Republicans: continued

[Tero]

[Sean Hayden]

Many people are critical of me because they say, ‘Carson wants to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs even though he must have benefited from them. This is a blatant lie. I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people.

--something he may have actually said

[Seabass]

Is the U.S. a Democracy? A Social Studies Battle Turns on the Nation’s Values
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/us/u ... cracy.html

“I’m really proud of my students,” Ms. Debowski said. “They can handle the complexity.” So she was angry last year when she learned of a proposed revision of the state standards, in which the word “democratic” was dropped from “core democratic values,” and the use of the word “democracy” was reduced.

The changes were made after a group of prominent conservatives helped revise the standards. They drew attention to a long-simmering debate over whether “republic” is a better term than “democracy” to describe the American form of government.

That the two sides in that tussle tend to fall along party lines, each preferring the term that resembles their party name, plays no small part in the debate. But members of the conservative group also brought to the table the argument that K-12 social studies should be based on a close, originalist reading of the United States’ founding documents.

They contended that the curriculum ought to focus more on the nation’s triumphs than its sins. And they pushed for revisions that eliminated “climate change,” “Roe v. Wade” and references to gay and lesbian civil rights.

Activists have long seen influencing state standards as an effective way to shape the next generation of voters. In 2010, conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education removed the word “democracy” as a description of American government, prompting protests. Georgia has also debated the term, eventually settling, in 2016, on standards that use the phrase “representative democracy/republic.”

The Michigan Department of Education invited Mr. Colbeck to participate in the standards-writing process after he submitted a 13-page critique of a 2015 draft of the document. Mr. Colbeck, a former aerospace engineer who became active in politics through the Tea Party movement, saw liberal bias throughout the standards.

Asked to name the influences on his view of American history, Mr. Colbeck cited Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing commentator, and a radio talk show hosted by Levon R. Yuille, a pastor and anti-abortion activist.

[laklak]

Maybe we should take the time to teach them what democracy is in it's ideal form, the history of the idea, how it's changed over time, how it's implemented in the U.S. and other countries, explain to them the function and composition of the three major branches of Federal government, and their own state and local governments. Talk about the Constitution, what it contains and doesn't contain, what it guarantees it's citizens, methods to change it, what their rights actually are, why they've got those rights, what brought about the necessity for the document within the historical context of the time, how it impacts their life today.

At the same time we could discuss competing ideologies like Socialism, how it's changed over time, what portions of the philosophy are inherent in all governments, how it's been implemented around the world, it's history, successes, failures, etc.

They could go to class once a day, every day, in the 8th or 9th grade. Call it something like, oh, "civics". An educated citizenry is necessary for the success of any functionl democracy, and most of ours are pig ignorant morons.

[Brian Peacock]

Many people are critical of me because they say, ‘Carson wants to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs even though he must have benefited from them. This is a blatant lie. I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people.

--something he may have actually said

Able-bodied people depend on exactly the same kind of things as non-able-bodied people. The question is whether the able-bodied are deserving or not, and I guess the answer to that is that they're not.

[Sean Hayden]

Perhaps. It's one way to view his reasoning. Another is to assume he believes there are real risks to providing aid of certain kinds in some situations. It is up to him to describe those risks in more detail.

To me he seems to be worried that people who are able to work may lose that ability by relying on assistance to the point of becoming dependent.

That hardly sounds controversial to me, even if it is used by some to malign everyone who seeks assistance.

The problem with it is likely to be that it's either not true, even if intuitive, or that it's so rarely true that it doesn't constitute the major problem for the disadvantaged he's making it out to be.

[Hermit]

Many people are critical of me because they say, ‘Carson wants to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs even though he must have benefited from them. This is a blatant lie. I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people.

--something he may have actually said

"I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people" is a sneaky way of saying "I have a desire to get rid of safety nets".

Yes, he said as much: (7:09) "When you rob someone of their incentive to go out there and improve themselves, you are not doing them any favors. When you take somebody and pat them on the head and say, ‘There, there, you poor little thing, I'm gonna give you food stamps (7:20)..." and then proceeds to rattle off a whole slew of other social welfare programs that allegedly "rob someone of their incentive to go out there and improve themselves".



Denying social welfare programs on the grounds that it encourages its recipients to stay in squalid poverty is one of those absurdities presented by conservatives all over the world, but it seems particularly prevalent in the USA. In my 47 years as an adult I have met exactly one person whose ambition was to live like that for the rest of his life. He was in his mid-thirties and wanted to live on the dole in a caravan up the central coast north of Sydney, and do nothong but go fishing and get stoned while any sickness or injury will be taken care of by socialised medicine. To get rid of the social safety net for the sake of a teensy-weensy minority is not only absurd. It is utterly inhumane and unjust. In Carson's case it could be argued that there's an element of hypocrisy as well.

[Forty Two]

Many people are critical of me because they say, ‘Carson wants to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs even though he must have benefited from them. This is a blatant lie. I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people.

--something he may have actually said

Able-bodied people depend on exactly the same kind of things as non-able-bodied people. The question is whether the able-bodied are deserving or not, and I guess the answer to that is that they're not.

Give every man according to his desert, and who shall 'scape whipping?

The reason non-able bodied people are afforded help is that they aren't able to help themselves. Welfare isn't supposed to be about whether someone is morally deserving. It's about giving people a helping hand in order to reach a level in which they don't need that help anymore. IMO.

