-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 06:05:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 523189 times)
0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #775 on: April 17, 2016, 07:49:34 AM »

Trump is going to get blown out worse than Goldwater. Kasich or Ryan would have been better choices.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #776 on: April 17, 2016, 08:14:22 AM »

CSM - I happen to believe in the success of strong activism.

If you go into a fight expecting to lose and being pessimistic; you will lose.  If you approach it differently, with realistic and objective goals, and solid facts in hand, with a media plan, anything is possible, even if it is controversial.  Remember you will be attacked. Expect to be attacked.  You need to be able to withstand criticism, ridicule, and keep looking forward and never backward.  

Never underestimate your enemies, but keep going forward. Give yourself lots of time, as even small legislative action, never happens overnight. Be patient with it and with yourself.  

And, remember the more opposition you get, it means you are getting your message out, and winning!

If you believe strongly in a cause, just go for it!  Wink  

I believe in activism as well but, like I said, short of systemic change, I can't see NAFTA or programs like NAFTA ever being eliminated. It's kind of like the wars in Central America that I've been describing above. By the 1980s there was enormous public opposition to war, after the Vietnam debacle. Reagan was ultimately unable to wage that kind of war due to public pressure. But he did find a way around that by fighting wars through proxy armies. The protests did accomplish something important and put significant amount of pressure on power, but because no systemic change was made, the same acts took place in different ways. But, yes, I definitely think public pressure can result in some positive changes.
CSM - Activism is the start.  Working on consciousness raising info/articles is a good way to start.  The "pen is mightier than the sword" - to quote a famous song, that I like.  LOL

"Electeds" have people who read everything.  It is like a brush fire. Anyplace that will take the articles (because the big ones never do at the outset) is as good a place as any.  They pay attention when you walk into a congressional office with a handful of articles you have written, that have readership in their districts, and why even smaller papers can be very helpful.

The Central America issues have to be broken down so people understand them; they are incredibly complex and have gone on for decades. But, people can understand money and jobs.  It is a good place to start.  Write so 5 year-old will understand. Otherwise people might not read it.

Social media has changed the terrain and might also be a good place to link articles.  It is a good alternative to print media whose readership has fallen off.   Wink
  

I don't quite agree with your point about social media. I think some good things can happen there but, remember that 90% of the media is controlled by six corporations and that information filters down so while people in social media might think somewhat differently from the status quo, most of them have spent a lifetime being informed by the major propaganda systems which are very difficult to disentangle oneself from. So much of what I see in social media is merely different rhetoric used to express points of view that tend to align nicely with elite opinion. The whole current US version of libertarianism, for example, which is an incredibly popular online ideology is precisely that, in my opinion: the point of view of the powerful expressed by the disaffected. And, for the most part, the information on the internet is junk because you can say whatever you want on the internet without having to actually worry about proving your point legitimately. In many ways, then, social media is a haven for misinformation and now people just accept whatever article sounds the most convincing as per their own already held beliefs. Again, take the contemporary US libertarian movement: it's about 98% posturing and almost entirely rhetorical. It's rare to find a US libertarian who can have a conversation without scoffing with exasperation at what they just barely conceal to be their opinion of other people. That's why it's such an appealing political position for young white men.

I also disagree with your position on Central America. I don't think the issues there are any more complex than NAFTA. Quite simply, when the countries there moved toward democratization and a liberation of national resources, the US government moved in to destroy it.
CSM - of course it is a tightly wound monopoly, multinational in nature.  It is what we have to work with or work around.  They can be "positioned" and that takes time to effectuate.  It requires slow, methodical calculation.  Most legislation that helps people can take at least 5 years to get enacted and ususally 10, unless there is industry support. 

Starting small with independent publications that pick up the story, forces them to cover it eventually, because if it is "newsworthy," even if controversial, they cannot be a player in the resolution.   

Yes it is complex.  You can make it less so, by breaking it up piece-by-piece.  And it counters the misinformation that has been served up by the other side.  First, it has to be relevant by the reader, those who have been directly and negatively impacted by humanizing the issue rather than discuss it in intellectual and theoretical terms that exclude those who are impacted.  Break it down! Just like the song!  It does work! 
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #777 on: April 17, 2016, 08:15:56 AM »

Trump is going to get blown out worse than Goldwater. Kasich or Ryan would have been better choices.
We'll see... LOL
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #778 on: April 17, 2016, 08:27:40 AM »

CSM - I happen to believe in the success of strong activism.

