There was never a time without nepotism in the Ivy league. If anything, it has gone down over time, not up.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Exactly. Dubya getting into Yale these days costs two wings, not one.
Exactly. Dubya getting into Yale these days costs two wings, not one.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I hear BC was offered but they turned it down.
Self-proclaimed, public ivies don't count.
I hear BC was offered but they turned it down.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Is that like a two-piece and a biscuit WITH gravy now?
Is that like a two-piece and a biscuit WITH gravy now?
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Alexandra Pelosi is Nancy's daughter and you are greatly exaggerating the spot they showed. She talked to one black guy (who was high as HELL!) two white men and one white lady iirc in the clip. The one white man was voting R despite not caring about Gays or Equal Pay for women (the other white guy was just an idiot) and the white lady had no clue what was going on. In making the peace she talked to more which backed up her thesis.
The point was to show why Congress never changes, the majority of the electorate isnt voting on issues, they are voting on names and party, and that never changes. Plus, as she mentions, it backs up the "What the Hell is the Matter With Kansas" idea that people vote against their own interests. Finally, she is talking about the apathy of the average voter.
Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbdAfoZbVjU
(I like Alexandra Pelosi, her clips for Real Time about Welfare amongst others are brilliant)
Alexandra Pelosi is Nancy's daughter and you are greatly exaggerating the spot they showed. She talked to one black guy (who was high as HELL!) two white men and one white lady iirc in the clip. The one white man was voting R despite not caring about Gays or Equal Pay for women (the other white guy was just an idiot) and the white lady had no clue what was going on. In making the peace she talked to more which backed up her thesis.
The point was to show why Congress never changes, the majority of the electorate isnt voting on issues, they are voting on names and party, and that never changes. Plus, as she mentions, it backs up the "What the Hell is the Matter With Kansas" idea that people vote against their own interests. Finally, she is talking about the apathy of the average voter.
Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbdAfoZbVjU
(I like Alexandra Pelosi, her clips for Real Time about Welfare amongst others are brilliant)
Last edited:
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Right. She talked to four people, one of them was black. The district is MUCH paler than that.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
All 3 of these points are important, and without understanding them nobody is really going to understand why Congress works the way it does.
(1) Voting is tribal. People vote (R) or (D) because of a whole matrix of cultural signals they associate with them.
(2) People typically vote culture, not pocketbook. This is suggested when wealthy and upper middle class people vote (D) and painfully obvious when lower middle class and poor people vote (R). If voting was typically pocketbook each would be rare.
(3) The more powerless people are, the more apathetic they are, and because our current politics is a battle between the rich and the super rich everybody in the middle and below is disconnected from political activity unless they have an overriding cultural concern. This is probably intentional -- a functional democracy would threaten to erode inequality so many Haves work to discredit democracy (hence: "government doesn't work," "government is a threat to liberty," etc.)
All 3 of these points are important, and without understanding them nobody is really going to understand why Congress works the way it does.
(1) Voting is tribal. People vote (R) or (D) because of a whole matrix of cultural signals they associate with them.
(2) People typically vote culture, not pocketbook. This is suggested when wealthy and upper middle class people vote (D) and painfully obvious when lower middle class and poor people vote (R). If voting was typically pocketbook each would be rare.
(3) The more powerless people are, the more apathetic they are, and because our current politics is a battle between the rich and the super rich everybody in the middle and below is disconnected from political activity unless they have an overriding cultural concern. This is probably intentional -- a functional democracy would threaten to erode inequality so many Haves work to discredit democracy (hence: "government doesn't work," "government is a threat to liberty," etc.)
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
First, I have yet to locate a candidate who aligns precisely with "my interests." Every candidate I've ever seen is in favor of some things that may benefit me, and others in which I have no interest, or even work against me. Since I only get to vote for a candidate, who in turn votes on hundreds of issues, I have to live with this.
Second, exactly what does it mean to "vote against your interest." Maher and Pelosi used the example of the black man who was interviewed, who Pelosi declared is on food stamps (although he didn't say that in the clip). Thus, this gentleman was supposed to do what? Choose the candidate (either Democrat or Republican) who supports increasing food stamp payments? And vote against the other candidate (either Democrat or Republican) who has a good idea for creating more jobs? Which one is "voting against your interests?"
I suppose I can be accused of "voting against" my interests numerous times. For instance, my wife and I have no kids left in the local school system, but I recently voted to approve the school referendum to raise my property taxes to benefit the school. Is that "voting against my interests?" And if so, is that so horrible? Maybe I want a better society. I may save some property tax dollars today, but lose out on having an educated work force to hire in my company. Which one is "voting against my interests?"
Only the lemmings in society, the uninformed, the greedy and the short-sighted "vote their interests" if it means voting for whoever is going to create the most immediate cash payoff (or savings) to them. Unfortunately, people seem to think that's the way to go. I'll give you "x" if you vote for me.
It's my opinion the question/criticism about people "voting against their interests" is a load of crap. I know it's frequently used by some on the left to mock voters on the right who support "corporate republicans" who allegedly are bad for these right leaning voters. But there are likely just as many voters on the left who "vote against their interests", and in my opinion, thank goodness.
