Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

I'd like to believe that a married couple couldn't survive the stress and disrespect George shows Kellyanne by belittling her boss like he does. My head cannon is that Kellyanne is simply doing her job and is not a Trump supporter per se. She comes home from work, pops open a bottle or two of wine and bitches about her asshole boss to her husband and she relieves stress by tweeting out on her supportive husband George's account as they giggle drunkenly until she breaks into sobs and then comforts herself with her bank balance. If any of this is not true, then they need to work some shit out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I'd like to believe that a married couple couldn't survive the stress and disrespect George shows Kellyanne by belittling her boss like he does. My head cannon is that Kellyanne is simply doing her job and is not a Trump supporter per se. She comes home from work, pops open a bottle or two of wine and bitches about her asshole boss to her husband and she relieves stress by tweeting out on her supportive husband George's account as they giggle drunkenly until she breaks into sobs and then comforts herself with her bank balance. If any of this is not true, then they need to work some shit out. 

Well, Trump was a powerful career opportunity for all sorts of Republican operatives. A few crappy years could benefit them for decades, both in the party and the Fox News/conservative outlet circuit. Sanders will sell tens of millions of health supplements off her time in the Administration, just like her old man.

 

Quote

 

Jack refers to these formal university policies as “structural exclusion,” and the dining hall is far from the only example. Many low-income students at Renowned University also participated in a pre-orientation program Jack calls “Community Detail,” in which students administer janitorial services in the university dormitories. The program is offered during the summer and throughout the year as a stand-alone job. While the students are paid, many of them found that the work brought about enormous humiliation. These disadvantaged students were put in a position where they had to clean up soiled tampons, used condoms, and dried vomit from their classmates’ bathrooms to complete their custodial obligations. Some of the students described the intense shame they felt as they sat in class alongside students whose toilets they had just cleaned. Having students who need money clean the bathrooms of their more affluent peers reifies existing class boundaries.

“Poor students come to this institution and the first thing that they see are dirty dorms they have to clean,” said one of Jack’s research participants. “I think it’s really unfair that students who are lower-income go into Community Detail whereas wealthier students are doing Summit Seekers and going climbing. Or playing instruments. Or doing artsy thing with Vamonos Van Gogh.” Or as another student put it, “Say I was to knock on someone’s door. I’m like, ‘Yo, can I clean your bathroom real quick?’ I’m going to clean the toilet you just threw up on this past weekend when you were partying like crazy. Let me just clean that for you. And then just add the fact that I’m a minority reinforces that stereotype that all Spanish people do is clean and mow lawns.”

 

Elite Colleges Constantly Tell Low-Income Students That They Do Not Belong
Unwritten rules underlie all of elite-university life—and students who don’t come from a wealthy background have a hard time navigating them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/privileged-poor-navigating-elite-university-life/585100/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, Trump was a powerful career opportunity for all sorts of Republican operatives. A few crappy years could benefit them for decades, both in the party and the Fox News/conservative outlet circuit. Sanders will sell tens of millions of health supplements off her time in the Administration, just like her old man.

 

Elite Colleges Constantly Tell Low-Income Students That They Do Not Belong
Unwritten rules underlie all of elite-university life—and students who don’t come from a wealthy background have a hard time navigating them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/privileged-poor-navigating-elite-university-life/585100/

I was totally lost in college - I went to a wealthy private school (George Washington) on scholarship and loans, and most of my peers came from a completely different existence.  There was this whole connected world they had access to that was still hurdles for me - my idiot roommate got all these cool no-pay internships at think tanks because his dad donated money to them and to the school, I had to do work-study and 'edit' papers to pay for books and everything else.  

