***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Belgium]

Generally, yes, it is problematic to fire someone’s relative for their actions.

In this situation it is well within the right of the president to do so, and was likely contemplated prior to the person testifying.

But you can’t compare the general to the narrow issue of serving at the pleasure of the president.

You seem to adopt a view that something can’t be wrong or inappropriate if it is within presidential authority.

 

[noskey]

My assertion is that private funding can supplement public funding. Which will diminish the net negative of the cuts.

Without cutting all of the things you outline occur. Congress doesn’t have a magic wand.

Long before Trump all of those issues existed. And will after.

Public funds to schools can’t compete with, oh, I don’t know, 400 years of slavery, mass incarceration, negative portrayal in the media, etc.

There’s a lot at play.

That’s why I think private funds, from within the community, will help strengthen those communities. Just my .02, but you can disagree.

Diminishing a net negative doesn't negate the et negative and turn it positive. I'm surprised you acknowledge the historical disadvantages at play in under-served communities, yet continue to support both the individuals and their larger political party who would see that these disadvantages are worsened through political policy. Do you think cutting funds to poor school districts might continue the negative cycle of mass incarceration, low skilled labor, negative media portrayals, less upward mobility, etc.?

I would be very curious to read anything you can provide that advocates cutting public funds and relying on private donations from celebrities and wealthy benefactors that seem to be a dime a dozen in poor areas.

 

[dacomeup]

This dude is unrelenting with nothing but ********. These stances are just trash. Even when proven wrong, he'll spin out of it and try to obfuscate the point or spew more bs.

 

[friscostylez]

Man, we can not afford any more cuts to public education.

we need more funding. Private funding just sets up haves and haves not to an extreme degree.

Imagine the quality of teacher we’d have if they were making $90k in the south... cats who were smart enough to be engineers or lawyers or businesspeople would see teaching the yoof as a viable career alternative.

it would benefit the entire country.

aye brah i've been saying this for a min!!


im tired of hearing that people got into teaching as a last option. WTF?!?!?
i want to see teaching as a more prestigious professions, which is the case in other countries.
i want to see people who typically gun for MBB, high finance, SWE at FAANG now work their butts off to become teachers.

 

[dwalk31]

You seem to adopt a view that something can’t be wrong or inappropriate if it is within presidential authority.

I have no issue saying it is something that probably would not have done.

But my personal moral compass can’t be the universal standard. I wouldn’t do a lot of things that people do.

I think abortion is wrong (absent rape or medical concerns), for instance. I’m pro-life. Does that mean it’s inappropriate for a woman to get an abortion?

The right v. wrong convo gets murky.

I wouldn’t go the route Trump did. I say he can do better with his tweets as well. But he was elected acting exactly as he is now. And he is well within his rights to terminate someone who serves at his pleasure.

 

[dwalk31]

Diminishing a net negative doesn't negate the et negative and turn it positive. I'm surprised you acknowledge the historical disadvantages at play in under-served communities, yet continue to support both the individuals and their larger political party who would see that these disadvantages are worsened through political policy. Do you think cutting funds to poor school districts might continue the negative cycle of mass incarceration, low skilled labor, negative media portrayals, less upward mobility, etc.?

I would be very curious to read anything you can provide that advocates cutting public funds and relying on private donations from celebrities and wealthy benefactors that seem to be a dime a dozen in poor areas.

I’m not advocating cutting public funds. I’m saying that cutting of public funds isn’t the end all due to private donations.

Programs lose funding and sustain. People lose scholarships/grants and stay in college. To pretend like there are no other alternatives is disingenuous

 

[elpablo21]

Barr is shady and clearly acts more like a Trump defense attorney than an AG but this does not look like a credible source.

Yeah I'm seeing the original story was from a year ago from Raw Story. I havent followe them too closely in that regards

 

[RustyShackleford]

Your reasoning is circular. Someone (taxpayers) has to pay for what you’ve outlined.

If I can have 5 kids and not have to pay for housing or food, then who does pay?

You say you give the kids housing, but I’m assuming that is housing with their parents. Or are you advocating separating kids from their families?

I agree with your premise. I just don’t see the practicality.

First off get out my face with implying I am for child separation. That is you, not me.

