(02-04-2021 01:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  BTW, I also think the word "great" is misused and overused. I would advise leaving it to Tony the Tiger.

That is a great idea!

(02-04-2021 01:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought AOC was interesting, until I heard her GND, which a couple of you have been at pains to be ignorant of.

I started disliking her when she made the claim that illegal immigrants were forced to drink from toilets, find it odd that a party so focused on "lies" ignores that.

The toilet claim was a claim that a single illegal immigrant made to a group of democratic lawmakers when touring one of the detention facilities. You certainly can’t disprove it and me thinks you are blowing it out of proportion.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/confus...he-border/

(02-04-2021 12:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I mean, “don’t be a lunatic who believes in insane conspiracy theories that lead you to threaten violence against others” is a pretty low bar to clear. I feel ok grading people at that basic level.

That is precisely the kind of smug, arrogant condescension that the left seems to be tone deaf about. Your job is not to grade people on any level.

Quote:I do not vote strictly on the issues and I believe someone needs a certain level of decency/humanity/lawfulness.

I'm not voting for someone to be a paragon of virtue, I'm hiring a proxy to vote for me. If I have a choice of two candidates and one is going to vote for strict, even draconian, gun controls, and taxes that are much higher than world norms, massively redistributive tax and welfare policies, and for the GND, and the other one isn't, then I'm going to vote for the second. I really don't care about their positions on questions that will never come to a vote.

What I would really like is someone who is going to vote for capitalism with a safety net (Bismarck, prebate/prefund, consumption tax, lower and flatter and broader income taxes), strongly support the 2nd and 4th Amendments, recognize that the "separation of church and state" in the 1st Amendment means that government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, be moderate on gay rights and abortion, favor the strongest military in the world, and a foreign policy based on free trade (including secure sea lines of communication) and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations.

Quote:I have said this before, but I really don’t follow The Squad closely and never understood the right’s fascination with or negativity toward them. So I really don’t know enough about them to make that kind of judgment.

Ignorance is bliss. Until it bites you in the butt.

Quote:My perception of AOC is that she is extremely liberal on the issues, but I have not heard of any significant decency/humanity/lawfulness issues with her that would lead me to vote for a Republican over her. Even though she seems to be way to the left of me on issues and I would likely vote for someone else during a primary, I understand that she is a fringe member of the party (on the issues) and that her positions are not getting voted into law. So in that sense my vote would be more for helping democrats control congress over republicans, not for my enthusiasm for her policies.
I know next to nothing about Pressley and really can’t comment.
I feel like Tlaib and Omar said a few things that were taken out of context and got a bad rap for it. To me they appeared to be isolated incidents, but again it isn’t something I have looked at closely. I would inform myself better before making any voting decisions. I have no idea where either stands on the issues.

I think you just stated is analogous to how, with changing the names, most republicans feel about Greene, Boebert, and Cawthorne.

You have asked for conservatives to explain how they feel about a few wackos in their ranks, but plead ignorance when asked about the wackos in your ranks. Don't you think that is a bit disingenuous?

SO I had this thought the other day.... and its not a great example, but I think it deserves refinement/consideration...

I heard this GA reps statements... and I don't agree with most of what I heard her say... But I know that there are many who do. I think her comment about Treason being a crime punishable by death being labeled a 'death threat' is stupid... It's no different from saying you'd seek the death penalty for a murderer... and you think 'this person' is a murderer (or a sexual predator)

How are most proposed penalties against her not actually penalties for those who share her beliefs? How is that not voter disenfranchisement? They elected her... if they want to recall her they can...

How are her beliefs any more ridiculous than the guy who said Guam was going to tip over or any of dozens of other stupid things that people have said (not mis-statements, but just things that are WRONG)? How are they any more ridiculous than those who in the 70's believed that we were going to have an ice age? How are they any more ridiculous than those who believe in aliens (and act accordingly) or those who don't (and act accordingly)?

