal immigration policy, vote for Trump.
You want open borders to anyone and everyone, vote for Hillary.
You want bank regulation strengthened, Dodd Frank enforced, vote for Hillary .
You want to be able to make your own choices in your health care, vote for Trump.
If you think the government can make the decisions better than you can, vote for Hillary.
You want a new idea in controlling college costs, vote for Trump.
You want the costs to continue to escalate on the path they have for 50 years, vote for Hillary.
You think that there are more ways to get trained than college, vote for Trump
You want even more underemployed grads with useless liberal arts degrees, vote for Hillary.
You want sensible abortion policy, vote for Trump
You want 13 year old girls getting abortions without their parents even knowing, vote for Hillary,
And the biggie:
You want someone who has executive experience running major corporations, vote for Trump.
You want a person who cannot figure out their secure email and fax, vote for Hillary.
Quote: AZDuffman
You want to be able to make your own choices in your health care, vote for Trump.
If you think the government can make the decisions better than you can, vote for Hillary.
I live in one of the fattest, most unhealthy States in the Union.... I see a lot of people that can't even take care of themselves; I don't see how the gub'mint can do any worse...!! Haha...
Quote:
You want a new idea in controlling college costs, vote for Trump.
You want the costs to continue to escalate on the path they have for 50 years, vote for Hillary.
I don't know anything about this issue. I thought the stereotypical liberal/democrat mantra was "free/low cost college for everyone!" But that is at odds with what you're saying here. Can you elaborate on this point?
Quote: TigerWu
I don't know anything about this issue. I thought the stereotypical liberal/democrat mantra was "free/low cost college for everyone!" But that is at odds with what you're saying here. Can you elaborate on this point?
Sure! The Democrat answer to college costs is always a little more grants and more loans. Yet college costs have skyrocketed for 45 years. Barely 50% of students graduate. Anyone who has gone to college knows the major dropout rate year 1 to 2. Then look at all the underemployed kids with useless degrees. I worked with several at the banks. One owed six Big Dimes in loans! Another had a masters in something some kind of language something. A temp sitting right in front of me.
The only way colleges will control costs is when they have 2,000 open slots and 1,800 students show up on Labor Day. Then they will get the message, As it is, we just subsidize failure.
Dirty little secret is probably half the incoming students do not belong there. Many of the girls are just majoring in husbandry. Many guys and girls are just going to 13th grade. We need more trades, not more liberal arts degreeholders working at Starbucks.
Quote: AZDuffman
You want someone who has executive experience running major corporations, vote for Trump.
Government is the only profession where people argue the person with no experience in it is better than someone with experience. So that would make it an exception to every other profession.
Since politics is unlikely to be the one exception, Trump is no better than a rank amateur in this regard. Hasn't even worked as a city councilman in a small town.
That's a worthless and misleading statistic, equivalent to saying that the average American is 51% female. The four-year matriculation rate for selective colleges is near 85%, and it shoots to well over 90% when extra time is considered. On the other hand, many schools have no screening whatsoever and even the worst students can enroll. Of course those schools will have more dropouts. There are solutions to college debt across that spectrum but it's a mistake to think there's a one size fits all.Quote: AZDuffmanBarely 50% of students graduate. Anyone who has gone to college knows the major dropout rate year 1 to 2. Then look at all the underemployed kids with useless degrees.
The moral: don't argue using bad statistics on a math forum.
Also there's no such thing as a useless degree, and suggesting otherwise is a vicious rebuff of an entire discipline. The use one gets from an education is entirely dependent on how it is used. Someone who goes to school willing and able to learn critical thinking rarely fails. Only the closed-minded or lazy come away no better for the experience, but higher education has never been for those without the willingness to be there.
Fixed that for you.Quote: AZDuffmanYou want someone who has executive experience running major corporations into the ground, vote for Trump.
Seriously though, the brash executive policy of "go big or go home" has no place in the economic policy of this country. Overleveraging a casino and then filing bankruptcy is one thing. The corporate laws of this country provide for that. But there are no provisions to overleverage the national debt and then restructure it. We don't get to just stop paying our debt service to our creditors or really bad geopolitical events will occur. Like a global financial meltdown. Or war.
Getting private lenders out of the game should help, but it seems there's been wild negligence at the schools themselves, with bloated administrations, absurd student activity fees so they can pay stand up comedians $10k and of course text books, which were crazy even when I was in school 20 years ago.
Seems like there should be some fairly easy ways to cut through much of that. Howsabout text books are distributed as e-books? What do you have to pay an econ prof to update his Micro 101 textbook? $20k? So give him a grant, then distribute it online for free.
