I am not pessimistic about the future of our country.
The younger generation is better at telling facts from opinions.
I am not pessimistic about the future of our country.
The younger generation is better at telling facts from opinions.
No lefty me wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
We have a problem here in the US, because really no more than 33% of our citizenry needs to be going to college. We need to make sure that trade schools and technical schools are funded and that their attendees are respected. We also will always have a need for people in the service industry, and they need to be respected also.
Agree, except I would amend this to "no more than 33% of our citizenry needs to be going to four-year college." Many community colleges provide an affordable opportunity to learn exactly the trades and technical skills that you advocate.
This was actually one of the points of the book "The Bell Curve" from ~25 years ago: that all work contributes to the community and that it should be valued by everyone. I, for one, occasionally and randomly thank people who are doing work well, particularly (though not only) lower-status work. (This impulse may stem from the years that I worked in such jobs.) Particularly nowadays, when customer-facing service people are literally putting their health on the line to do their jobs, I think they deserve gratitude and respect.
They deserve a living wage, not just the paltry minimum wage set by the federal govt.
seattle prattle wrote:
No lefty me wrote:
Agree, except I would amend this to "no more than 33% of our citizenry needs to be going to four-year college." Many community colleges provide an affordable opportunity to learn exactly the trades and technical skills that you advocate.
This was actually one of the points of the book "The Bell Curve" from ~25 years ago: that all work contributes to the community and that it should be valued by everyone. I, for one, occasionally and randomly thank people who are doing work well, particularly (though not only) lower-status work. (This impulse may stem from the years that I worked in such jobs.) Particularly nowadays, when customer-facing service people are literally putting their health on the line to do their jobs, I think they deserve gratitude and respect.
They deserve a living wage, not just the paltry minimum wage set by the federal govt.
Quite possibly. But the minimum wage concept is not a very good way to go about it. If "society" believes that everyone deserves a certain level of income then society should provide it - not warp the workings of the marketplace to only partially accomplish the goal by placing a minimum level of pay for work.
Real Obvi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
They deserve a living wage, not just the paltry minimum wage set by the federal govt.
Quite possibly. But the minimum wage concept is not a very good way to go about it. If "society" believes that everyone deserves a certain level of income then society should provide it - not warp the workings of the marketplace to only partially accomplish the goal by placing a minimum level of pay for work.
There is already a minimum wage so the government is already going about it. Nothing new there. The problem is that it has not even come close to keeping pace with inflation and rise in the cost of living.
The funniest thing right now is watching Sally Vix ask flagpole questions and try so desperately to get him to interact with him, but flagpole ignores. SV seeking attention like a dog and flagpole refuses to give it. Hahahahahahahaha!
This sums up the Dems' problem, from my point of view. They are terrible at politics and the Rs are good at politics.
Dem policies are usually favored over R policies, but the Dems get shot in the back by AOC types. And can't message their way out of a paper bag.
///
The Democrats may be capable of developing good policies, but they stink at communicating them. Carefully worded polling often shows that a majority agree with Democratic proposals to combat systemic racism, address income disparity and reform the health care reimbursement system. But when the masses hear “Defund the Police,” “Occupy Wall Street” and “Medicare for All,” they recoil.
As a liberal living in a small town in Michigan, I can attest that no amount of patient explanation of the actual policy proposals overcomes the impressions left by these sadly worded slogans.
The best thing Democrats could do is stick with their ideas and hire the Lincoln Project folks to sell them. The slick and glitzy slogans that appeal to parts of the coasts may be cool, but they don’t play in Peoria.
No lefty me wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
We have a problem here in the US, because really no more than 33% of our citizenry needs to be going to college. We need to make sure that trade schools and technical schools are funded and that their attendees are respected. We also will always have a need for people in the service industry, and they need to be respected also.
Agree, except I would amend this to "no more than 33% of our citizenry needs to be going to four-year college." Many community colleges provide an affordable opportunity to learn exactly the trades and technical skills that you advocate.
Yes, I agree...I consider "college" to be a 4-year degree. I do realize though that technically a 2-year degree is "college". I was WRONG to not be more clear. For that, I apologize unreservedly.
Smart Poster wrote:
SV seeking attention like a dog and flagpole refuses to give it.
If *everyone* declined to give attention to trolls like SV, TU, and dr (yes, and others), the board would be improved.