ACTUAL threats to someone are an issue and it seems she MAY have walked that line... and her beliefs do not align well with mine at all... of course I also think she's a huge target for the press so they follow her around just waiting for her to make a comment she's made 1000 times with a disclaimer... just as an example... 'if she's convicted of that crime...' and waiting for her to leave off the disclaimer and to then act as if despite having said it numerous times, THIS time by leaving it off (for brevity) that she had now given up on the caveat and was making a 'call to action' to 'the mob'. I don't know if she has done that... I haven't followed it. I DO know that its been done by the press hundreds of times. Its part of what they do/why they ask the same questions over and over in meaninglessly different ways.

People who believe in the GND deserve representation. Why don't those who don't also deserve it?

(02-04-2021 08:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 01:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought AOC was interesting, until I heard her GND, which a couple of you have been at pains to be ignorant of.

I started disliking her when she made the claim that illegal immigrants were forced to drink from toilets, find it odd that a party so focused on "lies" ignores that.

The toilet claim was a claim that a single illegal immigrant made to a group of democratic lawmakers when touring one of the detention facilities. You certainly can’t disprove it and me thinks you are blowing it out of proportion.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/confus...he-border/

One of the lawmakers, name of AOC, repeated the claim time after time to the MSM, who repeated it time after time to the nation. Where do you think I heard about it? InfoWars? some neo-Nazi Klan meeting?

There is a type of all-in-one unit unit used in prisons and other custodial venues in which the upper part of the the unit is a drinking fountain/wash basin and the lower part is a toilet. Clean water is routed to the top and bottom of the unit, and dirty water is routed out to the sewer system. Just goes to show the quality of the "immigrants' the Dems want here that they could not see this for themselves. Just goes to show the quality of the Representatives the Dems follow that nobody, not even AOC, investigated before they made the specious claims against Trump and ICE.

photo of unit

If AOC had spent 10 seconds investigating, even she would have figured it out.

Clearly, AOC would say anything to rile up antipathy toward Trump.

Here is an article on Greene that illustrates some of my thoughts.


“It’s embarrassing,” Ashley Shelton, a stay-at-home mother who voted for Ms. Greene, said of the controversy. She thought former President Donald J. Trump would serve another term and saw Ms. Greene as “a backup, a comfort.”

“I think she’s kind of a loose cannon,” Ms. Shelton said..."

loose cannon indeed. The thing you need to figure out about loose cannons is how much damage they can inflict. AOC can inflict a lot, as a leader in the Dem caucus. Greene? Not so much.

One thing that surprises me is that she ran unopposed by any Democrat. This seems similar to the thing I am hearing from the MSM that a lot of the Capitol rioters hadn't voted, implying that if you didn't participate, STFU.

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I mean, “don’t be a lunatic who believes in insane conspiracy theories that lead you to threaten violence against others” is a pretty low bar to clear. I feel ok grading people at that basic level.

That is precisely the kind of smug, arrogant condescension that the left seems to be tone deaf about. Your job is not to grade people on any level.

So you are grading me about grading others? Tough crowd.

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not voting for someone to be a paragon of virtue, I'm hiring a proxy to vote for me. If I have a choice of two candidates and one is going to vote for strict, even draconian, gun controls, and taxes that are much higher than world norms, massively redistributive tax and welfare policies, and for the GND, and the other one isn't, then I'm going to vote for the second. I really don't care about their positions on questions that will never come to a vote.

There is nothing wrong with you doing you and me doing me when it comes to voting. I was just explaining that I have a different and equally valid approach.

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I have said this before, but I really don’t follow The Squad closely and never understood the right’s fascination with or negativity toward them. So I really don’t know enough about them to make that kind of judgment.

Ignorance is bliss. Until it bites you in the butt.

I assume this means you regret your ignorance about QAnon?

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think you just stated is analogous to how, with changing the names, most republicans feel about Greene, Boebert, and Cawthorne.

You have asked for conservatives to explain how they feel about a few wackos in their ranks, but plead ignorance when asked about the wackos in your ranks. Don't you think that is a bit disingenuous?

