Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Bernie is winning the nomination race and here's whyFollow

#402 Apr 20 2016 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Couple of points:

1. You are not likely to ever see that clip since, as I clearly stated in the post, there, it was a radio show. Learn to fucking read.

2. If you are in agreement with his guest that the run-of-the-mill party member need have no say in the primary process, just say so.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#403 Apr 20 2016 at 7:08 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kelv wrote:

So you'd deny a free education to millions just because some people suck at being students?
I would rather provide financial assistance to those who can't afford college but are willing to go to school.
#404 Apr 20 2016 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Every time I hear someone use the term "Grass Roots" I can't help but think the thing they are describing as "Grass Roots" really means "Planted there by someone with money to make their dirt look nice".


If we're talking about grass roots in the suburbs of say San Fransisco, or Chicago, you're probably correct. But in Colorado? Probably actually just some guy with a sign who shows up at all the party meetings and town councils, demanding to have time at the microphone to air his positions, and who operates a fold up table outside with stacks of home printed petitions. There is a very different feel to these sorts of things when we're talking big cities versus what is normally considered "fly over" territory. You can usually tell by whether their signs are all printed on glossy paper and they have professionally made t-shirts with logos and slogans and whatnot on them (that they hand out in the hundreds at each event), versus hand made signs, plain white t-shirts with slogans written in marker, etc.

That's not to say that the true grass roots folks don't exist in more populous areas. They're just outnumbered by the more machine like party structures. Because there's more money involved, if nothing else. It's easy for someone to be heard (and even have influence) at a council meeting in podunkville. There's like 10 people in the room and you're one of them. In a large city? You usually can't get in the door if you don't have the right connections. And the police will make sure to cite you for your folding table and make you pack up before you might accidentally influence anyone's opinions.

Edited, Apr 20th 2016 6:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#405 Apr 20 2016 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Couple of points:

1. You are not likely to ever see that clip since, as I clearly stated in the post, there, it was a radio show. Learn to fucking read.


Um... Ok. Distinction without a difference. I didn't "hear" the clip. Not sure how that changes my assessment one bit though.

Quote:
2. If you are in agreement with his guest that the run-of-the-mill party member need have no say in the primary process, just say so.


Lol. You're channeling Bill O'Reilly now. I'm saying that your assumption is wrong. You get that you just did exactly what I was laughing about dumb journalists doing, right?

Your problem, just as O'Reilly's was, is that you assume that the only "say" a run of the mill member of the party has is when they vote in a statewide primary. Any run of the mill member of the party was free to attend the GOP CO convention, have his say, participate in selecting delegates, etc. He just had to actually choose to do that. Those who showed up and participated got to have a voice. I'm not sure why you think this is unfair.

Your conclusion that the absence of a primary style vote disenfranchised "the people" is based on the assumption that this was the only way they could have a voice in the outcome. Your assumption is wrong. Ergo, your conclusion is wrong. Get it?

Your argument is like saying that the voters have no "say" in laws passed by our legislators, because we don't get to vote directly on the legislation. But we do vote for the legislators. That's our "say" in the process. Same deal here. You go to a caucus in your local county (or whatever geographical region is involved), and vote for your county delegates. Those delegates then go to the state convention and vote for the state delegates that will ultimately be sent to the national convention (and will in turn vote for a nominee). This is how this process works. And there's nothing at all "wrong" or "rigged" about it. It's a very common system that we use all the time for any of a number of different political decisions.

If you think it's wrong to do it that way, then you should also think it's wrong that we use delegates at all. We should just have one big election held nationwide on the first day of the convention (or second, so we can give the candidates a day to give speeches or whatever), and then count up the votes and assign a winner. Why don't we do that? Answer that question, and you'll have also answered why Colorado uses the system they use. Because... It's the same reason. And again, there's nothing at all wrong with it.

Trump's problem is that he doesn't think in terms of delegates actually being people. They're just numbers on a ledger that he needs to accumulate to win. He does poorly in caucus states precisely because they are designed to require the candidate to actually spend time with "the people" and winning their support rather than just showing up at arena size events and giving speeches to try to win votes, before zipping off in a limo to a plane to travel to the next state. And frankly, I have no problem with states requiring candidates who want to win their support actually spending time talking to, and getting to know the people in that state first. And honestly, if he really influenced enough people with his speeches and drive by events, then those people could easily have flocked to their local caucuses, and voted in delegates who would support Trump, who then would have showed up at the state convention in mass numbers, and put their people (his people) in the state delegation. And then he's have "won" the delegates from that state.

