The Trump Presidency – 2016

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't deny there is luck at all. Many examples of that in my past for sure. I have to add "choices" with "hard work" are the 2 factors one can control, not control perfectly of course.

Many in the US (and world) are unlucky to be born in an environment that sets them at a disadvantage.

Your life is impacted by a lot of different things. As for my life, good decisions led to luck. If I hadn't made good decisions, I don't know where I would be. I didn't have parents that prepared me for the world and it shows in their other 3 children.

I won't pretend that I know what it is like to be someone else, but my life experiences make me believe you're in control of your own destiny regardless of who you are.

My brother is a good example. He was going to enlist in the USAF. On his way to the recruiter to sign the enlistment papers, the friend who was giving him a ride convinced him not to go. Instead, he moved in with that friend and started working the night shift at a dog food plant. That was 15 years ago. Today, that friend is dead, killed in a drug deal gone bad. My brother has been strung out on various drugs on and off over that same time.

One bad decision changed the course of his life.

I am not going to argue that certain people in the world have it harder than others and their options are limited. I believe that is true. But I also believe the best way to over come those odds is to beat them yourself, not to ask someone else to change them just for you.

Even after saying that, I know everyone's situation is different and that way of thinking may not work for everyone.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't deny there is luck at all. Many examples of that in my past for sure. I have to add "choices" with "hard work" are the 2 factors one can control, not control perfectly of course.

Many in the US (and world) are unlucky to be born in an environment that sets them at a disadvantage.

Agreed.

With the example in the article Atocep posted I would argue that life is not Monopoly, but whatever.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, does luck pose a factor? Yes. If you are an athlete and your best game is when a scout is in attendance that is luck. However, your hard work is what put you in position to take advantage of that luck factor. In many cases people seem to always fall on their feet, is that due to luck or hard work?

With regards to the results of the model in the article, it is flawed, but I can answer where the gap in real world results and their model results lay, and that is in taking advantage of luck (with regards to the results, it would be interesting to see results of initial hardship vs. windfalls and see where they wind up. Most simulations like this wind up not producing any overall wealth, which we do see wealth increasing in the world. You would expect wealth growth in this simulation to trend towards 0.) Luck is not a wad of cash that is handed to you, luck is the opportunities provided to us. The harder we have worked to become the best at what we do, the better prepared we are to take advantage of those opportunities.

Someone posted before, we are not born the best at anything. That is 100% correct. You might be blessed with genes that would make you a great basketball player, or a great scientist, but you need to maximize that initial advantage. What happens when that basketball player puts his energies into being a scientist and the scientist tries to be a basketball player?

There are a lot of jobs out there that people are either unaware of or do not want to do. There is a shortage of welders, WWTP operators, WTP operators, maintenance technicians, etc. For the WTP and WWTP positions you need certain certifications, but many facilities are willing to help with the cost of education and certification. Most of these facilities you can retire with full benefits after 25-35 years depending upon the municipality.

Welders have been able to go to W. Texas, the Dakotas, the tar sands in Alberta and basically write their own check. You can also go out to the oil rigs in the Gulf as well. Many of these jobs earn over 6 figures and in the case of the oil rigs, it is often a 6 months on, 6 months off rotation, so you are earning the money over half the year. This is not a job that requires a ton of education, you just need training on how to do it.

Why do people not do these jobs? For one, many are not aware of the opportunities there. WWTP and WTP operators are gaining visibility with the increased environmental awareness but people do not talk a ton about these jobs. With regards to welders, we do not talk to kids about the trades any more. You don't have someone coming from a job site telling kids to go in the construction industry. The fact of the matter is we should.

Where I am going with all of this is that we need to improve the chances that people are equipped to take advantage of opportunities when they come along. Whether that opportunity is due to sheer luck, or if you believe you create your own luck.

Where we disagree as a society is how to maximize this. Those that are less fortunate are going to have less opportunities. Education is one way we can increase those opportunities (also, while general education is better than no education, we need to focus on paths that lead to better results and opportunities). Hard work is another way we can increase those opportunities. The question is what else can we do?

