| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In order to function properly, our system of government requires a well-informed, engaged citizenry which makes decisions based on empirical evidence, not emotion. The key to maintaining such a citizenry is an equitable, robust public education system which emphasizes critical thinking skills. The alternative is demagoguery and ruin.
Betsy DeVos is not a coincidence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, she isn't a coincidence.
She's the culmination of over a decade of bipartisan attacks on public education.
No, she isn't a coincidence.
She's the culmination of over a decade of bipartisan attacks on public education.
*shrug* I suppose. I'll be the first to admit I don't watch things as closely as I should, but pushing vouchers (sorry, "school choice") seem to be a largely right-wing endeavor.
It is also quite clear to me which side has benefited more from voters acting out of emotion rather than logic. Then again, my wife routinely accuses me of being half Vulcan, so what do I know? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Democrats reject her, but they helped pave the road to education nominee DeVos
Well that's disappointing. I honestly hadn't realized how far right the Democratic party had drifted on this issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, well, that's a common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump, isn't it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'all democrats are not perfect in all ways at all times... therefore they are just as bad as republicans' arguments have gone well past silly at this point.
That's not and never have been the point. The real danger of the Democratic Party is that it gathers up progressive energy and simply stifles it. It goes around recruiting progressive votes with the "It's either us or the Republican" mantra. And then once elected, it closes the door to those very same voters, AS DID Barrack Obama in his first two years in office. It took major pressure to get Obama moving on progressive matters and to force Clinton to do some needed about faces on TPP and Keystone.
Yeah, well, that's a common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump, isn't it?
I honestly wouldn't know.
However, the practical choice in 2016 was a qualified -- if polarizing -- individual or a psychopathic demagogue. It's hard to blame the way that went solely on the Democratic party's lack of ideological purity.
One pitiful thing that may actually explain rather a lot of what is going on is that the cost of buying congresscritters and senators has gone down pretty significantly. Whenever you see the amounts people get investigated for, it's a few tens of thousand dollars, maybe a hundred grand. To people on that level? People who have more than ordered economies? Selling out for such paltry sums? Deciding on budgets of billions, and doing something significant FOR SUCH LOUSY MONEY? Come on. I could sort of understand selling out for sums that would change your life radically, but this is just pathetic.
...Well, right now I'm remembering all the time they spend on the phones asking for donations for re-election campaigns, and how much pressure their own party puts on them to meet quotas... it's probably a factor, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, well, that's a common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump, isn't it?I honestly wouldn't know.
However, the practical choice in 2016 was qualified individual vs. psychopathic demagogue. It's hard to blame the way that went solely on the Democratic party's lack of ideological purity.
I don't know what you mean. Their ideological purity is pretty obvious: they are an ideologically capitalist party.
I don't know what you mean. Their ideological purity is pretty obvious: they are an ideologically capitalist party.Yeah, well, that's a common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump, isn't it?I honestly wouldn't know.
However, the practical choice in 2016 was qualified individual vs. psychopathic demagogue. It's hard to blame the way that went solely on the Democratic party's lack of ideological purity.
Sorry, but I'm going to call B.S. on that one. Me not claiming to speak for an entire group of people is not the same as you pretending that my meaning was unclear.
...and you were doing so well, too. :(
Yeah, well, that's a common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump, isn't it?
Anyway, it reminds me of an anecdote from a couple months back:
We went to a meeting, "What Is Sanctuary?" held by the Merrimack Valley Project, a local labor/interfaith organization that was laying the groundwork for resistance to ICE raids.
A layer of the city's liberal Democrats, newly energized by Trump's victory, attended. When the presenter, a South Asian woman, was standing by the flipmat, asked the crowd to yell out what "Sanctuary" meant to them (she would then write the answers on the flipmat), one of the liberal Democrats* shouted out "Obama!", the woman made a face, stuck out her tongue, said "I'm not so sure about that," but wrote it down anyway.
*And how do I know they were Democrats? Because they identified themselves as the contigent from the "Greater Lowell Democrats."
I don't know what you mean. Their ideological purity is pretty obvious: they are an ideologically capitalist party.Yeah, well, that's a common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump, isn't it?I honestly wouldn't know.
However, the practical choice in 2016 was qualified individual vs. psychopathic demagogue. It's hard to blame the way that went solely on the Democratic party's lack of ideological purity.
Sorry, but I'm going to call B.S. on that one. Me not claiming to speak for an entire group of people is not the same as you pretending that my meaning was unclear.
...and you were doing so well, too. :(
You can call bullshiznit all you want. Won't change my mind and won't change the Dems.
Yeah, well, that's a common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump, isn't it?No, that's a common theme among leftist independents and the left purity wing of democrats.
The common theme among Democrats outraged by Trump is, not surprisingly, outrage at Trump.
Frankly, as I've said before here, the future of the Democratic party, at least in the relatively short term, is tapping into that outrage and using the momentum in the streets. Democratic leaders who can do that successfully will be able to ride the wave back to success.
Those who ignore what's happening now and re-fight the primary wars aren't going to.
