Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[barmar]

You have done me a great service. I used to think Trump supporters must be stupid. Now I know they are not. They are unhinged. Trump support is surely based on psychology, emotive responses rather than cognitive, which helps explain why logical arguments seem to be useless.

That's what I tell my mother. She says that most of the women she plays bridge with (2 tables of social bridge, not duplicate) are for Trump simply because they despise Hillary, and she can't understand them. She doesn't even enjoy going to her weekly bridge game these days because of it (not to mention the sad fact of attrition due to old age).

 

Early voting started in MA yesterday. I took advantage of it, so now I'm done with my official part of this election.

[y66]

From Dear Republican Voters by David Leonhardt:

 

You are a Republican.

 

You believe President Obama has been a disappointment if not a failure. You think Hillary Clinton is wrong on most issues, and you worry about her judgment.

 

You are agonizing about what to do this year, and I understand why. Donald Trump is clearly distasteful. Yet he at least seems likely to appoint conservative judges and sign Republican bills. So what are you supposed to do?

 

Allow me to tell you about my grandparents.

 

They grew up as middle-class children of the Depression in Philadelphia. My grandmother was a star athlete who went on to raise a tightly knit family filled with laughter. My outgoing grandfather first sold pens door to door and later sold ads for The Saturday Evening Post and Business Week.

 

My grandparents believed in American business, and they were small-c conservative. They voted Republican, year after year.

 

Until 1964.

 

That year, Barry Goldwater won the nomination from the far right. Most alarming to many people, he mused about using nuclear weapons in the Cold War.

 

Befitting their generation’s reserve, my grandparents didn’t talk much politics. They simply said they had considered Goldwater beyond the pale. But years ago, I stumbled on a four-minute television ad that Lyndon Johnson’s campaign had run against Goldwater, and I felt as if I were listening to my grandparents.

 

Called “Confessions of a Republican,” the ad shows a man wearing a suit and glasses (who eventually lights a cigarette) in a chair. He is a Republican, he says, like his father and grandfather. “But when we come to Senator Goldwater, now it seems to me we’re up against a very different kind of a man,” says the actor, himself an anti-Goldwater Republican. “This man scares me.”

 

For Republicans today, Trump is scarier than Goldwater. He is scarier because he resembles a double agent dreamed up by liberal screenwriters. He embodies almost every left-wing caricature of Republicans that Republicans despise.

 

He is a racist and a sexist — having refused to rent apartments to African-Americans, retweeted neo-Nazis, besmirched Muslims and Latinos and boastfully molested women. For years, Republicans have been frustrated by liberal sensitivity on race and gender. Comes now Trump, spewing bigotry.

 

He is also an unrepentant denier of reality. Do you remember that Al Franken wrote a jeremiad against conservatives called “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”? I imagine the book’s title offends you. Yet it now feels like a preview of a candidate who almost every day makes immediately disprovable claims.

 

Trump likewise plays into the liberal narrative that the radical right verges on being anti-American. He has suggested our democracy is illegitimate and advocated jail for his opponent.

 

Finally, Trump displays a proud meanspiritedness about others’ struggles — a meanspiritedness that Democrats have long tried to link to Republican economic policy. He mocks parents who have lost a child, people with disabilities and prisoners of war. He relishes firing people.

 

Trump is so distinct that he has made this election unavoidably about him. If you vote for him, you can’t pass it off as voting for Supreme Court nominees. You will be voting for Donald Trump. You will be embracing those parodies of conservatism.

 

You do not need to do that.

 

It’s true that you have no great options, which is why polls still show many undecided voters. Gary Johnson, initially intriguing, has proved unqualified. You could stay home or write in a vote, but those protests often feel weak.

 

The best path is the hardest one. Only an unambiguous rejection of Trump will banish Trumpism for 2020 and beyond. Only a lopsided loss, with millions of Republicans so repelled by him that they vote for someone they never imagined they would, sends the message that bigotry, lying and authoritarianism violate Republican values — your values.