Secondly I didn't say having a child guarantees the parent free housing or food. Besides obviously building more homes to raise the housing stock and put down pressure on prices, lower income people with kids can get housing subsidies. Hell I would be for full blown public housing if society would not **** it up. I said school lunches but also SNAP is relatively cheap so greatly expanded it will cost like and eliminating food insecurity will have greater long term economic benefits.

Secondly whole I didn't list it, universal childcare and Pre-K would actually promote parents getting back into the workforce.

Third like I said adult age tax payers pay for it. Then those children age into being taxpayers, they help fund the program for the next generation. So in the long term, the kids that get most of the benefit from the programs end up paying for it. It would work like Social Security but in reverse. With Social Security people pay to support the system before they get the benefits. With this people enjoy the benefits before the pay to support the system.

And since so many lower income kids are set on a higher economic trajectory, their is more money available to tax, and less stress in welfare programs for adults. So the cost savings to adult welfare programs also helps pay for it.

So having a kid would not become some economic come up for parents, like conservatives warn. It just nationalizes the economic burden of raising the children, children the economy needs anyway.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Man, we can not afford any more cuts to public education.

we need more funding. Private funding just sets up haves and haves not to an extreme degree.

Imagine the quality of teacher we’d have if they were making $90k in the south... cats who were smart enough to be engineers or lawyers or businesspeople would see teaching the yoof as a viable career alternative.

it would benefit the entire country.

In places with great interest education systems, this is exactly what happens.

 

[dwalk31]

First off get out my place with implying I am for child separation. That is you, not me.

Secondly I didn't say having a child guarantees the parent free housing or food. Besides obviously building more homes to raise the housing stock and put down pressure on prices, lower income people with kids can get housing subsidies. Hell I would be for full blown public housing if society would not **** it up. I said school lunches but also SNAP is relatively cheap so greatly expanded it will cost like and eliminating food insecurity will have greater long term economic benefits.

Secondly whole I didn't list it, universal childcare and Pre-K would actually promote parents getting back into the workforce.

Third like I said adult age tax payers pay for it. Then those children age into being taxpayers, they help fund the program for the next generation. So in the long term, the kids that get most of the benefit from the programs end up paying for it. It would work like Social Security but in reverse. With Social Security people pay to support the system before they get the benefits. With this people enjoy the benefits before the pay to support the system.

And since so many lower income kids are set on a higher economic trajectory, their is more money available to tax, and less stress in welfare programs for adults. So the cost savings to adult welfare programs also helps pay for it.

So having a kid is not some economic come up for parents, like conservatives warn. It just nationalized the economic burden of raising the children, children the economy needs.

This has zero chance of happening anytime soon. In a perfect world, yea.

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

I can't wait to go vote in the election. The sitting president just got acquitted for cheating the last election and he didn't even get impeached until the end of his term. This just makes me want to vote even harder.

 

[dwalk31]

Imagine the quality of teacher we’d have if they were making $90k in the south... cats who were smart enough to be engineers or lawyers or businesspeople would see teaching the yoof as a viable career alternative.

I know several Principals and Vice principals and other administrators that make way over 90k at public schools in the south

 

[dwalk31]

I can't wait to go vote in the election. The sitting president just got acquitted for cheating the last election and he didn't even get impeached until the end of his term. This just makes me want to vote even harder.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I can't wait to go vote in the election. The sitting president just got acquitted for cheating the last election and he didn't even get impeached until the end of his term. This just makes me want to vote even harder.

Troll better my guy

 

[noskey]

I’m not advocating cutting public funds. I’m saying that cutting of public funds isn’t the end all due to private donations.

Programs lose funding and sustain. People lose scholarships/grants and stay in college. To pretend like there are no other alternatives is disingenuous

And I'm saying I want you to provide evidence that private donations provide a modicum of support to underfunded districts when their general public funding is cut. You're also not answering my question of whether or not you think cutting school funding contributes to the viscous cycle of poverty, mass incarceration, and lack of upward mobility.

To pretend that private funding can keep underserved districts on par with wealthy areas' quality of education is not only disingenuous, it's a ******* lie. A dangerous lie at that.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This has zero chance of happening anytime soon. In a perfect world, yea.

Yeah, because the party you vote for prevents any positive changes in this area.

If you agree, why not try to make this perfect world instead of acting like the status quo is a unchangeable situation.

Like you keep pointing out that Congressional gridlock means nothing will get done. You keep saying Trump should do better. If Trump can get nothing done because of this gridlock, why on Earth do you vote for that man and defend all his abhorrent actions. Including caging kids.

