kibitzer wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Free college is not a good idea for many reasons, but one of those reasons is it unintentionally diminishes those who don't go to college. We should actively value those who do not go to college. If a Democrat President or Democrat presidential candidate would actively seek to embrace the non-college educated crowd and consistently tell them how much we value what they do, that would go a long way toward fixing their disenfranchisement.
Well, shucks, here I am agreeing with FP. Will wonders never cease.
The major thesis of "The Bell Curve" (subsequently drowned out by discussions of its secondary data about racial disparities) is that Americans are increasingly being stratified/segregated by intelligence and its proxies, particularly levels of education. And one of its prescriptions was that people, especially those in the upper strata of education, needed to value the work of *everyone*.
That may be easier for those of us who have families with widely varying education attainments (from not finishing high school to doctorates), but, as the book pointed out, such families--and friendship circles--are increasingly rare, and everyone, especially the so-called elites, needs to make a *conscious* effort to look for and appreciate the contributions that are made by all.
Agreeing with me is always the correct thing to do.
We have too many people going to college today as it is (I don't consider anything less than a Bachelor's Degree to be "college"). We already have cheap ways of going to college -- live at home, go part time while you work, start off at a Community College, get scholarships based on need or achievement. All of us rely on people who did not go to college. Many of them work hard, and have great skill and pride in what they do. Society should value them more.
L L wrote:
If you want help non college educated workers, raising minimum wage would help.
Especially in the south where the state minimum equals the federal minimum.
The rate was last raised in 2009.
Since the 2010 midterms, Republicans have had the majority in either the House or Senate and have blocked an increase ever since.
If you want to help them, you provide better healthcare.
If you want to help them, you provide better social security benefits.
If you want to help them, you provide better welfare in tough times.
The idea that Republicans care more about non college educated workers is ludicrous.
I agree 100%.
Dr. Racket wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
So I think it's all environmental. I am driven to be better than those around me, to complete more tasks, etc. I also don't care about "things" so much.
That's the point - whatever you value most, you tend to want more of it than your neighbors. If you lack it (whatever it may be), then you tend to be less happy (and remember this can occur on a long scale - "less happy" can mean 90/100).
And consider this - for most people, wealth is a gateway to other highly valued things. Perhaps you don't value money, but money (in America at least) provides access to better security, education, health, time, etc.
There is also the case where your neighbor buy something really expensive and showy to prove they are "better", and then go cheap on something then complain if spent more than they did not something that is not showy.
In our case, a single retired neighbor, with a fat retirement, bought two renovated two vintage 50s cars, each worth over $50k, to go along with his $100k monster truck and a Mini Cooper. One guy, four cars.
People in the community have been replacing failing cooper plumbing. He choose the cheapest solution (existing pipe coating with a life of 5-8 years) at the cost of $4500. We did a PEX repipe and added hot water recirculation. Our cost was $14,000, and the life expectancy of the piping is 40 years. He told or immediate next door neighbor how stupid we were so spend so much money when it could be done cheaper. He has no heirs, so doesn't care about long term future. Our daughter gets our home, so we cared about how she would have to deal with pipe leak issues.
ndeisn wrote:
This has been interesting. My best white friend and I have stopped talking post-insurrection. He’s upset. He’s a huge Trump loyalist and I’ve been riding him hard the last year or so, but we always just move on. But something has changed. He works for a Christian institution and is the epitome of white supremacy etc. but is in a leadership position. He really thought Jan 6 was going to be the truth. I’m giving him his space but he hasn’t called or texted since. Sad friends for 20 years.
So, your friend is a moron. I'm curious though...did he have that opinion just because he believed in Trump, or is he a Qanon nut? I suppose also he might have thought God was behind Trump and because of that Trump would be victorious. There are a LOT of Christians who believed that nonsense.
The dead policeman is a necessary casualty to the rioters. The dead rioter is their martyr. Both military veterans. Both Trump supporters. The Trump rioters are mentally ill.
agip wrote:
Ah, people.
So amusing.
https://twitter.com/jamisonfoser/status/1347942025157505024?s=21
This is how I read your post:
Republicans are better at lying about how they will be better for the working class.
agip wrote:
oc local wrote:
Sally? Again?
it's going to be very hard and probably impossible to prove that Trump told the crowd to overrun the capitol building. Trump did not do that.
Rudy did recommend violence tho, so he could be legal hot water.
But trump...not so much.
Trump always stays away from directly telling anyone to do anything. Michael Cohen said the same thing. So, no, Trump did not say "go break into the Capitol." He fed them lies for 2 months though about there being massive voter fraud and that he was the rightful winner, and I do think it's possible for reasonable people to look at what Trump DID say right before they marched to the Capitol and conclude he incited the riot. He fed them lies, he said he would never concede,
he vilianized anyone who said the election was fair, he invited them all to DC, and then he lied to them one more time that he would march to the Capitol with them as he told them "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness". He absolutely gave them permission to do what they did. He yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. 5 people died as a result. He should be removed from office immediately. He should be prosecuted.
L L wrote:
This is how I read your post:
Republicans are better at lying about how they will be better for the working class.
