Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 297: Mnuchin's Oddysee

(+) Yeah! (+)

red13n posted...

I don't know how hard it is to understand that people are going to need more money. $1000 a month for 2 more months feels so obvious.

Hell in addition to helping those economically disadvantaged, we know there is a significant group of people that have funds but are holding onto them because there is no guarantee of money in the future. A ltitle more security and you give the economy an instant boost of consumer spending.1

I am hoarding money currently that I would love to spend.

---

Meanwhile, in Oregon, the GOP is running a QAnon believer for the US Senate.

The campaign sent out a statement trying to distance it from her. Then...

https://twitter.com/travis_view/status/1263921723960745984

Full article: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-wrestle-conspiracy-theory-advocate-winning-senate-primary/story?id=70829450


---

Just noticed that Trump's rolling averages on 538 have finally gotten back in the negative double digits for the first time in months.

So much for rallying around the flag.

---

Or as he might put it: polling positively towards negative.

---

red13n posted...

I don't know how hard it is to understand that people are going to need more money. $1000 a month for 2 more months feels so obvious.

Not as obvious as $1000 a month, every month!

---

Just trying to argue from the side of being an R that wants to be re-elected.

How hard is it to just give people a token bribe when you have an opportunity to literally just give people a fucking bribe.

---

It is weird that they'll sell out their principles for nothing to Trump but won't now when it would actually help people (and their own reelections)

---

red13n posted...

Just trying to argue from the side of being an R that wants to be re-elected.

How hard is it to just give people a token bribe when you have an opportunity to literally just give people a fucking bribe.

They already did that and led on it. Now that Democrats are leading the charge for more, Republicans can't pass it or Dems will get credit. Once this bill is dead, the Republicans can then propose the exact same thing, add in some defunding of Planned Parenthood to get Dems to oppose it, and pass it and get all the credit for it.

The University of California system has announced that, against the recommendation of their own faculty Senate, they are eliminating use of the SAT and ACT on their admissions over a 5 year span. They are going to try to develop their own test, which will inevitably fail. What a disaster. If you really want to help economically disadvantaged students, stop considering high school grades and expensive extracurriculars.

Well, not that I was donating before, but certainly won't be in the future. In 15 years my degree will be devalued to nothing as they admit students solely for political reasons and destroy the university in so doing.

Also, Joe Biden's proposal for 10k in student loan relief is ridiculous. If you pay me 10k in cash it would be a better offer, but even that would be obvious pandering. No deal!

Eliminating the SAT/ACT is dumb. There are biases, but it's harder to game than stuff like extracurricular activities.

Making their own test is an extra burden on applicants (who presumably are still going to have to take one of the other tests for their other applications).

---

Yeah, test scores are literally the most objective and least biased component of college admissions.

---

I could understand eliminating the test scores and just going off GPA or whatever, but replacing it with a proprietary test? That seems like it will be WAY harder for your average poor person to study for and take?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I could understand eliminating the test scores and just going off GPA or whatever, but replacing it with a proprietary test? That seems like it will be WAY harder for your average poor person to study for and take?

Not only that, the new test will be even more biased and less effective.

Contrary to popular belief, the SAT has been continually refined, over decades, by a global team of experts to be as effective and objective as possible. The notion that California is going to just grab a few teachers, throw them in a room for a month, and they'll produce something just as good is absolutely asinine.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Just noticed that Trump's rolling averages on 538 have finally gotten back in the negative double digits for the first time in months.

So much for rallying around the flag.

Thats the thing, Trump seems to have discarded the notion already that this is a war against the virus

His instinct is to downplay the virus to get the economy going, but thats at the expense of any sort of wartime president boost
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I could understand eliminating the test scores and just going off GPA or whatever, but replacing it with a proprietary test? That seems like it will be WAY harder for your average poor person to study for and take?

GPA is also highly correlated with economic class. Upper middle class parents spend a ton of time and money getting their kids top grades - hiring tutors, "helping" with homework, etc. I work with a lot of them who have lost awareness that grades are supposed to reflect their child's learning in school, not the combined efforts of the family.