Whatever his faults, FP is not an actual troll. It's possible to be annoying without trolling (I've managed it myself).
Smart Poster wrote:
The funniest thing right now is watching Sally Vix ask flagpole questions and try so desperately to get him to interact with him, but flagpole ignores. SV seeking attention like a dog and flagpole refuses to give it. Hahahahahahahaha!
Boomerang wh0re
agip wrote:
This sums up the Dems' problem, from my point of view. They are terrible at politics and the Rs are good at politics.
Dem policies are usually favored over R policies, but the Dems get shot in the back by AOC types. And can't message their way out of a paper bag.
///
The Democrats may be capable of developing good policies, but they stink at communicating them. Carefully worded polling often shows that a majority agree with Democratic proposals to combat systemic racism, address income disparity and reform the health care reimbursement system. But when the masses hear “Defund the Police,” “Occupy Wall Street” and “Medicare for All,” they recoil.
As a liberal living in a small town in Michigan, I can attest that no amount of patient explanation of the actual policy proposals overcomes the impressions left by these sadly worded slogans.
The best thing Democrats could do is stick with their ideas and hire the Lincoln Project folks to sell them. The slick and glitzy slogans that appeal to parts of the coasts may be cool, but they don’t play in Peoria.
They can’t win either way because as much as the population is more educated than ever is seems to be getting dumber and the social media trap is stitching the all the stupidity and disinformation together. What does it matter if a Dem policy is well reasoned, gets implemented, is proven to work, but then comes mr dumba$$ trump and with a simple word salad makes up the minds of millions that we should destroy that policy? The problem with Democrats is that they are Democrats. When they start appealing to the lowest common denominator they will start winning more. And to appeal to them you have to dumb down your ideas, substance, and execution. It can’t happen unless they break up. In many ways I just don’t think our country can progress much with this two-party system.
Trollminator wrote:
agip wrote:
This sums up the Dems' problem, from my point of view. They are terrible at politics and the Rs are good at politics.
Dem policies are usually favored over R policies, but the Dems get shot in the back by AOC types. And can't message their way out of a paper bag.
///
The Democrats may be capable of developing good policies, but they stink at communicating them. Carefully worded polling often shows that a majority agree with Democratic proposals to combat systemic racism, address income disparity and reform the health care reimbursement system. But when the masses hear “Defund the Police,” “Occupy Wall Street” and “Medicare for All,” they recoil.
As a liberal living in a small town in Michigan, I can attest that no amount of patient explanation of the actual policy proposals overcomes the impressions left by these sadly worded slogans.
The best thing Democrats could do is stick with their ideas and hire the Lincoln Project folks to sell them. The slick and glitzy slogans that appeal to parts of the coasts may be cool, but they don’t play in Peoria.
They can’t win either way because as much as the population is more educated than ever is seems to be getting dumber and the social media trap is stitching the all the stupidity and disinformation together. What does it matter if a Dem policy is well reasoned, gets implemented, is proven to work, but then comes mr dumba$$ trump and with a simple word salad makes up the minds of millions that we should destroy that policy? The problem with Democrats is that they are Democrats. When they start appealing to the lowest common denominator they will start winning more. And to appeal to them you have to dumb down your ideas, substance, and execution. It can’t happen unless they break up. In many ways I just don’t think our country can progress much with this two-party system.
Bingo! Democrats have to find a way to express our ideas as simple slogans for the lowest common denominator. Look at 2016. If you are a low information voter that only watches sports and uses the Internet just to find scores and the weather forecast, then which candidate's slogan was more appealing when you dragged yourself to the polling place: "I'm With Her" or "Make America Great Again"?
Republicans know their audience. They keep it simple and repetitive. Democrats put voters to sleep with long dissertations full of wonky language, logic, and a smarmy "I'm the smartest person in the room" attitude. Save that for the donors! To reach the average American voter, you must distill the message down to stuff like, "You DESERVE the Best Medical Care on Earth!", "Go Green and We Never Fight in The Middle East Again!", or "Freedom and Prosperity Is Not Just for the Super Rich".