If you go into a fight expecting to lose and being pessimistic; you will lose.  If you approach it differently, with realistic and objective goals, and solid facts in hand, with a media plan, anything is possible, even if it is controversial.  Remember you will be attacked. Expect to be attacked.  You need to be able to withstand criticism, ridicule, and keep looking forward and never backward.  

Never underestimate your enemies, but keep going forward. Give yourself lots of time, as even small legislative action, never happens overnight. Be patient with it and with yourself.  

And, remember the more opposition you get, it means you are getting your message out, and winning!

If you believe strongly in a cause, just go for it!  Wink  

I believe in activism as well but, like I said, short of systemic change, I can't see NAFTA or programs like NAFTA ever being eliminated. It's kind of like the wars in Central America that I've been describing above. By the 1980s there was enormous public opposition to war, after the Vietnam debacle. Reagan was ultimately unable to wage that kind of war due to public pressure. But he did find a way around that by fighting wars through proxy armies. The protests did accomplish something important and put significant amount of pressure on power, but because no systemic change was made, the same acts took place in different ways. But, yes, I definitely think public pressure can result in some positive changes.
CSM - Activism is the start.  Working on consciousness raising info/articles is a good way to start.  The "pen is mightier than the sword" - to quote a famous song, that I like.  LOL

"Electeds" have people who read everything.  It is like a brush fire. Anyplace that will take the articles (because the big ones never do at the outset) is as good a place as any.  They pay attention when you walk into a congressional office with a handful of articles you have written, that have readership in their districts, and why even smaller papers can be very helpful.

The Central America issues have to be broken down so people understand them; they are incredibly complex and have gone on for decades. But, people can understand money and jobs.  It is a good place to start.  Write so 5 year-old will understand. Otherwise people might not read it.

Social media has changed the terrain and might also be a good place to link articles.  It is a good alternative to print media whose readership has fallen off.   Wink
  

I don't quite agree with your point about social media. I think some good things can happen there but, remember that 90% of the media is controlled by six corporations and that information filters down so while people in social media might think somewhat differently from the status quo, most of them have spent a lifetime being informed by the major propaganda systems which are very difficult to disentangle oneself from. So much of what I see in social media is merely different rhetoric used to express points of view that tend to align nicely with elite opinion. The whole current US version of libertarianism, for example, which is an incredibly popular online ideology is precisely that, in my opinion: the point of view of the powerful expressed by the disaffected. And, for the most part, the information on the internet is junk because you can say whatever you want on the internet without having to actually worry about proving your point legitimately. In many ways, then, social media is a haven for misinformation and now people just accept whatever article sounds the most convincing as per their own already held beliefs. Again, take the contemporary US libertarian movement: it's about 98% posturing and almost entirely rhetorical. It's rare to find a US libertarian who can have a conversation without scoffing with exasperation at what they just barely conceal to be their opinion of other people. That's why it's such an appealing political position for young white men.

I also disagree with your position on Central America. I don't think the issues there are any more complex than NAFTA. Quite simply, when the countries there moved toward democratization and a liberation of national resources, the US government moved in to destroy it.
CSM - of course it is a tightly wound monopoly, multinational in nature.  It is what we have to work with or work around.  They can be "positioned" and that takes time to effectuate.  It requires slow, methodical calculation.  Most legislation that helps people can take at least 5 years to get enacted and ususally 10, unless there is industry support. 

Starting small with independent publications that pick up the story, forces them to cover it eventually, because if it is "newsworthy," even if controversial, they cannot be a player in the resolution.   

Yes it is complex.  You can make it less so, by breaking it up piece-by-piece.  And it counters the misinformation that has been served up by the other side.  First, it has to be relevant by the reader, those who have been directly and negatively impacted by humanizing the issue rather than discuss it in intellectual and theoretical terms that exclude those who are impacted.  Break it down! Just like the song!  It does work! 

As to your point about the mainstream media being forced to cover a story that goes against the ruling ideology, I'd be curious to see an example of that.

Any issue can be made to sound simple or complex, whether your are talking about international affairs or money and jobs as you put it.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #779 on: April 17, 2016, 08:55:04 AM »

CSM - I happen to believe in the success of strong activism.

If you go into a fight expecting to lose and being pessimistic; you will lose.  If you approach it differently, with realistic and objective goals, and solid facts in hand, with a media plan, anything is possible, even if it is controversial.  Remember you will be attacked. Expect to be attacked.  You need to be able to withstand criticism, ridicule, and keep looking forward and never backward.  

