The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

[usmccharles]

do any of yall own guns?

Absolutely.
[doublepost=1496028802,1496028484][/doublepost]

It's hard to be a gun-owner in California so no. I do not own any. My uncle somehow managed to acquire a concealed carry permit in California(which is REALLY hard to get).

I sold most of my collection when i moved from FL where i have my conceal permit, god i hate this state. Seriously this state sucks...fml

 

[The Raven]

Of course, and I would never suggest otherwise. I am simply saying that as a reminder that it is up to us to question everything, even if our preconceived notions align with what we find along the way. After all, that is what science is after all. It is never giving definite answers, it is just giving best answers given available information irrespective of ideology. My point is, there are many studies that also back up K-Dog. That isn't to say he is right, it is just saying that two minutes on Google lends credibility to his stance as well, because as usual, things are not so black and white. Personally, I know nothing about that topic, and maybe I can learn something new following your conversation with each other.

There are indeed studies that support @K-Dog 's point of view that private school is better, but I tend to disagree with the premise of one of the underlying data points.

Most studies supporting private schools, that I've seen, say that private school students have a better chance of getting into college. That is true. On the surface, that would indicate that the education is better. However, public school students, by comparison, do as well or better than private school students in terms of academic achievement, as evidenced by the story I shared above. What does this mean, if two groups perform equally on standardized tests but ascend to the higher level at unequal rates?

It means that, ultimately, the barrier to higher education/trade school/vocational training isn't grades but money. So I would argue that families that can afford send their kids to private K-12 can also afford to send their kids to college. It's a matter of money, not education or achievement. This is why I support free, or at least heavily subsidized, higher ed and job training. There are smarter people than me that are unable to afford even community college. That's a spit in the face of the American Dream. The American Dream is dead because you have to pay to play.

 

[K-Dog]

There are indeed studies that support @K-Dog 's point of view that private school is better, but I tend to disagree with the premise of one of the underlying data points.

Which for what it is worth is 100% completely and totally beside the point.
The point I initially was trying to make is one of the reasons I believe government is a bunch of privileged elitest was that the vast majority of politicians send their kids to private schools because the public schools they push on us is insufficient for their elitist privileged kids.

Your counter point of public vs. private schools is another topic.

 

[flynismo]

There are indeed studies that support @K-Dog 's point of view that private school is better, but I tend to disagree with the premise of one of the underlying data points.

Most studies supporting private schools, that I've seen, say that private school students have a better chance of getting into college. That is true. On the surface, that would indicate that the education is better. However, public school students, by comparison, do as well or better than private school students in terms of academic achievement, as evidenced by the story I shared above. What does this mean, if two groups perform equally on standardized tests but ascend to the higher level at unequal rates?

It means that, ultimately, the barrier to higher education/trade school/vocational training isn't grades but money. So I would argue that families that can afford send their kids to private K-12 can also afford to send their kids to college. It's a matter of money, not education or achievement. This is why I support free, or at least heavily subsidized, higher ed and job training. There are smarter people than me that are unable to afford even community college. That's a spit in the face of the American Dream. The American Dream is dead because you have to pay to play.

Again, I know little about this, so grain of salt...
What I have gathered, I came to the same conclusion and same reasoning that you just outlined above.

However, I strongly suspect there is a whole lot more to the story. A lot of unanswered questions to me. The most obvious being that if private schools offer more favorable student to teacher ratios, among the other perks, then why is the performance so similar between public and private?
[doublepost=1496030670,1496029882][/doublepost]

Which for what it is worth is 100% completely and totally beside the point.
The point I initially was trying to make is one of the reasons I believe government is a bunch of privileged elitest was that the vast majority of politicians send their kids to private schools because the public schools they push on us is insufficient for their elitist privileged kids.

Your counter point of public vs. private schools is another topic.

Personally, I know a lot of well off people. Now I haven't exactly surveyed them all,but I am pretty close to quite a few, and 9 times out of 10, the real reason they send their kids to private school is because they believe their kids will be around higher quality people. You know, the whole rich people are better than everyone else thing...

 

[The Raven]

Which for what it is worth is 100% completely and totally beside the point.
The point I initially was trying to make is one of the reasons I believe government is a bunch of privileged elitest was that the vast majority of politicians send their kids to private schools because the public schools they push on us is insufficient for their elitist privileged kids.