 

I don’t take lightly how hard it is for you to consider a vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m sure that George H.W. Bush, who’s signaled he is voting for her, will do so out of duty, not joy. The same applies to many Republican military figures and conservative newspapers. Any other choice, as the former Reagan aide Ken Adelman says, is at least “a half vote for Trump.”

 

At the end of the 1964 ad, the man says: “I’ve thought about just not voting in this election, just staying home. But you can’t do that, because that’s saying you don’t care who wins, and I do care.”

 

That same year, my grandparents endured rare arguments with some close friends. Their friends viewed it as a betrayal to vote for a Democrat. My grandparents viewed it as a betrayal to take lightly a man unfit for the Oval Office. And they never again voted for a Democrat for president. They were Republicans.

 

This year, the most important statement that any Republican can make is clear: I am not Trump.

[barmar]

That's a beautiful piece. I forwarded it to my mother, maybe she can pass it on to her girlfriends.

[kenberg]

I also was thinking about Goldwater the other day. One of the slogans was "In your heart you know he is right". Brought up to dat, and for the reasonns mentioned in the cited article, this could be "In your heart you know he is wrong".

 

I think this is what it comes to. Goldwater spoke for a conservative view that, at least in 1964, did not reflect the country. Trump does not speak for a conservative view, to say so is to insult conservatives. Trump is so incoherent that he hardly speaks for anyone. Saying no to Trump is not betraying conservatism, it is not betraying the Republican Party, it is simply facing up to a very ugly situation.

 

A key line in this piece:

"I'm sure that George H.W. Bush, who's signaled he is voting for her, will do so out of duty, not joy."

Absolutely. You face the facts as they are, and you do what is needed.

[mike777]

My Former Republican Party

 

Here is one viewpoint I found interesting.

 

 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-former-republican-party-1477353852

 

 

"....Now it’s my turn to watch the Republican Party drift away. Whether the trend continues after the election remains to be seen, but already the GOP is largely unrecognizable to me. To see how far it’s fallen, let’s remind ourselves of where it once was.>>>>"

[Kaitlyn S]

From Dear Republican Voters by David Leonhardt:

 

 

Interesting. While I see your point, I fear that most of you might concede that I also had a strong point in 2024 when you see how little choice you have in selecting our next president.

 

Again, I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

[andrei]

Here is another reason James O'Keefe is ignored:

 

This is from Wikipedia: He has produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not...

 

Yet this guy, and others like him, are more reliable than Hillary Clinton?

 

 

You did also ignore Donald Trump - Billy Bush NBC recording, right?

 

After all, NBC have aired edited footage before, like Trayvon Martin's 911 call.

[Kaitlyn S]

Just understand, you know those individuals from the "person on the street" that you were discounting as poorly informed idiots...

I put you in precisely the same basket...

 

The fact that you like to pretend that you are well informed because you can name drop Saul Alinsky doesn't buy you much around here dittohead....

No, I am not well informed because I can name Saul Alinksy.

 

However, as an American, I am well informed because I know that New Mexico is not a foreign entity. That puts me ahead of about 46% of the American college age kids, the last time I checked. (I have never lived near New Mexico so I don't have an unfair advantage.)

 

I'm somewhat well informed because I can see around me that those in their 20's can't add 9 and 6 without a calculator or don't know what half of $2 is and realize that something is wrong with how we are educating our children. The current push for more testing and less teaching is going to exacerbate the problem.

 

I'm somewhat well informed because I realize that that there are some well informed intelligent liberals and some well informed intelligent conservatives. That likely puts me in front of the 80% or so of conservatives that think that almost all liberals are uninformed libtards and the liberals that think that conservatives are a bunch of racist hicks who think all blacks should be sent back to Africa.

 

I'm somewhat well informed, apparently more well informed than the Republican Party, who seems to make pro-life a major part of its campaign, thus chasing away many possible Republican followers. They don't realize that in 2015, 31% of people that identify as Republicans (including me) are pro-choice, and likely think it's an outrage that a woman should jeopardize her own health for the sake on an unborn child or have to carry a rape baby. It sickened me to see Ted Cruz harp on Planned Parenthood being a top issue. The GOP is going to lose a lot of independent votes if they keep harping on overturning Roe v Wade and "Planned Parenthood atrocities."

