Trump v. Hitler

QUOTE=RealityNow;1070492432]You are Pro Republican and that's your choice, but you discount the truths that have existed over decades now, of "who fights for and promotes Civil Rights", and it is not Republicans. They ARE NOT the party of Republican of the Early 1960's. [/QUOTE]

First of all, I never said that I was pro-Republican. I don't look at the color of an idea before I comment on it.

Second of all, the historical narrative I presented was very extensively supported by facts. I pointed out that Republicans in the 1860s were talking in very similar terms to those they used in the 2010s.

When Lincoln argued against slavery, he made the point that majority opinion in Dred Scott was wrong, that the Founders meant all men, not just all white men. The important line is "that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights." When Trump denounced racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists and all other hate groups after Charlottesville, he said that all Americans salute the same flag and are all created equal. The same words, the same point of view, the same kinds of arguments about how the man that makes the corn should get to eat the corn...

RealityNow said:

The Democratic Party is not the Party of the early 1960s and The Republican Party is not the Party of the early 1960s. Both are 'direct opposites of what they were back then.

Click to expand...

Let everyone note that RealityNow went from "Democrats pushed for Civil Rights Laws," which I refuted; to "but racist Dixiecrats became Republicans" which also turned out to be false; to what amounts to "I don't know how it happened, but they switched sides, I swear." No, my friend, they never switched sides. Democrats just learned some form of their municipal racket could work on a national scale in the 1930s. Johnson's famous speech about how you cannot drag up to the starting line of a race a poor man who was chained, whipped and hung to trees and hope that he will compete well is the essence of what Democrats do today. THAT is the change...

Republicans didn't become racist. Democrats just realized they could get votes by organizing coalitions of people and promising to solve some of their problems in exchange for votes. They form coalitions on gender, sexual, religious and ethnic lines and you might find this laudable. But the tune Republicans have been chanting is old. However, riddle me this: if Democrats are there to cater to the needs of poor black, poor Hispanics, etc., do you think they have an incentive to say Republicans are there to hurt them? The answer is a resounding yes. I'd bet my shirt 99.9% of the claims of racism made by Democrats are pure BS.

RealityNow said:

As to the Immigration, Trump is the one who called location Sh-thole Nations !!!

Click to expand...

This is what I meant when I said that Trump was crass. It's true that the countries he singled out are not exactly great places to live, but he said it in the most outrageous manner possible. My guess is that the intention was to get people to drown media outlets and social media with rants. I wouldn't be surprised if you found out he signed important executive orders that got shipped to a footnote on page 38 of major newspapers.

James972 said:

He is not seeking glory just playing the race card, as despicable as that is, to take advantage of white guilt, elect Democrats, and pave the way for the libnazi Green New Deal.

Click to expand...

You cannot expect everyone to know Republicans pushed Civil Rights laws, that all but one Dixiecrat stayed Democrats until their deaths, that black voters swung toward Democrats in the early 1930s and that you have to wait for Reagan to see the South move towards Republicans. Those facts lay the narrative of "parties switching sides" to waste.

And that narrative is damn important. You need it to call Reagan a racist. You won't catch him with a smoking gun, with blood on his hands. If you don't have that narrative, all you have are speculations and you suddenly sound like a biased vindictive thug. And if Reagan was not a racist, when did Republicans become racists? The answer is that this event never took place outside the imagination of Democrats.

DifferentDrummr said:

Who is/was the most malicious?

Hitler at least believed that he was doing something to benefit Germany. Trump isn't the least bit interested in doing anything to help America, its people, or anything else. His interest never goes farther than getting more money and getting others to idolize him.

Click to expand...

First, Hitler was a National SOCIALIST, his views were similar to your much revered Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili aka Josef Stalin. Both sought and became totalitarian powers of their respective countries first by confiscating all weapons, disarming and imposing draconian edicts upon it's citizens. Like Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats of today seeking gun control and total power over the citizens of America. There's no doubt that Trump is a capitalist and seeking to build up America while improving the lives of it's citizens, while PMS/DSA Democrats in Blue cities are allowing people to defecate in the streets, sleep on sidewalks and allow cities to become infested with roaches and rats.

DifferentDrummr said:

Who is/was the most malicious?

Hitler at least believed that he was doing something to benefit Germany. Trump isn't the least bit interested in doing anything to help America, its people, or anything else. His interest never goes farther than getting more money and getting others to idolize him.

Click to expand...

At least Trump does not commit crimes and sedition for his political party and its corrupt leaders, like we are seeing in the new commie deal leftist democrat party.

DifferentDrummr said:

Who is/was the most malicious?

Hitler at least believed that he was doing something to benefit Germany. Trump isn't the least bit interested in doing anything to help America, its people, or anything else. His interest never goes farther than getting more money and getting others to idolize him.

Click to expand...

Why is it the hyper, ultra partisans always want to compare a president or politician they don't like of the other party to Hitler? Whether that president is Trump, was Obama or G.W. Bush or Bill Clinton on back, none compares to Hitler.

TheEconomist said:

Political disagreements over the value and the legitimacy of welfare programs are not attacks. Saying we should cut spending on some programs are not attacks. All this means is that they are not Democrats.



