US elections 2021-2022

attyfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,978
Why is it permissible to cap college costs when it is not considered permissible to cap costs for medication or other health care? After all, loans are available for college, but not for health care ... and parents can't help with medical costs because that risks homelessness and starvation in their old age (because their kids won't be able to support them)
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
13,261
The Inflation Reduction Act just capped prescription costs for Medicare & Medicaid recipients. This $2k cap includes chemotherapy and other infusions. It is a huge big deal for cancer patients who are old or poor or disabled

Insulin alone can cost a lot more than the cap per year in many states.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,598
She is not running against DeSantis yet--she must win the primary against Crist first.

Honestly, this ad seems tailored to the liberal blue checks on Twitter, but I doubt it resonates with a substantial number of voters in Florida.
I am in Florida and voted for her in the D primary. It is worth remembering that Nikki Fried outperformed FL Dem standard-bearer, Bill Nelson and Andrew Gillum in the 2018 general election. She actually won her seat as AG Commissioner (also handles Consumer Protections in the state of FL) and is the only D to do so in a decade since BHO in 2012. She is very present online and knows how to attack. AFAIK, she is unequivocal in her positions but I admit I haven't investigated every corner of her political career. I do know I am not interested in Crist (but will vote for him over DeSantis) because he is an R -> D who lost elections to Rubio in 2010 and Scott in 2014: Kinda been there and done that type of thing

Val Demmings is mentioned for FL Senate. A poll with a +3 R tilt shows the race tied, so there is still hope. She is going to be much tougher for Rubio than his races in 2010 and 2016. Fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
51,248
(Ron DeSantis's attempt to quantify this truth cater to his base is one of many reasons why I am inclined to vote for him over anyone else. Truth Bullshit to power!)
You've gone to college. You know full well they aren't "indoctrinating" kids into liberal beliefs. Generally, kids who tend that way already go to liberal colleges and ones who trend conservative go to conservative colleges. And many colleges are pretty neutral for various reasons.

Many colleges attempt to teach critical thinking skills as well and that includes pointing out logical inconsistencies in someone's argument even when they agree with their conclusions. Though I have noticed that conservative Bible-based colleges do the opposite -- or so graduates from those colleges tell me,

But I guess that's okay because they aren't indoctrinating kids with liberal beliefs.

:rolleyes:
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,333
A lot of colleges are doing a piss-poor job indoctrinating kids since so many of them don't stray too far their conservative values if they had them before. Most people who graduate aren't these "radical leftist" activists. If they really want to indoctrinate kids, they need to watch whatever it is that got QAnon people going, that made a bunch of them commit an insurrection under the misguided belief that the election was stolen, and whatever rightwing programming did to paint Obama as a Muslim terrorist African who wasn't even American and hated America and wanted to destroy it.

In my experience, the more "ideological and fundamental" conservatives were the ones that did poorly in their essays, not because of their ideology but because their ideology was all their papers really offered. I knew a lot of conservatives who did well in class even when they were making conservative arguments because they gave the "liberal" professor what they wanted in terms of research, critical thinking, and displays of reasoning and proper application of data to the facts/argument they were making. On the flip side, I also know a lot of hardcore "leftist" ideologues who were too stuck on their beliefs who fared about as well as the "ideological and fundamental" conservatives.

I think a lot of the anger towards "liberal" programming of "children" come from a huge mix of scare mongering from corporate-owned media who don't want the status quo challenged or their viewers to start challenging them, so they push that idea on people who either have never actually experienced college so you might as well tell them that college is full of demons and heretics and they'll believe it; who haven't experienced college in decades and believe in the worst of the latest generation; who have experience through proxy and don't like the way their kids have started challenging what they were taught growing up; or who have memories of receiving bad grades from those "evil liberal" professors and blame it on the professor being "liberal" rather than actually understanding why they got a lower grade.
 
Last edited:

Dai's Blues for Klook

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,533
I don't really understand how Louis keeps reaching the conclusion of how college is indoctrinating children to be liberal-biased. Some fields, yes, but not all, and usually only the liberal arts ones.

Although one thing I do think is that it's difficult to separate politics from a lot of fields, even in science, and we should be against such a politicization. This means both right wing and left wing politicization though.

