CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0 - Page 67

post #3301 of 3444

No, keep all the Trump stuff to the related threads. We don't need any Trump supporters finding this board. 

 

Nothing wrong with Republicans but the ones who are currently blowing Trump can fuck right off.

post #3302 of 3444
I'd love to see some of the people who've been accusing me of being a Trump supporter actually encounter the real thing, but wish in one hand and shit in the other.
post #3303 of 3444

Since this IS a movie site....

If Trump played Chief Brody, he would have slapped her back.

That fucker.

post #3304 of 3444
Great, now I've got a mental picture of Sheriff Brody tweeting incomplete angry sentences about a grieving mother while the shark is eating Quint.
post #3305 of 3444

I think it's noteworthy that CLINTON received huge applause for "I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE".  Check your calendars people, apparently "science' is still a battleground.

Mercy.

post #3306 of 3444

Bad election night for Sam Brownback and the future of his policies:

 

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article93377897.html

post #3307 of 3444

Yeah when your Congressman gets booted off the Agriculture committee, the single most important committee for the State you (help) represent, you gotta expect backlash. 

post #3308 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Hallorhan View Post

I think it's noteworthy that CLINTON received huge applause for "I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE".  Check your calendars people, apparently "science' is still a battleground.
Mercy.

An aside:

It's a lifelong quest of mine to find the appropriate replacement for "Believe" in the sentence "I Believe in Science."

Belief has nothing to do with it, that's the whole goddamn point. Even using the word "believe" just feeds in to this destructive and false "science vs religion" non-argument that self-serving elements who enjoy attention more than truth continue to fuel.

Water doesn't care if I believe it'll turn into steam at the boiling point, it just will. The universe doesn't give a fuck whether we get off this rock in time or not, sooner or later it'll smack us with an asteroid and then we'll either make it or we won't. And despite millions of Republican prayers every minute of every day, Earth doesn't actually care whether you believe in climate change or not, it's still going to try to drown you over the next 100 years if you have coastal property.

Science doesn't require your belief. It just works. And if you doubt it, THAT'S OK, because all results are reproducible! Someone says they invented cold fusion? Fuck them! Don't believe it, but TEST IT and find out.

Science is the only tool we have to actually KNOW anything about this universe we find ourselves in. The only tool that allows us to look into the future, to improve our living conditions, to push back the grim reaper and to gaze inside the workings of our own mind.

I DON'T believe in Science. I don't have to. THAT'S what she should have said.
post #3309 of 3444

 

post #3310 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


An aside:

It's a lifelong quest of mine to find the appropriate replacement for "Believe" in the sentence "I Believe in Science."

Belief has nothing to do with it, that's the whole goddamn point. Even using the word "believe" just feeds in to this destructive and false "science vs religion" non-argument that self-serving elements who enjoy attention more than truth continue to fuel.

I DON'T believe in Science. I don't have to. THAT'S what she should have said.

 

What you're describing would be the case if she had said, "I place my faith in science."

 

Belief makes sense in this context in the way that you have to believe in something before you can make use of it. And that's necessary because science is our creation; without our belief in it, it doesn't exist. 

 

Science, like religion, is a man-made system for interpreting our reality. Both require belief - if you don't believe a hammer will pound out a dent, it doesn't matter whether it will because you're not going to try it. Where science distinguishes itself is in not requiring FAITH to accept its results.

post #3311 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

What you're describing would be the case if she had said, "I place my faith in science."

Belief makes sense in this context in the way that you have to believe in something before you can make use of it. And that's necessary because science is our creation; without our belief in it, it doesn't exist. 

Science, like religion, is a man-made system for interpreting our reality. Both require belief - if you don't believe a hammer will pound out a dent, it doesn't matter whether it will because you're not going to try it. Where science distinguishes itself is in not requiring FAITH to accept its results.