Never underestimate your enemies, but keep going forward. Give yourself lots of time, as even small legislative action, never happens overnight. Be patient with it and with yourself.  

And, remember the more opposition you get, it means you are getting your message out, and winning!

If you believe strongly in a cause, just go for it!  Wink  

I believe in activism as well but, like I said, short of systemic change, I can't see NAFTA or programs like NAFTA ever being eliminated. It's kind of like the wars in Central America that I've been describing above. By the 1980s there was enormous public opposition to war, after the Vietnam debacle. Reagan was ultimately unable to wage that kind of war due to public pressure. But he did find a way around that by fighting wars through proxy armies. The protests did accomplish something important and put significant amount of pressure on power, but because no systemic change was made, the same acts took place in different ways. But, yes, I definitely think public pressure can result in some positive changes.
CSM - Activism is the start.  Working on consciousness raising info/articles is a good way to start.  The "pen is mightier than the sword" - to quote a famous song, that I like.  LOL

"Electeds" have people who read everything.  It is like a brush fire. Anyplace that will take the articles (because the big ones never do at the outset) is as good a place as any.  They pay attention when you walk into a congressional office with a handful of articles you have written, that have readership in their districts, and why even smaller papers can be very helpful.

The Central America issues have to be broken down so people understand them; they are incredibly complex and have gone on for decades. But, people can understand money and jobs.  It is a good place to start.  Write so 5 year-old will understand. Otherwise people might not read it.

Social media has changed the terrain and might also be a good place to link articles.  It is a good alternative to print media whose readership has fallen off.   Wink
  

I don't quite agree with your point about social media. I think some good things can happen there but, remember that 90% of the media is controlled by six corporations and that information filters down so while people in social media might think somewhat differently from the status quo, most of them have spent a lifetime being informed by the major propaganda systems which are very difficult to disentangle oneself from. So much of what I see in social media is merely different rhetoric used to express points of view that tend to align nicely with elite opinion. The whole current US version of libertarianism, for example, which is an incredibly popular online ideology is precisely that, in my opinion: the point of view of the powerful expressed by the disaffected. And, for the most part, the information on the internet is junk because you can say whatever you want on the internet without having to actually worry about proving your point legitimately. In many ways, then, social media is a haven for misinformation and now people just accept whatever article sounds the most convincing as per their own already held beliefs. Again, take the contemporary US libertarian movement: it's about 98% posturing and almost entirely rhetorical. It's rare to find a US libertarian who can have a conversation without scoffing with exasperation at what they just barely conceal to be their opinion of other people. That's why it's such an appealing political position for young white men.

I also disagree with your position on Central America. I don't think the issues there are any more complex than NAFTA. Quite simply, when the countries there moved toward democratization and a liberation of national resources, the US government moved in to destroy it.
CSM - of course it is a tightly wound monopoly, multinational in nature.  It is what we have to work with or work around.  They can be "positioned" and that takes time to effectuate.  It requires slow, methodical calculation.  Most legislation that helps people can take at least 5 years to get enacted and ususally 10, unless there is industry support. 

Starting small with independent publications that pick up the story, forces them to cover it eventually, because if it is "newsworthy," even if controversial, they cannot be a player in the resolution.   

Yes it is complex.  You can make it less so, by breaking it up piece-by-piece.  And it counters the misinformation that has been served up by the other side.  First, it has to be relevant by the reader, those who have been directly and negatively impacted by humanizing the issue rather than discuss it in intellectual and theoretical terms that exclude those who are impacted.  Break it down! Just like the song!  It does work! 

As to your point about the mainstream media being forced to cover a story that goes against the ruling ideology, I'd be curious to see an example of that.

Any issue can be made to sound simple or complex, whether your are talking about international affairs or money and jobs as you put it.
CSM - that is a typical grassroots strategy.  Start small, keep it simple, publish where your work is accepted (it will be rejected by some) deliver it to legislators, (they might think you are not going to prevail.)  Don't give up.  Even if it goes against the editorial idelogy, it may become newsworthy. 

They won't give you an editorial but you can always get an op-ed.  It is akin to the "dissent" by judges on a court case.  And it creates a paper trail that you can reference.

Once you get to that point, write letters, include the articles and copy everyone.  Someone on that list will pay attention.  If you are passionate, and conscientious, it will catch on, but you must be "tactfully persistent" in a non-confrontational manner. 