That is true, yes. The reason that lie worked so well in 2016 though is because Democrats HAVE taken the working class vote for granted for all the reasons I stated. Just like in a marriage, you don't just rely on a spouse or think in your head that you love and appreciate them. Gotta tell them too.
agip wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
That sounds great on a bumper sticker, but c'mon man.
You want everyone in your circle to be more or as successful as you. It's difficult for some of us, but it does keep you working toward greater goals if everyone you know is successful. Keeping up with the Jones's is not always a bad thing.
huh? It makes people absolutely miserable when people in your circle are more successful than you. People HATE that.
The best advice is to move into a neighborhood where you are slightly richer than anyone else. Otherwise you will be unhappy when others get new cars you can't afford or go on vacations.
Hmm...if you are someone who doesn't care about keeping up with the Joneses, it's best to barely be able to buy the cheapest house in a great neighborhood. I'm not in that situation currently, but I might be if I move to Calabassas, CA which is one of my places I might retire to. I couldn't care less what anyone else drives. I DO care about where they go on vacation, but that's because that topic interests me, and I just might go there too if it sounds interesting enough.
agip wrote:
actually that's teh wrong link.
Correct link:
https://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/happiness-richer-than-neighbors/
I think this is unfortunately true for almost everyone. I personally could not care less. I have never felt jealousy over what other people have that I don't -- well, not as an adult...when I was a kid, I wanted an Atari, and my parents would not get us one. My friend Mike had one, and I was jealous.
I have always just strived for things that make me happy...the house I want, the wife I want, the cars I want, the fact that I have no debt that I want, and the fact I could retire now if I wanted to, and I likely will in 18-24 months while still in my mid 50s. Envision the life YOU want and then put things in place to make that happen. It's not that hard.
About 15 years ago, the neighbor across the street bought himself a Jaguar. He talked about that car, loved to show it off, and it was a cool looking car for sure, but I didn't want that car for myself and felt no twinge of jealousy. His house was later foreclosed on because he bought things he could not afford.
One of the best lessons in the Bible is to not covet.
oc local wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You seem to have no interest in hearing the actual evidence of Trump's involvement. Your way lets him off the hook.
Nice self-parody post. "Your" actual evidence threshold beyond what the law requires to convict someone.
Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons assembled in a group of at least three people. Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. According to 18 USCS § 2102 "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”
Why go for the minimum? Especially in an impeachment trial.
Dr. Racket wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
Well, shucks, here I am agreeing with FP. Will wonders never cease.
The major thesis of "The Bell Curve" (subsequently drowned out by discussions of its secondary data about racial disparities) is that Americans are increasingly being stratified/segregated by intelligence and its proxies, particularly levels of education. And one of its prescriptions was that people, especially those in the upper strata of education, needed to value the work of *everyone*.
That may be easier for those of us who have families with widely varying education attainments (from not finishing high school to doctorates), but, as the book pointed out, such families--and friendship circles--are increasingly rare, and everyone, especially the so-called elites, needs to make a *conscious* effort to look for and appreciate the contributions that are made by all.
You've all been duped into thinking bachelor's degree holders are anything more than a bunch of crybabies - as if a an undergrad degree proves anything these days lol. Even funnier is the occupational master's degree.
PhD recipients remain the only bastion of truth and honor
Well, a BS or BA doesn't mean what it once did as too many are getting them today, but earning one still makes you a higher earner on average than those who did not earn one. Being educated is never a bad thing. Getting a college education and being around people who are doing the same for 4 years is very beneficial.
Dr. Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
actually that's teh wrong link.
Correct link:
https://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/happiness-richer-than-neighbors/There's more to it than just money. It's essentially a competition to be the most recognized and liked. This can be achieved through wealth, good deeds, inventing new things, etc.
Flagpole for instance flies off the handle in a state of pure rage when I choose to grace him with a response because he cannot accept how intellectually inferior he is to me. Very much the same principal and it's what makes people so incredibly easy to troll.
Pffft! I am not intellectually inferior to anyone here. Spell "principle" correctly the next time you want to dream that you are smarter than I am.
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
it's going to be very hard and probably impossible to prove that Trump told the crowd to overrun the capitol building. Trump did not do that.
Rudy did recommend violence tho, so he could be legal hot water.
But trump...not so much.
Trump always stays away from directly telling anyone to do anything. Michael Cohen said the same thing. So, no, Trump did not say "go break into the Capitol." He fed them lies for 2 months though about there being massive voter fraud and that he was the rightful winner, and I do think it's possible for reasonable people to look at what Trump DID say right before they marched to the Capitol and conclude he incited the riot. He fed them lies, he said he would never concede,
he vilianized anyone who said the election was fair, he invited them all to DC, and then he lied to them one more time that he would march to the Capitol with them as he told them "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness". He absolutely gave them permission to do what they did. He yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. 5 people died as a result. He should be removed from office immediately. He should be prosecuted.
