Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, TheSeeker said:

Rich students don't have student loans - they don't qualify for them because their families are too wealthy.

Their parents pay cash.

I guess I should've clarified what I meant by wealthy. 

The top quarter of American earners hold about a third of the outstanding student debt. This is the portion of the population I was referring to.

Share this post


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

I guess I should've clarified what I meant by wealthy. 

The top quarter of American earners hold about a third of the outstanding student debt. This is the portion of the population I was referring to.

I am reminded of

QRsT91A.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

I am reminded of

QRsT91A.png

I'm thinking about it from a policy perspective - you want to get the most utility out of every dollar spent. Allocating money towards those who were totally fine without it turns an already overly expensive program into something really massive without a proportional benefit in return.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/Sanders-to-propose-canceling-entire-1-6-trillion-14032094.php

That's actually very reasonable

$5 tax on every $1000 in stock purchased

First, for arguments sake, let's say a trillion of dollars are exchanged every day, whether on equities, annuities, bonds, or materials.  That's $5 billion, a day, that gets taken out of the stock market.  

That's a significant amount of money, which leads me to my second point.  

Wall street would never allow such a bill to come to the floor, let alone pass both the House and Senate.  

Regardless, it's dumb policy.  

It rewards those who took out loans to go to college while punishes those scrimped and saved to pay for tuition and board upfront.  It punishes those who decided not to go to college because they thought they wouldn't be able to afford.

It does nothing to actually control higher education costs.  If anything, it gives post-secondary institutions all the more incentive to increase rates/prices since they know government will likely bail them out.  

The policy is a one time measure and says nothing concerning debt of students years to come.

It will proportionally benefit America's upper middle class, since they are more likely to finance advance college degrees (like masters or phd's) through debt.  

It's just terrible policy described as the worst form of pandering.  It's akin to much of what Trump does on a daily basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jakey Styley said:

I'm thinking about it from a policy perspective - you want to get the most utility out of every dollar spent. Allocating money towards those who were totally fine without it turns an already overly expensive program into something really massive without a proportional benefit in return.

Well I give credit for Sanders for giving oxygen to the debate. Do the details need to be ironed out, absolutely. But there does need to be some type of relief from this debt for a lot of people, you agree with this right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, downzy said:

First, for arguments sake, let's say a trillion of dollars are exchanged every day, whether on equities, annuities, bonds, or materials.  That's $5 billion, a day, that gets taken out of the stock market.  

That's a significant amount of money, which leads me to my second point.  

Wall street would never allow such a bill to come to the floor, let alone pass both the House and Senate.  

Regardless, it's dumb policy.  

It rewards those who took out loans to go to college while punishes those scrimped and saved to pay for tuition and board upfront.  It punishes those who decided not to go to college because they thought they wouldn't be able to afford.

It does nothing to actually control higher education costs.  If anything, it gives post-secondary institutions all the more incentive to increase rates/prices since they know government will likely bail them out.  

The policy is a one time measure and says nothing concerning debt of students years to come.

It will proportionally benefit America's upper middle class, since they are more likely to finance advance college degrees (like masters or phd's) through debt.  

It's just terrible policy described as the worst form of pandering.  It's akin to much of what Trump does on a daily basis. 

And that's why other proposals need to actually be discussed in the public space. You can't just whine about what Sanders is doing without a competing policy proposal. That's a very conservative thing to do, whine about leftist policy proposals while offering up nothing of substance to complete with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dazey said:

It’s funny how $1.6 trillion to wipe out student debt is too expensive yet $1 trillion on tax cuts for the top 1% was fine. 

Well one is dead money and the other promotes economic growth, its not hard to figure out :lol:

Share this post


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

Well one is dead money and the other promotes economic growth, its not hard to figure out :lol:

Not exactly true. Student debt relief would give a lot of middle class people extra disposable income which they'd then spend in the economy, spurring economic growth. 

Share this post


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

And that's why other proposals need to actually be discussed in the public space. You can't just whine about what Sanders is doing without a competing policy proposal. That's a very conservative thing to do, whine about leftist policy proposals while offering up nothing of substance to complete with it.

Where am I saying the policy shouldn't be discussed in the public space?  Criticism of the policy isn't tantamount to shutting down debate.

Second, are the criticisms not valid?  You don't address any of this.  And associating said criticisms with conservative arguments against liberal policy proposals is kind of nuts since criticisms authored by conservatives often don't add up themselves and are often based on false pretences.  