I never said they were saints. I said that their views are behind the abolition of slavery, behind the fight to overturn segregation and civil right laws. I also said that they were not racist. Between "not racist" and "saint," there is a world of difference. Notice I also called Trump crass and said that he lied on numerous occasions... that isn't exactly calling them "saints."



Calling an entire group of people racist is eminently personal. However, notice the world of distance between "they support things that are damaging" and some of your other accusations. I would never have objected as strongly and virulently to that statement. Why? Because there is a difference between attacking people and attacking ideas. When you accuse Republicans of being racist without a damn smoking gun, that is inexcusable.



Donald Trump denounced neo-Nazis after Charlottesville. Here is Donald Trump denouncing racism and violence in Charlottesville:
YouTube

"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its names are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups (...)." To believe what you wrote, you have to believe he is dissing in public his own base every single time there is public violence. Either you didn't know, or you are arguing in bad faith. I hope you just didn't know.

The hate groups of which you speak are relics of a bygone epoch. You cannot win elections by pandering to racists. You couldn't even do that in the 1960s already. That's not how any party today win elections. Democrats win with coalitions of vulnerable people by promising to take care of some of their problems and Republicans tend to appeal to more conservative values like personal responsibility, families, and patriotism. Some people think it's great Democrats push for programs that lighten the weight carried by people who live through tougher times. Some people think the benefits aren't always worth the cost or that we should let more space for individuals to do these things in their communities. And both parties probably strike ethically dubious deals, but we wouldn't be talking about racism in 2019 if people like you didn't spend the last 30 years flinging insults because your racists are nowhere to be found.


Enough with trying to turn the 2020s into the 1930s to feel like you're fighting a monster. You're not fighting a monster and there is really nothing glorious about "resisting" the policies pushed by politicians who will never lift a finger to hurt you.

Click to expand...

I am ok with your personal positions... I'll leave it to you to address what I said in specific, why do these racist groups bond themselves within and unto the Republican Party. Let's not get it twisted... I DON'T think all Republican are Racist. s

As to Values in America... personal responsibility, families, and patriotism is "universal to American People"... NO PARTY has a specific lock on those values more than the other. It's as absurd as when Republican speak in terms as if they are the only people paying taxes, or speak in the terms as if only democrats are the consumers of public services. which is "insidious claims", and when they make reference as if blacks are the bulk consumers of public services. I've seen the same spin, continually spun on other forums by Republicans. That's what turns people off to the ways Republican come across. That's why people reference race bias to republicans, because they continually push those nature of false hoods.

As to your first statement: Political disagreements over the value and the legitimacy of welfare programs are not attacks. Saying we should cut spending on some programs are not attacks. All this means is that they are not Democrats.

When Democrats speak of cut spending on Oil companies and other BIG industry, and stop allowing things like the NRA to dictate public policy, and speak to stand against politicians being dictated over by things like the NRA, Big Oil and Big Military Spending. Democrats support 'DIPLOMACY" with the world of nations, and Democrats stand for treating immigrants with respect, that includes not treating illegals as if they are inhuman. It does not mean just let everyone who crashes the border in.. but it does mean face the fact that those who have been here years, and established themselves, to create a pathway to citizenship. a "conference of nations" and the agreement to develop a Marshal Plan to help build up the region. That's a North American Benefit... because if we don't China and Russia will.

TheEconomist said:

QUOTE=RealityNow;1070492432]You are Pro Republican and that's your choice, but you discount the truths that have existed over decades now, of "who fights for and promotes Civil Rights", and it is not Republicans. They ARE NOT the party of Republican of the Early 1960's.

Click to expand...

First of all, I never said that I was pro-Republican. I don't look at the color of an idea before I comment on it.

Second of all, the historical narrative I presented was very extensively supported by facts. I pointed out that Republicans in the 1860s were talking in very similar terms to those they used in the 2010s.

When Lincoln argued against slavery, he made the point that majority opinion in Dred Scott was wrong, that the Founders meant all men, not just all white men. The important line is "that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights." When Trump denounced racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists and all other hate groups after Charlottesville, he said that all Americans salute the same flag and are all created equal. The same words, the same point of view, the same kinds of arguments about how the man that makes the corn should get to eat the corn...



Let everyone note that RealityNow went from "Democrats pushed for Civil Rights Laws,"(I say "push"), which I refuted; to "but racist Dixiecrats became Republicans" which also turned out to be false; to what amounts to "I don't know how it happened, but they switched sides, I swear." No, my friend, they never switched sides. Democrats just learned some form of their municipal racket could work on a national scale in the 1930s. Johnson's famous speech about how you cannot drag up to the starting line of a race a poor man who was chained, whipped and hung to trees and hope that he will compete well is the essence of what Democrats do today. THAT is the change...

Republicans didn't become racist. Democrats just realized they could get votes by organizing coalitions of people and promising to solve some of their problems in exchange for votes. They form coalitions on gender, sexual, religious and ethnic lines and you might find this laudable. But the tune Republicans have been chanting is old. However, riddle me this: if Democrats are there to cater to the needs of poor black, poor Hispanics, etc., do you think they have an incentive to say Republicans are there to hurt them? The answer is a resounding yes. I'd bet my shirt 99.9% of the claims of racism made by Democrats are pure BS.



