He is a complete jerk. That is what I have to say. Anyone who categorizes and rates humans like that is part of the problem. Yikes.
High value men? High value women? What are we doing here, selling humans?
Hell no.
3 Likes
You are welcome to google it. I am not going to post thousands of obvious links for you. Not like you care about the facts anyway. Nor am I going to post a single link, as it would just give you (or others) more reason to complain and spam that flag button.
If you think no states or politicians are trying to limit women’s right to choose, then you are being purposely ignorant about it.
That could be a long list. But okay, on top of my mind and with some google help; ACA (as flawed as it is), Women’s Health Protection Act, PRO act, Equality Act, For the People Act. I could go on. But why bother.
Why it is so difficult to answer the question? Let’s repeat: one major policy dated 1980+. Choose wisely and I will tell you why it is harmful.
MissCheetah I greatly respect you as a major contributor to this community. However, I can’t agree with you here, because life ranks people, whether we like it or not. Similarly, life makes decisions for us when we fail to make them. Finally, no social program could exist that would offset the life long results of poor personal choices on a large scale.
I already did. And if you are complaining that I was nice and mentioned multiple… sigh…
I’ll allow you to pick which one you want to be wrong about first.
1 Like
But he did represent them. In a lot of ways people don’t understand. They may not agree with the way he does it but he speaks for them. Biden speaks for me even though I believe he’s got the cognitive ability of a potato at this point. That is the authority and the purpose of an elected President which is why elections matter.
The president speaks for your country, and can make decisions on your behalf. But that is not the same as representing them as individual people. Seems totally fair to say that a leader is so far away from what you believe in, or what you think your country stands for, that the leader is unable/unwilling to represent you. No matter that the person is the legitimate leader.
Now, the moment you go from “this person does not represent me” to “therefor I can ignore (or even fight) the government” is where things go completely wrong. Until they cross into that craziness I dont see any issues with people stating they dont feel a leader is able to represent them. Acknowledge their legitimacy. You dont need to acknowledge them as defenders of you/your values. Since they aren’t.
2 Likes
None or which justifies saying he’s (or someday, probably soon, she’s) not your President. The words people chose to use do matter. We’re just going to disagree on this which is fine.
That is fine.
Just want to say that I think the words do matter, and there is a significant, meaningful difference between saying “Not my president” vs “Not the president”. The first is an opinion about values and the latter is a factually wrong statement.
But, not a native English speaker, so maybe that is very different from how Americans would read it!
Bill Clinton Balanced the budget for his last four years in office. Seems nuts to look back on it now but he did it. No one has come close to doing it since.
Debunk this. GO!
Let’s quit trolling, shall we? The revenue of a county as large as the US depends on how the economy is doing, which may take years to reflect current day policies. This is because business plans to not start and yield fruit overnight. Depending the field, it can be between 5 to 20 yeas. In other words, if the best business conditions ever possible emerge tonight with the promise to remain in force, and investors decided overnight on all details of their plans, some tax producing revenue streams will not appear until 20 years from now.
Also, Clinton had, for a significant period of time a Republican Congress and “his” budget was larger than what the Republicans wanted. Hence the balancing during that period could be “despite his presidency” and not “because of.” But I’d be happy to see the present day colleague of Clinton to balance the budget with the control of the House as he has at the moment.
I asked about a policy, and some have answered above, so they will get their answers.
The academics who introduced the CRT should have called it “Critical Racism Theory” then! -They didn’t so they have potentially introduced something more divisive to the topic.
I’m also pro equal pay and equal opportunities, but if I needed a translator or proof reader I wouldn’t hire my dyslexic wife, and I can understand why publishers wouldn’t either, but if they wouldn’t hire her because she was black that would be a problem for her union to solve.
No, considering it’s been around for 40 years and all of a sudden it’s become this bogeyman for the right around the same time a president who shown support to racists, the name isn’t divisive. It was a concerted effort by some on the right a few years ago to make it divisive.
Wasn’t there already a short discussion earlier about things not being named literally by what they mean. If not, well, things are not named literally what they mean.
Indeed. That is very much how things should be.
1 Like
Critical Race Theory has been around as a theory of law for forty years and is based on the idea racism is a social construct. It has gradually been applied to other fields such as sociology, the humanities, and teacher education. Teaching it directly to public school children has been a recent development and is the reason it has become such a divisive issue.
Contrary to some media and school administrator claims it is being taught in some public schools. Specifically through the use of the book Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness (Ordinary Terrible Things). Which is a picture book of all things.
I’m not going to argue about the validity of the concept but it’s out there. I’s just not nearly as prevalent as some people claim.
You know that’s a talking point? That it’s not really being taught in public schools.
This is like the people on the right who claim voter fraud is a problem when only 200 or so cases have been prosecuted in billions of votes cast for president. It’s statistically irrelevant. Much like the idea the CRT is is problematic and being taught to our kids.
1 Like
I believe everything the associated press claims. Not.
Here’s a link from a source you equally won’t trust.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/yes-critical-race-theory-is-being-taught-in-public-schools
Are you convinced? No? Quelle surprise.
Lets see what the British say.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57908808
The BBC leans pretty left do you believe them? No? 
Voter fraud is a problem if it’s only one case. That’s why it’s against the law. It’s against the law partially because it undermines confidence in our election system completely out of proportion with it’s effect on vote tallies. People on the left believe it’s a problem too.
1 Like
Eh, no BBC does not lean pretty left. At all. They dont even seem to say that CRT is taught in schools though.
This quote from BBC shows how completely absurd the whole discussion about CRT is:
In a now-deleted tweet, the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation highlighted words like “discrimination”, “social justice”, “identity” and “colonialism” as indicating CRT in the curriculum.