[JPhillips]

Luck is not a wad of cash that is handed to you, luck is the opportunities provided to us. The harder we have worked to become the best at what we do, the better prepared we are to take advantage of those opportunities.

But sometimes it is a wad of cash.

One of my favorite former students was only able to come to the college becuase of a program to give full-rides to a limited number of disadvantaged students. She was great. She worked her ass off. But she only attended college becuase she was chosen to get free tuition, her parents had so little interest in her education that they didn't even stay for her admissions interviews.

She entered the Peace Corps after graduation and is now doing non-profit work and making a big difference in the lives of other diadvantaged children. None of that would have been possible, though, without the gift of a big wad of cash in the form of free tuition.

[CU Tiger]

I think this is a fascinating discussion and one that isn't had nearly enough.

I dont think any (logical) person denies that there are varying degrees of challenges faced by people. And there are varying degrees of likely potential successes that are in fact shaped by where you start.

I dont think this is inherently bad, though its certainly not ideal. But I also dont know how you "fix" it.

I fully believe however, that if a person chooses to keep getting up. To keep fighting. That eventually they will improve their position on the socio-economic ladder. Granted outside of rare talent or natural gifts bottom of the ladder to Malibu Palace probably isn't attainable.

But my why, my reason for getting up everyday is not to get rich its to lay the absolute best foundation I can for my kids to build a better settlement on with the hopes that my grandkids build an empire. I am driven by the concept of generational change. Not everyone is. I get that. But I do think we all should be allowed to aspire to change our family tree.

If your parents werent driven by that, it does suck. Trust me. I know. But that isnt a reason to quit its a reason to work harder.

But we all have pros and cons. None of us are good or bad. Attractiveness was mentioned up thread. Yes, some people are ore attractive. undeniable. And some are naturally more intelligent. But how you use your advantage and minimize your disadvantage to me is what determines your fate, if fate is ever determined at all. As we keep evolving and changing until the end.

[ISiddiqui]

re: attractiveness. Studies have shown that being attractive is a HUGE benefit to getting your foot in the door. Getting interviews and being hired for jobs goes up significantly if you are attractive (though it is even higher if your interviewer is of the opposite sex).

[thesloppy]

The attractiveness element also leads back to racism somewhat, in that most folks generally find people outside of their own race less attractive.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The attractiveness element also leads back to racism somewhat, in that most folks generally find people outside of their own race less attractive.

I've kind of wondered about that recently

If I say I find white women more attractive than black women does that make me racist? Would other people call me racist?

But what if I say that I find red haired ladies more attractive than blondes or brunettes. Does anyone care other than those that disagree?

The two statements are morally equivalent right?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I've kind of wondered about that recently

If I say I find white women more attractive than black women does that make me racist? Would other people call me racist?

But what if I say that I find red haired ladies more attractive than blondes or brunettes. Does anyone care other than those that disagree?

The two statements are morally equivalent right?

Not a racist, maybe a bigot

[Arles]

Now that we are getting into a philosophical world - I wonder if people really understand what would be involved with everyone having an "equal opportunity" of success when they are born. For one, you would basically have to get rid of all personal wealth and you would still need to deal with personal biases, racism, etc. The world isn't (and will never be) fair. But, I do think we have an obligation as a society to provide support options for when people are in a tough situation as means of pulling themselves out. Unfortunately, that process can be difficult and not all people will make the decisions required to get back on track. Still, that shouldn't dissuade us from continuing to provide that support.

But, this whole discussion about luck vs skill in success is kind of a moot point. Let's say it is 75% luck, what steps are we really prepared to take (as a society) to reduce that? I think the only thing we can do is give people options when bad luck strikes and hope they can ride that out until "good luck" come in.

[spleen1015]

Can we replace the word 'luck' with 'coincidence' and all of this mean the same thing?

We can all look back at out lives and see coincidences that lead us to where we are. Was it coincidence, luck, or are they the same?

I think luck implies something totally different and may not be the right word here.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Can we replace the word 'luck' with 'coincidence' and all of this mean the same thing?

We can all look back at out lives and see coincidences that lead us to where we are. Was it coincidence, luck, or are they the same?