This is what I meant when I said that Trump was crass. It's true that the countries he singled out are not exactly great places to live, but he said it in the most outrageous manner possible. My guess is that the intention was to get people to drown media outlets and social media with rants. I wouldn't be surprised if you found out he signed important executive orders that got shipped to a footnote on page 38 of major newspapers.[/QUOTE]

you said:
Democrats are there to cater to the needs of poor black, poor Hispanics, etc., do you think they have an incentive to say Republicans are there to hurt them?

This is where things go off the rails... within what you present. NO, Democrats are not there to cater to poor blacks and poor Hispanics.. Democratic policies are about "ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE"... you don't see democrats trying tell people who they can't sleep with, love and marry, they are not trying to dictate over women's choices, they are not blaming the deteriorated conditions of industry on people, but on the greed of the wealthy, they are not supporting in-debting young people for their want of education. No Democrat is telling the Prime Minister of any nation to block our elected representatives.

When it comes to people who use public services... Republican are not by themselves in standing against "abuse of these programs", Democrats are as much in support to fighting abuse of these programs as well. The big issue in America... is "HOW".... That's the matter where Republican and Democrats both should be focused... Not just some concept of "cut or abolish"... but address ... how do we assure responsible accountability of usage of these programs".

I'll give an example: I don't think this example is Democratic or Republican... "EBT Cards... these are designed to help feed families, nutritious meals"... and if that is the base fact of the matter. Then these cards should not be allowed to be used at "Gas Station Conviences Stores for Snacks and Drinks"... it should be allowed to be used a "Grocery Stores" and we have the ability to have stores "Qualify for the accepting of these Cards".. We know Obesity is a Problem, then "we have the ability to put restrictions on what can be purchased with these cards"... ( now, is it a challenge, yes, its a challenge, but a worthy challenge). We have a Surgeon General who has access to the best Dietitians in the Country, who can based on nutritional values, we have excellent computer systems in this country that has the capability to catalog every food type product sold, and if they use it.. they can find out what is healthy for people who use these cards. If they want something different, then they pay for it out of their own pockets.
Another matter is 'school kids"... during the school year. "cut the amount given to families with kids during the school year, and give that portion to schools to provide, 3 meals.. and during the Summer months when kids are out of school, then that can be restored to parents. Then we assure that "all" kids get nutritious means, during their term of the school year. ( not only will this help, kids won't be unable to learn because they are hungry).

When it comes to Section 8, instead of just giving money that makes many slum lords wealthy, this same money can be used via HUD.. to create stake holders in the communities, by making the many areas where homes are lower in cost and may need some repairs, where a loan can be structured, with rehab expanse included, that is paid to a contractor via voucher, ( the money is never in the hands of the individual), and the Co-Pay that some on Section 8 has to pay, will be enough to pay the payment on a HUD owned Home. It makes no sense for Fannie and Freddie to hold these mortgages for the benefit of banks, but can't do the same for the benefit of citizens. Instead of Section 8 paying for years with not end date, Section 8 via HUD would cover the lowered cost on getting that person in a home. We have enough smart people who can figure out the details. This is a process that can help people in rural areas, cities, country areas and in the process it rebuilds and restore value to communities. This also help promote stability, rather than the transit cycles we have now of people moving from one slum lord property to another slum lord property. We just need a "Comprehensive Programs". Yes, if people get public benefits as such, they will get drug tested, and they will get tested for drinking. We have vast facilities in every state, city and town where there can be 'rehab" available for people... by "staff medical service persons, not this "give a way money to contract services".

What people don't know is there are many university degree people, who make an enormous quality standard of living off of programs, a few years back, HUD had to put greater controls on how much could be used for Administrative cost by Non Profit, because many were paying the Administrator's high salary, and claiming there was not enough funds to deliver the services they are suppose to provide. HUD rolled out a new portal, that helps monitor and track the expenditure far better than it was done before. This system was rolled out During the Stimulus Program of Obama, to ensure quality delivery of services and manage the process so excess resources did not just go to the administrators of these programs. I know, because I manage for an agency one of these programs. There were many before this who used their university degree to hound dog down these contracts, and it was changed to force accountability.
People would be surprised to know how many semi-professional and professional people make their living off these same programs, that we often see some in the university sector complain about the end user recipients, while they were themselves raking in 6 figures as the head administrator.
This game had gone on so long that it was a critical element that gave programs a bad name. Obama understood that, because as a community organizer, he saw the poor delivery, but the administrators were living well off these programs... so he changed the paradigm.
This info was buried in the political contempt that was raging during that time, until the truth got buried. I know because I helped streamline how to qualify people, and spoke with the HUD administrators who had responsibility for these programs. There were database that did not communicate across various agencies, and under the Presidential mandate they have to update those system to share data. It's a massive job, that sadly is not being promoted to continue building the data continuity to the same degree in the current administration. When people talk about "dropping people" from systems, it first has to ensure "data continuity integrity" is functioning. But also, these programs were of design to connect people with the multiple categories of services, and there was a time limit on how long people could be on the program. The combination provided the array of services to help people transition to stability. I worked closely with the case managers to ensure they were following the programming structure and holding the recipients accountable to invest themselves.