He didn't bother to do that. It's unclear if he just didn't understand the process (I suspect that's part of it), or he didn't care to spend that much effort for that number of delegates, but it was ultimately his decision to make. Complaining about it after the fact is childish. Others jumping in to also declare the system "unfair" when they clearly also don't seem to understand the facts is just piling stupidity on top of stupidity. And again, what's so funny about this is that in the last week or so, I've probably seen a half dozen different guests on various shows explain how the system in Colorado works, why it's set up that way, and why it's not unfair at all, only to have the journalists just ignore what they say and repeat the allegation that it's all just so unfair. It's quite clear that the narrative is set, and the journalist's job is to just repeat that narrative over and over. And what's really interesting is that this narrative is operating across all of the news outlets. Doesn't matter if it's Fox, MSNBC, or CNN. They're all doing the same thing. And no, I don't think it's a political slant thing at all. I think it's a "outrage generates media hits" thing. It's only "news" if it appears to be something wrong. If there's "nothing to see here", they lose the story. So it's totally in their interests to hype up the false assumption.

And it's obviously working on enough people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#406 Apr 20 2016 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't really watch any televised news but the print stories I've read have never just said "Colorado is unfair" but rather said that Trump's stance is that Colorado (and other states) are unfair.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#407 Apr 20 2016 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'd argue more work has to be done to provide a useful education, and the apathy would dissolve if the education we were providing was more timely and applicable to their lives, but certainly the $$$ has to factor in somewhere.


Maybe it's because I'm from Baltimore, but I am specifically talking about black inner city kids.. but yes you are correct.. even the primary school system is screwed and that is because there are too many kids that have NO home parenting and that cycle just continues and by the time these kids reach college age they are already in jail or worse... And also I can see the problem with just opening the doors to all colleges and having them overflow with people that will abuse the crap out of it.. However I think that were there actually a way to get rid of at least a fraction of the squandering and mismanagement that such an upgrade to infrastructure would be perfectly viable... Eventually these kids that are in these crappy, overcrowded, mismanaged schools (I'm not going to say under-funded because they get a LOT and seem to do **** all with it)... but these kids will now actually have some light at the end of their tunnel knowing that they could continue to have a life-line out of their utterly ****** life past the 12th Grade... eventually... they start actually trying to better their lives rather than just slinging rocks and knocking up every girl they can find... from this.. the cycle can improve.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#408 Apr 20 2016 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
So Sec. Clinton received more votes than all three GOP candidates combined in New York. Now, that's a sign of a "weak" candidate. Smiley: rolleyes
#409 Apr 20 2016 at 8:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
they start actually trying to better their lives rather than just slinging rocks and knocking up every girl they can find

Have they considered joining a 4th century peasant militia?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#410 Apr 20 2016 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
they start actually trying to better their lives rather than just slinging rocks and knocking up every girl they can find

Have they considered joining a 4th century peasant militia?


Smiley: lol y'know that actually took me a minute... Smiley: lol
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#411 Apr 20 2016 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'd argue that people tend to place value on things


Why does knowledge have to be a commodity? I shouldn't have to value my education I should just learn forever, it should be part of my life and as a society we should be encouraging life long learning. It's companies that want us to have an education so we can prove to them that we're at an appropriate level of knowledge to do the job they want us to do. So if we're going to school to learn to do the jobs that companies want us to do then companies should be paying for our education. It should be free.
#412 Apr 20 2016 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Thanks for driving home my point with a railgun, gabji.Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#413 Apr 21 2016 at 2:59 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
So you'd deny a free education to millions just because some people suck at being students?
If there's no real benefit, yeah.
We have an abundance of Arts Degree graduates working at McDonalds. Currently investigating ways to export them as a commodity.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#414 Apr 21 2016 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Camp Sanders seems to be laying the groundwork for the inevitable. While campaign manager Weaver was on MSNBC Tuesday night saying they'd take the fight to the convention, chief strategist Devine was saying that the campaign would be looking at this upcoming Tuesday's results and making a decision from there. Last night, Weaver was saying that Sanders would support whoever the nominee was and stay a Democrat.