I think luck implies something totally different and may not be the right word here.

Luck is "success or failure brought by chance rather than through one's own actions"

I think it fits perfectly

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

Now that we are getting into a philosophical world - I wonder if people really understand what would be involved with everyone having an "equal opportunity" of success when they are born. For one, you would basically have to get rid of all personal wealth and you would still need to deal with personal biases, racism, etc. The world isn't (and will never be) fair. But, I do think we have an obligation as a society to provide support options for when people are in a tough situation as means of pulling themselves out. Unfortunately, that process can be difficult and not all people will make the decisions required to get back on track. Still, that shouldn't dissuade us from continuing to provide that support.

As long as parenthood is a concept, some people are going to start off way better than others.

People love to brag that they KNOW about white privilege, but I've never seen one of them sacrifice their kid's schooling or upbringing to improve a minority's chances at the same opportunities they handed their kids on a silver platter. But somehow just expressing that knowledge of their upper middle-class existence makes them less guilty than someone less fortunate but also not as woke.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Can we replace the word 'luck' with 'coincidence' and all of this mean the same thing?

We can all look back at out lives and see coincidences that lead us to where we are. Was it coincidence, luck, or are they the same?

I think luck implies something totally different and may not be the right word here.

They don't mean the same thing to me but wasn't sure how to express it well so here's a google opinion.

https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/...ncidence-.aspx

Luck" is s random occurrence that operates either for or against us. "Coincidence" is a random occurrence that brings two or more related incidents together. For example, "coincidence" is what happens when your two boyfriends head for your house at the same time. ""Luck" is what happens when one of the cars won't start.

CREDIT: The person who wrote that answer is Marilyn vos Savant, who writes a column in the magazine Parade. This answer appeared in the September 18, 2016, issue.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There are a lot of jobs out there that people are either unaware of or do not want to do. There is a shortage of welders, WWTP operators, WTP operators, maintenance technicians, etc. For the WTP and WWTP positions you need certain certifications, but many facilities are willing to help with the cost of education and certification. Most of these facilities you can retire with full benefits after 25-35 years depending upon the municipality.

Welders have been able to go to W. Texas, the Dakotas, the tar sands in Alberta and basically write their own check. You can also go out to the oil rigs in the Gulf as well. Many of these jobs earn over 6 figures and in the case of the oil rigs, it is often a 6 months on, 6 months off rotation, so you are earning the money over half the year. This is not a job that requires a ton of education, you just need training on how to do it.

Why do people not do these jobs? For one, many are not aware of the opportunities there. WWTP and WTP operators are gaining visibility with the increased environmental awareness but people do not talk a ton about these jobs. With regards to welders, we do not talk to kids about the trades any more. You don't have someone coming from a job site telling kids to go in the construction industry. The fact of the matter is we should.

This is pretty close to my feelings and experiences within the tech industry. I only got my foot in the door by knowing someone, but once I was in there was a whole world of jobs that I didn't even know existed previously, and I imagine there are scores and scores of entire industries, representing millions of potential jobs, that underprivileged kids don't even realize exist. Folks of better privilege may get introduced into these professional industries/jobs, or just be familiar with their existence, thanks to better schooling, or connected family and friends that are more likely to be involved in these exclusive, more rewarding industries.

In the cases of the trades, I agree that was also never presented to me as an option as a kid, and I think there are whole swaths of kids (including my past self) that would benefit from such a focused path, rather than heading off to college with zero focus, or working at the local plant, just because it's the expected thing to do.

[JPhillips]

There are things that can be done. Part of the goal of public education is to provide opportunities for those unable to afford a private education. There's a lot in between nothing and some dystopian idea of perfect equality.

[Lathum]

No abuse of power. Nothing to see here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/u....co/qkdB1VEzvj

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I've kind of wondered about that recently

If I say I find white women more attractive than black women does that make me racist? Would other people call me racist?

But what if I say that I find red haired ladies more attractive than blondes or brunettes. Does anyone care other than those that disagree?

The two statements are morally equivalent right?