People should actually read the policies that govern these programs, and it is very important for the public to become aware of the services and utilize them with serious intent to better themselves.

I developed elaborate spread sheets to provide to non profit agencies to track every penny they spent, and those that could not spend their money and do so effectively, I move that money to agencies that could and agencies that did. There was a consulting firm, who had a process of tedium, that was not addressing things in the directness that was necessary, and it appeared they were more driven to make themselves look good with long forms and when I explained to them, this is not the process to get usable data or train people, we went over it, and streamlined it.

It matters much the commitment of people who administer programs. In the public service business, people get "burned out"... because they deal with some who simply don't want to follow the rules and guidelines.

We could do a great deal of good across this nation, especially for young people... if we change the paradigm and put in some mandates. "those mandates can help create a more responsible society".... Here's and Example: CREATE.... A NATIONAL "CIVIC CORP"

RealityNow said:

you said:Democrats are there to cater to the needs of poor black, poor Hispanics, etc., do you think they have an incentive to say Republicans are there to hurt them? This is where things go off the rails... within what you present. NO, Democrats are not there to cater to poor blacks and poor Hispanics.

Click to expand...

Here is the gist of the moral case Democrats make for a minimum wage. You are a little employee and you are poor, but your employer is wealthier and in a better position to manoeuver their life. The employer is in a position of strength and you are in a position of weakness, laying at the mercy of everyone who would want to take advantage of you. To balance things out, we'll put the weight of the US government behind your demands. Is that a fair summary of the idea? To my knowledge, the only way you will convince people to centralize more powers in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians is if you say it's to counteract a private force. You then can say that the only reason people oppose you is that they are rooting for the private force. The private force can be greed, racism, sexism and an entire host of similar things.

That's what I meant. Democrats have an incentive to find as many "victims" as possible, to paint themselves as saviors and to paint Republicans as the spawns of Satan.

RealityNow said:

[Y]ou don't see democrats trying to tell people who they can't sleep with, love and marry (...)

Click to expand...

The Republican stance on gay marriage never has been something I condoned. It's one thing to tell people you believe they should not marry a person of their own gender. It's entirely different when you use the full force of the government to prevent consenting adults from subjecting themselves to the terms of a contract they freely chose to adopt. That's the most potent argument against the common Republican position on gay marriage. But, someone who makes that claim while they back up minimum wage laws sounds insincere for obvious reasons: it's also about outlawing contracts a third party finds unacceptable.

RealityNow said:

(...) [T]hey are not trying to dictate over women's choices (...)

Click to expand...

That's a dishonest argument. If you oppose abortion, you actually believe it's a murder. It's like saying vegans do not value freedom. Well, many of them compare eating meat to a murder. I'm not sure I agree with that view, but I wouldn't call them out for being against having choices because it requires me saying that I am right before concluding that they are hypocritically trying to take freedom away from women.

RealityNow said:

(...) they are not blaming the deteriorated conditions of industry on people but on the greed of the wealthy (...)

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I said. You're a victim and the wealthy are oppressors. Nobody said this wasn't what Democrats are saying.

RealityNow said:

(...) they are not supporting in-debting young people for their want of education (...)

Click to expand...

The side effect of paying for education is that someone else has to pay. If you want to reimburse students, you are in the awkward position of asking millions of taxpayers (current and future) to finance debt that was accrued by others so that those others could get a degree while many of those taxpayers do not. Moreover, current debts were accrued voluntarily and sometimes even frivolously. If you stacked up tens of thousands of dollars of debt to major in philosophy or sociology only to end up flipping burgers, what entitles you to be reimbursed by others? For all that might be said in defense of either of those disciplines and absent the current political biases in those fields, if you invest tens of thousands of dollars that you do not have in a venture, should you not at least wonder what kind of cash flows you can expect?

The point is not that you cannot make a case for governmental involvement in education. The point is that it's debatable.

RealityNow said:

No Democrat is telling the Prime Minister of any nation to block our elected representatives.

Click to expand...

It is admittedly inappropriate, but I don't how much power you think tweets from Donald Trump have over foreign governments. Besides, the tweet was 100% accurate. Tlaib and Ohmar are radical identitarians leftists who push for sanctions that would destroy Isreal. Curiously, Isreal is by far the freest country in the Middle East. It is surrounded by countries filled with people who vowed to destroy it from the moment it was created, suffered several wars (Isreal was attacked), is the target of major antisemitism and terrorism, and it extended offers repeatedly to Palestinians for a compromise which they always rejected... I'd say his tweet was correct. Those two are nutjobs.

RealityNow said:

When it comes to people who use public services... Republican are not by themselves in standing against "abuse of these programs", Democrats are as much in support to fighting abuse of these programs as well. The big issue in America... is "HOW".... That's the matter where Republican and Democrats both should be focused... Not just some concept of "cut or abolish"... but address ... how do we assure responsible accountability of usage of these programs".

Click to expand...

I am all for talking about content. My problem is strictly limited to people who throw around insults without substance.