Your counter point of public vs. private schools is another topic.

Well, I think we're arguing over a conclusion of which there is no data to prove. Is there data proving that MOST politicians send their kids to private schools? Of the dozen or more delegates and senators and folks that I've mingled with, all have sent their kids to public schools save two, who are very high profile and sent the kid to private school for the sake of anonymity. Could you imagine being a congressman or county exec and sending your kid to a public school? I'd wager it's about the attention, not the education.

Again, I know little about this, so grain of salt...
What I have gathered, I came to the same conclusion and same reasoning that you just outlined above.

However, I strongly suspect there is a whole lot more to the story. A lot of unanswered questions to me. The most obvious being that if private schools offer more favorable student to teacher ratios, among the other perks, then why is the performance so similar between public and private?

College recruiting systems may also be biased against going to inner city schools, since students may not be able to afford a four year school. That limits engagement which likely limits applications.

As for why performance may be similar... I know a person who got her English degree. Never took a teaching course in any way. Never did a student teaching thing. But she got hired immediately by a private school. Nothing against her personally, but public schools have higher standards than that. Public school teachers are increasingly well qualified. That's one factor.

The other factor is the simple fact that kids are kids and they probably learn the same subject matter at comparable paces. I never took a teaching course so I couldn't speak to this, but in the end, I would guess that there are three primary factors: a student, a teacher, and a lesson plan. If a kid doesn't learn, it's the teacher's fault, the kid's fault, or the kid's family's fault. Not necessarily the fault of the place of learning.

 

[K-Dog]

I have a friend who works at the board of education. According to her, more than half of those with school age kids at her work send their kids to private schools.
That is quite telling.

I am completely uninterested is debating weather or not many or most politicians are elitests. Exchanging thoughts and ideas is one thing, arguing back and forth becomes more about making a point and being "right " than it does anything else. We are well past that point.

 

[The Raven]

I have a friend who works at the board of education. According to her, more than half of those with school age kids at her work send their kids to private schools.
That is quite telling.

I am completely uninterested is debating weather or not many or most politicians are elitests. Exchanging thoughts and ideas is one thing, arguing back and forth becomes more about making a point and being "right " than it does anything else. We are well past that point.

I'm not interested in that either, which is why I didn't bring up the "elitist" talk.

I'm happy to exchange ideas and thoughts instead of arguing over conjecture.
[doublepost=1496065372,1496032175][/doublepost]In other news, Merkel said yesterday that Europe can no longer rely on America. Seriously. One of our strongest and most important allies in Germany, a rising power, is now openly saying they can't rely on us. When do we stop playing games and let Pence sit in the Oval?

My biggest concerns about Trump were never domestic. Congress would be, I thought, a more than adequate check on his domestic policy. And, his domestic policy isn't that bad. My chief concern was always foreign relations. Now, the child is costing us relationships with our allies. Does Trump know that NATO is one of the reasons we haven't had a world war since 1945? Ah well. What do I know? Obviously not as much as the Donald.

 

[Sami84]

 

[Willbacker]

I think we all know that studies and research can be extremely misleading, intentional or not. When the source is some ridiculously biased organization like NYT or Breitbart, it automatically puts people on the defensive, and it should. It is intellectually lazy to just listen to anything the party line puts out there.
Global warming is a perfect example of that. Scientists who dedicate their careers to it and who knows far more about it than anyone of us here could ever pretend to know can't even agree on much of it. So it too gets politicized, and people fall for it.

The thing is with the scientists is that if they say climate warming is an overreaction then boom there goes their grants and all the work they actually put into it. Their whole life would be worthless.

Sadly like you said NYT and Breitbart lean extremely in one direction so its like can I really believe that. The thing is a lot of people just read the left leaning news from Yahoo and FB and then just the headlines or get their news from their local TV news affiliation which again stands left. Remember Pence's speech at ND where some of the students walked out well I watched the 10:00 Fox news they showed them walking out but then showed how many stayed and some of Pence's speech then at 11:00 on ABC they showed the students walking out and then found the prettiest girl outside and did an interview with her while not showing that 95 % or more stayed. Completely different views.

