Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Jo R. wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

If the truth insults them, then it does.

I agree that a lot leave for reasons other than lack of intelligence or potential, but MOST do not. MOST leave because they are not well suited to be college students, they gave it a shot at the Community College because it was cheap, and then the discovered they couldn't hack it.

The biggest areas of need are jobs that do not require a college degree. Service industry, electricians, manufacturing, skilled trades, etc.

There are other areas too, but you can't just create college-educated people out of nothing.

Like I have said, I would be all for FREE trade schools, free truck driving certification, government-paid apprenticeships. I am not for the government spending tax dollars on free 4-year college educations...there are just too many ways for people to go to college already that doesn't destroy them financially, and it will just bring in more people who have no business going to college.

Not sure why this offends you, but that most recent stat is that 69.7% of American high school students go to college. That is too high a percentage. That many students are not equipped to go to college. Community Colleges around the country and some low-tier colleges accept really bad students who have next to no chance of getting through with a degree. Free college would create even more of them.

One of the worst colleges in Ohio is Shawnee State University. It has a graduation rate of 29.7%. That is abysmal. More than 7 in 10 go there, pay money to attend for X amount of time and never get a degree. Free college will bring more of those kinds of students into it. Throwing money down the toilet.

There IS an argument to be made that if college students didn't have to pay back loans that they would spend more money on goods and services thus priming the economy. Maybe. Lenders and all their employees would miss out though.

We don't need an influx of bad students trying to get college degrees just because it's free.

You are either an idiot or a troll. There are no other choices.

Sally Vix wrote:

I am sure Fat Hurts will be on board with this latest change from what was originally Global Warming (actually Global Cooling was the first great hoax) to the change to Climate Change when the Earth quit warming around the late '90s and now to the following since "Climate Change was not scary enough of a hoax:

Global Warming and Climate Collapse.

Read and weep:

Climate change alarmists are pushing for a change in vocabulary to scare people into taking global warming more seriously, starting with terms like “global meltdown” and “climate collapse.”

Writing for AdAge this week, Aaron Hall argues that in order to get people to “take action” against climate change, “rebranding” is crucial, since people have gotten too used to the idea that climate is changing and need to be shocked into the notion that the world as we know it is ending.

“Is there a better way to convey the urgency of the situation, while also encouraging folks to take action? Could the tools of branding and brand naming create a more resonant, powerful name?” Mr. Hall asks.

What he and his marketing team came up with was a series of much more frightening labels to stick on climate change in the hope of jolting people into meaningful engagement.

The terms “Global Meltdown” or “Global Melting,” for instance, deliver a more negative image than mere “Global Warming,” he contends. “The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind — that real feeling of ‘melting’ when it’s too hot outside. A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global destruction.”

“Climate Collapse” and “Climate Chaos,” on the other hand, “instill a clear message or even a direct call to action,” Hall notes, adding that “there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos.”

To up the rhetoric even more, Hall proposes the weaponized term “Scorched Earth.”

“Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don’t take massive action now, Earth will be uninhabitable — an irreversible barren wasteland,” he insists. “‘Scorched Earth’ paints the direst picture of what’s to come and what we must avoid and is likely the edgiest brand name from our exploration.”

“Whatever we call it, impending climate doom is upon us if we don’t act quickly,” Hall concludes. “Perhaps a new name will shift the needle, even if just a little.”

Mr. Hall’s contention that it does not matter if what is said is true as long as it elicits the necessary response is reminiscent of similar assertions by leaders of the Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement.

Spokespersons of the movement have acknowledged that their claims that billions of people are going to die from climate change have no basis whatsoever in scientific fact but are necessary to provoke the kind of response that is needed to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

Pressed last month on what the basis was for predictions of mass deaths, XR spokesperson Zion Lights acknowledged there is no real ground for these predictions, but contended that such incendiary language is necessary to motivate people, confessing that “alarmist language works.”

While it is clearly true that “alarmist language works” in some cases, it is also true that people tend to resent being lied to and manipulated.

Like Aesop’s fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, climate alarmists may wake up one fine day to find that nobody believes them anymore.

Such is the price of lying.

Troll alert! wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I am sure Fat Hurts will be on board with this latest change from what was originally Global Warming (actually Global Cooling was the first great hoax) to the change to Climate Change when the Earth quit warming around the late '90s and now to the following since "Climate Change was not scary enough of a hoax:

Global Warming and Climate Collapse.

Read and weep:

Climate change alarmists are pushing for a change in vocabulary to scare people into taking global warming more seriously, starting with terms like “global meltdown” and “climate collapse.”

Writing for AdAge this week, Aaron Hall argues that in order to get people to “take action” against climate change, “rebranding” is crucial, since people have gotten too used to the idea that climate is changing and need to be shocked into the notion that the world as we know it is ending.

“Is there a better way to convey the urgency of the situation, while also encouraging folks to take action? Could the tools of branding and brand naming create a more resonant, powerful name?” Mr. Hall asks.

What he and his marketing team came up with was a series of much more frightening labels to stick on climate change in the hope of jolting people into meaningful engagement.

The terms “Global Meltdown” or “Global Melting,” for instance, deliver a more negative image than mere “Global Warming,” he contends. “The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind — that real feeling of ‘melting’ when it’s too hot outside. A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global destruction.”

“Climate Collapse” and “Climate Chaos,” on the other hand, “instill a clear message or even a direct call to action,” Hall notes, adding that “there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos.”