Although the upcoming Tuesday contests look very favorable for Clinton, the AP reports that she can actually lose every remaining contest and still win the nomination.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#415 Apr 21 2016 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So it's totally in their interests to hype up the false assumption.
You don't say.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Currently investigating ways to export them as a commodity.
Hang them, put a plaque that says "Ye be warned."
Jophiel wrote:
Last night, Weaver was saying that Sanders would support whoever the nominee was and stay a Democrat.
What nonsense. His candidacy isn't divisive enough to allude to a third party campaign.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#416 Apr 21 2016 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
We're certainly not seeing a great return on secondary education dollars spent versus usefully skilled graduates today, and I suspect if the only change you make is to make it "free", that return will only get worse. There's a whole host of reforms we'd need to make to the system before we could even begin to talk about funding it directly/publicly.
While I'm in agreement that there's reforms I'd like to see made first, I'm can't say I share the same skepticism about "free" university. This is largely because the average student has 12-14 years of "free" education prior to this. While we can certainly argue that the general education is less valued because it is free there's certainly precedence for the idea.

Conversely hearing "why do we need to learn this?" followed by a teacher giving a contrived half-answer is something that was all too familiar in my schooling.

Quote:
Eh. You'd think that, but the opposite is what tends to happen. Parents who are working multiple jobs to provide for their kids may not have as much direct time with the kids, but they provide an example just by doing what they are doing. And IMO that's far more important in terms of motivation for the kids. When kids see their parents working hard to provide for them, they learn that this is what you have to do to succeed, and they will tend to emulate that behavior and thus work hard on their education. The kids who get "left behind" tend to come from families where the lesson they learn from their parents is that sitting on the couch and waiting for the welfare check to come to provide for them is the way to get through life.
While there's certainly value in demonstrating correct behavior, kids learn a lot through mimicking adult behavior after all, there is a point where the lack of attention is going to outweigh the benefits of demonstrating proper behavior. If you literally never see your parents because they're each working 60-80 hours a week you're likely going to have a tough time in life in general, never mind the fact that you don't "get" long division, and no one has time to teach it to you.

Quote:
Again. I think that trying to make things "easy" for people doesn't usually generate the results you're looking for.
Not necessarily looking to make it easier, just commenting that in many ways life isn't as easy as it used to be for many people. There's only so much energy a person has in a day, and the more of it you have to spend meeting your basic needs the less you have for providing an education for your children.

Other than that though, I'm generally in agreement with the rest of the block-o-text.


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#417 Apr 21 2016 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'd argue that people tend to place value on things


Why does knowledge have to be a commodity? I shouldn't have to value my education I should just learn forever, it should be part of my life and as a society we should be encouraging life long learning.


Which you would do, if you value the education. If you don't, you'll sit in class because someone is making you (or paying you, or providing you "free" student housing as long as you show up), stick gum on the underside of the desk. ***** around. Not take notes. Not study. Fail classes. Not care that you're failing classes. Then we what? Pay more money for your "free" education, so you can do this some more? Or what? We let you slide past and get a diploma even though you didn't learn much? Then what? Expect you to work? Or we create yet another layer of "free stuff" to help you out?

That's what I mean by the argument that when people have to pay for something themselves, they take it more seriously and actually value it. If you are required to pay for your education out of your own pocket, you will either not take up time and space that the rest of the students need, or you'll actually study hard and get the most out of your money.

Quote:
It's companies that want us to have an education so we can prove to them that we're at an appropriate level of knowledge to do the job they want us to do.


I would think the students would want to as well, in direct proportion to the percentage of good paying jobs out there are going to be in the fields that those companies need. Not sure why you think this only benefits the companies. But yeah, companies do provide education funding. They do offer scholarships.

Quote:
So if we're going to school to learn to do the jobs that companies want us to do then companies should be paying for our education. It should be free.


Sure. For only those educations that will likely lead them back to those companies though, right? I mean, it's pretty ridiculous to insist that tech companies pay for "free" education for all, only to discover that 90% of those they're paying for get degrees in basket weaving, or whatever. The problem isn't just with funding. It's also with what we're actually teaching. More accurately, what students are choosing to study when presented with a whole range of curriculum options available at the typical university these days. Science and Engineering courses are "hard". Art appreciation, poetry, creative writing, and diversity studies are "easy". Guess which one many students will choose? Especially the percentage you're providing "free" education too? Guess which one will vastly increase the odds of that student getting a good paying job after graduation?