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
They can’t win either way because as much as the population is more educated than ever is seems to be getting dumber and the social media trap is stitching the all the stupidity and disinformation together. What does it matter if a Dem policy is well reasoned, gets implemented, is proven to work, but then comes mr dumba$$ trump and with a simple word salad makes up the minds of millions that we should destroy that policy? The problem with Democrats is that they are Democrats. When they start appealing to the lowest common denominator they will start winning more. And to appeal to them you have to dumb down your ideas, substance, and execution. It can’t happen unless they break up. In many ways I just don’t think our country can progress much with this two-party system.
Bingo! Democrats have to find a way to express our ideas as simple slogans for the lowest common denominator. Look at 2016. If you are a low information voter that only watches sports and uses the Internet just to find scores and the weather forecast, then which candidate's slogan was more appealing when you dragged yourself to the polling place: "I'm With Her" or "Make America Great Again"?
Republicans know their audience. They keep it simple and repetitive. Democrats put voters to sleep with long dissertations full of wonky language, logic, and a smarmy "I'm the smartest person in the room" attitude. Save that for the donors! To reach the average American voter, you must distill the message down to stuff like, "You DESERVE the Best Medical Care on Earth!", "Go Green and We Never Fight in The Middle East Again!", or "Freedom and Prosperity Is Not Just for the Super Rich".
I definitely agree with this. I will say though, that SOME people who didn't vote for Biden are at least smart enough to see that old jobs like coal and increasingly oil and gas aren't the future. Biden needs to work especially with states who have lost or will lose these types of jobs to help people find the jobs that replace them.
Biden is doing ONE absolutely brilliant thing right now, and I'm glad he's sincere about it (I would not be on board if I didn't think he was), and that is that he ends every speech with "And may God protect our troops".
It IS hard for Democrats to dumb down. We ARE the party of high education and progressive ideas about jobs and innovation, etc. It IS very hard for us to think on a 6th-grade education level, but I agree that we need to work on doing just that.
I will add that we need to attract more Democrats NOT to retain and expand power, but because our ideals help the most people and help those who need it most. We ARE the party that is on the side of what is right and virtuous.
seattle prattle wrote:
Real Obvi wrote:
Quite possibly. But the minimum wage concept is not a very good way to go about it. If "society" believes that everyone deserves a certain level of income then society should provide it - not warp the workings of the marketplace to only partially accomplish the goal by placing a minimum level of pay for work.
There is already a minimum wage so the government is already going about it. Nothing new there. The problem is that it has not even come close to keeping pace with inflation and rise in the cost of living.
Ummm . . . no. The government is currently warping the marketplace to only partially accomplish the goal. So no, the government is not "going about it." Or at least, not going about it in a sensible way.
Smart Poster wrote:
The funniest thing right now is watching Sally Vix ask flagpole questions and try so desperately to get him to interact with him, but flagpole ignores. SV seeking attention like a dog and flagpole refuses to give it. Hahahahahahahaha!
You are Flagpole. It is embarrassing to witness your terribly pathetic attempts to pretend otherwise.
Just Wundrin wrote:
Smart Poster wrote:
The funniest thing right now is watching Sally Vix ask flagpole questions and try so desperately to get him to interact with him, but flagpole ignores. SV seeking attention like a dog and flagpole refuses to give it. Hahahahahahahaha!
You are Flagpole. It is embarrassing to witness your terribly pathetic attempts to pretend otherwise.
Nope, that person is not me.
WEJO, DO AN IP CHECK, AND IF I AM THE SAME POSTER AS SMART POSTER, BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This would be a good start.
“First, an amendment should work against conflicts of interest by making the disclosure of tax returns well before Election Day an eligibility requirement for federal offices. And it should expand the Constitution's emoluments clause, which bars the president from accepting gifts or favors from foreign states, to explicitly include the president and his or her immediate family, and cover businesses held directly and indirectly.
The amendment should replace the Office of Government Ethics with a new entity that's responsible jointly to the president and both houses of Congress, charged not only with establishing ethics regulations but also with suspending officials who violate them. It should institutionalize the independence of the Justice Department by making the attorney general an officer who serves at the pleasure of both the president and Congress, thereby ensuring that attorneys general would not be able to do active harm for very long.
Finally, the amendment should prevent presidents from pardoning themselves, their families, their staffs and campaign officials, and perhaps even major donors to their campaigns. It should eliminate the ability to grant pardons between Election Day and the beginning of the next presidential term.“