Well, I think Cawthorne goes into a different basket than Greene (and to a lesser extent Boebert). Cawthorne reminds me more of a conservative AOC, but not a total lunatic like Greene. Please, post me a link describing how you think anyone from the squad is remotely as wacko as Greene. Otherwise, there is nothing disingenuous about my comments. Just because someone is ultra-liberal on policy does not mean they are a wacko. I'll happily trash someone from The Squad if they believe in Jewish space lasers or false flag attacks in american schools.

(02-04-2021 11:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:55 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I mean, “don’t be a lunatic who believes in insane conspiracy theories that lead you to threaten violence against others” is a pretty low bar to clear. I feel ok grading people at that basic level.

That is precisely the kind of smug, arrogant condescension that the left seems to be tone deaf about. Your job is not to grade people on any level.

So you are grading me about grading others? Tough crowd.

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not voting for someone to be a paragon of virtue, I'm hiring a proxy to vote for me. If I have a choice of two candidates and one is going to vote for strict, even draconian, gun controls, and taxes that are much higher than world norms, massively redistributive tax and welfare policies, and for the GND, and the other one isn't, then I'm going to vote for the second. I really don't care about their positions on questions that will never come to a vote.

There is nothing wrong with you doing you and me doing me when it comes to voting. I was just explaining that I have a different and equally valid approach.

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have said this before, but I really don’t follow The Squad closely and never understood the right’s fascination with or negativity toward them. So I really don’t know enough about them to make that kind of judgment.

Ignorance is bliss. Until it bites you in the butt.

I assume this means you regret your ignorance about QAnon?

(02-04-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think you just stated is analogous to how, with changing the names, most republicans feel about Greene, Boebert, and Cawthorne.

You have asked for conservatives to explain how they feel about a few wackos in their ranks, but plead ignorance when asked about the wackos in your ranks. Don't you think that is a bit disingenuous?

Well, I think Cawthorne goes into a different basket than Greene (and to a lesser extent Boebert). Cawthorne reminds me more of a conservative AOC, but not a total lunatic like Greene. Please, post me a link describing how you think anyone from the squad is remotely as wacko as Greene. Otherwise, there is nothing disingenuous about my comments. Just because someone is ultra-liberal on policy does not mean they are a wacko. I'll happily trash someone from The Squad if they believe in Jewish space lasers or false flag attacks in american schools.
[/quote]

The squad is different because they have way more influence on national policy than one single freshman congressman. The squad is different because they want to enact the crazy stuff they believe in into policy and law. If Greene starts sponsoring legislation to attack the space lasers and gets support for it from party leadership, then she will have become as dangerous as AOC.

If one candidate wants to do the right things, but sees flying turtles, and the other wants to do the wrong but has no illusions about turtles,, I will likely vote for the former. The latter is more dangerous to the USA.

(02-04-2021 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The squad is different because they have way more influence on national policy than one single freshman congressman. The squad is different because they want to enact the crazy stuff they believe in into policy and law. If Greene starts sponsoring legislation to attack the space lasers and gets support for it from party leadership, then she will have become as dangerous as AOC.

The right was up-in-arms over AOC when she was just "one single freshman congresswoman". I remember members of the right condescendingly referring to her as "the bartender" despite those same members representing themselves as champions of the working class.

(02-04-2021 11:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The squad is different because they have way more influence on national policy than one single freshman congressman. The squad is different because they want to enact the crazy stuff they believe in into policy and law. If Greene starts sponsoring legislation to attack the space lasers and gets support for it from party leadership, then she will have become as dangerous as AOC.

The right was up-in-arms over AOC when she was just "one single freshman congresswoman". I remember members of the right condescendingly referring to her as "the bartender" despite those same members representing themselves as champions of the working class.

I guess "the right" did this without my knowledge. I don't think anybody got up in arms about her until the GND. Or maybe the drinking from the toilet incident.

tell me, why was 'the right" up in arms when all she was doing was sitting in her office? Was it, like Big has guessed, because she was a "woman of color"?

Usually nobody gets up in arms about anybody until they had done or said something to bring attention to themselves.

In any case, AOC is now the leader of a significant faction and Greene is...not. I am not as worried about a single Congresswoman in the minority party as I am the prominent leader of a significant faction within the majority party, regardless of what crazy things each may believe in. The faction leader can do so much more damage to the country.