I think a lot of the anger towards "liberal" programming of "children" come from a huge mix of scare mongering from corporate-owned media who don't want the status quo challenged or their viewers to start challenging them, so they push that idea on people who either have never actually experienced college so you might as well tell them that college is full of demons and heretics and they'll believe it; who haven't experienced college in decades and believe in the worst of the latest generation; who have experience through proxy and don't like the way their kids have started challenging what they were taught growing up; or who have memories of receiving bad grades from those "evil liberal" professors and blame it on the professor being "liberal" rather than actually understanding why they got a lower grade.
I don't understand how it works in the US to be honest, I didn't really stay there for long enough to understand the what and why behind this. I think Louis has a point, so I wouldn't say it's just scare-mongering. Just that he's making a one-sided point to attack just the liberal part of it, instead of acknowledging that biases run both ways, and it would be better to solve both ends of it.

I'll point out to @Louis that some of the nut-picking from the radical left "college professors" tends to be just that - nutpicking. Science especially has a way of fixing itself, you're not really going to be seeing garbage science last for too long in the field. Arguments on Twitter and FSU are also irrelevant (sorry!). Liberal arts has more of a problem with it, but it's still not going to indoctrinate large sections of the population, or whatever it is you're fearing. How many women's studies or gender studies degree bearers do you know compared to engineers or people who did economics and business degrees, or law?
 
Last edited:

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,333
I don't think college is supposed to be totally free of bias, honestly as there's really no such thing as true objectivity. I only have an issue if the politicization and ideology gets in the way of fair grading, but my experience in the "liberal arts" in the South where red state-style Republicans were no minority is that even the clearly more lefty professors were fair and even-handed in terms of grading. Their lectures and material may have some "leftist tint" (whatever that means because honestly, this country has moved so far to the right that even acknowledging that the Civil War was at least partially about slavery is considered left-wing propaganda these days), but I also believe most political science and sociological classes I've taken presented arguments and counterarguments; theories and challenging theories; etc. We were always criticizing and debating all kinds of ideas from across the political spectrum. It was not like we were captive audiences who were shackled and silenced during an Industrial Revolution-era worker's union speech three times a week or whatever.

I believe it's the student's job to challenge themselves as well as the professor, and if what they believe isn't holding up to the arguments being presented in class, then they need to figure things out and do some self-reflecting, further study, gain more experience (if possible) and see what it is they believe in that would hold up to scrutiny - even if it's still conservative or right-leaning. If they feel they can't speak up because they're afraid of being shamed or they feel uncomfortable being in the minority...well, that's what many people live their entire lives doing. College is where you have to find the courage and the voice if you believe in something that strongly — you just have argue it well.

After hearing about the "liberal" bias of colleges for two decades now, I have been more and more convinced that the real issue is that the supposed complainers of those "leftist indoctrinators" have is that these classes may have simply put them in a position where, for the first time in their lives, they had their ideas truly challenged and found out that, gasp, they may NOT be in the majority or is the "default" in that one setting. Then when they try to push back, they find out their ideas may not have been as well formed as they thought. That last part is normal no matter if you're left, right, up, or down or whatever. Nobody's high school 18-year-old thoughts are supposed to be fully baked yet. They're all supposed to be still learning and figuring out how to be more conscientious and thorough. But they don't care. All they know is that they have this huge feeling of discomfort that is disorienting when they were so used to having life revolve around them and treating their positions as the "default". So because they felt like that for the first time, it must be wrong, and they are entitled to never feel challenged or uncomfortable in these types of intellectual discourses. I don't know what they went to college for, but it's obviously not for actual debate or expanding their horizons.

Which is ironic because that's what they accuse those who want the campuses (if not the actual classrooms) where people actually live and should feel safe in, to be adopt more measures to make it more inclusive and safe for all people. Most college-aged young people are navigating fine with that. It's the adults who are interfering and weaponizing college campuses that have made seem like a war zone.
 

Dai's Blues for Klook

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,533
I don't think college is supposed to be totally free of bias, honestly as there's really no such thing as true objectivity.
If you're coming from a social science or humanities point of view, I see the bolded making sense. I do agree with you on college not necessarily needing to be totally free of bias, and that the students should have the confidence to challenge what they feel is wrong, and also that a part of the college experience is very much developing the skill set to challenge and argue against what you feel is wrong.

