Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

We're screwed, we're screwed, we're screeeeewweeeeeddddddd...

I don't know what I'd do without federal college loans.

Well you'd have to see exactly how that goes. Student loan money is actually moolah that a lot of Republican donors actually suck up with their greedy Cthulu tentacle mouths.

What Trump will probably do is his threat to cut off grant money to public colleges, so you still get the "debt" part of it, less of the "student" part of it.

Oh joy.

[PTTG??]

The republican/democrat split is somewhat larger than the college/no-college split. (R: 78% trust Trump. D: 7%. Col:37% NoC:55%)

As much as I hate to say it, it is a factionalism problem, not entirely an educational one.

[misko27]

"Thirty three replies" they said.

What Trump will probably do is his threat to cut off grant money to public colleges, so you still get the "debt" part of it, less of the "student" part of it.

Oh so I'm fine. Good. Finally a use to stupidly expensive college.

I mean I have a rich aunt to lean on if it all goes south (while she ordinarily never helps anything, even when my family is hungry, the lady does believe quite strongly in the value of higher education and has helped in the past), but one would rather not have to beg in the first place.

Also from the NY Times, regarding the Transgender protections:

The issue created a rift within the White House, and Mr. Trump ultimately sided with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the objections of Betsy DeVos, the education secretary.

Besty DeVos is the defender of Transgender rights in the Trump Administration?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only common ground I share with Trump is our shared belief that Nuclear Holocaust is a really bad time.

[martinuzz]

We're screwed, we're screwed, we're screeeeewweeeeeddddddd...

I don't know what I'd do without federal college loans.

You could always prostitute yourself to earn your college fees. Apparently ever since they cut funding for Dutch students, that is becoming a trend (escort services). More and more university students sell their body because they don't know how else to pay their rent. /s

(about a decade ago, Dutch government completely removed the free part of college funding, and the rest, which always has been a loan, is still a loan, but simply not enough to survive on unless you have rich parents. That, and there's more demand than supply for student side jobs, so prostitution (and drug labs) are sadly a nescessity for some of the less fortunate)

[Reelya]

The republican/democrat split is somewhat larger than the college/no-college split. (R: 78% trust Trump. D: 7%. Col:37% NoC:55%)

As much as I hate to say it, it is a factionalism problem, not entirely an educational one.

That self-labeled Democrats support Democrats and self-labeled Republicans support Republicans is basically a tautology and tells you literally nothing about causation.  It's like saying "100% of anti-vaxxers oppose vaccines, while 100% of pro-vaxxers support vaccines, so any further analysis is pointless because 'factions' explains the different belief, with a higher certainty than any other variable". It's a flawed argument because people self-select into the factions based on the belief, so that never works as an explanatory framework.

Things like education level, demographics actually give you an indication of the
"risk factors" for joining those demographics in the first place, and they tell you what each party would benefit from changing in terms of demographics. e.g. less pesky college-educated people means less Democrats later on.

[palsch]

How do you demote people by accident?

The principals committee, led by the national security adviser, is the central body that decides foreign policy issues that do not go to the president and frames the choices for those that do. The organization chart issued last month said that the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would attend the committee’s meetings only “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.”

While the decision to give Mr. Bannon a seat was a conscious one, Mr. Trump’s team did not intend to reduce the role of the intelligence director or Joint Chiefs chairman, officials said. In crafting their organization order, the officials said, Mr. Trump’s aides essentially cut and pasted language from Mr. Bush’s organization chart, substituting the national intelligence director for the C.I.A. director, who back then was the head of the nation’s spy agencies.

What Mr. Trump’s team did not realize, officials said, was that Mr. Obama’s organization chart made those two positions full members of the committee.

As a practical matter, Mr. Trump’s aides may not have intended a substantive change, but the political symbolism of elevating Mr. Bannon while seemingly demoting military and intelligence leaders was an immediate distraction.

More concerns over the effects of a weakened and silent State Department.

[PTTG??]

The republican/democrat split is somewhat larger than the college/no-college split. (R: 78% trust Trump. D: 7%. Col:37% NoC:55%)

As much as I hate to say it, it is a factionalism problem, not entirely an educational one.

That self-labeled Democrats support Democrats and self-labeled Republicans support Republicans is basically a tautology and tells you literally nothing about causation.  It's like saying "100% of anti-vaxxers oppose vaccines, while 100% of pro-vaxxers support vaccines, so any further analysis is pointless because 'factions' explains the different belief, with a higher certainty than any other variable". It's a flawed argument because people self-select into the factions based on the belief, so that never works as an explanatory framework.

Things like education level, demographics actually give you an indication of the
"risk factors" for joining those demographics in the first place, and they tell you what each party would benefit from changing in terms of demographics. e.g. less pesky college-educated people means less Democrats later on.

You're disregarding a very important group: republicans who oppose Trump. While certainly true that big-R Republicans in the congress are, all but to a man, lackeys and running dogs, there are many small-r republicans who despise Trump for the many decent reasons which he is kind enough to supply. 13% of the republicans in that survey, for a start.

Though the majority of small-r republicans are either two staid or just apathetic to reflect on Trump's behavior critically, a significant portion of republicans are already rebelling, and this is exactly the group the Democrats and the democrats need to reach out to.

