The New American Politics thread

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Oh, I don't know... maybe the people who have said "I would vote for Michelle" after her speech?

Oooh, you got me... you got me good.

I still stand by that statement made earlier. If MO ran for PM here, carried similar policies as what her husband has proposed, heck yeah I would vote for her.

Unfortunately, I got pretty caught up on that amazing speech. I made a statement quickly without going into detail. Such is the medium.

But good on you for keeping me on my toes. You really got me.

[Drak]

On the other hand, politicians still work with their speech writers (mostly). The speeches are keyed to the politician who has to approve and rehearse the speech. It's not just standing up and reading empty words on paper.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Izzle

But good on you for keeping me on my toes. You really got me.

Yeah... because that's what I was trying to do. Didn't even correlate that it was you that made that statement - that's how much it matters to me. Touchy much?

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I didn't realize so many people think the primary qualification for being a government leader is giving good speeches. People realize these things are usually written by speech-writers, right?

I don't know if I'd say it's the primary qualification, but I think it's a pretty important one. This person will be the face of the your country. I want someone who can give a good, strong impression.

[GirlySports]

i still can't get my head around free college for kids whose parents make under 125K. That doesn't even qualify you for a loan here.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

i still can't get my head around free college for kids whose parents make under 125K. That doesn't even qualify you for a loan here.

Do you realize how much more tuition costs at an even half-decent school in the US?

Also, the income tests in Canada probably need updating too. But the cost of university in the US is out of control.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think subsidizing college, even making it free, for programs where jobs are in need (trades, accountants, nurses etc...) isn't that bad an idea. Graduates in theory will pay higher than average tax bills since these are good income earning jobs, and areas of need are filled. But yeah someone who wants to take say sociology should have to pay the full load, no offense sociology students.

[GirlySports]

subsidizing yes, scholarships yes, free no.
But his argument is that free school will get the poor kid in. That's not true.
I've seen this in Asia. Highly competitive affordable schools creates a different underground market for elites.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Oh, I don't know... maybe the people who have said "I would vote for Michelle" after her speech?

There's also the fact that she graduated from Princeton and Harvard and is the most educated First Lady of all time, also she is actually has a degree in law--which is a hell of a lot more than the current GOP candidate can claim.

The fact that she's also exudes class, is incredibly articulate, and managed 8 years in the White House without a single scandal is pretty impressive as well. She has also made her platform as a First Lady championing causes of health and nutrition (which is clearly needed in this country), as well as equality for girls and women the world over re: education. She's been an extremely impressive First Lady.

She can give an incredible speech, but that's far from the only reason I'd love to vote for her someday.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think subsidizing college, even making it free, for programs where jobs are in need (trades, accountants, nurses etc...) isn't that bad an idea. Graduates in theory will pay higher than average tax bills since these are good income earning jobs, and areas of need are filled. But yeah someone who wants to take say sociology should have to pay the full load, no offense sociology students.

As others have pointed out in the past a) the world needs sociologists and b) BA programs are generally less expensive to run and subsidize the costs of more expensive science programs. I think it might make sense to put caps on certain programs and raise the admission standards for them so as to not end up with a saturation problem, but if the problem is too many people getting BAs and then not finding work I don't think the solution is to provide incentive for people to saturate a different field.

[jammies]

Will Bill be First Dude?

Or First Lord, which I suppose is the equivalent of Lady. Now there's a kick in the teeth to the Constitution. Maybe they can buy Trump off with a peerage and have him retire to one of the colonies in Central America so that he goes away after the election.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[CliffFletcher]

The problem with subsidizing post-secondary education even more is that it doesn't address the real problem, which is the skyrocketing cost. Why, as access and enrollment has increased, has the cost risen at twice the rate of inflation for three decades now?

With the technology we have today, we can deliver post-secondary education far cheaper than we do. Why do we need to cram 300+ students into a hall to listen to a lecture from a professor who doesn't especially like to present lectures, when the same content could be delivered digitally when and where the student wants? Why are we stuck in a model of delivering education that has scarcely changed in 100 years?

Universities and colleges are one of the only institutions to have resisted the innovation and disruption of technology. I can't see them holding out much longer. Let's use technology to dramatically reduce costs instead of using money to prop up an anachronistic system.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The problem with subsidizing post-secondary education even more is that it doesn't address the real problem, which is the skyrocketing cost. Why, as access and enrollment has increased, has the cost risen at twice the rate of inflation for three decades now?

With the technology we have today, we can deliver post-secondary education far cheaper than we do. Why do we need to cram 300+ students into a hall to listen to a lecture from a professor who doesn't especially like to present lectures, when the same content could be delivered digitally when and where the student wants? Why are we stuck in a model of delivering education that has scarcely changed in 100 years?

Universities and colleges are one of the only institutions to have resisted the innovation and disruption of technology. I can't see them holding out much longer. Let's use technology to dramatically reduce costs instead of using money to prop up an anachronistic system.

I've finished a half dozen certs and courses online in the last few years almost entirely online. I would be shocked if many courses students are taking nowadays aren't at least 80% online.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The problem with subsidizing post-secondary education even more is that it doesn't address the real problem, which is the skyrocketing cost. Why, as access and enrollment has increased, has the cost risen at twice the rate of inflation for three decades now?

With the technology we have today, we can deliver post-secondary education far cheaper than we do. Why do we need to cram 300+ students into a hall to listen to a lecture from a professor who doesn't especially like to present lectures, when the same content could be delivered digitally when and where the student wants? Why are we stuck in a model of delivering education that has scarcely changed in 100 years?

Universities and colleges are one of the only institutions to have resisted the innovation and disruption of technology. I can't see them holding out much longer. Let's use technology to dramatically reduce costs instead of using money to prop up an anachronistic system.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I've finished a half dozen certs and courses online in the last few years almost entirely online. I would be shocked if many courses students are taking nowadays aren't at least 80% online.

Education without interaction is mostly meaningless. I think there are good cases to be made for online/virtual education, but a big part of higher education is learning how to work with other people, navigate other cultures, etc.

Technology has already made us more isolated. I'd hate to see us reduce the idea of higher education to sitting in front of a computer more.

[Flash Walken]

Bizarre time to be alive. Technological miracle era where a bunch of cromagnons and clones debate the importance of education to society.

As if western society, the wealthiest and most productive it has ever been can't afford to keep tuitions affordable, as if the two things aren't linked.

[Street Pharmacist]

For those saying they'd vote for Trump to screw Hillary I'd like to hear a response to these:

https://m.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSp...t&compact=true

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

For those saying they'd vote for Trump to screw Hillary I'd like to hear a response to these:

https://m.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSp...t&compact=true

I don't care what you say, my face is a stupid and this nose is getting cut off to spite it.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by jammies

Will Bill be First Dude?

Or First Lord, which I suppose is the equivalent of Lady. Now there's a kick in the teeth to the Constitution. Maybe they can buy Trump off with a peerage and have him retire to one of the colonies in Central America so that he goes away after the election.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

I'm actually pretty interested to see what he will do. It is another 'first' for the U.S. if they elect Hillary, there has never been a husband occupying what has always been the First Lady's role.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

I'm actually pretty interested to see what he will do. It is another 'first' for the U.S. if they elect Hillary, there has never been a husband occupying what has always been the First Lady's role.

It's Bill we are talking about, don't you mean 'who' ?

[Itse]

Ran into this on Facebook. Not the worst argument.