 

I am somewhat well informed because I share neither the left wing view that Islamic terrorism isn't a problem, nor the alt right wing view that we should send all Muslims back to the Middle East and then bomb the entire area. As a conservative, I am in theory (probably in your opinion) a hateful bigoted Muslim hater. And I have been called that many times because I've been vocal on combating Islamic terrorism. (Shocking - she used those words! RACIST!) However, most Muslims here in the USA are neither terrorists nor support terrorism, and the mere fact that I am saying that I believe makes me better informed than many conservatives. Instead of hating Muslims in Sharia countries who hate us, I actually have genunie sympathy for Muslim women who have to live under Sharia law. However, I am also well informed enough to notice that rapes in Sweden have increased dramatically since the Muslim immigrants started coming, something that seems to be considered bullsh*t among most liberals with blinders on. If you are one of the ones that either thinks it's a coincidence or doesn't know that fact, I'm going to have to call you one of the ill-informed ones, at least on this topic.

 

I am somewhat well informed because I know that both the police and Black Lives Matter make good points. First, the police have to do their job and since much of the crime happens in poor black neighborhoods, that is where their job sends them. However, when well-dressed black people get stopped just for being in a white neighborhood even if they live there, that's a problem. I have posted some solutions on a different discussion board so I have thought about the issue but it is indeed a difficult issue.

 

Liberals who think the police are 100% wrong and the blacks are 100% right are quite ill informed. So are the conservatives who think the blacks are 100% wrong. Remember that the Ku Klux Klan was a Democratic Party institution so this is not a party issue. However, liberals would do well to read Jason Riley's piece on blacks and police:

 

Jason Riley on race relations and law enforcement

 

I reject both the argument I've heard from conservatives that land was made to be used (and raped) by man for his sole benefit, and the argument I've heard from liberals that any decision should be resolved in favor of the environment. I will admit that I don't know enough to say whether the Keystone Pipeline would have caused enough environmental harm in the long run to make it a worse solution than being beholden to countries whose people hate us for our energy needs. However, probably 80% of conservatives were certain it was a good idea and 80% of liberals were certain it was not. I can't believe that there are very many people on either side that know so much more than I do about the issue to be certain of anything, especially when there is so many that disagree with them. I believe that admitting that I don't know is a better informed decision than those on either side that are certain their side is right. I am chastised by many conservative friends for this, but I am actually in favor of significant amounts of land, not taken by Eminent Domain, should be reserved as forever wild. While I'm not convinced of man-made climate change, the safety play here is to cater to that bad distributional break (that man is causing problems and we need to reverse it) and keep many forests thriving to convert CO2 to oxygen, and I actually like to be able to go places and see clean lakes and lots of birds. In fact, my main gripe about wind energy is what the windmills do to the flying birds. How many conservatives are you going to hear that from? But never mind, I'm just a dittohead and am not allowed to have my own thoughts.

 

I believe that all Americans should have the opportunity to feel good about themselves, and be productive members of society. This is more likely to happen under a system where small businesses can flourish and not be burdened with massive regulations - even knowing all the different regulations from all the levels of government can be so challenging for a new business that the prospective entrepreneur gives up before he starts, meaning there are less jobs for people and more people on the dole, which makes them feel less good about themselves and ticks off the people who support them. Now, this is a conservative position. And while I feel this way, I am more well informed than most conservatives when I say that there are some regulations that are necessary. Many conservatives are ready to scrap all regulation and let the country flourish, I am well enough informed to realize that this won't work. Scrapping regulation will allow for indiscriminate pollution, the buying of 51% of a company and stealing it's assets from the other shareholders, stealing by insider trading, unlimited discrimination by race and gender (as a conservative, I think the regulations have gone too far, but I realize the need for some regulation in this area), and many more issues too numerous to mention. However, at this point, there is far too much regulation and it is choking small businesses and our economy.