If the Universities are intent on bleeding students dry, we can move to more independent learning. Entire courses from Stanford, Yale and MIT are available free online. You shouldn't have to pay thousands to take inferior classes if you want a degree from UNLV, particularly for your GE and elective subjects.
Have moderates disappeared or do they just not post on internet forums?
Quote: MichaelBluejaySalon: The Clinton dynasty’s horrific legacy: How “tough-on-crime” politics built the world’s largest prison system
"The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clinton’s version of the “War on Drugs” is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure — or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. “Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined,” states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrat’s term, was 42 per 100,000 — more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagan’s term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bush’s term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI."
Democrats have this *image* of being more liberal than they actually are.
1. Neither Bill nor Hillary have acted as leftist Democrats throughout their respective careers. They're both Moderates and always have been. They're both willing to work across party lines and have on many things.
2. Clinton Administration does not make Federal law, nor does any administration. Congress makes laws, and then separately funds their enactment and enforcement. DOJ enforces federal criminal law given them by Congress. 6 years of WJC's administration, both Houses were run by Republican majority. They passed a lot of federal law. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
Add 1. to 2. In this country as it was THEN. Much sentiment for tough-on-crime and prison "reform" including relieving overcrowding. Legislate and enforce for 20 years. Look at the consequences . Some parts worked. Some parts didn't. Some parts have unintended consequences. Some things didn't become apparent until a decade of practice.
You put it on the Clinton admin. I put it on Republican Congress, with a compliant President.
Quote: DRichI always thought I was socially moderate but you people are making me feel like an old conservative.
Have moderates disappeared or do they just not post on internet forums?
Most of right wing media is like AZDuffman; if you don't agree with their extreme right stance on everything, they label you as liberal and left. Which is how you get crap like RINO labels, running moderate Republicans out of office by primary ing them to their right, and dozens of good and more moderate leaders simply resigning out of disgust.
Democrats still have similar spectrum ; Hillary is a moderate, Bernie is the Left. Both have support. But right-wing media is pervasive, knowing that simply repeating lies and distortion makes some of it become conventional wisdom.
If you're socially moderate, fiscally conservative, think Americans (repubs and dems) should work together to solve problems, you're probably closest to Hillary. By demonstrated acts, not by how anyone from either side tries to spin them. I'm a moderate Republican myself,.and she matches me best of the 3.
Quote: RigondeauxI do have a problem with the fact that Hill, and even my man Bernie, as far as I know, have no concrete plans for attacking the outrageous costs of universities. Socializing the cost makes sense to me, but reducing the cost is more important.
Getting private lenders out of the game should help, but it seems there's been wild negligence at the schools themselves, with bloated administrations, absurd student activity fees so they can pay stand up comedians $10k and of course text books, which were crazy even when I was in school 20 years ago.
Seems like there should be some fairly easy ways to cut through much of that. Howsabout text books are distributed as e-books? What do you have to pay an econ prof to update his Micro 101 textbook? $20k? So give him a grant, then distribute it online for free.
If the Universities are intent on bleeding students dry, we can move to more independent learning. Entire courses from Stanford, Yale and MIT are available free online. You shouldn't have to pay thousands to take inferior classes if you want a degree from UNLV, particularly for your GE and elective subjects.
You have some good ideas here, Rig.
As to textbooks, that's been a scam for 50 years at least. Whole other subject.
There's a huge value in education. Undergrad was never meant to be job training. It was learning critical thinking, maturity, social interaction, exposure to a plethora of ideas, discovering strengths, choosing majors, then either moving into the job market or continuing to graduate studies in an area of concentration. Most of the expected value depends on physically being there, not remote studies, though.
There's a separate need for technical schools, trade schools, associate degrees, and certification for certain jobs. They were wrongly perceived as lesser choices, and colleges and universities were the only visible path to success; still true today . More job-oriented, less teaching-to-think. So I think less value lost by remote learning.
The point of most financial aid and programs was to take the cost of a student's choice from being the reason they went to one school or another. Like a lot of things, there are bloats, unintended consequences, angle-shooting, and now we have a generation with insane debt.
Most of those concepts are being disrupted and overturned by the digital revolution. All 6 of my nieces and nephews went to college; all were REQUIRED to bring a computer of a particular minimum capability to start school. (Still had to buy the books,though).