Respectfully disagree. Belief is not required for action. You pick up your fork in the morning to eat breakfast (or a spoon, you heathen). You put it down. You drop it, it falls to the ground. At no point do you worry about having to pick it down off the ceiling. These results are reproducible and you repeat your little experiment a million times each day. Ditto when you heat the water for your tea, put on sunglasses to cut the glare, or put gas in your car. Physics doesn't care what your beliefs are, and simply by existing in the world we are ALL SCIENTISTS, carrying out our own little experiments in gravitation, oxidation and combustion (not to mention fermentation) every day of our lives. That our experiments aren't particularly rigorous in their designs doesn't really have bearing here - we observe the same results as our colleagues all over the world because all science requires is similar initial conditions. Whether I'm in NY or Antarctica I'm pretty sure my fork is going to fall towards the ground if I drop it. That we don't refer to our accumulated observations and childhood trial-and-error learning as science doesn't matter one iota. A rose by any other name. And this particular rose couldn't care any less about what your mental state of belief/disbelief/faith is, it's just going to deliver results.
post #3312 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


Respectfully disagree. Belief is not required for action. You pick up your fork in the morning to eat breakfast (or a spoon, you heathen). You put it down. You drop it, it falls to the ground. At no point do you worry about having to pick it down off the ceiling. These results are reproducible and you repeat your little experiment a million times each day. Ditto when you heat the water for your tea, put on sunglasses to cut the glare, or put gas in your car. Physics doesn't care what your beliefs are, and simply by existing in the world we are ALL SCIENTISTS, carrying out our own little experiments in gravitation, oxidation and combustion (not to mention fermentation) every day of our lives. That our experiments aren't particularly rigorous in their designs doesn't really have bearing here - we observe the same results as our colleagues all over the world because all science requires is similar initial conditions. Whether I'm in NY or Antarctica I'm pretty sure my fork is going to fall towards the ground if I drop it. That we don't refer to our accumulated observations and childhood trial-and-error learning as science doesn't matter one iota. A rose by any other name. And this particular rose couldn't care any less about what your mental state of belief/disbelief/faith is, it's just going to deliver results.

 

I think you're getting really passionate about wording that's ultimately unimportant.  "I believe in science" gets the meaning across just fine, but science itself is a man-made structure even if much of the phenomena it documents is not.  Belief absolutely does enter the picture.  I could simply decide that things falling towards the ground is the result of evil spirits of hell trying to drag everything down with them, or the weight of man's accumulated sins pushing everything down. shrug my shoulders, and get on with my life.

 

Since it is quite possible for people to disbelieve (or deny) science (and a frightening many do), affirming belief in science is not without meaning or value.  That the phenomena that science documents continue to occur whether one believes in it or not is irrelevant, as in a political campaign, we're talking about situations where people are making decisions about science-related matters based on a great many things besides the pure logic and mathematical evidence of science (considerably more so on one side than the other, but not unheard of from both major "sides" to some extent or another...or at least both sides of the political spectrum).

post #3313 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


Whether I'm in NY or Antarctica I'm pretty sure my fork is going to fall towards the ground if I drop it. 

 

Being "pretty sure" is belief.

 

Gravity as a force will exist independent of our belief in it, but our belief in the scientific explanation of gravity is a personal choice. Someone could believe that invisible demons grab objects and pull them towards the underworld.

 

Belief in the power of the scientific method and logic and reason to improve our lives is not just okay, it's vital to our growth as a society. The most dangerous thing the Republican party has done in the past three decades has been to gut the public school system and especially to paint disbelief of science as an acceptable and even favorable notion. In a world where scientific evidence is always a click away, notions like the anti-vaccination movement should never have gotten off the ground.

post #3314 of 3444
"I know science ain't bullshittin'!"
post #3315 of 3444

Sean Hannity just showed why a blowout Trump loss wouldn’t end the GOP civil war

 

It's pieces like this that have me squirming in anticipation for the Republican Party Going Forward v 3.0 thread.

post #3316 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

Being "pretty sure" is belief.

Gravity as a force will exist independent of our belief in it, but our belief in the scientific explanation of gravity is a personal choice. Someone could believe that invisible demons grab objects and pull them towards the underworld.

Belief in the power of the scientific method and logic and reason to improve our lives is not just okay, it's vital to our growth as a society. The most dangerous thing the Republican party has done in the past three decades has been to gut the public school system and especially to paint disbelief of science as an acceptable and even favorable notion. In a world where scientific evidence is always a click away, notions like the anti-vaccination movement should never have gotten off the ground.