After hearing about the "liberal" bias of colleges for two decades now, I have been more and more convinced that the real issue is that the supposed complainers of those "leftist indoctrinators" have is that these classes may have simply put them in a position where, for the first time in their lives, they had their ideas truly challenged and found out that, gasp, they may NOT be in the majority or is the "default" in that one setting. Then when they try to push back, they find out their ideas may not have been as well formed as they thought. That last part is normal no matter if you're left, right, up, or down or whatever. Nobody's high school 18-year-old thoughts are supposed to be fully baked yet. They're all supposed to be still learning and figuring out how to be more conscientious and thorough. But they don't care. All they know is that they have this huge feeling of discomfort that is disorienting when they were so used to having life revolve around them and treating their positions as the "default". So because they felt like that for the first time, it must be wrong, and they are entitled to never feel challenged or uncomfortable in these types of intellectual discourses. I don't know what they went to college for, but it's obviously not for actual debate or expanding their horizons.
I can see where you're coming from with this point of view. And going off from what you said, I get you more now about the media's fear-mongering aiding and abetting this feeling.

I do think some of the leftist US media is also guilty of this. And I do think some of the leftist dogma is just that - dogma (but again, also applies to the right).

To be honest, I've never been sure how to challenge dogma. What can I say when someone tells me that the earth is red? It makes me happy to not have to deal with these people in my field.

Which is ironic because that's what they accuse those who want the campuses (if not the actual classrooms) where people actually live and should feel safe in, to be adopt more measures to make it more inclusive and safe for all people. Most college-aged young people are navigating fine with that. It's the adults who are interfering and weaponizing college campuses that have made seem like a war zone.
Yes, if you are begging for safer spaces for ideas, a counter-argument can very much be that some ideas can endanger real people. Personally, I think the best way to go about it is to realize ideas are less material than people are.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,333
Oh yeah, dealing with dogma in the classroom setting where there should be a skilled referee is quite different from dealing with dogma outside of the classroom (even if that means on campus). I used to give everybody a chance and try to befriend everyone no matter what their stances are, but now that I'm in my thirties, I'm too tired of having to either be a "liberal punching bag" or being their lone representative in having to explain a pretty hefty and complex issue where I believe they'd benefit more by reading a few books.

The reason I bring the above up is because what we expect to do and have to tolerate in college (and, later, in our professional and semi-social-semi-professional networking lives) should be different from what we are expected to do and tolerate in our personal lives. I think that's probably why some colleges are struggling with appeasing the some members of the faculty and some students who advocate for more consequence-free academic freedom and other members of the faculty and other students who believe that academic freedom shouldn't be an excuse to be, what they perceive, irresponsible or inappropriate (and wherever that line is drawn). In other words, I think the very difficult thing colleges have to balance is defining what exactly is the college campus supposed to serve to its community. First, it's an institution where you're educated and, through that education process, you're supposed to face uncomfortable situations at times, have even your core values challenged, and step out of your comfort zone (in a purely academic sense). However, it's also a very real place where real people live in, and thus there is a need for campuses to provide a sense of comfort and security as well. There's also the fact that students (and faculty) tend to tie a lot of their identity to the institution since it's such a formative experience (no matter what age you enter and complete college) - so even when a university is hosting something that a great proportion or students may see as "despicable", it would trigger one's disgust reflex as if their college is associated with, or worse, providing a platform for such rhetoric. Sometimes you can have both, but sometimes they will come to a head.

I believe sometimes having to provide both will always lead to disagreements and conflicts, and major issues of appropriateness when that line gets blurred. And also, sometimes...it is true that some "academic exercises" may also be more revealing of the professor and the students can pick up on it. Then, they start to wonder about their professor's true motives, etc. The last part is where I can see very genuine concerns arising from if there is an irresponsible professor who refuses to be aware of what they are doing and how they are undermining the process, even if I do think some bias should be allowed so long as there's honesty involved and nothing that would affect fair grading. I also do think we should trust students as much as we trust any age group above them. They are just as susceptible to fall for propaganda as anyone else. Their professors (I'm talking about them as if they're a monolith when they're not at all) are not the only experts in the field they'll be learning from as they should be reading a lot of material from all sorts of sources pushing all sorts of perspectives.
 
Last edited:

Dai's Blues for Klook

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,533
That is a well-balanced response, that touches upon academic freedom, sensitivity, and identity, that exist in academia in a way that is not found in other walks of life. I am not sure there's any good solution, or a line that a side will be agreeing upon. It's just one of those things that's up for heated argument. But usually students and faculty don't overstep, so there's that. I do think the particularly ideological ones from either end are the ones who are loudest.