Nobody cares who you find more attractive or who you'd rather sleep with. But if it means as a hiring manager or in some other position your "preferences" even unwittingly bleed over into who you're more comfortable with, that's where problems lie. It extends beyond that to social interactions, too.

It's not about attractiveness or preferences, it's when those preferences get tied to things like denying people's humanity, and negating the structural reasons why certain people don't live in certain neighborhoods or own businesses or have generational wealth to pass down.

[JPhillips]

And the D.C. Appeals ruled Congress has no standing to sue over emoluments effectively meaning impeachment is the only corrective to violating that clause of the Constitution.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Inviting Juan Guaido was a good move. I hope this means we will be doing more in Venezuela.

Wonder what he has planned?

Venezuela's economy is rebounding (after years of pain). Not sure if its sustainable but it may be too late to act now since Guaido seemed to have lost the momentum.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/polit...ing/index.html

President Donald Trump pledged more action to ramp up pressure on Venezuela's embattled President Nicolas Maduro during a White House meeting Wednesday with Juan Guaido, the Venezuelan opposition leader who is recognized by the US and more than 50 countries as Venezuela's interim president, a source familiar with the meeting said.

Meeting in the Oval Office, Trump told Guaido there would be new US government actions concerning Venezuela in the next month, the source said, although it wasn't immediately clear what those actions might be. The US has been mulling additional sanctions targeting Russia for its ongoing oil purchases from Venezuela and the source said Guaido hoped Trump was referring to impending action on that front.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Nobody cares who you find more attractive or who you'd rather sleep with. But if it means as a hiring manager or in some other position your "preferences" even unwittingly bleed over into who you're more comfortable with, that's where problems lie. It extends beyond that to social interactions, too.

It's not about attractiveness or preferences, it's when those preferences get tied to things like denying people's humanity, and negating the structural reasons why certain people don't live in certain neighborhoods or own businesses or have generational wealth to pass down.

Great point and an element of subconscious fear of what is different than us plays into this too. I think people who are exposed to more diversity/culture are less likely to let this inadvertently influence them, and I don't know that is often the case if someone has not been exposed to or interacted with cultures/races outside their own.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Great point and an element of subconscious fear of what is different than us plays into this too. I think people who are exposed to more diversity/culture are less likely to let this inadvertently influence them, and I don't know that is often the case if someone has not been exposed to or interacted with cultures/races outside their own.

Excellent point.
Even outside the realm of sex/race I think we all have a tendency -let me change that, I know I have a tendency and I try to consciously fight it - to transitive characteristic people to people they remind us of. Early on my hiring career I tried to replicate my A players. I did this through hiring people from similar back grounds or similar paths...it was very subconscious. But I'd be in an interview and say "This guy reminds me of Mike. Mike is the best resi-guy I have. I need a resi-guy. Im going to hire him and Ill have another Mike."...then Id be disappointed when he wasn't Mike. And I can admit I did this racially as well. I had a hispanic who worked for me who was the hardest working dude I had (stereotype I know) so I set out to intentionally hire more hispanic because I wanted that characteristic. In some cases it worked and in some it failed spectacularly. Shocking I know they were humans just like me and varied.

I dont say that to brag, but to admit that I made those mistakes. In the moment I couldnt have told you I was even making those choices. Looking back I certainly was. At this point I have hired over 400 employees in my career. I still dont think Im good at it. I couldnt write a book on it thats for sure. Yet I routinely get calls from friends asking for tips because they think I do a great job at identifying talent.Im nt real comfortable giving that advice because its basically 'screw up a bunch and learn from your mistakes'...

But all that said we are all subject to our own internal bias. On the way home there are two gas stations across the road from each other. I stop at 1 because...well I dont know. But the cashier likes to show off cleavage and I find that appealing and we talk daily. So I am bias towards cleavage. That in itself is discriminatory, and I get that. But Im not sure how to change it. Do I make it a point to avoid stores that have female cashiers. No that's discriminatory also. And I have zero clue how to legislate it. In fact Ive got a good friend who is a brain doc employed by the US DOD to study soldier thought processes and improve our combat operations. He says the brain is remarkably good at identifying threat vs ally...until we start thinking and trying to evaluate it intelligently..then we are remarkably shitty at it.