I think you guys have illustrated why this is something I'm still searching for a new word to describe. I would point out that when I said I'm "pretty sure," I was being facetious, and my point is that no matter what crazy beliefs someone professes to have, they aren't just "pretty sure" about what a dropped object will do, either. They're positive it'll fall to the ground, and if it didn't they'd be shocked. Why? Because of a million independent trials they and those around them have performed that creates an evidence base for free fall behavior. That they don't think of this as a scientifically informed opinion has no basis on what it actually is. As I said, a rose by any other name.

Which goes back to my point: we are ALL SCIENTISTS in a million ways - from the moment we're born we're creating hypotheses about the universe, testing them through trial and error, keeping the ones that work and discarding the ones that don't. The reason I'm pushing back on the use of the word "belief" when it comes to science and the scientific method is that it puts the level of evidence you get from performing actual TESTS of the world around you on the same level as the vague sense of belief folks feel when they hold a picture of the world in their mind's eye that is fundamentally UNTESTABLE.

Even the most devout Christian on Earth does not, if they're being honest, feel the same way about the existence of, say, the Pearly Gates as they do about the action of gravity. The anti-science bullshit that has been allowed to flourish in this country was made possible in part by agreeing to engage the ignorant on their own field of play, basically agreeing that there IS a conflict between Science and Religion (or Faith), where I'm arguing none actually exists. Any more than there can be a conflict between 2+2=4 and the statement "Red is a nice color." Those who want to pit them against each other misunderstand both, and the only ones who win are those whose interest it is to drag Science down to the same level as their preferred bedtime story.
post #3317 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


I would point out that when I said I'm "pretty sure," I was being facetious, and my point is that no matter what crazy beliefs someone professes to have, they aren't just "pretty sure" about what a dropped object will do, either. They're positive it'll fall to the ground, and if it didn't they'd be shocked. Why?

Even the most devout Christian on Earth does not, if they're being honest, feel the same way about the existence of, say, the Pearly Gates as they do about the action of gravity. 

You may have said it facetiously, but science says you SHOULD only be "pretty sure" that a dropped object will fall to the ground. The whole basis of science is allowing for the possibility that your assumptions, no matter how many tests they're based on, -might- be wrong.

 

Actually, many who believe in the Pearly Gates are far more certain than a scientist should be about gravity. That's the fundamental difference between faith and the scientific method. And it's why some people are so quick to abandon science; the lack of absolute certainty scares the shit out of them.

 

And after all, Newton's original theory of gravity WAS wrong; it turned out to be more of an approximation. Thankfully, scientists were only "pretty sure" that Newton's words were fact, and since they had belief but not faith, we have a better understanding of gravity and ability to predict its effects today.

post #3318 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
 

 

Actually, many who believe in the Pearly Gates are far more certain than a scientist should be about gravity.

 

I take your general point, but I don't think that's true.  People talk a big game about the depth of their faith, because in a lot of circles believing is something of a competitive sport.  But barring perhaps the handful of the most deeply insane individuals in the world, no one is genuinely immune to doubts about the fundamentally ineffable.  Scientists may have questions about gravity, but those questions relate to its nature, not existence.  Whereas I guarantee you even the pope has that niggling moment every once in awhile where he thinks "shit, what if........naaaaaah...."

post #3319 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

But barring perhaps the handful of the most deeply insane individuals in the world, no one is genuinely immune to doubts about the fundamentally ineffable. 

And

Scientists may have questions about gravity, but those questions relate to its nature, not existence. 

This is the distinction I'm trying to make, thank you Schwartz.

We're belayed by language here, at the end - I'm arguing for a linguistic distinction between these very different types of "belief," which in my view are so different they deserve different words, not simply qualifiers.

"Belief" as a synonym for "a subjective sense of faith in the existence of x despite an absence of evidence for existence and the inability to construct a test to ratify or falsify the existence of the item in question including via gedanken experiment"

Vs.

"Belief" as a synonym for "a subjective sense of knowledge about the expected behavior of a physical system based on empirical observational or other data."