RealityNow said:

I'll give an example: I don't think this example is Democratic or Republican... "EBT Cards... these are designed to help feed families, nutritious meals"... and if that is the base fact of the matter. Then these cards should not be allowed to be used at "Gas Station Conviences Stores for Snacks and Drinks"... it should be allowed to be used a "Grocery Stores" and we have the ability to have stores "Qualify for the accepting of these Cards".. We know Obesity is a Problem, then "we have the ability to put restrictions on what can be purchased with these cards"... ( now, is it a challenge, yes, its a challenge, but a worthy challenge). We have a Surgeon General who has access to the best Dietitians in the Country, who can based on nutritional values, we have excellent computer systems in this country that has the capability to catalog every food type product sold, and if they use it.. they can find out what is healthy for people who use these cards. If they want something different, then they pay for it out of their own pockets. Another matter is 'school kids"... during the school year. "cut the amount given to families with kids during the school year, and give that portion to schools to provide, 3 meals.. and during the Summer months when kids are out of school, then that can be restored to parents. Then we assure that "all" kids get nutritious means, during their term of the school year. ( not only will this help, kids won't be unable to learn because they are hungry).

Click to expand...

I understand that you have a problem with handing out funds without strings attached. However, the strings attached sound peculiarly troubling to me. In fact, the most objectionable part of your entire exposé are those strings. It's one thing to hand out money and say it has to be used to groceries. It's another to tell people what they can and cannot buy in the grocery store. Autonomy has consequences, but why would experts in Washington decide for masses of people what is an acceptable compromise between health and taste?

RealityNow said:

It matters much the commitment of people who administer programs. In the public service business, people get "burned out"... because they deal with some who simply don't want to follow the rules and guidelines.

Click to expand...

If you want to get the government involved in anything, you do face major design problems. Setting those problems aside for a minute, we can look at the rules and protocols you mention.

I never heard of people agonizing over the fact their desk neighbor did not follow the sometimes ludicrous tedium of internal policies. On the other hand, everyone knows about how protocols designed by HR departments can turn an entire business into a soul-crushing tyranny. It's true that this can happen in public, as well as private organizations. A case in point is Google. Apparently, you cannot even write a private email to a colleague pointing out hard facts and published research which suggest that men and women are not the same without being fired. Human resources departments by now have grown into such fright over lawsuits that I am sure people are afraid to speak their minds and to behave like normal human beings. Netflix, for example, has a rule saying that you cannot gaze into the eyes of a person of the other sex for more than 5 seconds. Others have rules against hugs.

Codifying things makes them rigid, dead. Some of it is necessary and it can be useful, but that's something we want to minimize, not something we want to enforce with an iron fist -- not that I am saying you are taking this position either.

TheEconomist said:

Here is the gist of the moral case Democrats make for a minimum wage. You are a little employee and you are poor, but your employer is wealthier and in a better position to manoeuver their life. The employer is in a position of strength and you are in a position of weakness, laying at the mercy of everyone who would want to take advantage of you. To balance things out, we'll put the weight of the US government behind your demands. Is that a fair summary of the idea? To my knowledge, the only way you will convince people to centralize more powers in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians is if you say it's to counteract a private force. You then can say that the only reason people oppose you is that they are rooting for the private force. The private force can be greed, racism, sexism and an entire host of similar things.

That's what I meant. Democrats have an incentive to find as many "victims" as possible, to paint themselves as saviors and to paint Republicans as the spawns of Satan.



The Republican stance on gay marriage never has been something I condoned. It's one thing to tell people you believe they should not marry a person of their own gender. It's entirely different when you use the full force of the government to prevent consenting adults from subjecting themselves to the terms of a contract they freely chose to adopt. That's the most potent argument against the common Republican position on gay marriage. But, someone who makes that claim while they back up minimum wage laws sounds insincere for obvious reasons: it's also about outlawing contracts a third party finds unacceptable.



That's a dishonest argument. If you oppose abortion, you actually believe it's a murder. It's like saying vegans do not value freedom. Well, many of them compare eating meat to a murder. I'm not sure I agree with that view, but I wouldn't call them out for being against having choices because it requires me saying that I am right before concluding that they are hypocritically trying to take freedom away from women.



This is exactly what I said. You're a victim and the wealthy are oppressors. Nobody said this wasn't what Democrats are saying.



The side effect of paying for education is that someone else has to pay. If you want to reimburse students, you are in the awkward position of asking millions of taxpayers (current and future) to finance debt that was accrued by others so that those others could get a degree while many of those taxpayers do not. Moreover, current debts were accrued voluntarily and sometimes even frivolously. If you stacked up tens of thousands of dollars of debt to major in philosophy or sociology only to end up flipping burgers, what entitles you to be reimbursed by others? For all that might be said in defense of either of those disciplines and absent the current political biases in those fields, if you invest tens of thousands of dollars that you do not have in a venture, should you not at least wonder what kind of cash flows you can expect? you should tell this to the Universities before they fill these kids heads with FICTION AND FANTASY,

The point is not that you cannot make a case for governmental involvement in education. The point is that it's debatable.

you should have read the matter of community colleges and states universities, BEFORE Reagan did great harm and damage to them.