Making it simple, I think is the key as well as building a network.   Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #780 on: April 17, 2016, 09:13:52 AM »

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this? Roll Eyes
Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?


No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.
Captain - It is unrealistic to think a President can fix everything. I want only a few things fixed.  National security, the VA, and some of the corruption. Education, too.  Education should be freed from this political correctness nonsense with attention re-focused on skills.  We are behind many countries with fewer resources.  Education is a business with vendors and special interests at the trough in the States.  

You are correct. Anger fixes nothing.  But painting the voters as all "angry and stupid" is not productive. Frustrated people can get angry. Anger can propel people to become involved and better informed. It is frustration at the system and the double standards that has changed the terrain this election cycle.    

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.   Wink

    
What 'political correctness nonsense'  is distracting from learning what skills?

 The effects of trade imbalances, currency imbalances, trade treaties, and tariffs are felt throughout the global and national economy and must be considered from many angles. What has Donald Trump said that indicates he 'understands trade' from a public policy perspective?
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #781 on: April 17, 2016, 09:19:49 AM »

CSM - that is a typical grassroots strategy.  Start small, keep it simple, publish where your work is accepted (it will be rejected by some) deliver it to legislators, (they might think you are not going to prevail.)  Don't give up.  Even if it goes against the editorial idelogy, it may become newsworthy. 

They won't give you an editorial but you can always get an op-ed.  It is akin to the "dissent" by judges on a court case.  And it creates a paper trail that you can reference.

Once you get to that point, write letters, include the articles and copy everyone.  Someone on that list will pay attention.  If you are passionate, and conscientious, it will catch on, but you must be "tactfully persistent" in a non-confrontational manner. 

Making it simple, I think is the key as well as building a network.   Wink

Like I said above, I agree with this. What I was curious about was what examples are there of a grassroots position that goes against the ruling ideology being forced into the mainstream media?
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #782 on: April 17, 2016, 09:24:01 AM »

You can quite easily point to nonsense he spouts as evidence he most certainly does not understand trade from a public policy perspective. Even--maybe even mostly--conservatives understand that he's surprisingly illiterate, for a so-called businessman.

Here, from a conservative scholar writing in LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-perry-trade-benefits-20160316-story.html

Here, from conservative WSJ.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps-hard-line-on-trade-could-backfire-1458848243

A more center-left/mailstream point? How about CNBC?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/trump-trade-plans-could-cause-global-recession-experts.html
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #783 on: April 17, 2016, 09:45:41 AM »

The Captain for president? Wink
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #784 on: April 17, 2016, 09:48:29 AM »

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this? Roll Eyes
Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?


No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.
Captain - It is unrealistic to think a President can fix everything. I want only a few things fixed.  National security, the VA, and some of the corruption. Education, too.  Education should be freed from this political correctness nonsense with attention re-focused on skills.  We are behind many countries with fewer resources.  Education is a business with vendors and special interests at the trough in the States.  

You are correct. Anger fixes nothing.  But painting the voters as all "angry and stupid" is not productive. Frustrated people can get angry. Anger can propel people to become involved and better informed. It is frustration at the system and the double standards that has changed the terrain this election cycle.    

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.   Wink

    
What 'political correctness nonsense'  is distracting from learning what skills?

 The effects of trade imbalances, currency imbalances, trade treaties, and tariffs are felt throughout the global and national economy and must be considered from many angles. What has Donald Trump said that indicates he 'understands trade' from a public policy perspective?

Emily - basic skills such as teaching phonics, math facts have been usurped by ad hoc educational companies that are in business to sell their wares to schools.  The job of the public school is to teach reading, writing and math, civil education, phys. ed. etc.  These are vulnerable populations who are being exploited by universities and business under the guise of "support."  

Often school systems will allow universities, even foreign ones to use classrooms in poorer and urban settings as labs for their research, so some doctoral candidate will get their degree.  That is immoral and unethical.  

When a book company or a food vendor  wants to sell product to a system, they lobby the school boards at national conventions such as the Great City Schools, or other fora to market their goods, from food such as Kellogg's or General Mills.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #785 on: April 17, 2016, 09:50:18 AM »

You can quite easily point to nonsense he spouts as evidence he most certainly does not understand trade from a public policy perspective. Even--maybe even mostly--conservatives understand that he's surprisingly illiterate, for a so-called businessman.