These are so different, it's not enough to say "Belief based on evidence" or "Belief based on a leap of faith" because even with qualifiers they imply that the underlying subjective STATE is the same. This is untrue. The "belief" one has about the physical behavior of the world based on experience and observation which allows one to successfully navigate to work in the morning shares nothing with the erroneous "belief" one may have about whether the Earth is flat or not. They have nothing in common other than that they involve A) mental states, B) the same word in the English language, and C) involve a relation between the owner of the mental state and the world 'outside,' i.e. The self vs everything non-self.

These are apples and orangutans, not apples picked from different orchards.


Apologies for the derail guys.
post #3320 of 3444

TWO good reasons to smile, in case you missed them.

I love where this is going.

(though I may object to the term 'artist')

 

and even better....

post #3321 of 3444
post #3322 of 3444
Fine, Rubio, you raise those kids if they're so precious to you.
post #3323 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post

Rubio: women infected with Zika shouldn't be able to get abortions:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290676-rubio-zika-infected-women-shouldnt-have-right-to-abortions

Hey, if we can get him to be anti-war and anti-death penalty, he'll at least be able to say he's consistent.

Sigh, honestly I hate everything about the way we discuss abortion in this country. Pro-choice groups understandably frame their position in the same language used by the anti-choice lobby, which is a regression to an appeal to morality. That's a useless argument to have and it's why we're still having it, because there's no objective measure for Morality (other than mine is Right, yours is Wrong and God is on MY SIDE).

Let's talk about consequences instead. For anti-choice folks who believe with all of their hearts abortion should be illegal, what percentage believe it should carry legal consequences commensurate with manslaughter? That's a useful debate to have. If you get an abortion, should you go to jail? If so, for how long?

It's easy to take the moral high road when you're talking about vague scenarios that you'll never have to actually confront. I want to talk specifics. If you want to outlaw it, does that mean you want to fill our jails and prisons with women who seek them out? Unless you're willing to answer "Yes!" then we are done talking. As the Right is fond of saying, passing a law doesn't do anything to stop behavior you don't like, it just makes government bigger.

If what you're trying to accomplish is locking up people who seek out abortions, then make it illegal.

If what you're trying to accomplish is to decrease the frequency of abortions, then make access to education, birth control and the morning after pill as easy as humanly possible. If Catholic Democrats could figure out how to craft their message effectively, there's no reason why "ending abortion" couldn't become a Democrat issue, with the stark difference being they've got an actual plan how to do it that doesn't involve making criminals out of pregnant women.
Edited by Analog Olmos - 8/7/16 at 11:50am
post #3324 of 3444
Republicans just hate women. It's that simple. If men got pregnant, abortion wouldn't be any bigger of a deal than a vasectomy.
post #3325 of 3444

What?!? The Republican policy-makers love women, like they love all people!

 

...as long as they know their place.

post #3326 of 3444
Q: Why are there approximately 3 million physically-abused women documented in the United States every year?
A: They don't fucking listen.
post #3327 of 3444

Ted Cruz might have a primary challenger in 2018:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/ted-cruz-michael-mccaul-primary-challenge/index.html

 

Quote:

A quiet Republican campaign to oust Sen. Ted Cruz in next cycle's Texas primary is unfolding as the conservative firebrand has launched an aggressive effort to keep his seat ahead of another likely run for the White House.

 

In the wake of Cruz's controversial speech at the party convention where he refused to endorse Donald Trump, the Texas senator's GOP critics believe there could be a new opening for an intraparty challenge. And behind the scenes, GOP donors and Texas politicians have urged Rep. Mike McCaul to consider mounting a bid against him in 2018, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
 
McCaul, a six-term congressman who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, has not yet deliberated on the matter but has yet to rule out a potential Senate run, according to one source close to his House reelection campaign.

 

Nobody quite knows if Cruz damaged his brand in Texas after his RNC speech, but:

 

Quote:
Cruz's advisers say they are expecting a primary challenger, in part because of the negative reaction to his speech at the Republican National Convention, where the senator was booed and shouted down by Trump supporters when he declined to offer support for the nominee. There has been little polling in Texas in so far to measure the breadth of Cruz's popularity in the aftermath of the speech.
 