[wobbly]

I'd say here it does matter as there was a fair few questions about whether Trump actually had much support among the core of republicans. Also whether he'd retain that support after he was elected & actually make decisions rather than just campaigning & spouting retric.

& ninjed

[Rolepgeek]

The republican/democrat split is somewhat larger than the college/no-college split. (R: 78% trust Trump. D: 7%. Col:37% NoC:55%)

As much as I hate to say it, it is a factionalism problem, not entirely an educational one.

That self-labeled Democrats support Democrats and self-labeled Republicans support Republicans is basically a tautology and tells you literally nothing about causation.  It's like saying "100% of anti-vaxxers oppose vaccines, while 100% of pro-vaxxers support vaccines, so any further analysis is pointless because 'factions' explains the different belief, with a higher certainty than any other variable". It's a flawed argument because people self-select into the factions based on the belief, so that never works as an explanatory framework.

Things like education level, demographics actually give you an indication of the
"risk factors" for joining those demographics in the first place, and they tell you what each party would benefit from changing in terms of demographics. e.g. less pesky college-educated people means less Democrats later on.

Yep, and less pesky non-college-educated people means less Republicans later on. Or how more legal immigration means more Democrats, via an external source. Which might be at least some portion of the worry or whatnot about it.

[Reelya]

Yep, btw on the same note expect Trump to start prioritizing Christians immigrants from at-risk nations if he hasn't already. Again, it has nothing to do with his great love of Christ and everything to do with building up a sympathetic voter base. He can start with Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army buddies. I hear they're being persecuted by the evil Ugandan government etc. They'll make great citizens.

It's the same reason Bush & Co brought in "assistance" to hook poor minorities into having expensive mortgages. I doubt they ever gave a damn how many black people had housing, they cut regular housing assistance and pour hundreds of millions of dollars of incentives into lenders to reward them for enticing minorities to get subprime mortgages. By turning them into mortgage holders you can use the carrot and stick approach in terms of interest rates to get them to vote how you want. Just run adverts accusing the Democrat candidate's tax proposals of threatening to raise their mortgage repayments.

[Starver]

Meanwhile, memo 1

(Will read the second later.)

It looks like someone consulted the American Advisory for Really Direct Vocabulary in Acronymically Relatable Knowledge when they coined "VOICE".

(Also, I bet they're going to be defining criminal illegal immigrants as such even if their only crime is that of being an illegal immigrant in the first place, despite being law-abiding in all other unrelated aspects.)

[muldrake]

Meanwhile, memo 1

(Will read the second later.)

It looks like someone consulted the American Advisory for Really Direct Vocabulary in Acronymically Relatable Knowledge when they coined "VOICE".

(Also, I bet they're going to be defining criminal illegal immigrants as such even if their only crime is that of being an illegal immigrant in the first place, despite being law-abiding in all other unrelated aspects.)

The problem with making every single "illegal" a "priority" is that now, the ones who actually represent a threat are going to have their deportations, which were previously at the head of the queue, delayed while the adjudication of trivial nonsense is put on an equal footing.  Yet again, it's bungled amateur hour bullshit.

[Frumple]

(Also, I bet they're going to be defining criminal illegal immigrants as such even if their only crime is that of being an illegal immigrant in the first place, despite being law-abiding in all other unrelated aspects.)

Well, if they were going to do that, they'd have to criminalize illegal immigration.

... I won't lie, I'm waiting for the day trump notices it's not, or some portion of his base does and he stops ignoring that little tidbit. That actually becoming a crime would be about the most amazing immigration related clusterfuck you could see.

Though now that I think about it, it could mark a revival for our legal professions. We'd suddenly need with metric fuckton of new lawyers, with everything else that entails.

[Starver]

(Also, I bet they're going to be defining criminal illegal immigrants as such even if their only crime is that of being an illegal immigrant in the first place, despite being law-abiding in all other unrelated aspects.)

Well, if they were going to do that, they'd have to criminalize illegal immigration.

You're going to accuse me of misrepresenting my original argument, because of the caveat of 'unrelated' that I added, but I was thinking about the history behind the following:

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/02/15/jeanette-vizguerra-deportation-immigrant-colorado/

ETA: Better (more dispassionate) thing found on 538.

During his first term in office, Obama drew fire from immigration supporters for increasing deportations, particularly along the Mexican border. Later in his administration, however, Obama changed tack, sharply reducing deportations by focusing on immigrants convicted of serious crimes or who had entered the country recently. Undocumented immigrants who were accused only of immigration-related offenses, such as using fake documents in order to work, were usually spared deportation, as were those convicted of traffic violations and other more minor offenses.

Trump and Kelly look set to reverse that shift — and then some. Immigration authorities will continue to focus on immigrants accused of crimes, but the new memorandums substantially expand the list of offenses that are likely to lead to deportation. The administration will prioritize deportation of undocumented immigrants accused — not necessarily convicted — of all “chargeable criminal offenses,” potentially including immigration-related violations. And the memorandums make clear that anyone in the country illegally can be kicked out of the country at any time.

[palsch]

Gorka's threatening call to a critic has been released. Listen to a senior Trump advisor shout at a journalist.

This guy is pretty juicy, especially given his public views contradict his published thesis.

Also reports that Manafort was blackmailed while working for Trump, with text messages.