The SAT at least was designed specifically to be hard to study for, to reduce the gap between economic classes. And it partially succeeds - preparation is far less useful than on most tests. Preparation is where the affluent have the biggest advantage - poor kids don't know that their affluent peers' parents are putting in hundreds of hours of time to organize a preparation plan starting years before the test. The SAT is not perfect but it's better than going off of anything that favors preparation time even more, like high school grades alone.

I think this shows the true face of the class war. Affluent school administrators want to take the best talent from the lower classes, admit them into their colleges, and turn them into a member of the affluent class. Then, those people will try to help by encouraging others to individually work hard to become richer - harming the collective bargaining position of the poor in the process.

SmartMuffin posted...

Not only that, the new test will be even more biased and less effective.

Contrary to popular belief, the SAT has been continually refined, over decades, by a global team of experts to be as effective and objective as possible. The notion that California is going to just grab a few teachers, throw them in a room for a month, and they'll produce something just as good is absolutely asinine.

I can imagine the new test....

1. Explain in a paragraph how President Obama was more presidential than President Trump.

2. What are some things we should be doing to fight climate change? Why do you think they aren't being done?

3. Calculate the escape velocity from Earth. You may use canned equations you remember from physics class but no calculus is allowed. That would not be fair to students who have not taken that class. If you can't remember the equations and want to derive them with calculus, too bad.

iiaattgg posted...

I think the insanely obvious answer is that up until the past few generations, these people consider church to be the most essential part of their lives. Regardless of how you or I feel about it, religion was a pretty huge deal to most of society not too long ago, and still is in many areas

So essentially what I said. Religious people just need to feel special/persecuted all the time.

Going to the gym is something that's a big part of my life. Or at least it was until Coronavirus. But I would not argue that we should open gyms as 'essential businesses' because that would be ludicrous. Because going to the gym, much like going to church, is not essential.

It's basically putting everyone at more risk in order to appeal to a certain sect of voters, which potentially LENGTHENS the quarantine for everyone else because some idiots decided they just HAD to go to church.

---

Church is essential. The state has absolutely no right to interfere in church matters. See the 1st Amendment. If you don't like it, follow the process for amending the constitution.

HeroicCrono posted...

Church is essential.

No its not

HeroicCrono posted...

The state has absolutely no right to interfere in church matters. See the 1st Amendment. If you don't like it, follow the process for amending the constitution.

This is sadly accurate

EDIT: Apparently its not.
---

HeroicCrono posted...

Church is essential. The state has absolutely no right to interfere in church matters. See the 1st Amendment. If you don't like it, follow the process for amending the constitution.

It's not essential. You will not die if you do not have it. End of story.

---

HeroicCrono posted...

Church is essential

You don't know what essential means.

"God is everywhere, but also god is in this very specific place I need to be at 8 am."

---

Restrictions to gatherings larger than 10 people does not violate the 1st amendment, because the restrictions apply equally to all speech, and not based on the content of the speech.

---

It's also why we have fire codes limiting the amount of people in a building.

---

https://twitter.com/scottdstone/status/1263939017663447043?s=21

I dont even see from a Devils Advocate point of view why conservatives are pissed that some stores CHOOSE to remain closed or limited hours

Isnt that the supposed ideal, that they can choose whether or not they feel safe to open?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

It's also why we have fire codes limiting the amount of people in a building.

Good point

Im surprised that Ive never heard about a church suing over fire codes limiting its congregation as a 1st Amendment violation
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/scottdstone/status/1263939017663447043?s=21

I dont even see from a Devils Advocate point of view why conservatives are pissed that some stores CHOOSE to remain closed or limited hours

Isnt that the supposed ideal, that they can choose whether or not they feel safe to open?

no

all businesses must be open now

bow down to the god of capitalism

bring out the human sacrifices, we need to make more money

---

God dammit if Pottery Barn isnt open at 5:15 so help me
---

Come to think of it, the First Amendment also guarantees the right to peacefully assemble. In theory any establishment could use that to argue the government has no right to stop them from opening. There's no need for religion to be a factor at all.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Come to think of it, the First Amendment also guarantees the right to peacefully assemble. In theory any establishment could use that to argue the government has no right to stop them from opening. There's no need for religion to be a factor at all.

The counter argument to that IMO is that in a pandemic, being near large groups of other people is not peaceful. It is literally inflicting harm on others by the mere presence of one infected person.