I would add that he lied about Congress, and Pence in particular, having the power to hand him the election. It seemed like they believed they could force Congress to choose Trump.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Trump always stays away from directly telling anyone to do anything. Michael Cohen said the same thing. So, no, Trump did not say "go break into the Capitol." He fed them lies for 2 months though about there being massive voter fraud and that he was the rightful winner, and I do think it's possible for reasonable people to look at what Trump DID say right before they marched to the Capitol and conclude he incited the riot. He fed them lies, he said he would never concede,
he vilianized anyone who said the election was fair, he invited them all to DC, and then he lied to them one more time that he would march to the Capitol with them as he told them "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness". He absolutely gave them permission to do what they did. He yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. 5 people died as a result. He should be removed from office immediately. He should be prosecuted.
I would add that he lied about Congress, and Pence in particular, having the power to hand him the election. It seemed like they believed they could force Congress to choose Trump.
True. There are so many lies just within this one topic for Trump that it's hard to keep them all straight!
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
it's going to be very hard and probably impossible to prove that Trump told the crowd to overrun the capitol building. Trump did not do that.
Rudy did recommend violence tho, so he could be legal hot water.
But trump...not so much.
Trump always stays away from directly telling anyone to do anything. Michael Cohen said the same thing. So, no, Trump did not say "go break into the Capitol." He fed them lies for 2 months though about there being massive voter fraud and that he was the rightful winner, and I do think it's possible for reasonable people to look at what Trump DID say right before they marched to the Capitol and conclude he incited the riot. He fed them lies, he said he would never concede,
he vilianized anyone who said the election was fair, he invited them all to DC, and then he lied to them one more time that he would march to the Capitol with them as he told them "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness". He absolutely gave them permission to do what they did. He yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. 5 people died as a result. He should be removed from office immediately. He should be prosecuted.
You're confusing 'pissing people off' to 'inciting violence.' If the Eagles win the Superbowl and a bunch of fans go out and destroy the city, you don't blame the Eagles you blame the fans because it was their decision. If Trump talks about election fraud and a bunch of pissed off protestors go the capitols and then get escorted in by the police, you don't blame Trump.
You look really desperate trying to say Trump incited violence then can't provide even one quote of him telling someone to commit violence. What Trump did was not incitement, no matter how much you wish it was. You can't incite violence without telling people to commit violence, BY DEFINITION.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Trump always stays away from directly telling anyone to do anything. Michael Cohen said the same thing. So, no, Trump did not say "go break into the Capitol." He fed them lies for 2 months though about there being massive voter fraud and that he was the rightful winner, and I do think it's possible for reasonable people to look at what Trump DID say right before they marched to the Capitol and conclude he incited the riot. He fed them lies, he said he would never concede,
he vilianized anyone who said the election was fair, he invited them all to DC, and then he lied to them one more time that he would march to the Capitol with them as he told them "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness". He absolutely gave them permission to do what they did. He yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. 5 people died as a result. He should be removed from office immediately. He should be prosecuted.
I would add that he lied about Congress, and Pence in particular, having the power to hand him the election. It seemed like they believed they could force Congress to choose Trump.
It was a planned coup attempt (Fat will demand proof). Trumps primary targets were Pence, Pelosi, McConnell, and Schumer. All four are worrisome leaders (Trump agenda obstructions). Eliminate them and force Congress to hand the election to Trump and then force a re-selection of leaders desirable to Trump. The two hour National Guard support delay is worrisome because two hours would have been enough time for the mob to force their way into the Senate chamber, use the zip ties, and drag bad congress people to the hanging platform the rioters prepared.
Congress needs to run an investigation into why, just before the Trump planned protest, the DC National Guard was neutered by Trump's acting Secretary of Defense for a minimum of two hours. This is one link that should concern people more than it has so far about the failed insurrection.
muh gubment wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Trump always stays away from directly telling anyone to do anything. Michael Cohen said the same thing. So, no, Trump did not say "go break into the Capitol." He fed them lies for 2 months though about there being massive voter fraud and that he was the rightful winner, and I do think it's possible for reasonable people to look at what Trump DID say right before they marched to the Capitol and conclude he incited the riot. He fed them lies, he said he would never concede,
he vilianized anyone who said the election was fair, he invited them all to DC, and then he lied to them one more time that he would march to the Capitol with them as he told them "You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness". He absolutely gave them permission to do what they did. He yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. 5 people died as a result. He should be removed from office immediately. He should be prosecuted.
You're confusing 'pissing people off' to 'inciting violence.' If the Eagles win the Superbowl and a bunch of fans go out and destroy the city, you don't blame the Eagles you blame the fans because it was their decision. If Trump talks about election fraud and a bunch of pissed off protestors go the capitols and then get escorted in by the police, you don't blame Trump.
You look really desperate trying to say Trump incited violence then can't provide even one quote of him telling someone to commit violence. What Trump did was not incitement, no matter how much you wish it was. You can't incite violence without telling people to commit violence, BY DEFINITION.
It would be more like the Eagles lost the game, the coach ranted to a bunch of their drunkest fans about how the refs stole the game and then sent them to the referee locker room (just to talk).
Question:
Who came closer to disrupting our democracy, the 9/11 terrorists or the Trump mob?
Might it be the group that siezed the US Capitol and had insiders trying to overturn our presidential election?