Anyway, I think many more people will be getting online degrees in the future. Study will be much more job-oriented than Undergrad traditional curricula. More people will afford it; fewer benefits will be gained, at least the intangibles.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: MichaelBluejaySalon: The Clinton dynasty’s horrific legacy: How “tough-on-crime” politics built the world’s largest prison system
"The explosion of the prison system under Bill Clinton’s version of the “War on Drugs” is impossible to dispute. The total prison population rose by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure — or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute. “Under President Bill Clinton, the number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction doubled, and grew more than it did under the previous 12-years of Republican rule,combined,” states the JPI report (italics theirs). The federal incarceration rate in 1999, the last year of the Democrat’s term, was 42 per 100,000 — more than double the federal incarceration rate at the end of President Reagan’s term (17 per 100,000), and 61 percent higher than at the end of President George Bush’s term (25 per 100,000), according to JPI."
Democrats have this *image* of being more liberal than they actually are.
1. Neither Bill nor Hillary have acted as leftist Democrats throughout their respective careers. They're both Moderates and always have been. They're both willing to work across party lines and have on many things.
2. Clinton Administration does not make Federal law, nor does any administration. Congress makes laws, and then separately funds their enactment and enforcement. DOJ enforces federal criminal law given them by Congress. 6 years of WJC's administration, both Houses were run by Republican majority. They passed a lot of federal law. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
Add 1. to 2. In this country as it was THEN. Much sentiment for tough-on-crime and prison "reform" including relieving overcrowding. Legislate and enforce for 20 years. Look at the consequences . Some parts worked. Some parts didn't. Some parts have unintended consequences. Some things didn't become apparent until a decade of practice.
You put it on the Clinton admin. I put it on Republican Congress, with a compliant President.
I disagree, BBB...I put it on the Clintons and the Democrats. The Republicans had not yet gained power when this bill was passed. The bill was signed in September of 1994, just before the midterm changed the power structure. The best you can argue with just this info on this bill is that he signed it to try and hold onto the House based on the timing....but I'd have to do a lot more reading on that to actually make that conclusion. The fact is that it was passed by Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat.
"The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, Pub.L. 103–322 is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs, which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers.[1] Sponsored by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was originally written by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and then was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act
"As president, Bill Clinton and his allies embarked on a draconian punishment campaign to outflank the Republicans. “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say that I’m soft on crime,” he bragged. "
"Hillary strongly supported this legislation and stood resolutely behind her husband’s punishment campaign. “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” Hillary declared in 1994. “The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets,” she added. Elsewhere, she remarked, “We will finally be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders: three strikes and you’re out.”"
https://newrepublic.com/article/129433/clintons-war-drugs-black-lives-didnt-matter
235-95-5
Democrats held House by 78 or so members...
Http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml
Senate 61-38-1
Mostly Dems voting for....
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295
The Congress that passed the bill...Senate (100) D/R then House...solid Democrat majority
103rd 1993–1995 100 57 43 — — 435 258 176 1 —
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
Quote: beachbumbabsThere's a huge value in education. Undergrad was never meant to be job training. It was learning critical thinking, maturity, social interaction, exposure to a plethora of ideas, discovering strengths, choosing majors, then either moving into the job market or continuing to graduate studies in an area of concentration. Most of the expected value depends on physically being there, not remote studies, though.
There is no question that education is valuable. I would argue that it is important to get a degree in something that actually has jobs related to it as opposed to just being there for the experience--part of the experience is to get you ready for the real world. Getting a degree in a discipline that has slim job choices is not necessarily a very good life decision. I think we see more of that than educators would like us to believe.
Being there is important; we are getting all of our kids on campus to live for at least a couple of years.
Quote: beachbumbabsThere's a separate need for technical schools, trade schools, associate degrees, and certification for certain jobs. They were wrongly perceived as lesser choices, and colleges and universities were the only visible path to success; still true today . More job-oriented, less teaching-to-think. So I think less value lost by remote learning.
College has been over sold to many people who would be better off in a trade based on many factors. A good plumber or A/C person can make a lot more money than many college grads. The combination of some college (business courses) and the trade may make them even better--capable of running a business and being successful. Many never attend college and run good businesses with solid backgrounds; I just think some business studies can always help, A combination of two types of education...
The reason these things were looked down upon is because people climbed those ivory towers of education and thought everything else was beneath them. That attitude caught hold and made many feel college was the only way. College is a way, and it has big potential benefits. It just isn't the only way!
Quote: MathExtremistThat's a worthless and misleading statistic, equivalent to saying that the average American is 51% female. The four-year matriculation rate for selective colleges is near 85%, and it shoots to well over 90% when extra time is considered. On the other hand, many schools have no screening whatsoever and even the worst students can enroll. Of course those schools will have more dropouts. There are solutions to college debt across that spectrum but it's a mistake to think there's a one size fits all.