There are other options out there. Particularly, Elizabeth Warren's plan that caps benefits at $50k and is geared towards lower-income Americans.  While it still does nothing to curb post-secondary education costs and could create a boondoggle for higher-education industry, at least it's means-tested and not geared towards the middle-upper class for degrees that will pay significantly higher salaries.  

2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Not exactly true. Student debt relief would give a lot of middle class people extra disposable income which they'd then spend in the economy, spurring economic growth. 

Don't think you picked up the sarcasm in Len's post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren's proposal has some decent things in it. I think conservatives and right leaning folks could get on board if the free tuition going forward part is modified. There does need to be some cost control on even the public universities otherwise they'll just make those things more bloated than they already are. 

Share this post


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

Worth watching. 

Google's plan to prevent Trump, meddle in elections, social engineering etc.

 

 

Google deleted the video.

I'm glad there are people like Ted Cruz standing up against Google otherwise it would be awful. That story is being buried.

 

Share this post


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

Google deleted the video.

I'm glad there are people like Ted Cruz standing up against Google otherwise it would be awful. That story is being buried.

 

Yes, Americans are so blessed to have Joseph McCarthy 2.0 around to make noise about nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, downzy said:

Yes, Americans are so blessed to have Joseph McCarthy 2.0 around to make noise about nonsense.  

You know, to be fair, if the big tech companies were all run by people of my political persuasion and were biased against other points of view, I would find it awfully hard to promote some type of fairness in the application of the tech. I may even brush it off as nonsense. I would like to think I'd be all for allowing everyone's opinion (with the exceptions of things like direct threats of violence, copyright violations, and porn), but I do admit it would be hard. I see where you're coming from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

You know, to be fair, if the big tech companies were all run by people of my political persuasion and were biased against other points of view, I would find it awfully hard to promote some type of fairness in the application of the tech. I may even brush it off as nonsense. I would like to think I'd be all for allowing everyone's opinion (with the exceptions of things like direct threats of violence, copyright violations, and porn), but I do admit it would be hard. I see where you're coming from here.

But what proof does Cruz provide to prove that Google, or any company, is censoring conservative view points?

Everything he references is from Project Veritas, an organization run by James O'Keefe.  Look him up if you're not familiar.

He has a long history of running "sting" operations that are often the result of shady tactics, including forging/editing information/evidence in order to further his conservative agenda.  

If that's all Cruz has, then there's no there there.  It's just noise to rile up conservative paranoia about companies and an industry that does generally lean left, but has shown little to no activity to actually censor conservative view points.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a little more searching and as expected, the video O'Keefe wants us to believe demonstrates systematic bias within a company like Google has issues:

https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82

"In late May, I accepted an invitation to meet with a few people who claimed to be from “2 Step Tech Solutions”. They said they wanted to chat to me about a mentoring program for young women of color in tech, an area I’ve long been passionate about. We went for dinner at a restaurant in the Mission, San Francisco.

Unfortunately, I now know that these people lied about their true identities, filmed me without my consent, selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer, and published it widely online. I now know they belong to a group called “Project Veritas”, which has done this to numerous other people working in the tech and other sectors.

Why did they do this to me? It seems they found that I had spoken publicly at Google I/O on Ethics, and they wanted someone who would give them juicy soundbites about tech’s alleged bias against conservatives. Over the course of a two hour dinner, I guess they think I delivered.

Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very publicabout the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me."

---------------------------------------------

What's embarrassing is that United States Senator chose to use materials from an organization with a shit track record.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also telling that the U.S. is inching closer to a war with Iran, the current President was credibly accused of rape (again), and conservatives in this thread want to discuss/debate whether we're fucked because Google is out to get Trump and conservatives.  

:facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, downzy said:

It's also telling that the U.S. is inching closer to a war with Iran, the current President was credibly accused of rape (again), and conservatives in this thread want to discuss/debate whether we're fucked because Google is out to get Trump and conservatives.  

:facepalm:

Right because we can't talk about more than one issue at a time :facepalm:

I've also made my displeasure with Trump and his team on Iran very clear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I did a little more searching and as expected, the video O'Keefe wants us to believe demonstrates systematic bias within a company like Google has issues:

https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82

"In late May, I accepted an invitation to meet with a few people who claimed to be from “2 Step Tech Solutions”. They said they wanted to chat to me about a mentoring program for young women of color in tech, an area I’ve long been passionate about. We went for dinner at a restaurant in the Mission, San Francisco.

