Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Mardoc]

Make intelligence the measuring post for higher education, as it should be. It's how universities are solving it in countries with free education, for instance computing science programs have been getting tougher almost on a yearly basis over here, but they can afford to raise the bar since the competing students increase.

Why is this better?  Under the US approach, anyone who's willing to sacrifice the money and time can indulge their passion for learning, whether it's a profitable choice or simply something they enjoy.  There are lots of majors that don't teach marketable skills but give a lot of satisfaction to those who study the material.  Anyone can get money, they just have to work.

Under your regime, you've instituted a class system, where certain people will never be able to study. They just aren't smart enough, and that means they won't increase their taxes by getting educated, and thus the government will forbid them from learning. It's necessary, the budget is limited.

It might make sense if the only goal were to make college useful as a screening tool, or as a worker training tool, but that assumes that learning itself has no value, only the economic effects of learning.  Honestly, looking historically, we're leaving a period that was an exception to the rule.  Over most of the existence of universities, they haven't provided any economic advantage at all.  Rich people attended because they liked to, not because it made them rich.

[Bacchus]

Also, I'm not sure why the discussion of the US is so driven by Ivy League prices and the myth of exclusion. US has the same amount of students as China, 20 million. It has a vast public education system with very manageable in-state fees and, in some cases, no fees at all! The incessant wailing coming out of US is simply not congruous with the raw fact of millions receiving tuition, in some cases at world-class institutions -- whether in the UCal system, or say NC Chapel Hill ($9,000 per year in-state fee). The people who do moan are not the poor, they are largely pretty rich, rich enough to study out-of-state, in private colleges, and then go on to have a career in a woke publication or as staffer to some progressive politico. That lot does rather set the tone, but you'd think people on this site are able to see past an agenda.

As for rich people consuming tertiary education -- that's what you get with luxury goods. And make no mistake, for the vast majority of us, including guys earning six figures, tertiary education is indeed a luxury, it is three challenging years doing fun stuff for your personal enjoyment. The fact that this luxury is a condition of employment -- that's the atrocity that needs to be dealt with to help the poor, and trying to shove as many people as you can into college does nothing of the sort. The push for universal tertiary is an actively damaging, misguided, discriminatory and cruel affair. It's as if ballroom dancing was used as a hiring mechanism and our answer was -- let's tax people to make ballroom dancing lessons free for everyone, thus reinforcing their compulsory nature. Cripples will be even more fucked, everyone will be wasting an enormous amount of time, the number of actual jobs won't change, but hey, equality or something. AdrienIer gets to feel better, and he has no time to engage with criticisms of his worldview.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Sander's plan is for the public colleges you dolt.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Do you think Brett did it?

I feel there's over a 50% chance because 2012 was before #MeToo so it would be very hard for her to plant it. If I were a GOP member I wouldn't care because the next time something like this happens it would be after #MeToo and I would have to let him win. Because I wouldn't get any brownie points for not letting Brett in but then letting the next guy in I would let Brett in. You admitting failure without getting anything in return.

[Japper007]

I don't see #Metoo as a partisan thing really. After all, Kevin Spacey got dragged through the muck as well, and he was (is?) a pretty hardcore Democrat. If the Democrats wanted to launch a campaign to defame Republicans, do you think they'd start in Hollywood of all places?

[MJW (ya that one)]

I don't see #Metoo as a partisan thing really. After all, Kevin Spacey got dragged through the muck as well, and he was (is?) a pretty hardcore Democrat. If the Democrats wanted to launch a campaign to defame Republicans, do you think they'd start in Hollywood of all places?

This doesn't feel like #MeToo because there is only one woman (the fact that multiple women are implied in the hashtag is striking too). However, the fact that it wasn't present in 2012 would make it very unlikely for her to privately attack Brett in 2012 unless Brett did it. The fact that there's no other women, and people are sticking up for him, also isn't that impressive because she said he was drunk and he could have learned to not mix alcohol and women.

[darrelljs]

Do you think Brett did it?

Who knows?  There is a presumption of innocence (just like for the folks accused of having fake birth certificates) and he should get his vote.  There should also be an FBI investigation, and if the accusations are proven true he should be impeached. 

Darrell

[MJW (ya that one)]

Do you think Brett did it?

Who knows?  There is a presumption of innocence (just like for the folks accused of having fake birth certificates) and he should get his vote.  There should also be an FBI investigation, and if the accusations are proven true he should be impeached. 

Darrell

Just like the birth certificates you only need to be 51% sure (I don't think "I voted for someone who probably attempted to rape someone" would go over well). I don't think an FBI investigation would do anything after so many years.

[ipecac]

Do you think Brett did it?

Why on earth would anyone think such a thing?

[Huinesoron]

Do you think Brett did it?

Who knows?  There is a presumption of innocence (just like for the folks accused of having fake birth certificates) and he should get his vote.  There should also be an FBI investigation, and if the accusations are proven true he should be impeached. 

Darrell

In the event that he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and a year later the accusations were found to be true (to whatever degree of 'found to be true' is needed) and he was impeached, what effect would you expect that to have on decisions made during his tenure? I feel like 'we appointed someone ?ineligable' [Article III says that justices hold their offices 'during good Behaviour'; a guilty decision would indicate that he was not only an attempted rapist, but had also ?lied directly to Congress, before his appointment, which hardly sounds like 'good behaviour' to me] would lead directly to 'and therefore all his votes are invalid', but that could mean a lot of cases previously 'decided' would suddenly be hung votes. Depending on the timeframe, presumably they could also have been used as precedent in lower courts; would the verdicts based on those now-redacted precedents be overturned?

The alternative seems to be that the decisions of someone who obtained his position through dishonest means remain valid, which sounds like a horrifying precedent in its own right. (In the related scenario where Trump ends up being proven to have gained his position through dishonest means, we can plausibly expect the next Democratic president, whenever that happens, to walk back almost everything he did; the Supreme Court doesn't operate in the same way, by my understanding.)

Or, there's the third way: hold off on appointing him to the Supreme Court until the allegations have been investigated. This isn't like a presidential election, where there's a specific timeframe required (in the hypothetical case that Clinton had won the 2016 election while still under active investigation by the FBI, options like 'leave the office of President empty' or 'let Obama keep the seat warm until the decision comes back' would have been, ah, unfeasible); you've been without a ninth justice for nearly two months already, and were down one for over a year after Scalia's death. I dunno, it seems like the best option to me?

hS