Republicans close to Cruz hope that he will be validated by history, and that should Trump be thumped in November -- as the recent spate of polls suggests he will -- Cruz would be positioned as a soothsayer untainted by acceding to Trump's demands.
 
But a CNN-ORC poll shortly after last month's convention found that just 33% of GOP voters nationally had a favorable impression of Cruz, down from 60% before the convention.
post #3328 of 3444

A "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" has been arrested in Oregon, and his cache of weapons has been seized:

 

http://www.kptv.com/story/32714514/police-man-arrested-across-from-east-precinct-numerous-firearms-seized

 

Quote:
PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) - Portland police arrested a 39-year-old man across from the East Precinct after they found numerous firearms, ammunition and other items in his car.

 

Police said in April this year, they began noticing Eric Eugene Crowl parked outside the precinct in his gray Chevrolet Tahoe. Officers said they saw Crowl filming officers and seemed to be watching officers enter and leave the building during shift changes.

 

According to police, during one traffic stop, officers saw a police scanner in the vehicle and that Crowl is a "self-proclaimed Constitutionalist."

post #3329 of 3444

Carly Fiorina would like Reince Priebus' job:

 

http://time.com/4445200/carly-fiorina-republican-national-committee-chair-reince-priebus/?xid=tcoshare

 

Quote:

Former HP CEO and 2016 presidential contender Carly Fiorina is actively laying the groundwork for a bid to be the next chair of the Republican National Committee, according to state GOP officials who have followed her plans.

 

Fiorina and her aides have plotted an aggressive season of travel this fall to states with and without close Republicans races as she looks to help down-ballot Republicans, but people familiar with the plans said she is also looking to curry favor with the influential 168 members of the Republican National Committee. In phone calls and emails, Fiorina has reached out to party chairs across the country as well as RNC committee-men and -women who will elect a successor to incumbent RNC chairman Reince Priebus in January.

 

Ted Cruz' VP pick (remember when that was a thing?) doesn't think Trump will be winning this November:

 

Quote:
The campaign for the chairmanship would be moot should Donald Trump win the White House, when custom dictates that the RNC defer to the wishes of the incumbent president. But Fiorina isn’t betting on a Trump win—in fact just the opposite. The noted Clinton critic has declined to formally endorse Trump, but has sought to burnish her spot in the conservative moment with frequent attacks on the Democratic nominee.
post #3330 of 3444
Poor Rinse Penis.
post #3331 of 3444

It won't be simple to get Priebus out of the picture, but there are means.

post #3332 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trav McGee View Post
 

It won't be simple to get Priebus out of the picture, but there are means.


​Still my favorite ​Onion​ article.

post #3333 of 3444

A court document of a text message from a Chris Christie aide says that the governor lied when he said he didn't believe any of his staff knew of the bridge closure:

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/nyregion/chris-christie-george-washington-bridge-case.html?_r=0

 

Quote:

“Are you listening?” the aide, Christina Renna, texted a colleague. “He just flat out lied,” Ms. Renna wrote. Then she added that if certain emails were discovered, “it could be bad.”

 

According to a filing in United States District Court in Newark, Ms. Renna sent those texts on Dec. 13, 2013, as Mr. Christie was fielding questions from reporters about his knowledge of the alleged scheme to tie up traffic three months earlier on the New Jersey side of the bridge. The filing was made by lawyers for Bill Baroni, who was Mr. Christie’s top executive appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge.

 

A little more:

 

Quote:

“Oh, yeah, I’ve spoken to Mr. Stepien, who’s the person in charge of the campaign, and he has assured me the same thing,” Mr. Christie said during the news conference.

 

As soon as Ms. Renna heard that, she suggested to Peter Sheridan, a campaign worker, that the governor was not telling the truth. “He just flat out lied about senior staff and Stepien not being involved,” she texted.

 

Mr. Sheridan responded that Mr. Christie was “doing fine” and “holding his own up there,” according to the filing.

Ms. Renna replied: “Yes. But he lied.”

 

Mr. Christie, speaking to reporters Wednesday morning after appearing on a sports talk radio show, disputed Ms. Renna’s claim, according to The Associated Press.