Grow some morals and stop being damn complicit.

 

[dwalk31]

And I'm saying I want you to provide evidence that private donations provide a modicum of support to underfunded districts when their general public funding is cut. You're also not answering my question of whether or not you think cutting school funding contributes to the viscous cycle of poverty, mass incarceration, and lack of upward mobility.

To pretend that private funding can keep underserved districts on par with wealthy areas' quality of education is not only disingenuous, it's a ****ing lie. A dangerous lie at that.

Easy with the language.

To your question re: evidence, that wasn’t my assertion. And, even if it was, I’m not going to go on an evidence search. Although I can find articles about big foot and fairies so I’m sure it wouldn’t be difficult to find something supporting that theory, but it’s not my assertion.

Second, yes along with myriad other contributing factors.

Lastly, to pretend that *PUBLIC funding can keep underserved districts on par with wealthy areas' quality of education is not only disingenuous, it's a [ ] lie. A dangerous lie at that.

 

[Belgium]

After last year’s public Worldwide Threat Assessment testimony by intelligence leaders, Trump attacked them for debunking his lies about North Korea, Iran and ISIS. He publicly ranted that the intelligence leaders were “wrong”, “extremely passive”, “naive”, and that they needed to “go back to school.”
His reaction suggested that he would have preferred it if they lied under oath to avoid contradicting his fabricated claims.

 

[Belgium]

Another one bites the dust. He should still be prosecuted for perjury, not that Barr would let it happen. Lied under oath to cover his and Trump's *** and now he bites the dust anyway.

 

[noskey]

Certainly seems feelings are playing a role. On both sides.

There you have it folks.

 

[junglejim]

Another one bites the dust. He should still be prosecuted for perjury, not that Barr would let it happen. Lied under oath to cover his and Trump's *** and now he bites the dust anyway.

This feels like a costly lawsuit waiting to happen. Hope the dudes get paid

 

[dwalk31]

This feels like a costly lawsuit waiting to happen. Hope the dudes get paid

Lawsuit for what?

 

[Belgium]

This feels like a costly lawsuit waiting to happen. Hope the dudes get paid

I'm not a lawyer but I'm not aware of any possible legal measures Sondland could take. Wrongful termination does not apply here due to the president's authority. Trump clearly had a corrupt motive for firing Lt. Col Vindmand's brother for example but it's still within his authority either way.

 

[junglejim]

Lawsuit for what?

I mean they have whistleblower protection acts for this very situation

 

[gry60]

When the various bubbles burst we can come in and buy in low. Rinse. Repeat.

Bwahahahahaha.

You line of thinking as one issue. It relies on the assumption you will always be on the right side of the economic downturn. You won't.

If the economy because too structurally broken then conventional methods to stimulate it will not work in times of recession. Then that leads to a situation where the economy will be in a depressed state for an extended period of time, which will eventually drag down the value of your capital assets, and keep them depressed. Can't buy low and sell high if the price stays low. Can't buy low if your wealth is eroded by said downturn. Your ways of thinking only works because the federal government protects capital so much. But if the government is runs out of options, then you are left to fend for yourself. What's a rental property good for if there is a lack of available tenants, climate change causes insurance rates to sky rocket, and powerful incumbent landlords get more market power. What happens when the government is humstrung to pull the economy out of depression.

You are all for pumping more uncertainty a risk into the system just cause you think you will always come out on top. But if things continue the way they do, it increases the chances of you being on the wrong side of a downturn, and never being able to benefit from an upswing.

On the politicial side, if we enter a mass depression (which Obama saved us from), then people will vote in Bernie Sanders types in mass. And then you face the prospect of mass nationalization of private assets. So they if you guys don't want full blown socialism, they you should warm up to a balanced well manged mixed economy.

I'm the one trying to protect people like you because I want to structurally strengthen the economy to get rid of the uncertainty and downside risk. I'm a liberal progressive dentist telling you that you either let me fill that cavity now, or else socialist dentist gonna root canal it later, or even the communist dentist gonna want to pull the tooth and put in a publicly own implant.

Smarten up now, or keep enjoying that right wing sugar and thinking the pain will never come. Your choice, b.

To put it simply, if your income is not 100% passive AND if you are not using a small portion of it to live (in other words, if you are not an oligarch), you will be on the wrong side of such an economic downturn.