[Brian Peacock]

Perhaps. It's one way to view his reasoning. Another is to assume he believes there are real risks to providing aid of certain kinds in some situations. It is up to him to describe those risks in more detail.

To me he seems to be worried that people who are able to work may lose that ability by relying on assistance to the point of becoming dependent.

That hardly sounds controversial to me, even if it is used by some to malign everyone who seeks assistance.

The problem with it is likely to be that it's either not true, even if intuitive, or that it's so rarely true that it doesn't constitute the major problem for the disadvantaged he's making it out to be.

The idea assumes that people would rather be idle and live in abject poverty as long as they have a roof over their head and access to government cheese than improve their situation by their own efforts - whereas the former is merely the consequence of having limited opportunity to achieve the latter. In the UK the majority of families in poverty have at least one member in employment, yet according to established right-leaning thinking supporting families through income-related benefits creates a 'dependency culture' and encourages moral turpitude and fecklessness. In turn this leads to systems of state support based around one's ability to work rather than immediate need. Additionally, misplaced fears about the majority of sick and disabled people actually being fit for work and/or just trying it on have seen benefit for those groups consistently reduced and harder to qualify for. This reflects the stickiness of certain Victorian-era distinctions about the deserving and the undeserving poor - which in turn reflect a moral argument against the poor rather than economic arguments against poverty itself. One only has to look at the kind of people forwarding those distinctions as if they are self-evident facts to understand how bogus they are.

And besides, if the constant threat of ever-deeper levels of penury was really the great motivator to betterment which many people say it is then surely boardrooms across the land would be incentivising themselves to excellence with threats of income cuts rather than promises of lottery-win sized bonuses(?)

[Brian Peacock]

Many people are critical of me because they say, ‘Carson wants to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs even though he must have benefited from them. This is a blatant lie. I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people.

--something he may have actually said

Able-bodied people depend on exactly the same kind of things as non-able-bodied people. The question is whether the able-bodied are deserving or not, and I guess the answer to that is that they're not.

Give every man according to his desert, and who shall 'scape whipping?

The reason non-able bodied people are afforded help is that they aren't able to help themselves. Welfare isn't supposed to be about whether someone is morally deserving. It's about giving people a helping hand in order to reach a level in which they don't need that help anymore. IMO.

And as you've just implied, able-bodied people don't need welfare because they can help themselves. It's interesting, not to mention somewhat ironic, that the majority of those who promote the 'dependency culture' view of welfare automatically cast the sick and disabled in the role of passive recipients of state largess - particularly when qualifying for welfare is predicated on the ability to work rather than on immediate need. As an expression of the so-called Protestant work ethic the deserving/undeserving categorisation of the poor is entirely a moral distinction.

[Tero]

We white folks want millions of babies, not millions of foreigners!
https://mobile.twitter.com/Alt_FedEmplo ... 1568422912

[Sean Hayden]

Ambition and desire don't matter. His argument isn't that you want to live as you do, but that you can't help but live as you do because of conditioning.

I doubt that's true. Or it's true in so few cases that it's not relevant to the issues.

--//--

Personally, I've always thought that working hard to make some asshole rich while ignoring all the problems it's causing is a moral failing. (ie, you company men are immoral twats)

[Sean Hayden]

Is the U.S. a Democracy? A Social Studies Battle Turns on the Nation’s Values
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/us/u ... cracy.html

“I’m really proud of my students,” Ms. Debowski said. “They can handle the complexity.” So she was angry last year when she learned of a proposed revision of the state standards, in which the word “democratic” was dropped from “core democratic values,” and the use of the word “democracy” was reduced.

The changes were made after a group of prominent conservatives helped revise the standards. They drew attention to a long-simmering debate over whether “republic” is a better term than “democracy” to describe the American form of government.

That the two sides in that tussle tend to fall along party lines, each preferring the term that resembles their party name, plays no small part in the debate. But members of the conservative group also brought to the table the argument that K-12 social studies should be based on a close, originalist reading of the United States’ founding documents.

They contended that the curriculum ought to focus more on the nation’s triumphs than its sins. And they pushed for revisions that eliminated “climate change,” “Roe v. Wade” and references to gay and lesbian civil rights.

Activists have long seen influencing state standards as an effective way to shape the next generation of voters. In 2010, conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education removed the word “democracy” as a description of American government, prompting protests. Georgia has also debated the term, eventually settling, in 2016, on standards that use the phrase “representative democracy/republic.”

The Michigan Department of Education invited Mr. Colbeck to participate in the standards-writing process after he submitted a 13-page critique of a 2015 draft of the document. Mr. Colbeck, a former aerospace engineer who became active in politics through the Tea Party movement, saw liberal bias throughout the standards.

Asked to name the influences on his view of American history, Mr. Colbeck cited Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing commentator, and a radio talk show hosted by Levon R. Yuille, a pastor and anti-abortion activist.

The craziest Republicans have already lost their most important fights. (Supreme Court is a worry) The surge in far right activity is concerning, but if changing demographics meant the end of run of the mill evangelicals, what's it going to mean for the Nazis?

[Sean Hayden]

More terrorism probably.

[Cunt]

The republicans in the US are making a LOT more sense than the dems, which is likely why they are so much more often experiencing the censorship of social media and mainstream media companies.