First, I have yet to locate a candidate who aligns precisely with "my interests." Every candidate I've ever seen is in favor of some things that may benefit me, and others in which I have no interest, or even work against me. Since I only get to vote for a candidate, who in turn votes on hundreds of issues, I have to live with this.
Second, exactly what does it mean to "vote against your interest." Maher and Pelosi used the example of the black man who was interviewed, who Pelosi declared is on food stamps (although he didn't say that in the clip). Thus, this gentleman was supposed to do what? Choose the candidate (either Democrat or Republican) who supports increasing food stamp payments? And vote against the other candidate (either Democrat or Republican) who has a good idea for creating more jobs? Which one is "voting against your interests?"
I suppose I can be accused of "voting against" my interests numerous times. For instance, my wife and I have no kids left in the local school system, but I recently voted to approve the school referendum to raise my property taxes to benefit the school. Is that "voting against my interests?" And if so, is that so horrible? Maybe I want a better society. I may save some property tax dollars today, but lose out on having an educated work force to hire in my company. Which one is "voting against my interests?"
Only the lemmings in society, the uninformed, the greedy and the short-sighted "vote their interests" if it means voting for whoever is going to create the most immediate cash payoff (or savings) to them. Unfortunately, people seem to think that's the way to go. I'll give you "x" if you vote for me.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Strawman. It would work if people were deliberately going to the polls thinking "I am voting for delayed gratification" or "I am sacrificing my benefit for a greater social benefit," but the Whats the Matter with Kansas voters aren't doing either of those things -- simply put, they've been duped into voting for selfish economic reasons policies which in reality result in their short and long term economic harm.
You have a point when it comes to voters who deliberately say "I am intentionally voting for my religion at the expense of my pocketbook," but VERY few voters actually think that's what they're doing. There are a few -- my best friend at work is one -- but you are setting up the implication that lower middle class and poor people who vote for policies that benefit the rich at their expense (again, both short and long term) are doing so because they have an overriding altruism. This is almost never true.
And it all misses the point, anyway. The vast majority of people's politics works just like their religion -- they fervently believe whatever their parents believed and drummed into them. The only "thinking" involved is rationalizing after the fact why the way they worship or vote is actually "true." And even that "thinking" is typically the same closed context that was provided by their parents, pastors, and peers.
Far, far more than we are comfortable admitting, we believe what we were wound up to believe and make up "reasons" for it after the fact. This "inside" mental and emotional space that feels exclusively and privately "us" is actually wired by a million memetic lines to our limited world of immediate influences, the signal along those lines mostly runs "in" rather than "out," and the patterns we call "self" were mostly set long before we were even aware what was happening.
Strawman. It would work if people were deliberately going to the polls thinking "I am voting for delayed gratification" or "I am sacrificing my benefit for a greater social benefit," but the Whats the Matter with Kansas voters aren't doing either of those things -- simply put, they've been duped into voting for selfish economic reasons policies which in reality result in their short and long term economic harm.
You have a point when it comes to voters who deliberately say "I am intentionally voting for my religion at the expense of my pocketbook," but VERY few voters actually think that's what they're doing. There are a few -- my best friend at work is one -- but you are setting up the implication that lower middle class and poor people who vote for policies that benefit the rich at their expense (again, both short and long term) are doing so because they have an overriding altruism. This is almost never true.
And it all misses the point, anyway. The vast majority of people's politics works just like their religion -- they fervently believe whatever their parents believed and drummed into them. The only "thinking" involved is rationalizing after the fact why the way they worship or vote is actually "true." And even that "thinking" is typically the same closed context that was provided by their parents, pastors, and peers.
Far, far more than we are comfortable admitting, we believe what we were wound up to believe and make up "reasons" for it after the fact. This "inside" mental and emotional space that feels exclusively and privately "us" is actually wired by a million memetic lines to our limited world of immediate influences, the signal along those lines mostly runs "in" rather than "out," and the patterns we call "self" were mostly set long before we were even aware what was happening.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I never liked that book because it smacked of whiny defeatist liberalism. Sorta like "we have better ideas if people in Kansas would just open their eyes". Look, candidates matter. That's why Sen Roberts is fighting for his political life right now. Its why we have Dem Senators in ND and MT, and Goopers in ME and IL.
The whole premise of people voting against their self interest IMHO has its beginnings in Reagan's appeal to working class people in the early 80's. However, while he may have been working against their self interest financially (depending on your opinion) these same voters could have felt he was working on their behalf in foreign policy.
So yes, some people stupidly voted for Romney thinking that tax cuts for himself, Sheldon Alderson and Paris Hilton was going to stimulate the economy because they didn't consider these people would just park that money overseas. However people repeatedly voting against their self interest is IMHO a much more minor occurance nowadays. In fact, this is essentually what saved Obama's butt in the 2012 elections. Very little of Romney's platform appealed to the majority of people. In fact his only rational for his candidacy was if you had a deep dislike of Obama. As he found out the hard way, not enough people did. Obama's policy stances aligning with the majority of people's preferences caused them to overlook near 8% unemployment and an at the time slow recovery, which would normally be fatal against a generic well funded opponent like Mittens.
