Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 15 hours ago, DMC said: It's telling that many outlets are willing to publish such shit and pose it as academic work because there's a phud after the author's name, yeah. Again, I don't think that's a good thing. Not author. Several authors who are professors at the top institutions in the country. Kind of different wouldn’t you say? Quote Is it? My prior would be the vast majority of people on either side don't give a shit about the distinction. They either believe he's unfit for office, or they don't. Psychologists aren't going to significantly change that estimation, one way or the other. Which means a lot of such op-eds are inherently circle jerks. They should care about the distinction. But then again, you know my thoughts on the average American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: Not author. Several authors who are professors at the top institutions in the country. Kind of different wouldn’t you say? No, I would not say. I don't care if it's Professor Charles Gandalf from Hogwarts, some random opinions should not be passed off as academic work. Which, they would respond, they're technically not, which is true, but it's the impression a lot of people get. Hell it seems to be the impression you get. 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: They should care about the distinction. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: This morning’s laugh. The governor of Kentucky heard about a neighbour’s kids having chicken pox and brought over his nine (!!!!) kids and exposed them all. He doesn’t believe in vaccines. It’s un-American to make people have vaccines. To be fair, chicken pox parties predate anti-vaxxers so this is just some fortunate crossover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: The governor of Kentucky heard about a neighbour’s kids having chicken pox and brought over his nine (!!!!) kids and exposed them all. He doesn’t believe in vaccines. It’s un-American to make people have vaccines. This reminds me of a South Park clip, except I can't find South Park clips anymore because of the libertarian illuminati, so I'll just paraphrase: Kyle: Dude, our parents sent us over to Kenny's to try to get us sick. Stan: They did? Kyle: Yeah, and I think I figured out why. Stan: Why? Kyle: Because they're a bunch of assholes. Stan: [surprised] Oooh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 Jimmy Carter becomes the oldest an ex-president has ever been tomorrow https://www.ajc.com/news/jimmy-carter-gets-new-title-oldest-living-former-president/68TFzP9SMDjrVuqcUt3PkK/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Just saw Trump has tweeted that the US will change US policy and go against a UN resolution and support Israel’s rights to the Golan Heights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Just saw Trump has tweeted that the US will change US policy and go against a UN resolution and support Israel’s rights to the Golan Heights. This was foreshadowed by a State Department report a week or so ago. It's not surprising at all, and frankly not nearly as meaningful as POTUS recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Butigig looks like Martin Freeman's stunt double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Butigig looks like Martin Freeman's stunt double. Psh, Martin Freeman wishes. Been asked on..four different occasions the past week or so do I think Trump is gonna get reelected. When my advisor asked me I thought about it to give a smart answer. There's two things to consider: one, the economy. That's not my forte but I think it's significantly possible it goes in the shitter. It's also entirely possible growth doesn't continue at this pace and is middling. And, really, no matter how the macro-metrics are that should be the argument the Dem nominee should be making, so there's that to consider. Anyway, between the two above possibilities I think that's about 75% probability. The second thing to consider is approval. And this is where it become really hard to talk about with non-researchers. Trump won an open race with very low favorability ratings, yes. But that's different. A cursory glance would say incumbency should improve his probability, but no one has ever tried to quantify presidential incumbency advantage. Why? Because it'd be a really stupid measure. Bush Jr. won, yeah, but he barely won, and that was during a war and still coming off of a benefit from something I don't think anyone wants to happen again. Obama, Clinton and Reagan won, but (a) they were very talented politicians, and (b) their opponents were objectively weak. Before that you have to go Ike, and yeah Ike won because he's motherfucking Ike. And got to face Stevenson, again. I digress. Sorry, that became a whole thing. Point is, low approval - and particularly >50% disapproval - for a sitting president unquestionably overrides any incumbency advantage. Overall, Trump is very likely to be in a weaker position when considering those two main factors this cycle than he was last cycle. And considering he won on the tip of knife, that's very not good. His numbers in the most important states are very not good. If I worked for Trump, I would be pulling my hair out trying to figure out how he wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, DMC said: Psh, Martin Freeman wishes. Been asked on..four different occasions the past week or so do I think Trump is gonna get reelected. When my advisor asked me I thought about it to give a smart answer. There's two things to consider: one, the economy. That's not my forte but I think it's significantly possible it goes in the shitter. It's also entirely possible growth doesn't continue at this pace and is middling. And, really, no matter how the macro-metrics are that should be the argument the Dem nominee should be making, so there's that to consider. Anyway, between the two above possibilities I think that's about 75% probability. The second thing to consider is approval. And this is where it become really hard to talk about with non-researchers. Trump won an open race with very low favorability ratings, yes. But that's different. A cursory glance would say incumbency should improve his probability, but no one has ever tried to quantify presidential incumbency advantage. Why? Because it'd be a really stupid measure. Bush Jr. won, yeah, but he barely won, and that was during a war and still coming off of a benefit from something I don't think anyone wants to happen again. Obama, Clinton and Reagan won, but (a) they were very talented politicians, and (b) their opponents were objectively weak. Before that you have to go Ike, and yeah Ike won because he's motherfucking Ike. And got to face Stevenson, again. I digress. Sorry, that became a whole thing. Point is, low approval - and particularly >50% disapproval - for a sitting president unquestionably overrides any incumbency advantage. Overall, Trump is very likely to be in a weaker position when