I wonder, did this forum discuss this incident? https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbo...down-from-class-after-blackface-incident.html

Because I think it's pretty much an example of what you say.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,214
I've never heard of capping the cost of going to college.

But something that seems like it should be doable to me is having a consistent cost for students who stay in school for the duration of 4-5 years.

When you sign up for college, you know how much it will cost for that year; but you have no way of knowing how much it will cost for the next 3 or + years. I know that when I went to school, my family took into account the need for the school to be affordable for the money in my college savings fund. By the time I was done, however, I had also used the money in my sister's college fund because the price went up every year. (Fortunately, my sister qualified for need-based assistance & work study that I couldn't qualify for, as when she went to school, she had an older sister in college. She was fine. The university actually paid her the first year).

Nonetheless, I don't think tuition should escalate over the time you are in school. You had to make the investment as a college freshman, knowing the prices that were being charged the year you entered. If prices rise for the next year's freshman class, then they rise; but I don't think the students already committed & reliant upon the institution in order to complete their programs should face unanticipated escalating costs over the course of a regular education. If you drag it out 10-20 years, well, that's a different thing. But if you commit to a program and you follow through, then you should know how much it will cost before you have to put your money down.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,722
Why is it permissible to cap college costs when it is not considered permissible to cap costs for medication or other health care? After all, loans are available for college, but not for health care ... and parents can't help with medical costs because that risks homelessness and starvation in their old age (because their kids won't be able to support them)
Is it permissible? As in, are there Republicans who are actually saying it? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not aware of any Republicans who are speaking out in favor free tuition or capping tuition and mean it.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,216
The leading anti semite in American politics ilhan Omar only won her primary 51-48. She’s such an embarrassment. Aside from her anti semitism her husband has a phony job as consultant so millions of dollars of campaign money goes to her husband and right into their bank account. Horrific
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,214

"WA GOP Rep Herrera Beutler, 6 terms, voted to impeach, loses primary to Trump-backed newcomer Joe Kent, former Army SF, directly linked to Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer (indirectly to explicitly Nazi groups; Kent himself says Hitler was "misunderstood)"

Ugh.

And, again, I want to know why this article was written after the election and not before it.


There were comments online about how extreme Kent was, but the only formal article I read earlier glossed over it by comparing him to an even more extreme opponent. This stuff needs to be laid out for the voters before they vote.

"Kent’s ties to extremism aren’t limited to the Pacific Northwest.

Braynard, one of Kent’s top advisers, was the architect of a Washington, D.C., rally last year that sought to build sympathy for those arrested during the insurrection by rebranding them as “political prisoners.” Kent spoke at the rally, which was poorly attended.

And his candidacy is endorsed by far-right Arizona state lawmaker Wendy Rogers( :wall: ), who has identified herself as a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia group that played an outsize role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol. Kent publicly thanked Rogers for her endorsement and has raised doubts about the circumstances that led to the arrest of Oath Keepers over their role in the attack."


"After the rebuke, however, Kent appeared on a far-right YouTube channel where he echoed sentiments similar to those held by many white nationalists.

'I don’t think there’s anything wrong with there being a white people special interest group,” Kent said during the YouTube interview with a group called the American Populist Union. He also said the immigration situation between the U.S. and Mexico wasn’t as bad as in Europe because “their version of Mexico is Africa and the Middle East.'

In April, Kent was photographed at a fundraiser giving a thumbs-up with Greyson Arnold, a Groyper-aligned commentator who identifies as a 'Christian American Nationalist.' Like Fuentes, Arnold was also at the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection.

Arnold has shared memes online that refer to Nazis as a 'pure race' and has called Hitler a “complicated” and “misunderstood” historical figure. He also hosted a 'White Boy Summer' celebration in Lake Havasu, Arizona, in June 2021, drawing the event’s title from a popular meme that was circulating among white nationalists and racist groups.

Arnold did not respond to an email seeking comment."
 

skatemomaz

Resist
Messages
5,872
538 has listed 7 Senate races that could determine Senate majority. This does not make me feel comfortable.
Your link is from an article dated January 2022. Here's an up to date story. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,722
She’s still anti semitic. There are many ways to be it. She is one the way she talks about jews buying politicians to be pro Israel.
You labelled her as the most antisemitic member of Congress. There are plenty of others on the other side who support the dude who, according to John Kelly, idolizes Hitler. Doesn't get much worse than that.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,333
Here’s a video of Beto talking about healthcare in Texas at a meet and greet, and ultimately signing an attendee’s MAGA hat.

