BullBuchanan

I think that's tied to college funding reform - a separate but related issue in my book. Generally speaking, I think the overwhelming majority of degrees should be directly actionable from a career standpoint with enough exposure to related disciplines to enhance one's employability.

There's a role in STEM fields for most people that are looking at higher education. For others, vocational training probably makes a lot of sense. and I also think those should be included as part of the definition of higher education. Academia also has a place, but should be more of a conscious choice than the default it is today. Free at time of use, but that's a multi-step thought process. i get the difficulty.

You aren't half the enigma you appear to be, kid. I see your mouth-breathing, low IQ MAGA clones everywhere I go these days. Computer Science, so yea.

No *****.

I know you don't understand math or science, but they're important for our individual and national well-being. You'll have to take my word on that.

You should pay for it because a higher educated populace results in a stronger workforce, which results in a higher GDP which results in a higher quality of life for you, your family, your neighbors and your country. It also can result in a more socially and civically conscious electorate which makes our quality of life better in a ton of different ways. In the end it's an investment in our community that pays handsome returns. I also didn't have anyone pay a cent of my over 6 figures in student loans, and I don't need or want the student loan reform to benefit me personally.

They're both smaller speed burners. Diggs has height, but he doesn't weigh much. Digss has also never played a full season, so not sure about the whole injury comparison.

You're a prime exhibit why I support tuition free higher education.

They're very similar players with very similar production. I love Diggs the player, but I feel like his trade value should have been a lot closer to that of Cooks. They've been trying to move him for a while now, and Beane paid the maximum. I wonder where Minnesota started the negotiation if we ended up having to pay as much as we did.

Forgetting the fact that National Socialism is a completely different and opposed thing from Socialism, do you believe that because someone calls themseleves a thing, that's what they are? Do you think The Congo is a Democratic Republic? Is North Korea a Democratic People's Republic? How About China? Are Al-Qaeda freedom fighters? People are what their actions say they are. By refusing to give states the aid they requested, he assisted their decline which will make them far more vulnerable to his future executive actions.

Wrong. It stood for National Socialism, which has never been socialism. It followed a fascist state run authoritarian architecture, not a worked owned socialist one.

If you're a nationalist and you're anti-war, how do you enforce your perceived national superiority over the other humans on the planet that are not a member of your nation? I don't support communism, but thanks for showing your ass to the crowd about how little you understand government and economic philosophy. DOn't you have a #DeepState thread to be tagging me in?

I can't think of a worse thing to believe. It's good that you admit it, though.

Pro-Authoritarian, Pro-War, Pro-Nationalism, Anti-Immigration, Xenophobic just like your would-be kings.

The rightists values are pulled straight from Germany circa 1940.

Doctors and nurses and essential workers aren't getting sick and dying because of a lack of PPE? Might want to inform them of that.

There's a reason it's called the Trump Virus and not the Cuomo Virus. If Trump hadn't refused to give NY the life-saving supplies it needed, a lot of those people would probably be alive instead of in a mass-grave. Rightists are nothing if not ignorant.

That's a completely separate scale. This one is based on values.

These two theoretical people sound an awful lot like the same person.

Again, you're walking around with a suspect looking for a crime and no motive. It's a symbiotic relationship. The spook doesn't exist without the government and its associated war machine, and every president pays the toll.

You asked why they were separate so...?

That's a false equivalency. I believe politicians are susceptible to bribes and corruption, and their election cycles are but ensure that vulnerability. They do favors for corporations and then they get kickbacks while in office and/or when they get out. The FBI/CIA/NSA etc serve at the pleasure of the President. They aren't up for re-election, don't have to worry too much about doing favors for corporations because congress does that for them, and at any level other than the absolute top it's a guaranteed career job with great benefits and a pension. To suppose that they actively work against their presidents without cause or obvious benefit requires an Olympian level of mental gymnastics. They get to do whatever they want, with infinitely increasing funds with full support of congress and the President. What could they possibly gain?

That's exactly my point. Democrats are not left wing. That's where all this talk in America breaks down. It's been the Center-right vs the Extreme right since at least the 60's. Anyone to the left of it gets called a communist.

If you actually understood NeoLiberalism, you'd know it's been the core GOP platform since Nixon. Democrats have often publicly tried to oppose it, but they themselves actually govern in most of the same ways. The only real difference is how they sell it, and sometimes they use lube.

Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump - all NeoLiberals or the economic right of the last ~75 years. Sure, some have been theocratic, some have been secular. Some were highly intelligent, others not so much. Some were articulate and others unintelligible. Some were charismatic and others were dull. Some have run as populists and others were more mainstream, but at the end of the day they all adhered to the master of the market, the darling of 20th and 21rst century conservatives. Obama ran as a populist, but when it came time for him to govern, he still gave the banks the money they asked for, the intelligence agencies the power they asked for, and the military the weapons they asked for. Just like Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and now Trump. All it takes is mixing in a bit of religion or some safety net reforms to make someone a Republican or a Democrat these days, but under that exterior, most of them are still built on the same chassis.