 

“I absolutely dispute it,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. It’s nothing new. There’s nothing new to talk about.”

post #3334 of 3444

An influential militia leader/incendiary figure has passed away due to cancer:

 

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article94813217.html

post #3335 of 3444

And this white pride, government-hating weirdo has been identified as a suspect in an Oregon cop shooting:

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/felon-white-prides-tattoos-suspected-oregon-shooting-article-1.2745097?utm_content=buffer8edd3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

 

No word on if he's single.

post #3336 of 3444

"BMX" ... fucking awesome.

post #3337 of 3444

Ted Cruz' popularity in Texas has taken a hit after the convention:

 

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/08/11/texans-dont-like-cruz-in-ktvt-cbs-11dixie-strategies-poll/

 

Quote:
More than 53 percent of Republican voters in Texas find Cruz to be either “much less favorable” or “somewhat less favorable” after he opted not to offer an endorsement for GOP nominee Trump. The biggest swings in opinion came from Republicans who identified themselves as being either liberal or moderate.
post #3338 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
 

Ted Cruz' popularity in Texas has taken a hit after the convention:

 

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/08/11/texans-dont-like-cruz-in-ktvt-cbs-11dixie-strategies-poll/

 


I would take more joy in Ted Cruz losing his reelection bid than I would in Trump losing.  If both were to happen, I would likely not be able to contain my glee.

 

But we probably won't be that lucky.  Cruz will probably win reelection handily.

post #3339 of 3444

A good article on GOP governors continuing fight against public universities:

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/135972/republican-war-public-universities

 

I know I brought up Walker's fight against higher learning in Wisconsin before, but this story is still worth talking about:

 

Quote:
During the Great Recession, virtually all states cut their higher education funding. But since the low point in 2009-10, states have raised their higher ed funding by an average of 10 percent. Wisconsin, on the other hand, has cut its spending by 4 percent. The day before Governor Scott Walker announced his candidacy for president, he signed a budget cut of $250 million for Wisconsin public universities. (He wanted to cut $300 million, but the legislature wouldn’t go that far.) He also wanted to gut the La Follette-era “Wisconsin Idea,” such that the university system’s mission was no longer “the search for truth” but “to meet the state’s workforce needs”—proposed changes that Walker unbelievably blamed on a “drafting error.”

 

Then, you have the other three states I tend to talk about a lot in this thread: Louisiana, Kansas and North Carolina:

 

Quote:

Something similar occurred in Louisiana under another Republican governor who made a failed bid for the White House in 2016. “The scope of Louisiana’s disinvestment is both startling and unique,” mourned The Advocate of Baton Rouge. “Louisiana … according to national surveys, has cut higher education funding more than any other state since the slowdown began. State aid to universities here has been slashed by 55 percent.” At the start of the recession, Louisiana covered 60 percent of university expenses; under Jindal, it fell to 25 percent, with tuition rising accordingly.

 

In his last full year as governor, in 2015, Jindal wanted to cut the higher ed budget further, but the legislature resisted and took some money out of a rainy-day fund. (At the start of his presidential campaign, Jindal insisted that higher ed spending had risen slightly during his administration, a claim that The Washington Post’s Fact Checker awarded three Pinocchios.) The state’s budget suffered from the collapse of oil prices, but also from Jindal’s enthusiasm for tax cuts and business tax breaks.

 

Kansas, also still absorbing a huge tax cut, is among of the few states continuing to cut higher education funding in 2015-2016. There, legislative Republicans had an inspiration: Base cuts on the universities’ overall budgets rather than their instructional budgets, meaning deeper cuts for the research institutions—the University of Kansas and Kansas State. State Senator Jacob LaTurner explained that the “massive universities” could better handle the reductions—despite their being cut for the eighth consecutive year.

 

North Carolina was the first state to establish a state university. Things have been a little different since Republicans took over the state legislature in 2010, for the first time since Reconstruction. After $700 million in cuts during the recession, the system was cut another $63 million this year, despite a state budget surplus. Jenna Robinson of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education, which is funded by state GOP moneyman Art Pope, argued that such cuts would force universities to “eliminate wasteful and inefficient spending on campus.”