(02-04-2021 11:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  So you are grading me about grading others? Tough crowd.

Not grading, just commenting. If I were to grade you, I don't think you'd come in very high, but I don't really know much about you other than your posts on here.

Quote:There is nothing wrong with you doing you and me doing me when it comes to voting. I was just explaining that I have a different and equally valid approach.

I would not agree with the "equally valid" part, but that's probably more subjective than objective.

Quote:I assume this means you regret your ignorance about QAnon?

What I do know about QAnon is that they are too crazy to get to first base as far as gaining power. So I would put their chances of biting me in the butt at about zero. The Squad has already had more influence on democrat policy positions than I expect QAnon will ever have on republican policy positions. If that changes, then I will get concerned

Quote:Well, I think Cawthorne goes into a different basket than Greene (and to a lesser extent Boebert). Cawthorne reminds me more of a conservative AOC, but not a total lunatic like Greene. Please, post me a link describing how you think anyone from the squad is remotely as wacko as Greene. Otherwise, there is nothing disingenuous about my comments. Just because someone is ultra-liberal on policy does not mean they are a wacko. I'll happily trash someone from The Squad if they believe in Jewish space lasers or false flag attacks in american schools.

To me, the three of them embody what drives me nuts about the Republican Party (and frankly the libertarians as well). They will let some kook get to be a nominee because they are not about winning elections to the same degree as democrats. The republicans should have a process that would have weeded her out as a nutcase long ago. That they obviously don't is indicative of their lack of commitment to winning elections.

I frankly doubt very seriously that we will have any legislation come up for debate regarding Jewish space lasers or false flag attacks on American schools. The only place either of those could affect her votes on any actual issue is that I would expect her to be a staunch 2nd Amendment advocate, and I'm fine with that. So Greene's wacko positions are of little consequence to me. The Squad's ultra-liberal political views do have a chance of becoming legislation, and therefore they concern me far more than Greene's fantasies. The worst thing about Greene to me is that her wacko positions can and will be used by democrats to smear republicans who don't hold those beliefs, in order to win elections.

Republicans have let too many wackos get way too far and it has cost them winnable seats. I think Cawthorne is more a jerk than a wacko. I think republicans would be better off had Boebert not upset an incumbent in the primary for what appears to be a pretty safe republican seat, but she has disavowed her previous statement supporting QAnon and I really don't have serious disagreement with her on issues where I am aware of her positions.

I'd rather have those three in those seats than three democrats but I'd rather have three different republicans.

(02-04-2021 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The squad is different because they have way more influence on national policy than one single freshman congressman. The squad is different because they want to enact the crazy stuff they believe in into policy and law. If Greene starts sponsoring legislation to attack the space lasers and gets support for it from party leadership, then she will have become as dangerous as AOC.

The right was up-in-arms over AOC when she was just "one single freshman congresswoman". I remember members of the right condescendingly referring to her as "the bartender" despite those same members representing themselves as champions of the working class.

I guess "the right" did this without my knowledge. I don't think anybody got up in arms about her until the GND. Or maybe the drinking from the toilet incident.
tell me, why was 'the right" up in arms when all she was doing was sitting in her office? Was it, like Big has guessed, because she was a "woman of color"?
Usually nobody gets up in arms about anybody until they had done or said something to bring attention to themselves.
In any case, AOC is now the leader of a significant faction and Greene is...not. I am not as worried about a single Congresswoman in the minority party as I am the prominent leader of a significant faction within the majority party, regardless of what crazy things each may believe in. The faction leader can do so much more damage to the country.

Agree 100% with all of that.

+3

(02-04-2021 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 08:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 01:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I thought AOC was interesting, until I heard her GND, which a couple of you have been at pains to be ignorant of.

I started disliking her when she made the claim that illegal immigrants were forced to drink from toilets, find it odd that a party so focused on "lies" ignores that.