Here, from a conservative scholar writing in LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-perry-trade-benefits-20160316-story.html

Here, from conservative WSJ.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps-hard-line-on-trade-could-backfire-1458848243

A more center-left/mailstream point? How about CNBC?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/trump-trade-plans-could-cause-global-recession-experts.html

God, that first article, with its implication that NAFTA represents "free trade" and its using the fact that economist agree that "past major trade deals have benefited most Americans" as support for "virtually all economists support free trade and oppose protectionism" makes me gnash my teeth; but the point, Donald Trump is completely ignorant about economics, is correct. And worse, he will never understand that he is ignorant so he probably won't take advice.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #786 on: April 17, 2016, 09:53:12 AM »

CSM - that is a typical grassroots strategy.  Start small, keep it simple, publish where your work is accepted (it will be rejected by some) deliver it to legislators, (they might think you are not going to prevail.)  Don't give up.  Even if it goes against the editorial idelogy, it may become newsworthy. 

They won't give you an editorial but you can always get an op-ed.  It is akin to the "dissent" by judges on a court case.  And it creates a paper trail that you can reference.

Once you get to that point, write letters, include the articles and copy everyone.  Someone on that list will pay attention.  If you are passionate, and conscientious, it will catch on, but you must be "tactfully persistent" in a non-confrontational manner. 

Making it simple, I think is the key as well as building a network.   Wink

Like I said above, I agree with this. What I was curious about was what examples are there of a grassroots position that goes against the ruling ideology being forced into the mainstream media?

http://www.renewamerica.com/grassroots.htm   

I think it has some good ideas about moving an issue.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #787 on: April 17, 2016, 09:53:20 AM »

FdP, if we're talking about the selling of books being an issue in schools, let's be sure to talk about the worst offenders.

A hometown issue for me, where my (black) friend had to learn of "Lazy Lucy" from his daughter's textbook. Lovely, isn't it?
http://www.startribune.com/offensive-curriculum-sparks-outrage-at-minneapolis-school-board-meeting/325932541/

And of course, the state we all wish would quit with the empty threats and secede, already, Texas.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/2015/11/19/texas_textbooks_review_panel_conservative_state_board_rejects_academic_review.html
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #788 on: April 17, 2016, 09:54:43 AM »

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this? Roll Eyes
Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?


No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.
Captain - It is unrealistic to think a President can fix everything. I want only a few things fixed.  National security, the VA, and some of the corruption. Education, too.  Education should be freed from this political correctness nonsense with attention re-focused on skills.  We are behind many countries with fewer resources.  Education is a business with vendors and special interests at the trough in the States.  

You are correct. Anger fixes nothing.  But painting the voters as all "angry and stupid" is not productive. Frustrated people can get angry. Anger can propel people to become involved and better informed. It is frustration at the system and the double standards that has changed the terrain this election cycle.    

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.   Wink

    
What 'political correctness nonsense'  is distracting from learning what skills?

 The effects of trade imbalances, currency imbalances, trade treaties, and tariffs are felt throughout the global and national economy and must be considered from many angles. What has Donald Trump said that indicates he 'understands trade' from a public policy perspective?

Emily - basic skills such as teaching phonics, math facts have been usurped by ad hoc educational companies that are in business to sell their wares to schools.  The job of the public school is to teach reading, writing and math, civil education, phys. ed. etc.  These are vulnerable populations who are being exploited by universities and business under the guise of "support."  

Often school systems will allow universities, even foreign ones to use classrooms in poorer and urban settings as labs for their research, so some doctoral candidate will get their degree.  That is immoral and unethical.  

When a book company or a food vendor  wants to sell product to a system, they lobby the school boards at national conventions such as the Great City Schools, or other fora to market their goods, from food such as Kellogg's or General Mills.

OK. What 'political correctness nonsense' distracts from teaching phonics and math facts (which I disagree are terribly important)?
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #789 on: April 17, 2016, 09:55:30 AM »

You can quite easily point to nonsense he spouts as evidence he most certainly does not understand trade from a public policy perspective. Even--maybe even mostly--conservatives understand that he's surprisingly illiterate, for a so-called businessman.

Here, from a conservative scholar writing in LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-perry-trade-benefits-20160316-story.html

Here, from conservative WSJ.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps-hard-line-on-trade-could-backfire-1458848243

A more center-left/mailstream point? How about CNBC?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/trump-trade-plans-could-cause-global-recession-experts.html

God, that first article, with its implication that NAFTA represents "free trade" and its using the fact that economist agree that "past major trade deals have benefited most Americans" as support for "virtually all economists support free trade and oppose protectionism" makes me gnash my teeth; but the point, Donald Trump is completely ignorant about economics, is correct. And worse, he will never understand that he is ignorant so he probably won't take advice.