The real kicker was the study abroad program, which had just changed from allowing you to pay the actual cost of the program (often less than 50% of GWs tuition) to forcing you to pay full GW rate (about 20k a semester when I was there).  By the end of my junior year I was mentally and emotionally checked out, not that it mattered because school was becoming unaffordable anyway (one of my scholarships that paid $4500 a semester wasnt reissued my junior year, and I got a couple smaller ones I applied for but was still about 8k short on the bill that spring).  All the news breaking this week was about the least surprising stuff I'd ever heard, here's Tom with the weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I was totally lost in college - I went to a wealthy private school (George Washington) on scholarship and loans, and most of my peers came from a completely different existence.  There was this whole connected world they had access to that was still hurdles for me - my idiot roommate got all these cool no-pay internships at think tanks because his dad donated money to them and to the school, I had to do work-study and 'edit' papers to pay for books and everything else.  

The real kicker was the study abroad program, which had just changed from allowing you to pay the actual cost of the program (often less than 50% of GWs tuition) to forcing you to pay full GW rate (about 20k a semester when I was there).  By the end of my junior year I was mentally and emotionally checked out, not that it mattered because school was becoming unaffordable anyway (one of my scholarships that paid $4500 a semester wasnt reissued my junior year, and I got a couple smaller ones I applied for but was still about 8k short on the bill that spring).  All the news breaking this week was about the least surprising stuff I'd ever heard, here's Tom with the weather.

You made a severe mistake, not practicing to be a Crew member with Todd, and should be harshly punished for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I'd like to believe that a married couple couldn't survive the stress and disrespect George shows Kellyanne by belittling her boss like he does. My head cannon is that Kellyanne is simply doing her job and is not a Trump supporter per se. She comes home from work, pops open a bottle or two of wine and bitches about her asshole boss to her husband and she relieves stress by tweeting out on her supportive husband George's account as they giggle drunkenly until she breaks into sobs and then comforts herself with her bank balance. If any of this is not true, then they need to work some shit out. 

I'm more of the opinion that George is sending out warning shots across her bow. I couldn't imagine being with someone so devoid of integrity regardless whether she's just doing her job or if she's a true believer.

She's as vile as anyone in the administration, and my personal belief is that without her carrying water for Trump over the last few months of the campaign, he wouldn't have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

She's as vile as anyone in the administration, and my personal belief is that without her carrying water for Trump over the last few months of the campaign, he wouldn't have won.

It is hard to imagine Trump surviving the Access Hollywood scandal without a woman already in place to do PR for him and explain endlessly that bragging about regularly committing sexual assault is not a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

You made a severe mistake, not practicing to be a Crew member with Todd, and should be harshly punished for it.

No no no you’ve got it all wrong. Larry’s mistake was studying. If he wanted to go to Yale, he should have gone over to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie and Squi.

Fools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It is hard to imagine Trump surviving the Access Hollywood scandal without a woman already in place to do PR for him and explain endlessly that bragging about regularly committing sexual assault is not a big deal.

I don't see why. 

It doesn't, honestly, matter. His sexual proclivities or grabbing women is not something that most people consider a bad thing, and certainly not disqualifying. As much as people decry others for voting against their interests, in this case a lot of people voted strongly for their interests and got precisely what they wanted. Evangelicals in particular got someone who promoted the most conservative, anti-women policy in the last 50 years, one that will pay off for them for a generation. 

What, are the people who are offended by this going to vote for the person who says 'women's rights are human rights'? Please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I'd like to believe that a married couple couldn't survive the stress and disrespect George shows Kellyanne by belittling her boss like he does. My head cannon is that Kellyanne is simply doing her job and is not a Trump supporter per se. She comes home from work, pops open a bottle or two of wine and bitches about her asshole boss to her husband and she relieves stress by tweeting out on her supportive husband George's account as they giggle drunkenly until she breaks into sobs and then comforts herself with her bank balance. If any of this is not true, then they need to work some shit out. 