 

A lot of the problem of health care is the rising costs. Right now, when I go to the emergency room, I'm the only one with insurance while there are 4 hours waiting worth of people ahead of me, mostly illegal immigrants, each bringing their kids with the flu, with the government (read: taxpayers) paying a very large tab so that the kid gets some medicine. They don't need the emergency room and they don't even need a doctor! Many medical needs can be met without doctors. Clinics would do the same job for a lot less money. Yes, I can hear conservatives screaming that we're giving the illegal immigrants free health care, but we are already doing just that and paying at least 10 times as much! Note that my partial solution might align more with liberals than conservatives.

 

Medical bills are also way too high because good doctors have to pay outrageous malpractice insurance to cover a few that get sued for and lose amounts that are way out of touch with reality. Yes, I know doctors make mistakes, but if jury verdicts were more in line with actual costs to the injured patients, health care costs could come down a lot which would help all Americans instead of a few greedy lawyers. Yes, this is a conservative position, but while the ACA dramatically raised health care costs for most who aren't on the dole, I am trying to present solutions to reduce costs.

 

College costs are outrageous. One of the reasons is that the government loans everybody and their brother money for college and there is too much demand. Consider that the average kid might be better off forgoing college for four years of experience, and if he had any talent at all, he will probably be the boss of the new graduates coming out of college. Apprenticeship programs that get people doing useful things faster can replace $60,000 a year college bills to teach our young people diversity studies - which the taxpayers will probably end up paying for with the laws about college debt forgiveness for certain professions or after a certain time.

 

I think the federal government's job is mainly defense, there is no reason for many of the agencies. For example, education should be handled at the state, if not local, level. If Kansas wants to teach creationism while California wants to teach 26 gender identities, I see no reason not to let them, and each set of parents can try to relocate to a state whose ideas align with theirs (easier now that many jobs can be done remotely.) There is no reason for a federal Department of Education.

 

The above content represents my own thoughts and I hope you can see that I am not parroting a random conservative organization. If you still believe I am an uninformed dittohead, then I will never change your mind. However, I hope I have proven you wrong about that allegation.

[Winstonm]

You did also ignore Donald Trump - Billy Bush NBC recording, right?

 

After all, NBC have aired edited footage before, like Trayvon Martin's 911 call.

 

Virtually all entities edit - the question is whether the editing is done to try to better present the facts or to mislead as to the facts.

[MrAce]

That's a beautiful piece. I forwarded it to my mother, maybe she can pass it on to her girlfriends.

 

 

I totally agree with Barry. So far the most impressive post I have read in this topic. I shared it in my face book account.

[MrAce]

Double post

[andrei]

Virtually all entities edit - the question is whether the editing is done to try to better present the facts or to mislead as to the facts.

 

NBC apologized for editing that tape. For trying to better present facts :)

 

I am pretty sure you know what kind of editing was done on the 911 tape, so let's not "spin" it anymore.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-issues-apology-on-zimmerman-tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html?utm_term=.7c752973c1fd

[kenberg]

NBC apologized for editing that tape. For trying to better present facts :)

 

I am pretty sure you know what kind of editing was done on the 911 tape, so let's not "spin" it anymore.

 

https://www.washingt...m=.7c752973c1fd

 

I had not seen this. It is virtually impossible for this to be accidentally misleading. It would be interesting to know what the follow up was, but I hope someone got fired.

 

I see news stories from time to time where, after reading them, I feel certain that what is being portrayed as happening and what actually happened are two different things. Sometimes it can be written off to carelessness or laziness. That would be a stretch here, this was a deliberate distortion. No, of course I can't prove it.

 

Or I can allow for another possibility, one that I believe happens often. The guy doing this editing had made up his mind, and then closed his mind to the extent that he was oblivious to what he was doing. But, really, I think that he knew exactly what he was doing. Either way he needs to get a job serving french fries for a while.