See anecdote above. You'd have to be some real kind of not paying attention for the last eight years to think "Obama" is a legit answer to "What is sanctuary?"
You can call bullshiznit all you want. Won't change my mind and won't change the Dems.
...and we've reached the talking past each other stage.
I would, however, caution you that your apparent "Give Me Communism Or Give Me Death!" stance is totally impractical and doomed to fail. But surely you already know that?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could sort of understand selling out for sums that would change your life radically, but this is just pathetic.
I believe you are ignoring the social capital. You know, very posh positions when their public service is done. THAT changes a persons life quite radically.
I could sort of understand selling out for sums that would change your life radically, but this is just pathetic.I believe you are ignoring the social capital. You know, very posh positions when their public service is done. THAT changes a persons life quite radically.
Also, you never know when that marginal $$ is going to be the one to decide the election. Ultimately the amounts are only large or small relative to your opponent's war chest.
You can call bullshiznit all you want. Won't change my mind and won't change the Dems.
...and we've reached the talking past each other stage.
I would, however, caution you that your "Give Me Communism or Give Me Death!" stance is totally impractical and doomed to fail. But surely you already know that?
No, I don't.
But since you think we're talking past each other, I should probably get going to the Black Student Union meeting at UML on "Organizing Against Racism: Beyond Black Lives Matter". They got a rival commie from Boston coming up.
Toodle-o!
|
See anecdote above. You'd have to be some real kind of not paying attention for the last eight years to think "Obama" is a legit answer to "What is sanctuary?"
Yep, lots of bad stuff and only a few good things to say about Obama on immigration... yet Trump still manages to be worse than him in every way imaginable on the issue.
Mass deportations under Obama? Trump thinks they were paltry... he's going MUCH bigger.
Insufficient support for keeping mixed citizen/immigrant families together under Obama? If Trump gets his way he'll solve that by stripping the kids of US citizenship and deporting them all.
Et cetera.
So, yeah... in comparison Obama is now a perfectly legit answer.
It's pretty fair. Democrats are (and have been pretty much since the term came into use) a capitalist party. FDR was a capitalist. Bernie Sanders is a capitalist.
They vary amongst themselves and differ greatly from Republicans on how much much control government should have over that capitalism and how much government should do to help those damaged by it.We're a capitalist country. Both parties agree on that. Neither are very pure about it, though they are very different in both their rhetoric and their actual practices.
Actually, we're technically a mixed economy, but that's beside the point. I never suggested that both parties weren't, in large part, capitalist. I was suggesting that Comrade was being disingenuous (or perhaps simply misinformed) in his apparent claim that being a capitalist necessarily means supporting school privatization. It hasn't, and doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd, all the non-commie, non-Democrat immigrant rights activists disagree.
But I'm sure in twenty years you'll be telling us how Obama's deportations were the smart road to eventual acceptance.
[Vomits]
Actually, we're technically a mixed economy, but that's beside the point. I never suggested that both parties weren't, in large part, capitalist. I was suggesting that Comrade was being disingenuous (or perhaps simply misinformed) in his apparent claim that being a capitalist necessarily means supporting school privatization. It hasn't, and doesn't.It's pretty fair. Democrats are (and have been pretty much since the term came into use) a capitalist party. FDR was a capitalist. Bernie Sanders is a capitalist.
They vary amongst themselves and differ greatly from Republicans on how much much control government should have over that capitalism and how much government should do to help those damaged by it.We're a capitalist country. Both parties agree on that. Neither are very pure about it, though they are very different in both their rhetoric and their actual practices.
Oh, I guess we were talking past each other.
No, I don't.
But since you think we're talking past each other, I should probably get going to the Black Student Union meeting at UML on "Organizing Against Racism: Beyond Black Lives Matter". They got a rival commie from Boston coming up.
Toodle-o!
That sounds like a worthwhile cause; I hope it is successful. Good for you for getting involved.
You know, I can't help but be impressed by the number of meetings and protests Comrade Jointchewer seems to go to. XD
Actually, we're technically a mixed economy, but that's beside the point. I never suggested that both parties weren't, in large part, capitalist. I was suggesting that Comrade was being disingenuous (or perhaps simply misinformed) in his apparent claim that being a capitalist necessarily means supporting school privatization. It hasn't, and doesn't.It's pretty fair. Democrats are (and have been pretty much since the term came into use) a capitalist party. FDR was a capitalist. Bernie Sanders is a capitalist.
They vary amongst themselves and differ greatly from Republicans on how much much control government should have over that capitalism and how much government should do to help those damaged by it.We're a capitalist country. Both parties agree on that. Neither are very pure about it, though they are very different in both their rhetoric and their actual practices.
I'd kind of lost that school privatization was the topic, since it wasn't mentioned in the last few posts in the chain. I'm not sure the Comrade was still focused on it either.
Did you happen to follow his link? If not, that would probably explain the disconnect.
In any event, I still reject what I see as the argument being put forth: That the Democrats lost because they weren't sufficiently liberal.
You know, I can't help but be impressed by the number of meetings and protests Comrade Jointchewer seems to go to. XDRemember, he's one of those lazy, entitled, paid protesters that needs to get a job.