It's a funny idea, but it's hard to believe. And George is taking it to new levels that could easily get his wife fired (not that he would mind). It's one thing to publicly question a spouse's boss' work effort, but it's another to question his sanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a funny idea, but it's hard to believe. And George is taking it to new levels that could easily get his wife fired (not that he would mind). It's one thing to publicly question a spouse's boss' work effort, but it's another to question his sanity. 

I think you have an ethical duty to your spouse to not create problems for them at work, but you also have an ethical duty to the rest of the world when you're someone with a voice.  And it's not like he's just calling out her boss, he's calling out the fucking president.  The president should be fair game no matter what.  That's like, central to free speech.  

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

She's as vile as anyone in the administration, and my personal belief is that without her carrying water for Trump over the last few months of the campaign, he wouldn't have won.

Agree with all of this. I remember defending her at one point during the campaign pointing out to a friend that she was doing an amazing job spinning and defending Trump. Her ability to bullshit, avoid, deflect, defend, obfuscate, etc is pretty impressive. Done for a despicable purpose, but pretty impressive. It becomes easier to see through and dismiss the more you get used to her style, but when she was first in the public eye, she seemed formidable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Its the most perplexing aspect to this disgraceful administration, how he manages to have so little integrity, self dealing with charity money, the lies upon lies, the constant tantrums and disparaging behavior, not to mention the illegalities committed by this admin. , that even with all those clouds this crass being, somehow manages to have +30% support from somewhere?

I would think a support range of around 10% would be what i'd expect for someone so clearly lacking in any redeemable aspect. I just do not get this Presidency at all, its a very surreal feeling having this embarrasment as our President.

Neck deep in Trump fans here.  NONE of what you cited matters to them.  Talk politics with a Trump follower, the very first thing they'll do is give Trump full credit for the fantastic economy.  International relations?  To them, Obama trashed the US's reputation with his 'apology tour' - a huge deal on the right that barely even gets a a mention on the left, and straight talking Trump fixed that by taking no crap from those treacherous foreigner's.  The sex stuff - that' just locker room talk.  Corruption?  Trump's a big shot businessman; of course he's played fast and loose with the rules a few times.  This worldview is supported by Trumps marginal successes - convincing NATO nations to fork over more for their defense, a booming stock market and low unemployment rate.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I disagree diametrically with the weird consensus about the Kelly marriage.  First of all, people can vehemently disagree and still have great relationships.  GTFO that that can't happen, it happens all the time.  And there's generally nothing morally wrong with it.  Second of, political operatives can DEFINITELY get together even if they're on opposing sides.  Frankly, that should happen every once in awhile statistically. 

Thirdly, I hate trying to psychoanalyze two public figures' relationship.  It seems invasive, because it is.  If I'd say anything, it'd be that Kellyanne was a middling pollster that recognized she could extremely raise her profile by ingratiating herself with Trump.  And she obviously succeeded.  What is absolutely wrong - that's been proposed - is that being a part of Trump's staff is generally beneficial career-wise.  NO.  Just the opposite.  From top-down anyone that wants a political future does not want to be a part of the Trump administration.  That's observable.  I wonder why that is..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rep. Devin Nunes (R. Fresno CA) is suing Devin Nunes Mom and Devin Nunes cow and—because Devin Nunes is unaware of who Donald Trump is—Devin Nunes is also suing twitter for suppressing conservative tweets, including his own, and Devin Nunes materially blames twitter for singlehandedly reducing his rightful margin of victory in elections, a right to which he is unquestionably and eternally entitled in all elections:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html

 

Quote

“Nunes endured an orchestrated defamation campaign of stunning breadth and scope, one that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life,” it reads. “Unlike prior elections, where Nunes won by sweeping majorities, Nunes won on November 6, 2018 by a much narrower margin, receiving 52.7 percent of the 222,379 votes.”


Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html#storylink=cpy

But all is not lost, Nunes also declared this Westeros politics threads to be politically neutral in nature because of the format in which it exists!