 

Jay Schalin, the center’s policy director, told The Nation that the universities’ problem isn’t money. “The main problem,” he said, “has to do with the ideas that are being discussed and promoted,” namely “multiculturalism, collectivism, left-wing post-modernism.” The concerns are similar to model legislation from the American Legislative Executive Council calling on state legislatures to establish philosophical “diversity” standards, overseeing what public university professors teach.

 

Sadly, going after public universities has been politically convenient for GOP governors/legislatures for a very long time now, and I don't see that letting up under their rules.  Tuition rates will continue to skyrocket, some universities will close and learning will be hindered.

post #3340 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post

 

Sadly, going after public universities has been politically convenient for GOP governors/legislatures for a very long time now, and I don't see that letting up under their rules.  Tuition rates will continue to skyrocket, some universities will close and learning will be hindered.

 

....and as more and more people remain woefully ignorant, they will be courted by the Republican party because a dumb voter is an easy target for the GOP.

 

College educated voters are an anathema to the GOP.

post #3341 of 3444
I wonder if it bothers them that they can only get stupid people to agree with their politics. Like, doesn't that tell them something?
post #3342 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I wonder if it bothers them that they can only get stupid people to agree with their politics. Like, doesn't that tell them something?

 

The "modern" GOP is becoming populated with those that think ignorance is a positive character trait and the old school conservative thinkers are a dying breed.


I'm sure there are some 'old timer' GOP members that long for an intellectual class of conservative thinkers but they are the same ones that decided to re-define the word 'elite' (among others) as a pejorative.

 

'Elite' used to mean the best of something but by using it as a curse word directed toward progressive minded folks and all their "college book learnin' ", they can't say "Hey, we've got the smartest folks from the best colleges to help move conservatism forward"

 

Average Conservative Joe: "hey but I thought you said college was for those liberal pussies?"

 

Of course it's way more involved but IMO, the modern conservative movement fucked themselves when they got into bed with the religious fundamentalists, which is a group(s) that can only really maintain and/or grow if their followers remain ignorant. 

 

All that said, the Republican party has never truly been a positive force in this nation for decades if not longer.


Edited by VTRan - 8/12/16 at 2:34pm
post #3343 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I wonder if it bothers them that they can only get stupid people to agree with their politics. Like, doesn't that tell them something?

You're assuming that the "them" in this situation consists of people with basic self-awareness.

post #3344 of 3444

The White House declared a public health emergency in Puerto Rico because of Zika.  Approximately 25% of residents there are expected to contract it (that's crazy).  There are approximately 8,500 people in the U.S. and its territories that have it already.  The White House sent out a funding request almost 200 days ago, and Republicans spent most of the time sitting on their hands.  Initially, they wanted no restrictions on trucking hours before even thinking about a bill.  Then, when Republicans finally decided it was time to work on one, they added a poison pill to it regarding Planned Parenthood which forced Democrats to fight it.  Even something as important as Zika funding is nothing but another chance for Republicans to play politics - ridiculous.

post #3345 of 3444

Okay, it's super easy nowadays to shit on Republicans.  How about some good news?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/08/11/this-republican-mayor-has-an-incredibly-simple-idea-to-help-the-homeless-and-it-seems-to-be-working/?tid=sm_tw

 

Quote:

Throughout his administration, as part of a push to connect the homeless population to services, Berry had taken to driving through the city to talk to panhandlers about their lives. His city’s poorest residents told him they didn’t want to be on the streets begging for money, but they didn’t know where else to go.

 

Seeing that sign gave Berry an idea. Instead of asking them, many of whom feel dispirited, to go out looking for work, the city could bring the work to them.

 

Next month will be the first anniversary of Albuquerque’s There’s a Better Way program, which hires panhandlers for day jobs beautifying the city. In partnership with a local nonprofit that serves the homeless population, a van is dispatched around the city to pick up panhandlers who are interested in working. The job pays $9 an hour, which is above minimum wage, and provides a lunch. At the end of the shift, the participants are offered overnight shelter as needed.

 

In less than a year since its start, the program has given out 932 jobs clearing 69,601 pounds of litter and weeds from 196 city blocks. And more than 100 people have been connected to permanent employment.