The toilet claim was a claim that a single illegal immigrant made to a group of democratic lawmakers when touring one of the detention facilities. You certainly can’t disprove it and me thinks you are blowing it out of proportion.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/confus...he-border/

One of the lawmakers, name of AOC, repeated the claim time after time to the MSM, who repeated it time after time to the nation. Where do you think I heard about it? InfoWars? some neo-Nazi Klan meeting?

There is a type of all-in-one unit unit used in prisons and other custodial venues in which the upper part of the the unit is a drinking fountain/wash basin and the lower part is a toilet. Clean water is routed to the top and bottom of the unit, and dirty water is routed out to the sewer system. Just goes to show the quality of the "immigrants' the Dems want here that they could not see this for themselves. Just goes to show the quality of the Representatives the Dems follow that nobody, not even AOC, investigated before they made the specious claims against Trump and ICE.

photo of unit

If AOC had spent 10 seconds investigating, even she would have figured it out.

Clearly, AOC would say anything to rile up antipathy toward Trump.

Did you even read the factcheck article I linked to? In it, it is pretty clear that at least 1 female detainee told the lawmakers that a guard had told the detainee to drink out of the toilet part and that the lawmakers tested the sink part and it did not have running water:

Quote:From a fact-checking perspective, this claim is akin to hearsay in court. We can’t say what unidentified guards told unidentified detainees or what those detainees then told lawmakers. But we can lay out what we do know.

On July 1, a group of Democratic lawmakers visited CBP detention facilities in Texas. Afterward, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said on Twitter: “Officers were keeping women in cells w/ no water & had told them to drink out of the toilets.”

Two lawmakers from Texas also made that claim. Rep. Joaquin Castro told reporters: “When we went into the cell, it was — it was clear that the water was not running. There was a toilet but there was no running water for people to drink. In fact, one of the women said that she was told by an agent to drink water out of the toilet.” And Rep. Marc Veasey said in a July 2 interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball“: “Well, what we saw was horrible, particularly when we talked with some of the detainees that were in the holding cells at the first facility that we visited. Where we were told that they were — if they asked for a drink of water, that the guards told them to drink out of the toilet.”

Rep. Judy Chu of California also tweeted: “‘If you want water, just drink from a toilet.’ That’s what border patrol told one thirsty woman we met on today’s #DemsAtTheBorder trip.”

David Martosko, the U.S. political editor with the Daily Mail, questioned on Twitter whether the toilets had sinks with faucets on top of them, as he showed in a picture from a different facility:

...

Ocasio-Cortez responded to that tweet, saying it was indeed a toilet like that but the sink portion wasn’t working.

“This was in fact the type of toilet we saw in the cell. Except there was just one, and the sink portion was not functioning – @AyannaPressley smartly tried to open the faucet, and nothing came out,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts. “So the women were told they could drink out of the bowl.”

Clearly, OO would say anything to rile up antipathy toward AOC.

(02-04-2021 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The squad is different because they have way more influence on national policy than one single freshman congressman. The squad is different because they want to enact the crazy stuff they believe in into policy and law. If Greene starts sponsoring legislation to attack the space lasers and gets support for it from party leadership, then she will have become as dangerous as AOC.

The right was up-in-arms over AOC when she was just "one single freshman congresswoman". I remember members of the right condescendingly referring to her as "the bartender" despite those same members representing themselves as champions of the working class.

I guess "the right" did this without my knowledge. I don't think anybody got up in arms about her until the GND. Or maybe the drinking from the toilet incident.

August, 2018... "Why conservatives love to hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/8/20...8-midterms

(02-04-2021 11:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The right was up-in-arms over AOC when she was just "one single freshman congresswoman". I remember members of the right condescendingly referring to her as "the bartender" despite those same members representing themselves as champions of the working class.

Rumors (which have turned out to mostly be true in concept if not in specifics) that she was part of/a major part of a new generation of 'justice democrats' which are not simply a grass roots organization but a national platform targeting specific politicians and constituencies... began almost as soon as she was elected. Her rise has been part of that strategy and organization, and not simply that her ideas are popular. There was SOME association of these people back in 2015 under Bernie.