To up the rhetoric even more, Hall proposes the weaponized term “Scorched Earth.”

“Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don’t take massive action now, Earth will be uninhabitable — an irreversible barren wasteland,” he insists. “‘Scorched Earth’ paints the direst picture of what’s to come and what we must avoid and is likely the edgiest brand name from our exploration.”

“Whatever we call it, impending climate doom is upon us if we don’t act quickly,” Hall concludes. “Perhaps a new name will shift the needle, even if just a little.”

Mr. Hall’s contention that it does not matter if what is said is true as long as it elicits the necessary response is reminiscent of similar assertions by leaders of the Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement.

Spokespersons of the movement have acknowledged that their claims that billions of people are going to die from climate change have no basis whatsoever in scientific fact but are necessary to provoke the kind of response that is needed to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

Pressed last month on what the basis was for predictions of mass deaths, XR spokesperson Zion Lights acknowledged there is no real ground for these predictions, but contended that such incendiary language is necessary to motivate people, confessing that “alarmist language works.”

While it is clearly true that “alarmist language works” in some cases, it is also true that people tend to resent being lied to and manipulated.

Like Aesop’s fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, climate alarmists may wake up one fine day to find that nobody believes them anymore.

Such is the price of lying.

Shut up Troll!

Fat hurts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Free college doesn't help poor people be able to go to college (well, anymore than anyone else). There are already tons of ways for poor people to go to college for little to no cost. What it does is it pays for college for people who will eventually make more than non college-educated people.

The other thing it does is it further divides us...college-educated vs. not. Doesn't matter than some trade schools will be able to be paid for also. Warren and Sanders keep harping on it because of huge "college debt". We all know what that means. Further marginalizing those who don't get a 4-year degree.

Studies show that poor college students often drop out because they are only a few hundred dollars short. Warren and Sanders "Free college" programs would make a huge difference for them by covering books, meals, and housing. Today, it's a hodgepodge of different programs and scholarships that may or may not cover everything.

As I've pointed out before, both Warren and Sanders have technical/vocational school as part of their plans. Warren and Sanders led the effort to reauthorize the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Law that funds these schools and there is no reason to believe they would withdraw their support if elected.

A "free college" program will almost certainly have a mechanism to make sure that students who get the financial assistance are qualified to do the classwork in the school they plan to attend. Other nations who have this kind of program usually have rigorous entrance requirements. The Warren and Sanders plans might go a long way toward solving the very problems you are complaining about.

The thing you really need to criticize is that the proposed plans don't yet spell out how a student would qualify for the money. Until we know that, your other criticisms are premature.

Sally Vix wrote:

I am sure Fat Hurts will be on board with this latest change from what was originally Global Warming (actually Global Cooling was the first great hoax) to the change to Climate Change when the Earth quit warming around the late '90s and now to the following since "Climate Change was not scary enough of a hoax:

Global Warming and Climate Collapse.

Read and weep:

Climate change alarmists are pushing for a change in vocabulary to scare people into taking global warming more seriously, starting with terms like “global meltdown” and “climate collapse.”

Writing for AdAge this week, Aaron Hall argues that in order to get people to “take action” against climate change, “rebranding” is crucial, since people have gotten too used to the idea that climate is changing and need to be shocked into the notion that the world as we know it is ending.

“Is there a better way to convey the urgency of the situation, while also encouraging folks to take action? Could the tools of branding and brand naming create a more resonant, powerful name?” Mr. Hall asks.

What he and his marketing team came up with was a series of much more frightening labels to stick on climate change in the hope of jolting people into meaningful engagement.

The terms “Global Meltdown” or “Global Melting,” for instance, deliver a more negative image than mere “Global Warming,” he contends. “The names signal that ice caps are melting, but also create a more visceral image in the mind — that real feeling of ‘melting’ when it’s too hot outside. A meltdown is a disastrous event that draws from the ultimate terror of a nuclear meltdown, an apt metaphor for global destruction.”

“Climate Collapse” and “Climate Chaos,” on the other hand, “instill a clear message or even a direct call to action,” Hall notes, adding that “there’s nothing neutral about collapse or chaos.”

To up the rhetoric even more, Hall proposes the weaponized term “Scorched Earth.”

“Sometimes a brand name needs to be hyperbolic to truly capture hearts and minds. If we don’t take massive action now, Earth will be uninhabitable — an irreversible barren wasteland,” he insists. “‘Scorched Earth’ paints the direst picture of what’s to come and what we must avoid and is likely the edgiest brand name from our exploration.”

“Whatever we call it, impending climate doom is upon us if we don’t act quickly,” Hall concludes. “Perhaps a new name will shift the needle, even if just a little.”

Mr. Hall’s contention that it does not matter if what is said is true as long as it elicits the necessary response is reminiscent of similar assertions by leaders of the Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement.

Spokespersons of the movement have acknowledged that their claims that billions of people are going to die from climate change have no basis whatsoever in scientific fact but are necessary to provoke the kind of response that is needed to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

Pressed last month on what the basis was for predictions of mass deaths, XR spokesperson Zion Lights acknowledged there is no real ground for these predictions, but contended that such incendiary language is necessary to motivate people, confessing that “alarmist language works.”

While it is clearly true that “alarmist language works” in some cases, it is also true that people tend to resent being lied to and manipulated.

Like Aesop’s fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, climate alarmists may wake up one fine day to find that nobody believes them anymore.

Such is the price of lying.