 

The program has genuinely helped people realize that there are services looking out for them:

 

Quote:

The There’s a Better Way van employs about 10 workers a day but could easily take more. When the van fills, people have begged to get a spot next time, she said. That’s why the city has increased funding for the program to expand it from two to four days a week. And it inspired St. Martin’s to start its own day labor program, connecting the jobless to employers in the area who could offer side jobs.

 

Tillerson said a lot of the people who get picked up by the van were not aware of all the services available to them. One man who recently got out of prison returned to St. Martin’s the day after taking one of the city’s jobs. She said it enrolled him in the day-labor program, told him about behavioral health services and are helping him get an ID.

 

“He now has a support system he didn’t know he needed and definitely didn’t know existed,” she said. “It’s life-changing for them. He was one that said, ‘I would much rather earn my money than have someone hand it to me.’ ”

post #3346 of 3444
N
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post

Okay, it's super easy nowadays to shit on Republicans.  How about some good news?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/08/11/this-republican-mayor-has-an-incredibly-simple-idea-to-help-the-homeless-and-it-seems-to-be-working/?tid=sm_tw


The program has genuinely helped people realize that there are services looking out for them:

That's great. Isn't Salt Lake City basically doing away with homelessness altogether through similar means? Believe that mayor is Republican as well.
post #3347 of 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post

N
That's great. Isn't Salt Lake City basically doing away with homelessness altogether through similar means? Believe that mayor is Republican as well.


​I'll have to read up on that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

post #3348 of 3444

A look at the Tea Party from a guy who worked for one of the scam super-PAC's:

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/tea-party-pacs-ideas-death-214164

 

Quote:
What began as an organic, policy-driven grass-roots movement was drained of its vitality and resources by national political action committees that dunned the movement’s true believers endlessly for money to support its candidates and causes. The PACs used that money first to enrich themselves and their vendors and then deployed most of the rest to search for more “prospects.” In Tea Party world, that meant mostly older, technologically unsavvy people willing to divulge personal information through “petitions”—which only made them prey to further attempts to lighten their wallets for what they believed was a good cause. While the solicitations continue, the audience has greatly diminished because of a lack of policy results and changing political winds.

I was an employee at one of the firms that ran these operations. But nothing that follows is proprietary or gleaned directly from my employment. The evidence of the scheming is all there in the public record, available for anyone willing to look.
 
Quote:
Republicans inside the Beltway reacted to the burgeoning Tea Party with glee but uncertainty about how to channel the grass-roots energy usually reserved for the left. A small group of supposedly conservative lawyers and consultants saw something different: dollar signs. The PACs found anger at the Republican Party sells very well. The campaigns they ran would be headlined “Boot John Boehner," or “Drop a Truth Bomb on Kevin McCarthy.” And after Boehner was in fact booted and McCarthy bombed in his bid to succeed him, it was naturally time to “Fire Paul Ryan." The selling is always urgent: “Stop what you’re doing” “This can’t wait.” One active solicitor is the Tea Party Leadership Fund, which received $6.7 million from 2013 to mid-2015, overwhelmingly from small donors. A typical solicitation from the TPLF read: “Your immediate contribution could be the most important financial investment you will make to help return America to greatness.” But, according to an investigation by POLITICO, 87 percent of that “investment” went to overhead; only $910,000 of the $6.7 million raised was used to support political candidates. If the prospect signs a “petition,” typically a solicitation of his or her personal information is recorded and a new screen immediately appears asking for money. Vendors pass the information around in “list swaps” and “revenue shares” ad infinitum.

 

These scammers took elder Republicans to the cleaners, and gave almost none of the money to their causes.  Not a surprise.  Like the writer says, much of this information is out there, but it's interesting hearing it from the inside.

post #3349 of 3444

John McLaughlin of "The McLaughling Group" has passed away:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/john-mclaughlin-host-confrontational-tv-show-dead-89-205545559.html

 

Further proof that conservatism will be changing after this year?  In more recent years, I'd imagine McLaughlin's influence over conservatives dwindled, especially with Ailes and Drudge around.  He still had a following, though.  New voices/influencers will be needed.  Who fills the vacuums is the interesting question.

post #3350 of 3444

"Bye BYE!"

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0