 

[The Raven]

The thing is with the scientists is that if they say climate warming is an overreaction then boom there goes their grants and all the work they actually put into it. Their whole life would be worthless.

Sadly like you said NYT and Breitbart lean extremely in one direction so its like can I really believe that. The thing is a lot of people just read the left leaning news from Yahoo and FB and then just the headlines or get their news from their local TV news affiliation which again stands left. Remember Pence's speech at ND where some of the students walked out well I watched the 10:00 Fox news they showed them walking out but then showed how many stayed and some of Pence's speech then at 11:00 on ABC they showed the students walking out and then found the prettiest girl outside and did an interview with her while not showing that 95 % or more stayed. Completely different views.

What does that have to do with views? The story was that people walked out. It goes without saying that most of the people stayed... Reporters report news. They report the story. Since when is it a story that most of the people stayed to listen to the speech? That's not news. That's normal and expected... The story is, "holy crap, people walked out. Let's talk to them and find out why." It's hardly indicative of political leanings.

 

[Willbacker]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...nment-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming.html

This is Fox news but it is eyeopening. It was something I remembered and I'm not sure if its ever been settled.
[doublepost=1496070706,1496070577][/doublepost]

What does that have to do with views? The story was that people walked out. It goes without saying that most of the people stayed... Reporters report news. They report the story. Since when is it a story that most of the people stayed to listen to the speech? That's not news. That's normal and expected... The story is, "holy crap, people walked out. Let's talk to them and find out why." It's hardly indicative of political leanings.

Its the way its transmitted to their audience and what they want you to believe. Obviously ABC wanted the view to look like it was a completely cluster f event.

 

[The Raven]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...nment-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming.html

This is Fox news but it is eyeopening. It was something I remembered and I'm not sure if its ever been settled.
[doublepost=1496070706,1496070577][/doublepost]

Its the way its transmitted to their audience and what they want you to believe. Obviously ABC wanted the view to look like it was a completely cluster f event.

"What they want you to believe." Again, do you honestly think we ramen-eating, natty lite-drinking, 60 hour-working asshole journalists give a flying shit what people take away from a graduation speech walkout? Do you really think we're trying to use a walkout to indoctrinate you or legitimately mislead you? No! The reporter probably didn't even want to do the story, lol. We hate graduations. The walkout got attention because, again, "holy shit, students walked out on a speech by the vice president at their own graduation." That's kind of a cluster f.

 

[Willbacker]

"What they want you to believe." Again, do you honestly think we ramen-eating, natty lite-drinking, 60 hour-working asshole journalists give a flying shit what people take away from a graduation speech walkout? Do you really think we're trying to use a walkout to indoctrinate you or legitimately mislead you? No! The reporter probably didn't even want to do the story, lol. We hate graduations. The walkout got attention because, again, "holy shit, students walked out on a speech by the vice president at their own graduation." That's kind of a cluster f.

Yes I do. The stations puts their clips together as they see fit and how they want you to view it. Both those stations put different lights on it and a lot of journalists do give a shit cuz they hate Trump and will try to damage him any way possible. Do all journalists think alike ??

 

[K-Dog]

On the subject of media....

 

[Willbacker]

On the subject of media....

How'd that even come about? They had 2 different editions to print?

 

[The Raven]

Yes I do. The stations puts their clips together as they see fit and how they want you to view it. Both those stations put different lights on it and a lot of journalists do give a shit cuz they hate Trump and will try to damage him any way possible. Do all journalists think alike ??

The primary reason we hate Trump is because of the constant lying and demonizing of the press. We don't all think alike, but as I've said a million times, if we really wanted to indoctrinate you, we'd go into politics ourselves and actually make money doing it. Why would we put up with shit wages if we didn't believe in actually doing our job -- telling the truth? It's clear that lying gets you much farther in life anyway. There's money in dishonesty, but we don't have any money. What do we have to gain? Bashing Trump doesn't get us more money. It doesn't even get us a better job unless we get a truly revelatory scoop. We gain nothing from negative Trump coverage. It only gets us threats. True story.

On the subject of media....

How'd that even come about? They had 2 different editions to print?