That's the disconnect. Have you looked at the curriculum lists for universities these days? Seriously. Go do this. It'll blow your mind how much insanely useless stuff is out there. Many that exist purely as alternatives to the harder but more useful mainstream courses. Which is basically the universities sucking up the money, while not really giving kids the good education they're paying for. That's a huge problem IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#418 Apr 21 2016 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Science and Engineering courses are "hard". Art appreciation, poetry, creative writing, and diversity studies are "easy". Guess which one many students will choose? Especially the percentage you're providing "free" education too?
You, of course, have absolutely impeccable sources to cite that this is the case...right?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#419 Apr 22 2016 at 3:27 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's the disconnect. Have you looked at the curriculum lists for universities these days? Seriously. Go do this. It'll blow your mind how much insanely useless stuff is out there. Many that exist purely as alternatives to the harder but more useful mainstream courses. Which is basically the universities sucking up the money, while not really giving kids the good education they're paying for. That's a huge problem IMO.
You know what can fix that? Regulations!! Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#421 Apr 22 2016 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Regulations!!
Oh no you can't regulate anything because having options, even bad ones, is freedom. Unless you disagree with those options, at which point your doing everything to limit them is okay.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#422 Apr 22 2016 at 8:50 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
So stop making school about getting credits.

Companies can test applicants to see if they qualify for a given position. This makes it about what you know rather than what pieces of paper you have.

Give people access to teachers without having to be in a structured class for a year. Setup online communication so people can submit questions and get answers from professionals on things they don't understand. Learning doesn't need to be a classroom with a teacher and 30 kids.
#423 Apr 22 2016 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Learning doesn't need to be a classroom with a teacher and 30 kids.
Seriously, classrooms are horrible places to learn things. I mean have one to drop your stuff in, talk about what you're going to learn today or something, then gtfo and get into the world for a while. Staring at a powerpoint for 6 hours a day is torture to anyone, much less someone who's trying to learn something.

Also, I'd like to see universities do more to accelerate teaching. You shouldn't spend the first two years of university relearning everything you learned in high-school. Make it more "learn at your own pace," let you challenge more classes, etc. Get the knowledge you need, and people to move on to other more productive things faster and more efficiently. People being 23 years old, having no real work experience, and a bunch of useless knowledge is just a waste of everyone's time and money.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#424 Apr 22 2016 at 11:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
They just need to spend more time on the whys than the hows. The hows don't matter if you don't think you'll ever use it.

I had to teach my teenager some linear equation math he didn't understand yesterday and my wife was all "I don't know how to do that, what would you even use that for" so I explained that no, you probably won't use this but you'll use the concepts you learn from this to do other things and provided some examples.

People want to know things. They just want to know things they have a use for and most of school is about learning things that people don't know how to use.
#425 Apr 22 2016 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
This whole thing kind of seems to circle around teaching style. How much targeted teaching should we be doing versus general knowledge?

On one hand it'd be pretty easy to take someone with some basic skills and train them to work in a particular setting. You could even ignore much of the basic education at that point, this would be much more like some kind of old fashioned apprentice system. You could probably get teenagers doing much of the work we require having people 4 year degrees for these days. The downside of course is that if the market changes and that job dries up you have a 35 year old with no skills outside of that particular setting, and they're pretty much screwed at that point.

On the other hand you try and expose people to a little bit of everything. Much of it may not be relevant to what they end up doing, but it could very well be relevant to something they could end up doing down the line. Downside being that to get a job after this kind of education you almost certainly have to intern somewhere for a couple of years to learn the basic skills needed. The upside is hopefully if you ever do get let go you'll have retained enough general skills to be able to get yourself in somewhere else a bit easier.

But yeah, really the "why" part even. Great you could offer examples because so many people struggle with being able to explain why and where a particular concept can be useful. Wish that was something textbooks and teachers were better at communicating. Especially if you're pushing more general knowledge, it's good to know what kind of jobs might have you doing something like linear regression. If nothing else, on the college level at least, it might help you decide if taking that particular class is a good use of your time or not.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#426 Apr 22 2016 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Staring at a powerpoint for 6 hours a day is torture to anyone, much less someone who's trying to learn something.
My favorite parts is the mandatory safety briefing involved with each powerpoint presentation we have to sit through. "If you fall asleep during this presentation and hit your head on the table ..." blah blah blah.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 306 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (306)