[cartman]

cue the Omar courtroom scene from The Wire

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There are things that can be done. Part of the goal of public education is to provide opportunities for those unable to afford a private education. There's a lot in between nothing and some dystopian idea of perfect equality.

Agreed. We can do much more to help provide skills for people to be able to successfully make the most of opportunities, and remove the road-blocks that keeps people from being able to find them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Agreed.

With the example in the article Atocep posted I would argue that life is not Monopoly, but whatever.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, does luck pose a factor? Yes. If you are an athlete and your best game is when a scout is in attendance that is luck. However, your hard work is what put you in position to take advantage of that luck factor. In many cases people seem to always fall on their feet, is that due to luck or hard work?

With regards to the results of the model in the article, it is flawed, but I can answer where the gap in real world results and their model results lay, and that is in taking advantage of luck (with regards to the results, it would be interesting to see results of initial hardship vs. windfalls and see where they wind up. Most simulations like this wind up not producing any overall wealth, which we do see wealth increasing in the world. You would expect wealth growth in this simulation to trend towards 0.) Luck is not a wad of cash that is handed to you, luck is the opportunities provided to us. The harder we have worked to become the best at what we do, the better prepared we are to take advantage of those opportunities.

Someone posted before, we are not born the best at anything. That is 100% correct. You might be blessed with genes that would make you a great basketball player, or a great scientist, but you need to maximize that initial advantage. What happens when that basketball player puts his energies into being a scientist and the scientist tries to be a basketball player?

There are a lot of jobs out there that people are either unaware of or do not want to do. There is a shortage of welders, WWTP operators, WTP operators, maintenance technicians, etc. For the WTP and WWTP positions you need certain certifications, but many facilities are willing to help with the cost of education and certification. Most of these facilities you can retire with full benefits after 25-35 years depending upon the municipality.

Welders have been able to go to W. Texas, the Dakotas, the tar sands in Alberta and basically write their own check. You can also go out to the oil rigs in the Gulf as well. Many of these jobs earn over 6 figures and in the case of the oil rigs, it is often a 6 months on, 6 months off rotation, so you are earning the money over half the year. This is not a job that requires a ton of education, you just need training on how to do it.

Why do people not do these jobs? For one, many are not aware of the opportunities there. WWTP and WTP operators are gaining visibility with the increased environmental awareness but people do not talk a ton about these jobs. With regards to welders, we do not talk to kids about the trades any more. You don't have someone coming from a job site telling kids to go in the construction industry. The fact of the matter is we should.

Where I am going with all of this is that we need to improve the chances that people are equipped to take advantage of opportunities when they come along. Whether that opportunity is due to sheer luck, or if you believe you create your own luck.

Where we disagree as a society is how to maximize this. Those that are less fortunate are going to have less opportunities. Education is one way we can increase those opportunities (also, while general education is better than no education, we need to focus on paths that lead to better results and opportunities). Hard work is another way we can increase those opportunities. The question is what else can we do?

But the issue is that luck is by far the most important thing. Look at inter-generational mobility. Look at the most successful people in the world. They are represented primarily by people who were born lucky.

A percent of the population has no opportunity to say become a doctor. They can't afford med school. They don't have rich parents who can buy them enrollment or give them more study time because they don't need to work a job on the side. No matter how hard they work, it just isn't happening.

In my opinion, the goal should be to level the opportunity playing field as much as we can. To actually create real competition and let the cream rise to the top. If you want to have the best doctors running the show, you let everyone who want to compete in.

But a lot of people don't want it and I understand. More people with opportunity means more competition. Some people crave competition and feel it makes them and everyone around them better. Others want an easy way out. It's easier to pat people on the head and tell them to be a welder instead.

[RainMaker]

And this stuff goes beyond college. Take the justice system.

For some people, getting pulled over with weed means getting locked up, a permanent record, and a huge setback financially.

For others, they can commit billions in bank and wire fraud and end up becoming the Treasury Secretary.

How does that equate into the "hard work to get to the top" scenario?