[Winstonm]

NBC apologized for editing that tape. For trying to better present facts :)

 

I am pretty sure you know what kind of editing was done on the 911 tape, so let's not "spin" it anymore.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-issues-apology-on-zimmerman-tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html?utm_term=.7c752973c1fd

 

I don't know what NBC was doing but "trying to better present the facts" is not an option for what they were doing. It was either a purposeful edit to make Zimmerman seem racist or simple stupidity.

 

That does not relieve James O'Keefe of his responsibilities for creating at best misleading tapes, again and again and again.

[Winstonm]

You did also ignore Donald Trump - Billy Bush NBC recording, right?

 

After all, NBC have aired edited footage before, like Trayvon Martin's 911 call.

Btw, Trump has said the tape is accurate, that he indeed said what was on the tape.

[kenberg]

I don't know what NBC was doing but "trying to better present the facts" is not an option for what they were doing. It was either a purposeful edit to make Zimmerman seem racist or simple stupidity.

 

That does not relieve James O'Keefe of his responsibilities for creating at best misleading tapes, again and again and again.

 

Really it's as old as the hills. Pete gets caught doing X, he talks about Joe doing Y. So Pete and Joe can share a cell. Cain probably blabbed about Abel. And Eve blamed it all on a snake, Adam blamed it on Eve.

[Winstonm]

Really it's as old as the hills. Pete gets caught doing X, he talks about Joe doing Y. So Pete and Joe can share a cell. Cain probably blabbed about Abel. And Eve blamed it all on a snake, Adam blamed it on Eve.

 

I agree, Ken, yet I am flabbergasted and get frustrated when an argument uses oranges to compare with apples. I've encountered this same argument with the religious that one "belief" (God did it) compared equally to another "belief" (the science of evolution, etc.), and now I'm faced with the same argument that NBC's faulty editing is equivalent to James O'Keefe's persistent attempts to provide misleading video for strictly political purposes.

 

I know that a single person is capable of extreme bias and dishonesty of the type shown by James O'Keefe. I am not prepared to accept that an entire television network is engaged in a conspiracy to do the same thing.

[Zelandakh]

However, as an American, I am well informed because I know that New Mexico is not a foreign entity. That puts me ahead of about 46% of the American college age kids, the last time I checked. (I have never lived near New Mexico so I don't have an unfair advantage.)

I realise that Americans do not have the best reputation for geography but do you have any evidence at all to back your claim other than hearsay and populist (non-scientific) surveys designed to grab attention. Hint: if you heard this on a late night right wing radio station it probably is not based on real research. :lol:

 

 

I'm somewhat well informed because I can see around me that those in their 20's can't add 9 and 6 without a calculator or don't know what half of $2 is and realize that something is wrong with how we are educating our children. The current push for more testing and less teaching is going to exacerbate the problem.

Is it not the case that such issues are much stronger in red-state schools, particularly those that have introduced a push for teaching creationism in science classes? Again, I do not know the statistics as to whether the innumeracy rate has really increased or not. There is very often an appearance of sliding values in education that has little or no bearing on reality once one actually looks more closely into the statistics. What is clear is that there are "haves" and "have nots" in the American school system, so that it is extremely difficult for some schools to hire and retain the best teachers. That would certainly be a good issue for politicians to address but would of course most likely lead to complaints from the "have" schools and their communities that their standards are being eroded.

 

 

That likely puts me in front of the 80% or so of conservatives that think that almost all liberals are uninformed libtards and the liberals that think that conservatives are a bunch of racist hicks who think all blacks should be sent back to Africa.

93.8% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spur of the moment. Your 80% figure appears to be within that 91.4%. :P You very much show your right-wing bias with commentary like this. People are not so black and white as you make out and the vast majority are to be found in the middle and not at the extremes.

 

 

I am somewhat well informed because I share neither the left wing view that Islamic terrorism isn't a problem, nor the alt right wing view that we should send all Muslims back to the Middle East and then bomb the entire area.

Outside of right-wing propaganda I doubt you will find many who say that Islamic terrorism is not a problem at all. The question is more about which values are worth sacrificing to address it and whether rhetoric such as your "right wing view", which I have to admit I have only actually heard from DT amongst senior Republicans, is more of a negative than a positive in alleviating the issue.