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,216
You labelled her as the most antisemitic member of Congress. There are plenty of others on the other side who support the dude who, according to John Kelly, idolizes Hitler. Doesn't get much worse than that.
I am only looking at what Omar has said. Not comparing it. It is awful. She is awful. It’s partially why 48% of democrats voted against her. Of course you can say some have been worse. That doesn’t make her ok
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,333
I am only looking at what Omar has said. Not comparing it. It is awful. She is awful. It’s partially why 48% of democrats voted against her. Of course you can say some have been worse. That doesn’t make her ok
You started with the comparison by calling her the “leading” anti-Semite in American politics. In order for her to be “leading”, she’d have to be worse than others. Also, this time around, she’s facing a political arena two years since COVID where more progressive stances like the stupidly named “defund the police” is being much more challenged as people are acting more chaotic and lawless in many densely-populated areas, and had a challenger who was a very well-funded and locally popular candidate who tailored his campaign to be the “mistress who promised make up for all the things the wife lacked.” In the end, she actually won more of the percentage of the Dem vote than she did back in 2018. A big drop from 2020 but you know these primaries often are dependent on the temperature of the past two years and she may lose next primary or win big again.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,722
I'd love to know thoughts on this new DNC commercial. Is it as good as the poster says? I think it's a good summary of what Biden has accomplished in two years (it's a long list and hard to squeeze into a short ad). My biggest critcism would be that I'd like a little more emphasis on "and that's with a 50-50 Senate, imagine what we can do when we elect even more Democrats". https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1557431546218532865
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,835
I'd love to know thoughts on this new DNC commercial. Is it as good as the poster says? I think it's a good summary of what Biden has accomplished in two years (it's a long list and hard to squeeze into a short ad). My biggest critcism would be that I'd like a little more emphasis on "and that's with a 50-50 Senate, imagine what we can do when we elect even more Democrats". https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1557431546218532865
It sounds like former Republican Joe Scarborough.

I think many of the ads over the next few months have to focus on what is at risk with the November election for senators, especially terrible Supreme Court decisions (with a reminder of Dobbs) and the consequent need for a Democratic Senate. Ads also should include how GOP Senators have voted on specific things such as a cap on insulin prices, an anti-inflation bill, and the right to contraception, etc. And the ads should point out that they voted against a bill that decreases the deficit. Every individual ad against a GOP candidate should point out how much money that candidate has received - directly or indirectly - from energy companies that are currently making huge profits and from pharmaceutical companies.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,006
I'd love to know thoughts on this new DNC commercial. Is it as good as the poster says? I think it's a good summary of what Biden has accomplished in two years (it's a long list and hard to squeeze into a short ad). My biggest critcism would be that I'd like a little more emphasis on "and that's with a 50-50 Senate, imagine what we can do when we elect even more Democrats". https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1557431546218532865
They could do a separate one mentioning what the gop voted against. And, the word "huge" jumped out at me. They need a word that people don't make fun of trump for using.
 

BittyBug

Disgusted
Messages
25,200
She’s still anti semitic. There are many ways to be it. She is one the way she talks about jews buying politicians to be pro Israel.
Is that anti-Semitic, or just stating the facts? Chris Hayes did a segment recently on AIPAC's funding of pro-Israel candidates and provided as a case study AIPAC's recent (succressful) support of Hailey Stevens over Andy Levin for MI-11.

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,216
Unless Palestinians change a lot supporting a two state solution could very well be anti semitic. It depends if they are allowed a military or what they do with their military. So many who attack AIPAC could also be saying “Jews buying politicians to support Israel.” Depends
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,693
In the end, she actually won more of the percentage of the Dem vote than she did back in 2018. A big drop from 2020 but you know these primaries often are dependent on the temperature of the past two years and she may lose next primary or win big again.
I think Ilhan Omar has crossed the line into antisemitism at times, but she's not a leader in this area. Her winning a higher percentage of the vote than in 2018 doesn't mean much; she wasn't the incumbent then.

Is that anti-Semitic, or just stating the facts? Chris Hayes did a segment recently on AIPAC's funding of pro-Israel candidates and provided as a case study AIPAC's recent (succressful) support of Hailey Stevens over Andy Levin for MI-11.
Well, on that subject...

The idea that the jooooos are controlling people with their $$$ is an antisemitic trope, so this sort of critique needs to be applied cautiously and specifically.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information