[GrantDawg]

Lt Col Vindman was escorted out of the White House today, after being told his services where no longer needed. What a shock.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But the issue is that luck is by far the most important thing. Look at inter-generational mobility. Look at the most successful people in the world. They are represented primarily by people who were born lucky.

A percent of the population has no opportunity to say become a doctor. They can't afford med school. They don't have rich parents who can buy them enrollment or give them more study time because they don't need to work a job on the side. No matter how hard they work, it just isn't happening.

In my opinion, the goal should be to level the opportunity playing field as much as we can. To actually create real competition and let the cream rise to the top. If you want to have the best doctors running the show, you let everyone who want to compete in.

A system like you describe just isn't feasible. There's no way to setup a system where a kid grown into a one-parent home in poverty will ever have the same chance at success as someone born in a Beverly Hills mansion. It can't happen. The hope is that we setup an education system that allows the poor kid a *chance* at getting good grades, going to college/trade school and then setting up a situation where his kid is in a better spot. But, it's going to be very hard for that kid when he lives in an area with no good role models, no supervision because his one parent works two jobs and within a poverty culture that cares more about drug pushing than algebra exams. None of this is the kid's fault, it's just what he was born into.

But a lot of people don't want it and I understand. More people with opportunity means more competition. Some people crave competition and feel it makes them and everyone around them better. Others want an easy way out. It's easier to pat people on the head and tell them to be a welder instead.

It's not about wanting it, it's about being realistic. There's just no way to achieve pure competition in any society. So, you need to be honest with what is going on, do what you can to make marginal improvements and just understand a certain % of society is just starting from a real bad position. What you can do is provide avenues for the kids that find a way to persevere and help them get out. But for every one that does that, there will be 10 (or more) that just stay in this bad position their entire life. It's sad, but acting like we can waive a magic wand and change it is really disingenuous.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

A system like you describe just isn't feasible. There's no way to setup a system where a kid grown into a one-parent home in poverty will ever have the same chance at success as someone born in a Beverly Hills mansion. It can't happen. The hope is that we setup an education system that allows the poor kid a *chance* at getting good grades, going to college/trade school and then setting up a situation where his kid is in a better spot. But, it's going to be very hard for that kid when he lives in an area with no good role models, no supervision because his one parent works two jobs and within a poverty culture that cares more about drug pushing than algebra exams.

Of course you can't level every variable. But you can do your best to level what you can. Other countries do this successfully.

The culture thing is a copout. There are bad role models and criminals everywhere. Difference is in a poor area, your poor actions have consequences.

Originally Posted by Arles

It's not about wanting it, it's about being realistic. There's just no way to achieve pure competition in any society. So, you need to be honest with what is going on, do what you can to make marginal improvements and just understand a certain % of society is just starting from a real bad position. What you can do is provide avenues for the kids that find a way to persevere and help them get out. But for every one that does that, there will be 10 (or more0 that just stay in this bad position their entire life. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it. It's sad, but acting like we can waive a magic wand and change it is really disingenuous.

I never said pure competition. I said you can do a lot to create more competition. To level the playing ground so that a profession is based more on skill and less on how rich your parents are.

But like I said, a lot of people don't want that and realize they can't compete if the doors are open. That's why they'll make excuses for why it can't be changed.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Of course you can't level every variable. But you can do your best to level what you can. Other countries do this successfully.

The culture thing is a copout. There are bad role models and criminals everywhere. Difference is in a poor area, your poor actions have consequences.

So you're saying a person born into a culture where two parents went to college, value education, help their kids do homework and save to help pay for their college is no different than a person born into a single parent home with only a high school education and very little support/supervision? Basically, if the laws were changed and that single parent was given more welfare - everything would be equal? Culture and starting point matters a great deal.

I never said pure competition. I said you can do a lot to create more competition. To level the playing ground so that a profession is based more on skill and less on how rich your parents are.