But we should burn the Constitution and start over anyway
---

Assembly would perpetuate the spread of a virus that could endanger the lives of others, and at this time inherently cannot be peaceful. All assumbly would, technically, be a threat.

Jakyl'd

Jakyl25 posted...

Good point

Im surprised that Ive never heard about a church suing over fire codes limiting its congregation as a 1st Amendment violation

Get ready for it.

HeroicCrono posted...

Church is essential. The state has absolutely no right to interfere in church matters. See the 1st Amendment. If you don't like it, follow the process for amending the constitution.

Church can also be done from a distance. Online church services are going very well at this point and allow freedom to attend any church and not just the ones nearby.

I'm loving it, I actually get to see my pastor friends preach for the first time.

---

I'm torn because I hate standardized testing, but I feel like eliminating the SAT/ACT is a terrible idea.

Then again most of my hatred for standardized testing stems from the GRE's which I do think are basically useless in determining anything about the applicant. (I do not feel that way about the SAT's/ACT's at all even if I still believe they're treated with more importance than is merited.)
---

pyresword posted...

I'm torn because I hate standardized testing, but I feel like eliminating the SAT/ACT is a terrible idea.

Then again most of my hatred for standardized testing stems from the GRE's which I do think are basically useless in determining anything about the applicant. (I do not feel that way about the SAT's/ACT's at all even if I still believe they're treated with more importance than is merited.)

Hey, the subject GREs have a use. They're like peacock plumage; an extra, functionally useless tax on the participant that implicitly shows fitness by demonstrating that you're strong enough to survive even with dead weight. Too many applicants are doing well in classes? Give them extra bullshit to spend time studying for and see whose grades drop!

---

Throw both the SAT and the GRE in the garbage where they belong imo

That being said the answer is definitely not "replace them with a different test"

---

Standardized testing has its advantages and disadvantages. In theory one big advantage is that it's standardized; every student takes the same test (or at least an equivalent test) which allows you to compare results directly and see who did better or worse. On the other side, one big disadvantage is that standardized tests don't really measure for anything other than "ability to take a standardized test". Plenty of brilliant students do horribly on standardized tests, and plenty of less bright students do very well on standardized tests.

I guess what it really comes down to is, if you get rid of standardized tests for the purposes of college admissions then what criteria are you judging students on at that point? If your solution to getting rid of the SAT/ACT is to replace it with a standardized test your school or system of schools designs and controls, that's probably not a good idea. If instead you replace that assessment with more personal, interview- or essay-based assessments, I think that would be more likely to give you a more exact idea of who the student is and what they're capable of.

All of this has made me realize that college admissions officer is a really complex crapshoot of a job that I'm glad I don't have.

---

Stuff like interviews are also more susceptible to biases than tests

Continuing to use the SAT/ACT is the best option we have, imo.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/scottdstone/status/1263939017663447043?s=21

I dont even see from a Devils Advocate point of view why conservatives are pissed that some stores CHOOSE to remain closed or limited hours

Isnt that the supposed ideal, that they can choose whether or not they feel safe to open?

"ALL STORES SHOULD OPEN UP BECAUSE I FUCKING SAY SO" - free market advocating conservatives

---

the libertarian convention is wild

https://twitter.com/populismupdates/status/1264251108551094277?s=21

poor Lincoln Chafee is not doing well

https://twitter.com/populismupdates/status/1264355781702385669?s=21

a very serious political party

https://twitter.com/populismupdates/status/1264342574422097921?s=21
---

I expect literally nothing less from the political party of people literally stuck in fantasy land

Can't believe people aren't abandoning the two party system for such a stellar alternative!

---

Libertarian is the ideology of failing to give enough shits and I maintain they should never be taken seriously.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Stuff like interviews are also more susceptible to biases than tests

What? You don't think it's just a natural objective fact of reality that blacks have 20x better "personalities" than Asians?

---

Poor Lincoln Chafee! Getting blown out 184-0 by Vermin Supreme. Should have stayed loyal to the GOP!

---

I'm pretty sure Lincoln Chafee formally dropped out like two months ago...

---

Also he was most recently a Democrat, not a Republican

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Also he was most recently a Democrat, not a Republican

Yeah, he jumped ship years ago. His mistake!

---