The moral: don't argue using bad statistics on a math forum.
Actually you just made my point for me. Of course selective schools have a high graduation rate. It is because they take just the best students who do in fact belong in college. But this is a very small subset of the student population. For every one kid going to a CMU there are probably 10 going to a garden variety college, and I may be low at 10, it might be 20. Of the total college population you still have the dropout problem, and dropout with huge debt, I will say it again, too many just are going to 13th grade. The ones at selective and very selective schools do not figure into that group and should do well no matter what.
The moral: don't argue throwing rocks at a guy with a machine gun
Quote:Also there's no such thing as a useless degree, and suggesting otherwise is a vicious rebuff of an entire discipline. The use one gets from an education is entirely dependent on how it is used. Someone who goes to school willing and able to learn critical thinking rarely fails. Only the closed-minded or lazy come away no better for the experience, but higher education has never been for those without the willingness to be there.
Oh, yes there are useless degrees. Lots of them. Anything with the word "studies" in it (women studies, etc) is basically useless. There are many more. What you have said in your statement is what is known as "faculty lounge talk." This is when people who never made it in the real world but got a university job discuss that they are there for some higher purpose and everything they do has meaning. It is nonsense.
College as it exists today is there for the masses to get specialized training to obtain employment. That is a fact of modern life. There are professional students to be sure. But no employer ever asked me what I learned in philosophy. They wanted to know if I had business training. Across town they will want to know what chemistry classes someone took. Across town form that they want medical training.
I was once in an online discussion with a girl who had a Women's Studies major desiring a job in the not for profit world. I told her she had a useless degree and her reasoning for wanting to be in not for profit was coming off as someone afraid of the real world. Someone should have told her 4 years and 50,000 dollars earlier.
Quote: MathExtremistQuote: AZDuffmanYou want someone who has executive experience running major corporations into the ground, vote for Trump.
Fixed that for you.
Yes, he had a failure, A bankruptcy, Most successful businessmen have had one or a few, Do you have a point about it?
Quote:But there are no provisions to overleverage the national debt and then restructure it.
Oh, but there is. I guess you have never heard of inflation. $1000 that LBJ borrowed to fight his Vietnam War was only paid back at a value of $207 by Bill Clinton 30 years later when the bond matured. Might have said $1,000, but that was the buying power. You do not need a math degree to understand this concept, but I bet that fewer than 40% of even college grads really get what is going on there.
Quote: MathExtremistFixed that for you.Quote: AZDuffmanYou want someone who has executive experience running major corporations into the ground, vote for Trump.
In my opinion (which we have already established carries little weight around here), this type of quote "fixing" should not be allowed here. If you re-quoting someone, quote them. If you want to make it your opinion, then say it yourself. Yes, I realize that you are doing that by "fixing" but it could be misinterpreted down the line by someone coming in part way through the thread.
Quote: RonCQuote: MathExtremistFixed that for you.Quote: AZDuffmanYou want someone who has executive experience running major corporations into the ground, vote for Trump.
In my opinion (which we have already established carries little weight around here), this type of quote "fixing" should not be allowed here. If you re-quoting someone, quote them. If you want to make it your opinion, then say it yourself. Yes, I realize that you are doing that by "fixing" but it could be misinterpreted down the line by someone coming in part way through the thread.
I once thought about doing it but decided it was not a manly way to make my point. This is at least the second time someone did it to me.
Try telling that to AZDuffman.Quote: RonCThere is no question that education is valuable.
Sure, and up is down, left is right, and white is black. Yep.Quote: AZDuffmanYes, he had a failure, A bankruptcy, Most successful businessmen have had one or a few...
Speaking of that, let's look at the real value of a liberal arts degree:
Quote: quoteFor the last time: No, earning a degree in English, philosophy, art history, name-your-humanities-discipline will not condemn you to a lifetime of unemployment and poverty....[P]ersistent or not, the myth of the unemployed humanities major is just that: a myth, and an easily disproven one at that....AAC&U’s employer surveys confirm, year after year, that the skills employers value most in the new graduates they hire are not technical, job-specific skills, but written and oral communication, problem solving, and critical thinking—exactly the sort of “soft skills” humanities majors tend to excel in....In 2013, the unemployment rate for Americans whose terminal degree was a bachelor’s degree in a humanities discipline was 5.4 percent. That is slightly higher than the 4.6 percent unemployment rate for bachelor’s degree holders across all disciplines that year. But it’s significantly lower than the 9 percent unemployment rate for those with only a high school diploma or equivalent....Salary distributions tell a similar story. The median salary for those with a terminal bachelor’s degree in the humanities was $50,000 in 2013—a little lower than the median salary for all bachelor’s degree holders ($57,000), but still much higher than the median salary for those with just a high school diploma ($35,000)."