I mean… what? 
Cant teach kids about colonialism or discrimination without it being labeled CRT? Words matter?
Anyway, this guy from your first link seems to get it:
“Let’s be clear: Critical race theory is not taught in elementary schools or high schools. It’s a method of examination taught in law school and college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers
As in, CRT as an academic field you can study. Kids are not taught that.
They can be taught about racism, privilegie etc., which happens to be some of the things that CRT describes.
Sounds a bit like if people claimed kids were taught marxism, because they were taught about unions or the history of worker rights.
Of course it is a problem, at least in a moral sense, and should be fought harshly. Anyone who tries to cheat with votes should be locked up, throwing the key away.
It truly becomes a problem however, when fearmongering about voter fraud is abused to suppress the voters.
3 Likes
BBC is a center reporting outlet not left leaning. But it reported the facts that it was suggested that 30 schools recommended the book to be read. It wasn’t required reading. However, the WI, a right leaning paper claims 30 schools are teaching it. However, let’s say there are 30 schools actually teaching it, there 131K public schools in the US, that means just .00023% of schools are teaching it. Statistically irrelevant.
What you fail to grasp is scale and how much influence/damage can be cause by such small numbers. It’s the reason IDs are required for getting on a plane. 1 person can cause significant damage/destruction on a plane. 1 person cannot influence a national election. .0002% of schools teaching something(which they are not), won’t have this great impact that you fear.
Again, all I read from you is right wing talking points. You right wing paper contradicts what my source and the BBC source and pretty much all other neutral or left news sources claim, that a book is recommended reading in 30 schools, not CRT is being taught.
This is a response to Shadout. Let’s see if the challenged legislation is beneficial to women and minorities.
For starters, Congress likes to name statutes in a way to make them palatable to the public, often a catchy acronym (JOBS act, anyone?). The name implies a purpose, but please note that the effects of the statute may have nothing in common with the stated purpose.
The certified full text version of ACA (PUBLIC LAW 111–148—MAR. 23, 2010) is 906 pages. Let this sink. Nine hundred and six pages of dense legaleese. If I give you this as a homework, wold you be able to read, and fully understand what each provision means, and how each provision interacts with the rest of the provisions of the law and how each provision interacts with currently existing legal framework that affects the healthcare system in the US. And this is before even considering economic and social impacts that would come as a result of the new incentives this law enforces.
What this means it that most likely your House Representative, if voted in support of this, did not read and/or did not fully comprehend the law and this had no chance to property represent your interests as a voter. Passing laws without reading them and/or without comprehending them, knowing that these laws will be enforced on people even when against their will, is a dereliction of duty at bets, and some worse things otherwise.
With that being said, let’s see what the law does and in which areas it is most harmful.
One the first glance, ACA forces everyone who can afford insurance to have one and for those who can’t afford, the government would offer assistance. In short, everyone will have health insurance.
Sounds good at first glance, until we understand that insurance does not mean care.
If insurance didn’t exist as a concept in the healthcare system, the totality of patients would have to pay for the totality of doctor services, medication, facilities, and other medical products.
With the existence of insurance (especially a heavily regulated one), the totality of patients would have to pay for the totality of doctor services, medication, facilities, and other medical products + actuary costs; claim processing costs; appeals costs; insurance compliance costs. Also added are the non monetary costs of filling in insurance forms, and handling insurance claims from the doctor’s office side, time that is taken away from the time available for medical services.
In short, the patients, as a group, pay more per unit of services than they would have had to pay otherwise. Thus, the question is does ACA offer something that is enough to compensate for its costs in terms of money, time, labor, and human capital. When the insurance framework is simple and the overhead low, these extra costs may be indeed worth it. In the case of ACA, this will be discussed.
to be continued
Heh, yeah, you guys have really silly statutes names.
If they did their actual job, they could.
Instead of spending their time fundraising.
I get that not all politicians have the background for being able to read difficult legal texts, nor the insight to understand all the intricate systems the laws interact with. That is completely fair - in a democracy it is critically important that people from all backgrounds can be politicians. Luckily, a politician is more than welcome to get expert help from others.
Not even the most adherent proponent of ACA thought ACA would result in everyone having health insurance. Only saying this in case you later on want to make a strawman about not everyone having health insurance under ACA.
As with voter registration, and voting in general, the moment you have to do something active yourself, to be registered, some people will fall through the cracks, no matter what else is done.
Surely would be the much better solution to get rid of the entire health care insurance system. As I implied, ACA is not exactly great. Just better than what was before.
Which is a general point, relevant for the actual topic. Politics is not a matter of creating perfect solutions. It is about improving things.
Is harassment, bad management etc. at the workplace an unsolvable problem? Probably yes. There will always be bad people around.
But if you can reduce it, limit the impact, that is still progress. You are still better off than you were before. Which is what politics should be about.
Too often some people want perfection to be the enemy of good. Because they actually want to prevent anything from happening.
No. This is not true.
ACA did not exactly invent the health insurance system. It existed beforehand, so people already had to pay that additional cost.
Again, the insurance system is bloated, and adds cost to the US health system. But it was not created by ACA.
Further, you wrote “patients pay more”. I dont know if that was a mistake, and you meant citizens. If not, patients (as a group) obviously would pay more without an insurance system, or without a publicly funded system. That is the entire concept of insurance. The cost is spread out between those needing health care (the patients), and those who do not.
Now, if you meant that citizens in general are paying more per unit of service than otherwise, due to having a insurance system, yeah, that is accurate (though one could argue that the added cost have benefits in term of creating competition, and innovation. But that is a bit of a different topic, and not relevant for ACA specifically, nor do I believe such an argument would be correct).
2 Likes