Where do I sign up for that job? According to Spicer, astroturfing is now a major industry. Surely they're hiring?;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Shrugs* In the end, most jobs are "I get paid to do certain things". Protesting is just another option - if somebody's willing to pay them to do it, that's (literally) their business, isn't it?
The one where Pelosi said "We're capitalist", but there was nothing about school privatization?Did you happen to follow his link?Actually, we're technically a mixed economy, but that's beside the point. I never suggested that both parties weren't, in large part, capitalist. I was suggesting that Comrade was being disingenuous (or perhaps simply misinformed) in his apparent claim that being a capitalist necessarily means supporting school privatization. It hasn't, and doesn't.It's pretty fair. Democrats are (and have been pretty much since the term came into use) a capitalist party. FDR was a capitalist. Bernie Sanders is a capitalist.
They vary amongst themselves and differ greatly from Republicans on how much much control government should have over that capitalism and how much government should do to help those damaged by it.We're a capitalist country. Both parties agree on that. Neither are very pure about it, though they are very different in both their rhetoric and their actual practices.
I'd kind of lost that school privatization was the topic, since it wasn't mentioned in the last few posts in the chain. I'm not sure the Comrade was still focused on it either.
No...this one.
Where do I sign up for that job? According to Spicer, astroturfing is now a major industry. Surely they're hiring?;-)You know, I can't help but be impressed by the number of meetings and protests Comrade Jointchewer seems to go to. XDRemember, he's one of those lazy, entitled, paid protesters that needs to get a job.
I should certainly hope it is. Astroturf is significantly more comfy than most real grass varieties.
*Shrugs* In the end, most jobs are "I get paid to do certain things". Protesting is just another option - if somebody's willing to pay them to do it, that's (literally) their business, isn't it?
Absolutely. I would genuinely love to be paid to stand up for my beliefs. Sadly, as of yet I've been able to uncover exactly zero such opportunities, despite Trump Administration assertions that they're plentiful.
It turns out that it is easier to find a paying gig working on other people's databases. Speaking of which, I need to get back to it. Cheers.
In order to function properly, our system of government requires a well-informed, engaged citizenry which makes decisions based on empirical evidence, not emotion. The key to maintaining such a citizenry is an equitable, robust public education system which emphasizes critical thinking skills. The alternative is demagoguery and ruin.
Betsy DeVos is not a coincidence.
Okay, so how does the fact based community deal with utter insanity and nonsense infecting half the country from bottom to top? I mean when the starting point for the conversation is that george soros is paying protestors to cause the bowling green massacre how do you get people back to sanity? They are so far from sanity that light from sanity hasn't had time to reach them yet
[Gets back from the copy shop and making flyers for International Women's Day to hand out to the Black Student Union attendees]
$15.89/hour, UPS, but only part-time, so it gives me plenty of opportunities to peddle socialist newspapers, although, alas, it has totally killed my D&D-playing time.
:(
|
|
Okay, so how does the fact based community deal with utter insanity and nonsense infecting half the country from bottom to top? I mean when the starting point for the conversation is that george soros is paying protestors to cause the bowling green massacre how do you get people back to sanity? They are so far from sanity that light from sanity hasn't had time to reach them yet
1: It isn't half the country. Less than 20% of the US population voted for Trump. Granted, there are certainly some people divorced from reality who didn't vote, but there are also likely some people who voted for Trump despite being technically sane.
2: Don't deal with them. Studies have repeatedly shown that even confronting such people with conclusive proof that they are incorrect only strengthens their delusional beliefs.
3: Instead, we need to get enough of the reality based community to vote, and do so consistently, that we can limit and eventually undo the damage caused by efforts to 'fix' problems that do not exist while treating many which DO exist as 'fake'.
Personally, I'm still for allowing 'majority delusional' regions of the country to live full time under fiction based economic policies. I have some hope that this could actually cure them... and if not then it would at least cause them to die out at a faster rate than they can inflict on the country as a whole.
Okay, so how does the fact based community deal with utter insanity and nonsense infecting half the country from bottom to top? I mean when the starting point for the conversation is that george soros is paying protestors to cause the bowling green massacre how do you get people back to sanity? They are so far from sanity that light from sanity hasn't had time to reach them yet
Long-term: Invest in education at all levels. Stand up for empirical evidence, and reject the very notion of "alternative facts." Condemn anti-intellectualism, whatever shape it takes.
Short-term: I have no idea. The damage may already be done. I'm honestly still trying to come to grips with the fact that Trump got elected. Before November 8th I would never have believed that even the ~20% of the population that voted for him was that gullible.
The jury is still out on whether Trump is Hitler for this generation or not. If he is, s+&! is going to get so bad that whatever happens after him will need a new book of rules, since our current ones weren't up to the task. Hopefully more enlightened people will carry our torch. However, even if Trump is not Hitler for today, he will serve as a massive reminder of why democratic principles are important - and why authoriarianism stinks. Perhaps some good will come of him after all.
Every generation discovers the importance of voting for itself.
The jury is still out on whether Trump is Hitler for this generation or not.
Agreed. But all indications are that he sure wants to be.