From a Snopes article: "Colleen Schwartz, the Vice President of Communications at The Wall Street Journal, confirmed that these editions were printed at different times, not in different markets. The edition on the left was published after Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto early in the day (and referenced the seemingly cooperative tone of their discussion), and the edition on the right was published after Trump delivered a speech on immigration later in the day (and referenced Trump’s reasserting his stance that he would force Mexico to pay for the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border)"

http://www.snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/

So, basically, the one on the right was published after Trump gave a speech on the wall. The one on the left had a print deadline coming before that speech. Not a big deal at all.

 

[JO_75]

MSM now mad w/ Ivanka over champagne Popsicles. Huff Po on FB are like "Really Ivanka?" MSM is failing badly smearing Donald.

 

[flynismo]

MSM now mad w/ Ivanka over champagne Popsicles. Huff Po on FB are like "Really Ivanka?" MSM is failing badly smearing Donald.

It amazes me that anyone even takes that rag seriously. (HuffPo, not Ivanka LOL)

But we are the uneducated deplorables for calling them on their bullshit and calling them fake news. :/

The more I see crap like that, the more it reaffirms my choice to vote for Trump and get the entitled scum out of power, and the happier I get every time Trump tweets about fake news.
[doublepost=1496097221,1496096930][/doublepost]

The primary reason we hate Trump is because of the constant lying and demonizing of the press. We don't all think alike, but as I've said a million times, if we really wanted to indoctrinate you, we'd go into politics ourselves and actually make money doing it. Why would we put up with shit wages if we didn't believe in actually doing our job -- telling the truth? It's clear that lying gets you much farther in life anyway. There's money in dishonesty, but we don't have any money. What do we have to gain? Bashing Trump doesn't get us more money. It doesn't even get us a better job unless we get a truly revelatory scoop. We gain nothing from negative Trump coverage. It only gets us threats. True story.





From a Snopes article: "Colleen Schwartz, the Vice President of Communications at The Wall Street Journal, confirmed that these editions were printed at different times, not in different markets. The edition on the left was published after Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto early in the day (and referenced the seemingly cooperative tone of their discussion), and the edition on the right was published after Trump delivered a speech on immigration later in the day (and referenced Trump’s reasserting his stance that he would force Mexico to pay for the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border)"

http://www.snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/

So, basically, the one on the right was published after Trump gave a speech on the wall. The one on the left had a print deadline coming before that speech. Not a big deal at all.

I can understand the press not liking Trump for the way he treats some of them, but not liking him because he lies?? How did you feel about Hillary coming under sniper fire, LOL. They're politicians. It is their jobs to lie to the media and the public.

 

[K-Dog]

MSM now mad w/ Ivanka over champagne Popsicles. Huff Po on FB are like "Really Ivanka?" MSM is failing badly smearing Donald.

The double standard is remarkable.
[doublepost=1496098451,1496098268][/doublepost]

It amazes me that anyone even takes that rag seriously. (HuffPo, not Ivanka LOL)

But we are the uneducated deplorables for calling them on their bullshit and calling them fake news. :/

The more I see crap like that, the more it reaffirms my choice to vote for Trump and get the entitled scum out of power, and the happier I get every time Trump tweets about fake news.
[doublepost=1496097221,1496096930][/doublepost]


I can understand the press not liking Trump for the way he treats some of them, but not liking him because he lies?? How did you feel about Hillary coming under sniper fire, LOL. They're politicians. It is their jobs to lie to the media and the public.

What are you talking about !?!?!?
It REALLY happened. Here is video proof. This video is untouched and unedited. I can tell.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

The one thing that still blows my mind is there's a lot of talk of division in the country, but so many people still fly confederate flags.

Like, does history escape you?
[doublepost=1496099700,1496099407][/doublepost]On the topic of Hillary vs Trump lying, PolitiFact is a nifty little website that I enjoy using because they fact check all statements made by major politicians and rate them, while also sourcing all places that they got their facts from.

Anyway, Trump was mostly false, false, or pants on fire lying on a staggering 68% of his statements. He was pants on fire on 16%, which is pretty absurd.

Clinton was half true, mostly true, or true on 75% of her statements made. She was pants on fire on only 2% of her statements.