I don't know that less capable/qualified candidates being consistently passed over in jobs for lesser qualified "richer kids" is a big problem. We value results more than we ever have and if someone is in over their skis, they will usually be replaced at some point. Where it helps is giving richer kids access to better education. Then, if you have a kid that graduated Dartmouth going against a kid that went to Indiana State, chances that other kid will get the job. But if he stinks, he will be replaced. It's not like hedge funds are going to allow people who loose millions of dollars to stay on or doctor's who continually make major mistakes are going to be allowed to practice.

But like I said, a lot of people don't want that and realize they can't compete if the doors are open. That's why they'll make excuses for why it can't be changed.

I'm still not even sure what changes you want? I get changing some laws and I am for that too - but that's 1% of the problem you are talking about. What other things can we do to get this better competition you keep hoping for?

[JPhillips]

Vindman's twin brother was also fired today.

[JPhillips]

I'll throw out some possibilities.

Universal pre-k
Expanded healthcare
Schools feed children at no cost to the child
Federal program to rebuild crumbling schools

And my favorite, lead abatement. There's simply nothing that would as cheaply improve as many lives.

No, that doesn't fix everything, but that's not the goal. Those programs will make a lot of lives better and provide opportunity to a lot of kids.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

So you're saying a person born into a culture where two parents went to college, value education, help their kids do homework and save to help pay for their college is no different than a person born into a single parent home with only a high school education and very little support/supervision? Basically, if the laws were changed and that single parent was given more welfare - everything would be equal? Culture and starting point matters a great deal.

No, I'm saying that you have this implication that if someone is wealthy they are immediately morally superior and better parents than someone who hasn't.

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know that less capable/qualified candidates being consistently passed over in jobs for lesser qualified "richer kids" is a big problem. We value results more than we ever have and if someone is in over their skis, they will usually be replaced at some point. Where it helps is giving richer kids access to better education.

I'm not talking about the actual job portion, I'm talking about the opportunity to get there. The more money you are born into, the higher chance you have of affording to go to college and being able to spend your time their studying. The less debt you would leave school with so that you could take risks and be innovative.

Originally Posted by Arles

It's not like hedge funds are going to allow people who loose millions of dollars to stay on

Were you around during the great recession? They were handing out bonuses like candy at companies that were insolvent. There are some industries where you're held accountable for your job, but finance isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm still not even sure what changes you want? I get changing some laws and I am for that too - but that's 1% of the problem you are talking about. What other things can we do to get this better competition you keep hoping for?

Expand public education through college for those who qualify. Then let the brightest, hardest working people win out. That's a decent start.

It's weird how the people who talk about hard work to succeed seem to be the most against setting up a meritocracy. Almost like it's overcompensating.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vindman's twin brother was also fired today.

Remember the people who were convinced that Republicans were really upset about kneeling because it disrespected the troops?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vindman's twin brother was also fired today.

That's just comedy.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, I'm saying that you have this implication that if someone is wealthy they are immediately morally superior and better parents than someone who hasn't.

I'm not talking about the actual job portion, I'm talking about the opportunity to get there. The more money you are born into, the higher chance you have of affording to go to college and being able to spend your time their studying. The less debt you would leave school with so that you could take risks and be innovative.

I don't think wealthy people are morally superior at all. In terms of parents, it's a lot easier to be a good parent when you are working salary and not juggling two hourly jobs. But, I don't think it's a stretch to say that someone living in an upper middle class home will have better supervision than someone who has one parent in poverty.

Expand public education through college for those who qualify. Then let the brightest, hardest working people win out. That's a decent start.

I'm on record as saying the highest in-state tuition should be for public state universities is 8-10K. I also support financial grants for community colleges/JC to make those inexpensive for lower income. But, education isn't the main driver in this as you seem to believe. You can offer free college to every inner city kid tomorrow and many won't even enroll. And of those that do, many will fail out because they haven't been taught how to study or to prioritize education. You need to find a way to make education a priority to lower income people and I'm not sure how you do that.

It's weird how the people who talk about hard work to succeed seem to be the most against setting up a meritocracy. Almost like it's overcompensating.

I agree that there is an intellectual break on the conservative end with this stuff. One one hand, they want a pure capitalistic culture and take pride that anyone can succeed if they "work hard". On the other, they never want to pay the small amount it would cost to help subsidize better education options for lower income kids. That said, it is not just "give them cheap school and everything works out". You have to find a way to show these kids how important a good education is and get these families to prioritize it. Some simply can't because they are working multiple jobs and just trying to survive.