I think it possible that Green is similarly part of some attempt by 'the wacko right' to create a similar organization... but I'd put the odds that they reach the sort of penetration and control of the party that AOC has at near zero. Green (as I understand it on both of them, solely from scattered news reports) is more like the Detroit house member... can't recall her name but you all should know whom I'm speaking about... whom has gotten some attention, but as part of 'the squad'. Had she been on her own, she wouldn't get the attention. I don't know if that was a name given to them or one they chose.

qanon, according even to detractors of the group is a loosely organized group of people with weird, often even contradictory beliefs.... That's not remotely true of 'justice democrats'... SOME of whom have weird or contradictory beliefs, but the 'organization' has a program and plan.

Said differently... there are aspects of 'Trump supporters' that some may not believe in, but are not weird or contradictory.... Putting America and Americans first... focusing on truly FAIR deals and not trying to play 'mother' to the world... energy independence... lower regulation... etc etc etc and MOSTLY, that Congress has become a Tammany Hall of corruption and self-dealing.... where the bureaucracy enables and perpetuates itself... and that much is done that doesn't need to be done and people wouldn't vote for IF they knew who to vote for to stop it, whether it is military funding or social programs.... aka the swamp. There are also portions of this group that take these ideas to extremes... where 'the swamp' is actually ETs or Jews or whatever else as opposed to simply being a bunch of greedy and self-serving a-holes.... but the weirdos (like it seems, Green) are not driving the bus by any measure.

(02-04-2021 12:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  August, 2018... "Why conservatives love to hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/8/20...8-midterms

Read your article after reading my response above... That's what I recall.. She beat a long-standing Democrat... she was out there campaigning for other justice democrats and she was challenging the DNC leadership in cahoots with Bernie Sanders. Other than being somewhat in cahoots with Trump (not as openly as was Bernie), I don't believe anything else is similar.

Establishment democrats were as up in arms about her as Republicans. I remember specifically telling my son that my biggest problem with Bernie in 2016 (for them, not for me) was that he was an individual and not a movement... and that AOC and others were part of that change. If you think Green is part of a change for establishment Republicans, I think that speaks a lot to the disrespect you guys have for us.

Not all 'different' politicians become a movement or carry the same weight.

The GND complaints are always a little confusing and a little amusing to me. It was a non-binding resolution (not even a law). It sets forth a series of goals with very little specifics as to how to reach those goals. It wasn't like AOC was the only dem to sign on. And similar things had been proposed by others in the past.

(02-04-2021 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The GND complaints are always a little confusing and a little amusing to me. It was a non-binding resolution (not even a law). It sets forth a series of goals with very little specifics as to how to reach those goals. It wasn't like AOC was the only dem to sign on. And similar things had been proposed by others in the past.

Its more about the nebulousness of the goals and the lengths to which people have been willing to go in the past on these issues to stifle dissent.

The landscape of higher education is changing... and in 20 years, it will be a vastly different thing than it is now as a result of online learning and numerous financial factors that will make Brick and Mortar learning a thing of the past. In order to survive, Rice University is going to have to make major changes. We need to end our involvement in activities that do not need to take place in person... like computer science, math and history... and focus on those that require hands-on interaction like labs, baseball and football. There are lots of jobs in football and we can retrain our math professors and computer programmers to develop high level statistical models to improve our decision making... At the same time, we will need to engage in activities like a massive expansion of our stadium to pro-like amenities... something some estimate could cost 1 billion dollars... which means that in addition to alienating some of them, our current donor base will have to dig much deeper or we will have to expand our donor base.

This is a non-binding resolution and certainly not a law... but endorsement of such a plan and/or comments certainly implies a lot of things that most of us, even those who greatly support athletics and distance learning would not support.

So I don't understand any complaints about passing such a resolution... do you?

/attempt at sarcastic humor Not trying to compare the two other than, if you don't support the goals or the lengths to which many seem willing to go to to accomplish the ends, you START by not supporting a resolution whose primary purpose is to move towards those ends.