It is admittedly inappropriate, but I don't how much power you think tweets from Donald Trump have over foreign governments. Besides, the tweet was 100% accurate. Tlaib and Ohmar are radical identitarians leftists who push for sanctions that would destroy Isreal. Curiously, Isreal is by far the freest country in the Middle East. It is surrounded by countries filled with people who vowed to destroy it from the moment it was created, suffered several wars (Isreal was attacked), is the target of major antisemitism and terrorism, and it extended offers repeatedly to Palestinians for a compromise which they always rejected... I'd say his tweet was correct. Those two are nutjobs.
That's your opinions, because they don't think the same as you do.

Click to expand...

you talk about throwing around insult, and you try and covertly lay out what is a series of insult..
i.e. you said: Democrats have an incentive to find as many "victims" as possible, to paint themselves as saviors and to paint Republicans as the spawns of Satan.

a mirror is an amazing things, not just the type one can look and see a reflection of themselves, but the other types of mirrors... Geez!!!

RealityNow said:

You talk about throwing around insult, and you try and covertly lay out what is a series of insult.

i.e. you said: Democrats have an incentive to find as many "victims" as possible, to paint themselves as saviors and to paint Republicans as the spawns of Satan.

A mirror is an amazing thing, not just the type one can look and see a reflection of themselves, but the other types of mirrors... Geez!!!

Click to expand...

That does not constitute an insult, even if the tone is critical.

It is true that Democrats campaign on opposing government force to presumably private forces. You can make a case that it is generally a good thing. I only said that this kind of branding means they have every reason in the world to err on the side of seeing too much private force. It also casts them in the role of the compassionate people who are there to help and, others, in the role of the cruel people. Those are the words Democrats use routinely.

The difference between reality and my claim is a matter of style: I was hyperbolic. The word victim is not hyperbolic (Democrats talk about oppression and exploitation). However, the phrases "savior" and "spawns of Satan" are hyperboles, except I do not see how you could object to them in a thread that compares Trump to Hitler. If you really believe that Trump is Hitler, these two terms are a fair description of your own opinion: you have to be almost a saint to put your life on the line to oppose Nazis and Nazi Germany was one of our best approximation of hell.


Calling people hateful, cruel, bigoted, all the words formed by the gross misuse of the suffix "phobia," greedy, racism and sexist... that would be an insult. I didn't say that Democrats are running a nationwide scam. That would be a grave accusation which would require very damning evidence.

DifferentDrummr said:

Who is/was the most malicious?

Hitler at least believed that he was doing something to benefit Germany. Trump isn't the least bit interested in doing anything to help America, its people, or anything else. His interest never goes farther than getting more money and getting others to idolize him.

Click to expand...

What a misguided perception of reality. You need to do some serious research.

RealityNow said:

[Y]ou should tell this to the Universities before they fill these kids heads with FICTION AND FANTASY!

Click to expand...

Universities and departments have an incentive to sell their programs, whether they are public or private organizations. Funds are always contingent on enrolling students.

However, pause for a second and think about what you just said. Some departments clearly do not scam their students because they give them highly valuable technical skills. Other departments offer programs that clearly do not make financial sense. They might be enjoyable as an experience, but you cannot justify those programs based on your ability to command higher wages thereafter. Do you see a professor in ethnic or women studies showing a kid his 50K major will get him hired at McDonald's? That is obviously not part of the discussion.


So, if you want to accuse people in universities, you should look at people who have incentives to commit a scam. It would be quite the mark of integrity on your part because it requires you to indict departments and professors who are know to be lean very strongly to the left.

TheEconomist said:

.......when did Republicans become racists?

Click to expand...

As southern racist Democrats switched to the Republican Party. Racist Democrats discovered Republican State's Rights thinking supported state based racism more than national Democratic thinking which was slowly turning libsocialist. This is not to say that Republicans were actually racist (they did lead the way against Democrats for Civil Rights legislation) just that state based racism was easier under Republican state's rights thinking. Today, liberals think of Republicans as racists merely because they don't support the well intended liberal welfare programs that actually attacked love and family in the black community and created the school to prison pipeline.

Doc91478 said:

Both sought and became totalitarian powers of their respective countries first by confiscating all weapons,

Click to expand...

Yes, all liberals gain absolute power over the people by promising the people they will help them with their power. Does anyone doubt Sanders AOC etc would need near absolute Nazi military authority to implement the Nazi Green New Deal Depression in 10 years?? This is our World War 2 they say!

TheEconomist said:

but why would experts in Washington decide for masses of people what is an acceptable compromise between health and taste?

Click to expand...

if you infantialize them that way they will become more and more dependent on Democratic paternal supervision. Soon Mao will be telling them they must all dress in little black suits! Democrats simple lack the IQ to know they are socialist tools.

TheEconomist said:

Universities and departments have an incentive to sell their programs, whether they are public or private organizations. Funds are always contingent on enrolling students.

However, pause for a second and think about what you just said. Some departments clearly do not scam their students because they give them highly valuable technical skills. Other departments offer programs that clearly do not make financial sense. They might be enjoyable as an experience, but you cannot justify those programs based on your ability to command higher wages thereafter. Do you see a professor in ethnic or women studies showing a kid his 50K major will get him hired at McDonald's? That is obviously not part of the discussion.


So, if you want to accuse people in universities, you should look at people who have incentives to commit a scam. It would be quite the mark of integrity on your part because it requires you to indict departments and professors who are know to be lean very strongly to the left.