[Jas_lov]

Gordon Sondland fired. He sure did learn his lesson, Susan Collins.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Gordon Sondland fired. He sure did learn his lesson, Susan Collins.

Sondland sure did. smh

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Gordon Sondland fired. He sure did learn his lesson, Susan Collins.

He now belongs to a very select group of only the best people




List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations - Wikipedia

[JPhillips]

Gary Johnson has endorsed Tulsi and is pushing her to run Libertarian.

Remember when we all thought he had principles?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Gary Johnson has endorsed Tulsi and is pushing her to run Libertarian.

Remember when we all thought he had principles?

Libertarians are a laughingstock these days.

[GrantDawg]

What? Tulsi run third party? No. Who could have ever seen that coming.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[molson]

I can't say I know exactly how it works, but the Libertarian party actually runs state primaries and I was amused to see that Lincoln Chafee is currently in a tight battle with Vermin Supreme for second place. Vermin carried New Hampshire (17.3% of the 150 votes cast), but Lincoln fared better in Iowa - where the libertarians held their caucuses yesterday and managed to already count all the votes. Though it's probably easier when there's only 282 total votes.

I feel like I could maybe win the Idaho primary if that's a thing. I have a strong coalition of drinking buddies and acquaintances and think I could manage at least 20 votes, which should be enough. Maybe at least have a Skype debate with Vermin Supreme. Who's willing to put a sign in their yard?

[JPhillips]

Now Johnson is apologizing for confusing people and says he's supporting Bill Weld.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Now Johnson is apologizing for confusing people and says he's supporting Bill Weld.

Isn't he running in the Republican primary against Trump?

[JPhillips]

Yep.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Gary Johnson has endorsed Tulsi and is pushing her to run Libertarian.

Remember when we all thought he had principles?

Yeah I remember this board being hugely supportive and sympathetic to Gary Johnson and his principles. (sarcasm intended) My guess is that Johnson likes her stance on the Washington DC war machine but I would agree she is hardly Libertarian with her economic views. What confuses me is why she is so hated by liberals? She would seem to be in line with most of the principles I see you discuss here, just doesn't devote 24-7 to hating Trump like is needed?

Sadly the truth is probably her opposition to the war mongering. Deep down both parties love it and so do most of the American people. I mean how could somebody like her who actually served in the military oppose the endless war in the Middle East?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Now Johnson is apologizing for confusing people and says he's supporting Bill Weld.

I wish Bill Weld was on top of the ticket last time around. It can be hard to take Gary Johnson seriously at times and as a 3rd party candidate you don't need that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah I remember this board being hugely supportive and sympathetic to Gary Johnson and his principles. (sarcasm intended) My guess is that Johnson likes her stance on the Washington DC war machine but I would agree she is hardly Libertarian with her economic views. What confuses me is why she is so hated by liberals? She would seem to be in line with most of the principles I see you discuss here, just doesn't devote 24-7 to hating Trump like is needed?

Sadly the truth is probably her opposition to the war mongering. Deep down both parties love it and so do most of the American people. I mean how could somebody like her who actually served in the military oppose the endless war in the Middle East?

Tulsi, among her numerous problems, is more than willing to defend Assad from chemical warfare charges. You can be against the forever war without siding with a man slaughtering his civilian population.

We have a different memory of Johnson in 2016. If the bar is support, sure not many here did, but I think there wa a lot of acknowledgement that Johnson was sincere and honest in his beliefs. But now... not so much.

[Chief Rum]

Only reason Johnson got support here or nearly anywhere in 2016 was because he wasn't Trump or Hillary. I voted for him and that was pretty much my reason.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We have a different memory of Johnson in 2016. If the bar is support, sure not many here did, but I think there wa a lot of acknowledgement that Johnson was sincere and honest in his beliefs. But now... not so much.

That's most libertarians. Talk a big game but never back it up in the real world. Look what Rand Paul has been up to the past couple months.