Yeah, I make no claims as to supporting the various authors! For one, I'm not schooled in economics to begin with, so I'm working mostly from common sense and reading various opinions. But my point here was to show diverse opinions ALL condemning the stupidity of Mr. Trump's statements.

Sadly his angry supporters believe institutional or academic or journalistic criticism is proof of his correctness.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #790 on: April 17, 2016, 09:57:10 AM »

You can quite easily point to nonsense he spouts as evidence he most certainly does not understand trade from a public policy perspective. Even--maybe even mostly--conservatives understand that he's surprisingly illiterate, for a so-called businessman.

Here, from a conservative scholar writing in LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-perry-trade-benefits-20160316-story.html

Here, from conservative WSJ.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps-hard-line-on-trade-could-backfire-1458848243

A more center-left/mailstream point? How about CNBC?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/trump-trade-plans-could-cause-global-recession-experts.html

God, that first article, with its implication that NAFTA represents "free trade" and its using the fact that economist agree that "past major trade deals have benefited most Americans" as support for "virtually all economists support free trade and oppose protectionism" makes me gnash my teeth; but the point, Donald Trump is completely ignorant about economics, is correct. And worse, he will never understand that he is ignorant so he probably won't take advice.
Emily - he went to Wharton.    

How can it be that he knows nothing about business and economics?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #791 on: April 17, 2016, 09:58:38 AM »

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this? Roll Eyes
Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?


No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.
Captain - It is unrealistic to think a President can fix everything. I want only a few things fixed.  National security, the VA, and some of the corruption. Education, too.  Education should be freed from this political correctness nonsense with attention re-focused on skills.  We are behind many countries with fewer resources.  Education is a business with vendors and special interests at the trough in the States.  

You are correct. Anger fixes nothing.  But painting the voters as all "angry and stupid" is not productive. Frustrated people can get angry. Anger can propel people to become involved and better informed. It is frustration at the system and the double standards that has changed the terrain this election cycle.    

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.   Wink

    
What 'political correctness nonsense'  is distracting from learning what skills?

 The effects of trade imbalances, currency imbalances, trade treaties, and tariffs are felt throughout the global and national economy and must be considered from many angles. What has Donald Trump said that indicates he 'understands trade' from a public policy perspective?

Emily - basic skills such as teaching phonics, math facts have been usurped by ad hoc educational companies that are in business to sell their wares to schools.  The job of the public school is to teach reading, writing and math, civil education, phys. ed. etc.  These are vulnerable populations who are being exploited by universities and business under the guise of "support."  

Often school systems will allow universities, even foreign ones to use classrooms in poorer and urban settings as labs for their research, so some doctoral candidate will get their degree.  That is immoral and unethical.  

When a book company or a food vendor  wants to sell product to a system, they lobby the school boards at national conventions such as the Great City Schools, or other fora to market their goods, from food such as Kellogg's or General Mills.

OK. What 'political correctness nonsense' distracts from teaching phonics and math facts (which I disagree are terribly important)?
The social justice warrior concept that is being introduced for teachers.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #792 on: April 17, 2016, 09:59:27 AM »


OK. What 'political correctness nonsense' distracts from teaching phonics and math facts (which I disagree are terribly important)?

My experience is that conservatives generally condemn texts that more objectively teach history, for example, as opposed to the overly patriotic nonsense of the national myth, as "political correctness." Any criticism of, say, I don't know, slavery, genocide of native people, sexism, racism is deemed political correctness.

Don't even get me started about that other political correctness: science. I mean, what, with the Big Bang and evolution and whatnot? Climate change? Keep your political correctness (science) out of my kids' head! Jesus dictated the Bible in English to the Founding Fathers while riding the back of a dinosaur. Fact. Only politically correct liberals (probably Muslims) would say otherwise.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #793 on: April 17, 2016, 10:05:54 AM »

You can quite easily point to nonsense he spouts as evidence he most certainly does not understand trade from a public policy perspective. Even--maybe even mostly--conservatives understand that he's surprisingly illiterate, for a so-called businessman.