considering those two main factors this cycle than he was last cycle. And considering he won on the tip of knife, that's very not good. His numbers in the most important states are very not good. If I worked for Trump, I would be pulling my hair out trying to figure out how he wins. Assume he's gonna win. That way your soul will be pre-crushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 My soul was irredeemable a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone and Quite Forgotten Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Trump is contradiction personified. Simultaneously a cunt with no warmth and a dick with no balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 23 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Assume he's gonna win. That way your soul will be pre-crushed. Why do you assume that any of us have souls? I'm just an amalgam of fancy hats and good shoes running on ios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: I'm just an amalgam of fancy hats and good shoes running on ios. You keep on talking up these shoes. Pics or it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 22 minutes ago, DMC said: You keep on talking up these shoes. Pics or it didn't happen. Current situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said: Trump is contradiction personified. Simultaneously a cunt with no warmth and a dick with no balls. And I see he also announced today that high student debt was unfair and he would work on that problem right away. The guy who cancelled loan forgiveness programs and other things helpful for students, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Current situation No kind of expert on shoes at all, but to me, those look...cheap. Like they'd disintegrate after the second mud puddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 20 minutes ago, Triskele said: It sounds like one of the things that is being proposed is limiting the loans that the Feds will lend out. If that happens I'm guessing that it forces a lot of schools to lower costs accordingly, and so this might not be a terrible thing because there are no doubt problems with the status quo where the schools have every incentive to charge a lot. Remains to be seen what other kinds of changes they might have in store on existing repayment plans or forgiveness programs. I just read Trump's proposal. It looks pathetic, to me. It does literally nothing for student debtors. Part 1, they reduce the repayment plans allowed from 6 to 2. This is supposed to be simpler, but in reality it reduces options. A lot depends on how good the income-based plan they include is. But basically it looks like they are doing very little here and pretending they are doing something. Part 2 of the Trump plan is setting limits on what students can borrow. This has nothing to do with helping debtors, first of all. Note, they it is not said what limits these would be and who they would apply to. Also, there are already limits in place on what a student can borrow. This just looks like a conservative attempt to cut Americans off from loans, with of course the goal of passing that money on as tax cuts to the wealthy, as is always their goal in everything. And again it does not address student debtors at all. And yes, @Fragile Bird their record on student loans is less than stellar. Really, they should set all loan payment at 10 % income and get it over with. That or do a large forgiveness. None of this will happen though as long as Trump is President, because conservatives get off on debtors suffering. It's their bread and butter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Triskele said: Well I agree that this stuff doesn't help existing student debtors at all. It might prevent some future borrowers from getting into bad situations, but yeah, it could also prevent some folks from getting into good situations too. Am I wrong that nothing can really change all that much without congress or does that only apply to certain things like PSLF because that was passed by Congress in 2007 but other things like the existing income-based repayment plans can be changed by Dept of Education? You are probably right that it would take an act of Congress, but the Trump admin has not even made an attempt. Because they don't want to and it would take work to pull off even if they wanted to. They could get Congress to slip in something positive right now, but they don't want to twist the arms required or work with Democrats on it. The payment plans were slipped into the ACA. There has been nothing but bad faith coming from the Trump admin when it comes to student loans. There's a long record of bullshit. Quote “It speaks to the Department of Education’s unwillingness or inability to follow the basic law around how federal agencies conduct themselves,” said Toby Merrill, who directs the Harvard Law School’s Project on Predatory Student Lending, which has brought some of the lawsuits against DeVos. Every administration has wins and losses in court, Merrill said, but most have done better at making sure they follow the legal rules of the road for rulemaking. “At the very least, they cross their Ts and dot their Is and therefore are less vulnerable to some of the procedural challenges that have been the undoing of so many of this Department of Education’s policies,” she said. In rejecting the Trump administration’s efforts to delay the policies, judges have largely focused on procedural problems. The federal judge striking down DeVos’ postponement of student loan regulations called her delays “unlawful,” “procedurally invalid” and “arbitrary and capricious.” The judge who rejected the delay of a special education rule faulted DeVos for failing to provide a “reasoned explanation” for stopping the policy. Betsy DeVos strikes out — in court Judges have rebuffed the education secretary’s attempts to pause or change a range of Obama-era policies. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/devos-roll-back-obama-policies-1288782 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Vietnam Veteran Ex-Senator Tells Donald Trump How To Silence Bone Spur Doubters Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey tore into Trump for repeated attacks on the late Sen. John McCain. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-john-mccain-bob-kerrey-vietnam-x-ray-bone-spurs_n_5c933db2e4b0d952b223753a Quote Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) demanded that President Donald Trump present the nation with X-rays of his feet to prove once and for all the bone spurs in his heels he claimed for a medical exemption from the Vietnam War draft. Kerrey, a former Navy SEAL who lost part of his right leg during the war, said on Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360°” that “you don’t grow out of bone spurs.” If Trump had them in the 1960s, Kerrey said, he’d still have them now (unless he underwent surgery, which Trump has never mentioned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.