Quote

“Twitter is not a neutral platform such as an Internet bulletin board,” the lawsuit says. “To the contrary: As part and parcel of its Twitter’s (sic) role as an internet content provider, Twitter and its CEO, Jack Dorsey, actively endorse and promote the many agendas of the Democratic Party.”


Read more here: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html#storylink=cpy

 

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, DMC said:

Pretty sure I disagree diametrically with the weird consensus about the Kelly marriage.  First of all, people can vehemently disagree and still have great relationships.  GTFO that that can't happen, it happens all the time.  And there's generally nothing morally wrong with it.  Second of, political operatives can DEFINITELY get together even if they're on opposing sides.  Frankly, that should happen every once in awhile statistically. 

I don't disagree with this - I was fascinated with Carville and Matalin in the day. Maybe I'm whitewashing them, but they seemed to respectfully and ideologically disagree with each other - even if they got down in the mud against candidates. The G Conway tweets seem to hold more disdain for Trump than simple ideology, and that implies disdain for those supporting him. 

What I said was tongue in cheek, but with a grain of truth. If my partner publicly trashed the cause I was the public face of and truly believed in (Trump), there would be some serious stresses in my relationship. I would interpret that as disrespect and ask him, not to stifle his disagreement, but to at least tone it down on twitter. Stay away from the personal (mental state) and keep it to policy. That's why I suspect there is more of a private agreement or understanding we don't get to see.

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R. Fresno CA) is suing Devin Nunes Mom and Devin Nunes cow and—because Devin Nunes is unaware of who Donald Trump is—Devin Nunes is also suing twitter for suppressing conservative tweets, including his own, and Devin Nunes materially blames twitter for singlehandedly reducing his rightful margin of victory in elections, a right to which he is unquestionably and eternally entitled in all elections:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html

 

But all is not lost, Nunes also declared this Westeros politics threads to be politically neutral in nature because of the format in which it exists!

 

It is odd how the right is so ready to tell private companies that they can’t deny their products towards certain groups the companies  don’t like-but suddenly if a gay couple desires a cake for a wedding, suddenly it’s services shouldn’t be compelled, capitalism is great, why can’t the government let the free market breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

and truly believed in (Trump)

Well there's the hiccup right there.  And why I don't think it's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizabeth-warren-calls-for-elimination-of-electoral-college?ref=home

I know the EC is unpopular for obvious reasons, but the minimum 270 to win forces us into 2 major parties. If we get rid of the EC, what prevents the parties from splitting and new parties from popping up thus allowing one to win the majority with say just 30 some percent of the vote? 

To me, it looks the EC is a trade off of some bad results (EC win over the popular vote) to prevent potentially disastrous results like minority wacko parties winning the popular vote with only a fraction of the actual majority. 

If we get rid of the EC, we still need to make sure that the majority that wins is actually reflective of the support of the majority of the population, and not just some nut job faction which came out on top because the rest were too fractured to compete. 

 

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elizabeth-warren-calls-for-elimination-of-electoral-college?ref=home

I know the EC is unpopular for obvious reasons, but the minimum 270 to win forces us into 2 major parties. If we get rid of the EC, what prevents the parties from splitting and new parties from popping up thus allowing one to win the majority with say just 30 some percent of the vote? 

To me, it looks the EC is a trade off of some bad results (EC win over the popular vote) in trade off for potentially disastrous results like minority wacko parties winning the popular vote with only a fraction of the actual majority. 

It really isn't. There are a crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every other democracy on the planet. The EC doesn't even guarantee this either - nothing ensures one candidate will get 270, even when there are only two candidates. 

And do you know what happens if there isn't a majority of ec votes for one person?

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

If we get rid of the EC, we still need to make sure that the majority that wins is actually reflective of the support of the majority of the population, and not just some nut job faction which came out on top because the rest were too fractured to compete

Again, the implication here is that the ec actually does this, which is demonstrably false, as 2 of the 5 elections in the last 19 years were won by someone who got fewer votes than the other one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×