Here, from a conservative scholar writing in LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0316-perry-trade-benefits-20160316-story.html

Here, from conservative WSJ.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps-hard-line-on-trade-could-backfire-1458848243

A more center-left/mailstream point? How about CNBC?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/trump-trade-plans-could-cause-global-recession-experts.html

God, that first article, with its implication that NAFTA represents "free trade" and its using the fact that economist agree that "past major trade deals have benefited most Americans" as support for "virtually all economists support free trade and oppose protectionism" makes me gnash my teeth; but the point, Donald Trump is completely ignorant about economics, is correct. And worse, he will never understand that he is ignorant so he probably won't take advice.
Emily - he went to Wharton.    

How can it be that he knows nothing about business and economics?
1. I know many people who attended college or grad school at the best institutions and learned virtually nothing. The student is responsible for learning. The institution is only responsible for teaching.

2. I have no idea regarding Donald Trump's understanding of business, but that would have nothing to do with his understanding of macroeconomics, which is necessary for making public policy decisions. I've seen no indication that he has any inkling.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #794 on: April 17, 2016, 10:08:22 AM »

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this? Roll Eyes
Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?


No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.
Captain - It is unrealistic to think a President can fix everything. I want only a few things fixed.  National security, the VA, and some of the corruption. Education, too.  Education should be freed from this political correctness nonsense with attention re-focused on skills.  We are behind many countries with fewer resources.  Education is a business with vendors and special interests at the trough in the States.  

You are correct. Anger fixes nothing.  But painting the voters as all "angry and stupid" is not productive. Frustrated people can get angry. Anger can propel people to become involved and better informed. It is frustration at the system and the double standards that has changed the terrain this election cycle.    

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.   Wink

    
What 'political correctness nonsense'  is distracting from learning what skills?

 The effects of trade imbalances, currency imbalances, trade treaties, and tariffs are felt throughout the global and national economy and must be considered from many angles. What has Donald Trump said that indicates he 'understands trade' from a public policy perspective?

Emily - basic skills such as teaching phonics, math facts have been usurped by ad hoc educational companies that are in business to sell their wares to schools.  The job of the public school is to teach reading, writing and math, civil education, phys. ed. etc.  These are vulnerable populations who are being exploited by universities and business under the guise of "support."  

Often school systems will allow universities, even foreign ones to use classrooms in poorer and urban settings as labs for their research, so some doctoral candidate will get their degree.  That is immoral and unethical.  

When a book company or a food vendor  wants to sell product to a system, they lobby the school boards at national conventions such as the Great City Schools, or other fora to market their goods, from food such as Kellogg's or General Mills.

OK. What 'political correctness nonsense' distracts from teaching phonics and math facts (which I disagree are terribly important)?
The social justice warrior concept that is being introduced for teachers.
And how does that distract from teaching basic skills? While I agree schools suck, I think the environment is much better than it was when I was a kid. The kids are much nicer and more supportive of each other which is very beneficial for learning. How does it distract?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 10:14:00 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #795 on: April 17, 2016, 10:09:55 AM »

FdP, if we're talking about the selling of books being an issue in schools, let's be sure to talk about the worst offenders.

A hometown issue for me, where my (black) friend had to learn of "Lazy Lucy" from his daughter's textbook. Lovely, isn't it?
http://www.startribune.com/offensive-curriculum-sparks-outrage-at-minneapolis-school-board-meeting/325932541/

And of course, the state we all wish would quit with the empty threats and secede, already, Texas.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/2015/11/19/texas_textbooks_review_panel_conservative_state_board_rejects_academic_review.html
One of the main reasons I've got to get out of Texas quick!
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #796 on: April 17, 2016, 10:10:39 AM »


1. I know many people who attended college or grad school at the best institutions and learned virtually nothing. The student is responsible for learning. The institution is only responsible for teaching.


I hate to stereotype, but I'll share a personal observation: many of the people with whom I've worked over the years who came from privileged backgrounds that allowed them educations at some of the finest schools seem to have learned the least in college. They were admitted because they could afford it and probably came from great high schools, they (apparently) coasted through, they made connections, and they jumped into good jobs. Oh, and inevitably they were business majors... Conversely, many people who paid their own way, or whose families struggled to help them through college, took it more seriously.

That's not to say plenty of people from a variety of backgrounds f***ed off through college, or that no "rich kids" were smart and did indeed learn. But in my experience, anyway, it's the privileged, whose resumes look so good, learned the least.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #797 on: April 17, 2016, 10:11:29 AM »


OK. What 'political correctness  nonsense' distracts from teaching phonics and math facts (which I disagree are terribly important)?