Click to expand...

I am not talking about whether a Professor leans left or right, but I will address it since you engage that perspective.
First what we call left and right is the expanse of the spectrum of life, as well as the expanse of what makes up our society, 'every issue does not have to be left or right. We have to look at the positive and negatives of matters, that's the point of Democracy. Majority Rule Principle. No one can say all things to the left are negative or positive as a principle... nor can all things to the right be negative or positives as a principles. It depends on the position taken on a PARTICULAR issue. But this Political Madness that is built upon "divisiveness" has confounded the point and premise of developing a society based on "Regulatory Governance"... There is no thing that will satisfy everyone!!!
Human nature is an interest spectrum of much. Individuals can be against something, until it affects a close family members, and individuals can be for something until it affects something in their mind or life they don't particularly like or care for...
The beauty of a Democratic System of Majority Rule... we deal with what serves the greater good for the whole, even if that whole does not have the support of every member of society, thus so, the Majority stands for the service of the whole.
I'm sure everyone can find a regulation they don't like, and everyone can find a regulation they do like in the whole of the expanse of regulations that exist.

I know people who don't like the fact cities have "property standards regulations", yet, they would not want someone to have a hog pen in their front yard in a suburban community. there is such thing in American as people who call themselves Sovereign Citizens, who don't like to pay taxes and have no respect for the government, but they don't refrain from driving on government built roads, and a variety of other government supported attributes.

We have in America a Democracy that functions by Regulatory Process, and that is administered through the Republic Form of Governance that we have in the principles of Representative Elected Officials. They establish the Regulatory Standards. Our Tax money pays for the research to gather the information relative to effectively instituting and establishing those regulation. It applies to you as well, being as you say and Economist, data collection of and from Economist is utilized in every aspect of our governance, including the decision that are made at the United States Supreme Court, as they weight the economic impact on cases that decide which has relevancy to probable and statutory impact be it regulatory or administrative on the economics of this nation. Economist don't just gather data that is one dimension, they have to weight factors that the average citizen may neglect to consider or simply not have the awareness of factors being even in existence to consider. You expressed that in your initial response post in the formula you posted and the item you linked to.

(cont'd)

Now to address the University Aspect in the CONTEXT I intended, I just did not have time to expound at prior moments. There was a time when an AA degree provided quality standard administrative skills along with a variety of other skill that was instrumental in the development of America's Business and Society, the people who aspired to the BA and BS degree chose fields of specialization and they were awarded degree as they achieved competency. People who has Masters BA/BS... were highly focused in a field with intent and aim to specialize as professional who used that knowledge to be discerning to a degree higher and more intricately than the BA and BS. and by the time people got their PhD... they were entrenched in that specific field.

Today, based on exactly what you said about "profit", they saw profit potential in Alumni, and promoted the Master Degree to the level that it is idiotically utilized as a criteria for jobs that and AA would suffice, I've seen requirement of a BA/BS for jobs that a high school diplomacy would suffice to provide the trainable skills to individual. I work in an environment where it is "degree heavy", by that I mean saturated with people who will gladly tell you what their degree is, because they even discuss the responsibility of the job.

When I see the documents some create its is very disenchanting, and even in some interactive dialog, the area of thinking things through, falls short and often I see, people become very defensive about what they don't know, rather than to engage and continue interaction to learn more, by gaining more information and a broader insight into a matter.
People become in many ways "conditioned", by that I mean they spent years being conditioned to pander and submit themselves to professors, and some translate that directly to how they deal with their boss on the job. It becomes quite frequently a stifling cycle, that goes to the submission of "group think" rather than utilizing what educations should provide. which is "Training People HOW to think... not how to submit and pander and kiss up, even when they know all the relevant variables have not been engaged. I know this to be true. I have created things, that were pushed back, pushed to the side and I know like clock work, they will come back in 6 months and ask for the same thing they were previously presented with. by that time, something has slipped through the cracks and/or fell apart because they neglected to consider and expanse of relative variables. This is what "profit only", "credit seeking only" and such mentality frequently generates.

I personally think, NO ONE should be given a Master Degree in Anything, until they have actually been in the real life field and performed for a period of time, and we can be ambiguous about what that time frame is, but for the sake of standardization in Academia... one should have no less than one year, in the actual work field of the profession they seek to be accredited with a Master Degree.

Even when it comes to what is a Doctor, the frame still applies they are PRACTICING medicine, now by that it is two fold, Practice in Learning, and in another context is the Practice of Application. NO Doctors are given Residency, because they graduated Medical school.. they must go through the Practice of Learning in a Real world environment, and they must Practice the Application within a real world environment and this is done use the stewardship of a seasoned professional.

Today, they sell degree online like selling something on a commercial website.

The system has degraded the value of an AA degree, and did severe damage to the BA/BS... because its more profitable to sell the Master Degree.

There are places that ask for a BA/BS for people to perform the job of Office Assistant and Administrative Assistant, both in some aspects are relegated to secretarial functions and basic data entry. We've had summer interns some (high school and high school new graduates) whom we could show process during a summer term and they could perform those rudimentary task.