Unfortunately, I now know that these people lied about their true identities, filmed me without my consent, selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer, and published it widely online. I now know they belong to a group called “Project Veritas”, which has done this to numerous other people working in the tech and other sectors.

Why did they do this to me? It seems they found that I had spoken publicly at Google I/O on Ethics, and they wanted someone who would give them juicy soundbites about tech’s alleged bias against conservatives. Over the course of a two hour dinner, I guess they think I delivered.

Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very publicabout the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me."

---------------------------------------------

What's embarrassing is that United States Senator chose to use materials from an organization with a shit track record.  

Complains about biased Veritas. Posts link to biased post on Medium :facepalm:

If these allegations about Big Tech bias are so false, why are they making a fuss about a potential audit? If they are clean they can shove that in the right's face and come out on top.

 

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, downzy said:

But what proof does Cruz provide to prove that Google, or any company, is censoring conservative view points?

Everything he references is from Project Veritas, an organization run by James O'Keefe.  Look him up if you're not familiar.

He has a long history of running "sting" operations that are often the result of shady tactics, including forging/editing information/evidence in order to further his conservative agenda.  

If that's all Cruz has, then there's no there there.  It's just noise to rile up conservative paranoia about companies and an industry that does generally lean left, but has shown little to no activity to actually censor conservative view points.  

Well I actually use the platforms and have noticed guys on the right getting kicked off, and them not knowing what TOS they broke, meanwhile Antifa guys keeping their accounts. I would have used more concrete examples if I were Cruz, but there certainly is a there-there. Bottom line for me is these large platforms need to hold to first amendment protections because they are the way politics is discussed in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Complains about biased Veritas. Posts link to biased post on Medium :facepalm:

If these allegations about Big Tech bias are so false, why are they making a fuss about a potential audit? If they are clean they can shove that in the right's face and come out on top.

 

Again, you're not actually addressing the merits of the arguments.  Medium might be biased, but they don't have a rampant history of distortion or fabrication like Project Veritas.  

Name me an industry/business that would be fine with a government audit of their internal business operations?  

17 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Right because we can't talk about more than one issue at a time :facepalm:

I've also made my displeasure with Trump and his team on Iran very clear.

Really?  I must have missed your posts about Trump being accused by rape?

I also don't see much from other conservatives on this forum addressing yesterday and today's threats by Trump against Iran.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Well I actually use the platforms and have noticed guys on the right getting kicked off, and them not knowing what TOS they broke, meanwhile Antifa guys keeping their accounts. I would have used more concrete examples if I were Cruz, but there certainly is a there-there. Bottom line for me is these large platforms need to hold to first amendment protections because they are the way politics is discussed in this day and age.

What platforms are you talking about?  

Again, I get the concern about large public platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., but smaller sites where there are viable alternatives aren't indicative of conservatives being censored due to ideological differences.

First amendment protections do not apply to private companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, downzy said:

What platforms are you talking about?  

Again, I get the concern about large public platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., but smaller sites where there are viable alternatives aren't indicative of conservatives being censored due to ideological differences.

First amendment protections do not apply to private companies.

Well this legislation is written to only go after the large platforms, you have to have a large amount of views each month to even qualify. The smaller platforms like gab just don't matter.

That's why legislation is being proposed to deal with this. It's time for the libertarians on the right to get out of their stupor. I'm all for turning these companies into more utility like entities. Where the power company can't just turn off someone's power because they have unpopular political opinions. 

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


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

Again, you're not actually addressing the merits of the arguments.  Medium might be biased, but they don't have a rampant history of distortion or fabrication like Project Veritas.  

Name me an industry/business that would be fine with a government audit of their internal business operations?  

Really?  I must have missed your posts about Trump being accused by rape?

I also don't see much from other conservatives on this forum addressing yesterday and today's threats by Trump against Iran.  

They might not like it, but if there's no there-there, this would be a mundane audit.

I have no idea what is going on with rape allegations.

I'm not even a conservative, I don't know what they're thinking. I've had plenty of arguments with them over their love for big business, foreign interventionism, and libertarian fantasies. 

Share this post


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

It's also telling that the U.S. is inching closer to a war with Iran, the current President was credibly accused of rape (again), and conservatives in this thread want to discuss/debate whether we're fucked because Google is out to get Trump and conservatives.  

:facepalm:

Did you buy her book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×