My experience is that conservatives generally condemn texts that more objectively teach history, for example, as opposed to the overly patriotic nonsense of the national myth, as "political correctness." Any criticism of, say, I don't know, slavery, genocide of native people, sexism, racism is deemed political correctness.

Don't even get me started about that other political correctness: science. I mean, what, with the Big Bang and evolution and whatnot? Climate change? Keep your political correctness (science) out of my kids' head! Jesus dictated the Bible in English to the Founding Fathers while riding the back of a dinosaur. Fact. Only politically correct liberals (probably Muslims) would say otherwise.
Grin Grin Grin it's funny 'cause it's true.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 10:23:07 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #798 on: April 17, 2016, 10:16:08 AM »


1. I know many people who attended college or grad school at the best institutions and learned virtually nothing. The student is responsible for learning. The institution is only responsible for teaching.


I hate to stereotype, but I'll share a personal observation: many of the people with whom I've worked over the years who came from privileged backgrounds that allowed them educations at some of the finest schools seem to have learned the least in college. They were admitted because they could afford it and probably came from great high schools, they (apparently) coasted through, they made connections, and they jumped into good jobs. Oh, and inevitably they were business majors... Conversely, many people who paid their own way, or whose families struggled to help them through college, took it more seriously.

That's not to say plenty of people from a variety of backgrounds f***ed off through college, or that no "rich kids" were smart and did indeed learn. But in my experience, anyway, it's the privileged, whose resumes look so good, learned the least.
I went to expensive fancy institutions and was very irritated by the flaky irresponsibility of my peers. And you're quite right. The flakiest of the flaky all went to Wall Street.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #799 on: April 17, 2016, 10:24:45 AM »

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this? Roll Eyes
Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?


No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.
Captain - It is unrealistic to think a President can fix everything. I want only a few things fixed.  National security, the VA, and some of the corruption. Education, too.  Education should be freed from this political correctness nonsense with attention re-focused on skills.  We are behind many countries with fewer resources.  Education is a business with vendors and special interests at the trough in the States.  

You are correct. Anger fixes nothing.  But painting the voters as all "angry and stupid" is not productive. Frustrated people can get angry. Anger can propel people to become involved and better informed. It is frustration at the system and the double standards that has changed the terrain this election cycle.    

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.   Wink

    
What 'political correctness nonsense'  is distracting from learning what skills?

 The effects of trade imbalances, currency imbalances, trade treaties, and tariffs are felt throughout the global and national economy and must be considered from many angles. What has Donald Trump said that indicates he 'understands trade' from a public policy perspective?

Emily - basic skills such as teaching phonics, math facts have been usurped by ad hoc educational companies that are in business to sell their wares to schools.  The job of the public school is to teach reading, writing and math, civil education, phys. ed. etc.  These are vulnerable populations who are being exploited by universities and business under the guise of "support."  

Often school systems will allow universities, even foreign ones to use classrooms in poorer and urban settings as labs for their research, so some doctoral candidate will get their degree.  That is immoral and unethical.  

When a book company or a food vendor  wants to sell product to a system, they lobby the school boards at national conventions such as the Great City Schools, or other fora to market their goods, from food such as Kellogg's or General Mills.

OK. What 'political correctness nonsense' distracts from teaching phonics and math facts (which I disagree are terribly important)?
The social justice warrior concept that is being introduced for teachers.
And how does that distract from teaching basic skills? While I agree schools suck, I think the environment is much better than it was when I was a kid. The kids are much nicer and more supportive of each other which is very beneficial for learning. How does it distract?
Emily - Basic skills are not being taught as well or thoroughly.  Phonics is downplayed in the US.  It is a big deal elsewhere.  For example "dictation" (dictée) has been all but abandoned in some systems because it is considered "too hard" for some.  No diagramming of sentences to learn the function of the parts of speech.  

Math facts are not emphasized and they cannot add up a vertical column of numbers.  They need to break it down horizontally, into ones, tens, and hundreds. They are not learning the times tables in a rigorous fashion.  They don't know geography because it is not taught as a separate subject.  It is incidental to social studies.  

We are at war with the Middle East but the kids cannot tell you what the countries are in the Middle East, nor can they name the capitals of the United States. That is for starters. They can't tell you what countries speak what languages and why.  (Always a good lead-in lesson on the evils of colonialism.)  

This is the state of public education.  It is no wonder that charter schools which can offer more traditional teaching are doing as well as they are.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 5.511 seconds with 21 queries.