 

As a conservative, I am in theory (probably in your opinion) a hateful bigoted Muslim hater.

You may well be but I would not personally label you as such just from being right-winged. You may also be racist, sexist or a serial killer for all I know.

 

I believe that all Americans should have the opportunity to feel good about themselves, and be productive members of society. This is more likely to happen under a system where small businesses can flourish and not be burdened with massive regulations - even knowing all the different regulations from all the levels of government can be so challenging for a new business that the prospective entrepreneur gives up before he starts, meaning there are less jobs for people and more people on the dole, which makes them feel less good about themselves and ticks off the people who support them. Now, this is a conservative position.

In many countries this would be a Liberal position, the promotion of individual rights and small businesses. I am not sure if it says something about you, the right wing media or America in general that the term over there gets warped to such a degree.

 

 

A lot of the problem of health care is the rising costs.

The way to reduce costs in a national health service is generally to move over to a single payer model. It is nice of you to agree that the idea behind Obamacare is a good one and that it should probably have gone much further than it did.

 

 

College costs are outrageous. One of the reasons is that the government loans everybody and their brother money for college and there is too much demand. Consider that the average kid might be better off forgoing college for four years of experience, and if he had any talent at all, he will probably be the boss of the new graduates coming out of college.

Have you seen any statistics about the way the job market is going? Increasingly a degree is required for even fairly basic positions. The chances of someone coming out of school and rising to a position managing graduates within 4 years is very small. It is extremely bad advice for the vast majority of school-leavers that they should forego going to university (or an equivalent post-school training) if they have the opportunity to do so.

 

 

I think the federal government's job is mainly defense, there is no reason for many of the agencies. For example, education should be handled at the state, if not local, level. If Kansas wants to teach creationism while California wants to teach 26 gender identities, I see no reason not to let them, and each set of parents can try to relocate to a state whose ideas align with theirs (easier now that many jobs can be done remotely.) There is no reason for a federal Department of Education.

You are joking, right? You really cannot see a reason for a country insisting that all of its children are given a reasonable and equal education? How about if Louisiana decided that schools for "above average" students should get taught maths and science and schools for "below average" students should teach how to be a manual labourer. Oh yes, and just by chance all of the white children are in the first group. No problem at all, right? I think you should seriously think about the possibilities that would result from your position. While security is clearly the number one priority for a government, education is not far behind and absolutely essential for any "advanced" economy.

 

The above content represents my own thoughts and I hope you can see that I am not parroting a random conservative organization. If you still believe I am an uninformed dittohead, then I will never change your mind. However, I hope I have proven you wrong about that allegation.

I think you get far too many of your thoughts and ideas from right-wing sources and this severely colours your world viw, far more than you yourself realise. That you think having slightly modified positions from the most extreme right wing viewpoints on a few issues makes you something different is worrying. That you seem to think you understand the world so much better than other educated people who have also considered these topics is a little sad. That you also appear to believe in conspiracy theories with no evidence behind them is worrying and, sadly, affects my opinion of you more generally. That probably says something about me though... :unsure:

[billw55]

If Kansas wants to teach creationism I see no reason not to let them.

I enjoyed your long post and repped it, but I do want to check back on your consistency.

 

You see no reason not to let a state teach creationism - essentially, ignoring the first amendment. I presume then that you also see no problem with a state banning all firearms - ignoring the second amendment? Or perhaps no problem with a state conducting random searches of private property - ignoring the fourth amendment? How about ignoring the 19th? Which of them (other than the tenth) cannot be ignored, and why?

 

You seem to think about issues and articulate your views well, so I am genuinely interested in your response.

 

 

 

edit: mikeh repped Zel above! I would welcome you back posting mikeh, I always considered your contributions valuable, even when I disagreed.

[Winstonm]

The only reply I have to Kaitlyn S. is that anyone who believes states should be in control of education should examine Alabama during the time George Wallace was governor.