Quote: MichaelBluejayTry telling that to AZDuffman.
Sure, and up is down, left is right, and white is black. Yep.
A reply I have heard before. Because I don't think dropping tens of thousands of dollars at a degree factory is a good idea for half the people out there I don't value education. Because I dare point out how many worthless degrees are being churned out I do not value education. Because I understand that a certification in HVAC will give a far better ROI than so many degrees I don't value.........
Every time you say something like "the financial ROI of an HVAC certification is greater than a liberal arts degree" or "Women's Studies is a worthless degree" or "people who study liberal arts can't hack it in the real world" it makes me wonder about your own educational background.Quote: AZDuffmanA reply I have heard before. Because I don't think dropping tens of thousands of dollars at a degree factory is a good idea for half the people out there I don't value education. Because I dare point out how many worthless degrees are being churned out I do not value education. Because I understand that a certification in HVAC will give a far better ROI than so many degrees I don't value.........
Did you go to college? Where? What did you study? Did you graduate? Do you find that you apply your education to your daily life?
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm a moderate Republican myself,.and she matches me best of the 3.
I don't doubt that. But why should someone like me, who is liberal/left vote for a moderate Republican?
The answer is, that there is no reason I should be forced to vote right wing, and I won't. Millions of others won't either.
Many on the far right wing hate her because she is anti-second amendment, and I don't blame them. She is also anti-first and fourth amendment, which should bother just about everyone, though most in both parties are.
I also don't see these people as moderates, even though some of them are in the middle of the spectrum of corruption and greed they have created. It is not moderate to have the highest incarceration rate in the world by far. Nor to perpetually be at war and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to generate corporate profit. TPP and similar arrangements are rather radical, if words have meanings. It is a radical idea that the president of the US should be someone who has openly accepted $100 million in bribes from big business, not even in campaign funds, but into her own bank account, and that this should be the new normal.
Eisenhower was a moderate but now both parties would consider him "unelectable" because he believed in the New Deal and opposed the military industrial complex.
Quote: MathExtremistEvery time you say something like "the financial ROI of an HVAC certification is greater than a liberal arts degree" or "Women's Studies is a worthless degree" or "people who study liberal arts can't hack it in the real world" it makes me wonder about your own educational background.
Did you go to college? Where? What did you study? Did you graduate? Do you find that you apply your education to your daily life?
Not that it is anyone's business but yes I went to a state school. Yes I graduated. Business major and history minor. I do use the major in my job. The minor I use to understand things but I could have learned the same informally.
I use what I learned from practical courses. Business is one of the degrees you use your courses most directly. For example I had to understand accounting to understand my p&l.
Women's Studies is a worthless degree. Liberal Arts is not a degree that they look for in the business world and is one that more than most just directs you back to university life, which is not the real world.
After age 35 at most any degree barely matters and experience is what makes you. Possible exceptions for real advanced degrees like medical.
Quote: MathExtremistEvery time you say something like "the financial ROI of an HVAC certification is greater than a liberal arts degree" or "Women's Studies is a worthless degree" or "people who study liberal arts can't hack it in the real world" it makes me wonder about your own educational background.
Did you go to college? Where? What did you study? Did you graduate? Do you find that you apply your education to your daily life?
Questioning peoples education seems to be a big issue for you and Mike BJ. Goes back to that typical elitist liberal argument that they are better and smarter than the average person. And that most people could never achieve what they have in life and would never be able to make it without their help along with the governments.
AZ's education level shouldn't be an issue and I have no clue about him, but I'm willing to bet he has worked hard in life and has succeeded based on his actions regardless of education level. Wise people live, learn and make the hard decisions day after day to succeed in life. Others fail daily because they look for crutches and will not make the hard decisions. Education level has little to do with it. But that goes against liberal views, after all where else would they be able to get 4 years to push their liberal views Under the veil of "education", while leaving them in debt as "victims" of a corrupt system.
Sometimes they coincide, and the Catholic Church starts murmuring about Sainthood.
Quote:Schleicher explained that "taxpayers in the U.S. get $200,000 more out of every graduate than what they actually invested, so it's a good business for the government as well."
then what's the beef?
usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/13/24-7-wall-st-most-educated-countries/15460733