TheEconomist said:

I am all for talking about content. My problem is strictly limited to people who throw around insults without substance.



I understand that you have a problem with handing out funds without strings attached. However, the strings attached sound peculiarly troubling to me. In fact, the most objectionable part of your entire exposé are those strings. It's one thing to hand out money and say it has to be used to groceries. It's another to tell people what they can and cannot buy in the grocery store. Autonomy has consequences, but why would experts in Washington decide for masses of people what is an acceptable compromise between health and taste?

Click to expand...

You missed the point.. I spoke of "Nutrition".... now think in the expanse of the medical cost in later years due to poor nutritional diet... Now, look at the element of "obesity" in America, Obesity is common, serious, and costly we should not be callous to ignore these variables.

Now, I do know that people complain about EBT Card Users but I also know many small business are still in business because of EBT Card User..

I also addressed reference to "points of purchase"..
My issue is the fact that one can buy soda in qty at the grocery store for a lower unit cost, and buy chips in quantity at the grocery store for a lower unit cost... this is far more economical than they can buy these things at a gas station convenience store. The point also is inclusive of "getting value for the public dollars"... it is relative to budget management, even if it is EBT dollars that are being spent.

RealityNow said:

No one can say all things to the left are negative

Click to expand...

if so why are you so afraid to give us the best example of something positive on the left? What do you learn from your fear??

TheEconomist said:

If you want to get the government involved in anything, you do face major design problems. Setting those problems aside for a minute, we can look at the rules and protocols you mention.

I never heard of people agonizing over the fact their desk neighbor did not follow the sometimes ludicrous tedium of internal policies. On the other hand, everyone knows about how protocols designed by HR departments can turn an entire business into a soul-crushing tyranny. It's true that this can happen in public, as well as private organizations. A case in point is Google. Apparently, you cannot even write a private email to a colleague pointing out hard facts and published research which suggest that men and women are not the same without being fired. Human resources departments by now have grown into such fright over lawsuits that I am sure people are afraid to speak their minds and to behave like normal human beings. Netflix, for example, has a rule saying that you cannot gaze into the eyes of a person of the other sex for more than 5 seconds. Others have rules against hugs.

Codifying things makes them rigid, dead. Some of it is necessary and it can be useful, but that's something we want to minimize, not something we want to enforce with an iron fist -- not that I am saying you are taking this position either.

Click to expand...

When people understand rules and guidelines, they also will understand the element of "variance"... and what is allowable based on factors. as to guidelines; guidelines are guidelines... they are not hard forced, because they allow variance. It becomes rigid when people don't truly understand the rules and the guidelines in proper perspective and contextual construct and functional intentions.

I write some policy at work; what generate some of that policy is the acts and conduct of people... who may cause harm or pose variable risk to others, the operations, the resources and assets, and generally it is some act that brings the attention to the need to establish policy.
Human Diversity "of Person as Individual"... is a very real element!!!

Our Government does not make policy or regulation lightly, (at least in past Administration it did not) It utilized the knowledge base within divisions, agencies, departments and organizations both public and private. Most people don't have the patience to actually read "government documentations".

Much of this Left - Right Political Party Wrangling, is more about people "trying to keep a seat on the gravy train" than to perform the public service they were elected to do.

We see them tack things on to must do "bills", to get it passed when it has not direct relevancy to the bill on the table. this level of collusive madness, is where we see much of the "waste generated"... because things tacked onto bills, that are not directly relevant to the bill... escapes the scrutiny that it should command, before being passed.

Our society is not as politicized as one might think... No doctor ask what political party one is, no person in a loan administration that is engaged in fair lending practices, ask a person what their political party is. No one ask people what their political party is when they apply for public assistance, or pursue a government grant or a government contract. The grocery store does not care what a persons political party is, and people don't need to speak of their political affiliation when buying gas, or the car the gas goes in. I've yet to see a store that has a sign that requires a specific political party to enter and purchase their goods.
Most of this Right - Left... Liberal - Conservative is generated by incomplete awareness and limited knowledge of what bills or measure is being put on the table. People have been groomed to go with the "commercial promotion of the hubris of political party games", played out by the same people whom are elected with the expectation they will NOT make such a game out of what they were elected to do".
I don't give much attention to Political Ad's during campaign season... I READ!!!! And then I want to hear what the individual has to specifically say!!! I don't need these "talk a thon" that promote pundits on a revolving cycle to tell me how to interpret what I have already read, and will go and read.

MANY People on many jobs, don't read their HR Rules and Regulations, they don't read the Administrative Procedures of the entity they work for, and they don't read the Safety and Loss Prevention Manual and they don't read Policies, nor do they read the executive orders that are issued... and when it comes to public work in municipalities, people don't read the code of ordinances, and they certainly don't read the State Laws and Statues... they just go on the "gut" of what they personally like or dislike and the spin they can attach themselves to about their likes or dislikes.

James972 said:

if so why are you so afraid to give us the best example of something positive on the left? What do you learn from your fear??

Click to expand...

I wont engage that spin attempt, you read and decide for yourself. besides nothing I could or would say would change or alter your preconcieved concepts anyway.

Here's the Canididates Positions

Political positions of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidates - Wikipedia

Here's the Democratic Platform

The issues - Democrats