[barmar]

The only reply I have to Kaitlyn S. is that anyone who believes states should be in control of education should examine Alabama during the time George Wallace was governor.

To play Devil's Advocate, couldn't you say that about many state laws and policies? Are you suggesting that we abolish states' rights, because sometimes states get it wrong? If not, where do you draw the line?

 

It's not like we can trust the federal government to always get it right, either. There's a sweeping movement to legalize marijuana at the state level, but the feds don't seem to be budging.

[kenberg]

The only reply I have to Kaitlyn S. is that anyone who believes states should be in control of education should examine Alabama during the time George Wallace was governor.

 

In high school, c.1954, we had current events discussion about the proper role of the federal government in education. That would be, now let me try this in my head, 62 years ago.

 

Nov 8 I vote. Pres is easy, as is Senator and Representative. But the school board has two vacancies. This might require some thought, and I have not even started on it. A big issue: The governor has issued an Executive Order that public schools, elementary and high, cannot start before (or on) Labor Day. Should we fight this? How? Apparentlly he has widespread support. It's ok if Hillary has not yet weighed in on this.

 

Now you might think that this is because we have a Republican governor. But way back, when the University began starting classes in late August, the Democratic governor announced that no student would be punished for not attending classes prior to Labor Day because nothing much happens during the first week or two anyway.

 

What can I say? This is the world as it is.

[barmar]

Regarding college education, Ken Berg has also made the point that not everyone needs to go to college.

 

OK, it's certainly possible to be successful without a college education. But I think it should be the person's choice, not something they're stuck with due to circumstances. If you want to get into a profession where college is a practical necessity, that opportunity should be open to you.

 

And we should realize that the reality of modern life is that many, if not most, well-paying professions do require higher education. And numerous studies about income inequality have shown how difficult it is these days to move up in society -- surely lack of access to higher education is a big part of that.

 

I suppose someone will point out that people used to be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Many baby-boomers were the first in their families to go to college, often being the children of poor immigrant parents who scrimped and saved so they could send them, and they made up the rising middle class. But I don't think it's fair to compare then with now. College costs have risen far faster than inflation. And we've also lost many of the decent blue collar jobs that employed these parents. So the gap between what poor people can save and what college costs has expanded too much for them to handle it. We need something that bridges this gap if people are to have any significant chance of getting themselves out of the poverty well -- just "buckling down and trying harder" is not going to work for most people.

[kenberg]

Regarding college education, Ken Berg has also made the point that not everyone needs to go to college.

 

OK, it's certainly possible to be successful without a college education. But I think it should be the person's choice, not something they're stuck with due to circumstances. If you want to get into a profession where college is a practical necessity, that opportunity should be open to you.

 

On this we most definitely agree.

 

I will perhaps say more later.

[Kaitlyn S]

You see no reason not to let a state teach creationism - essentially, ignoring the first amendment.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

 

 

Are you implying that letting a state teach creationism is the same as creating a law respecting an establishment of religion? I don't see it as the same thing; there is no law per se, but their Board of Education chooses to teach creationism and no state lawmakers are forbidding it.

 

I don't it abridging the freedom of speech or press or the right to assemble or petition the government.

 

If it can be shown that this action is ignoring the First Amendment, then I would strongly oppose it; and I would hope the Supreme Court would also since it is their job to uphold the constitution.

 

I may have missed it, but I am not aware of any conservative organizations trying to flaunt the First Amendment. However, college campuses have done so by banning conservative speakers such as Jason Riley from speaking on campus because a few liberal students protested (his message does not align with that of BLM.) If any liberal speakers were asked not to come because conservative students protested, I'd be interested in knowing about it but to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't happened.

 

The whole "safe space" and "trigger words" issue seem to fly in the face of the First Amendment. While I would expect people to use common courtesy and not say anything that should offend a person (I mean "should" as in "would be expected to offend someone that isn't going to complain for the sake of complaining), I think it's a joke when "I think America is the greatest nation on earth" or "I think the person best qualified for the job should get it" is considered offensive language and thus banned in certain places.