The GND is full of opinions being expressed as facts... and seeks to assign blame for lots of maladies. Once these things are assigned and we are resolved to address them, it becomes incumbent upon future bills to actually address them. THAT is the purpose of the GND resolution. We are resolved to address these agreed upon issues.

First, not all the statements are actual facts
Second, the GND talks about things like wealth iniquity and wage stagnation... which are not remotely environmental issues. It talks about healthcare, housing, transportation, racism and educational access, which don't have anything to do with keeping global temperatures from rising. They are important for sure... but you don't address the problems of racism by eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels and moving us to solar power.

The GND is a 14 page 'wish list' of things and finger pointing... some of which are fairly universally accepted and many of which are not. To think that someone wouldn't take the passage of a resolution that we need to keep the earth from warming by 1.5 degrees and then try and 'blame' any resistance to the most aggressive of plans as not living up to that resolution is unthinkable.

Ham - that is nice. It was a non-binding resolution, until the rubber starts meeting the road, I don't see what the big deal is about the Green New Deal. Lots of stuff in there that creates jobs. Need lots of people to walk around behind cows to capture their farts in plastic bags!

(02-04-2021 02:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The GND complaints are always a little confusing and a little amusing to me. It was a non-binding resolution (not even a law). It sets forth a series of goals with very little specifics as to how to reach those goals. It wasn't like AOC was the only dem to sign on. And similar things had been proposed by others in the past.

Its more about the nebulousness of the goals and the lengths to which people have been willing to go in the past on these issues to stifle dissent.

The landscape of higher education is changing... and in 20 years, it will be a vastly different thing than it is now as a result of online learning and numerous financial factors that will make Brick and Mortar learning a thing of the past. In order to survive, Rice University is going to have to make major changes. We need to end our involvement in activities that do not need to take place in person... like computer science, math and history... and focus on those that require hands-on interaction like labs, baseball and football. There are lots of jobs in football and we can retrain our math professors and computer programmers to develop high level statistical models to improve our decision making... At the same time, we will need to engage in activities like a massive expansion of our stadium to pro-like amenities... something some estimate could cost 1 billion dollars... which means that in addition to alienating some of them, our current donor base will have to dig much deeper or we will have to expand our donor base.

This is a non-binding resolution and certainly not a law... but endorsement of such a plan and/or comments certainly implies a lot of things that most of us, even those who greatly support athletics and distance learning would not support.

So I don't understand any complaints about passing such a resolution... do you?

/attempt at sarcastic humor Not trying to compare the two other than, if you don't support the goals or the lengths to which many seem willing to go to to accomplish the ends, you START by not supporting a resolution whose primary purpose is to move towards those ends.


The GND is full of opinions being expressed as facts... and seeks to assign blame for lots of maladies. Once these things are assigned and we are resolved to address them, it becomes incumbent upon future bills to actually address them. THAT is the purpose of the GND resolution. We are resolved to address these agreed upon issues.

First, not all the statements are actual facts
Second, the GND talks about things like wealth iniquity and wage stagnation... which are not remotely environmental issues. It talks about healthcare, housing, transportation, racism and educational access, which don't have anything to do with keeping global temperatures from rising. They are important for sure... but you don't address the problems of racism by eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels and moving us to solar power.

The GND is a 14 page 'wish list' of things and finger pointing... some of which are fairly universally accepted and many of which are not. To think that someone wouldn't take the passage of a resolution that we need to keep the earth from warming by 1.5 degrees and then try and 'blame' any resistance to the most aggressive of plans as not living up to that resolution is unthinkable.

Speaking only to the higher ed - I'm less convinced of the death of in-person classes across the board.

I think there will be a seismic shift, akin to what you mention, but a level of institutions will keep brick and mortar learning a thing of the future at select higher ed institutions. Less academically prestigious schools will be squeezed out of this, but I don't think places like Rice will.

Sure, a lot of courses will become more remote (as in, more remote content available to students, classroom flipping, etc.), but in-class components will be there at high-level institutions. There is really no substitute for in-person interaction with researchers/professors, and a subset of the population will be willing to pay for that. Those in-person interactions will change at these institutions, but they won't be gone.