I never liked that book because it smacked of whiny defeatist liberalism. Sorta like "we have better ideas if people in Kansas would just open their eyes". Look, candidates matter. That's why Sen Roberts is fighting for his political life right now. Its why we have Dem Senators in ND and MT, and Goopers in ME and IL.
The whole premise of people voting against their self interest IMHO has its beginnings in Reagan's appeal to working class people in the early 80's. However, while he may have been working against their self interest financially (depending on your opinion) these same voters could have felt he was working on their behalf in foreign policy.
So yes, some people stupidly voted for Romney thinking that tax cuts for himself, Sheldon Alderson and Paris Hilton was going to stimulate the economy because they didn't consider these people would just park that money overseas. However people repeatedly voting against their self interest is IMHO a much more minor occurance nowadays. In fact, this is essentually what saved Obama's butt in the 2012 elections. Very little of Romney's platform appealed to the majority of people. In fact his only rational for his candidacy was if you had a deep dislike of Obama. As he found out the hard way, not enough people did. Obama's policy stances aligning with the majority of people's preferences caused them to overlook near 8% unemployment and an at the time slow recovery, which would normally be fatal against a generic well funded opponent like Mittens.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I can't believe you actually read more than the title of the book if you think that was what it was about. In fact, the first quarter of the book is all about how it ISN'T about "if they'd just open their eyes."
I actually dislike the book for other reasons, but you're perpetuating a misreading of the central premise; stop it.
(And don't get me started on The End of History or The Bell Curve.)
I can't believe you actually read more than the title of the book if you think that was what it was about. In fact, the first quarter of the book is all about how it ISN'T about "if they'd just open their eyes."
I actually dislike the book for other reasons, but you're perpetuating a misreading of the central premise; stop it.
(And don't get me started on The End of History or The Bell Curve.)
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
People vote for one candidate or another, I believe, because they hear one thing about a candidate that strikes a chord with them. Maybe it's from a family member or friend. Maybe it's a tv ad. Maybe it's at work, or at a union meeting.
As for the backwoods, uneducated poor who supposedly vote exclusively Republican, how do you know why they vote the way they do? Some special insight to them? Because of the Pelosi interviews?
Maybe they understand they are being promised more access to healthcare, more welfare benefits, etc..., by the Democrats, but maybe they don't like what the Democrats stand for, so they don't vote for them? Maybe they prefer to keep their guns, even though to us it may seem a silly tradeoff.
Can't the same argument be made about rich Democrats? Why would they ever vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, create more government programs, etc... It just costs them money.
Why is it the Democrats who do this are altruistic, but the poor Republicans are just ignorant rubes? Just curious?
I disagree. I think there is very little politics being discussed at home between parents and children. My wife and I haven't had any discussions around our kids that I recall. The only discussion of politics or voting that I had with my parents was when I was about 12 and I asked my mom if she was going down to vote (it was election day) her response was, "Of course. I have to go down and cancel out your dad's vote." That was it. One "discussion."
People vote for one candidate or another, I believe, because they hear one thing about a candidate that strikes a chord with them. Maybe it's from a family member or friend. Maybe it's a tv ad. Maybe it's at work, or at a union meeting.
As for the backwoods, uneducated poor who supposedly vote exclusively Republican, how do you know why they vote the way they do? Some special insight to them? Because of the Pelosi interviews?
Maybe they understand they are being promised more access to healthcare, more welfare benefits, etc..., by the Democrats, but maybe they don't like what the Democrats stand for, so they don't vote for them? Maybe they prefer to keep their guns, even though to us it may seem a silly tradeoff.
Can't the same argument be made about rich Democrats? Why would they ever vote for a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, create more government programs, etc... It just costs them money.
Why is it the Democrats who do this are altruistic, but the poor Republicans are just ignorant rubes? Just curious?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I've talked to both my kids about political issues. Comes up all the time. Could be just me, but somehow I doubt it.
Perhaps you could explain what the Republican Party actually stands for? Cause from my education over the years I think I've figured it out and even though the party I have ended up supporting is flawed beyond belief, the Republican Party in my calculation has completely lost their minds and their way.
And, yes, I have supported Republicans in the past. If they don't change the way they are now, however, I will NEVER vote for another Republican again.
I've talked to both my kids about political issues. Comes up all the time. Could be just me, but somehow I doubt it.
Perhaps you could explain what the Republican Party actually stands for? Cause from my education over the years I think I've figured it out and even though the party I have ended up supporting is flawed beyond belief, the Republican Party in my calculation has completely lost their minds and their way.
And, yes, I have supported Republicans in the past. If they don't change the way they are now, however, I will NEVER vote for another Republican again.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Kep I read it cover to cover.
To further my case against the notion that voters are locked into their preferences, put aside once-in-a-generation Presidents like Reagan and Clinton and just take the last 4 elections from Bush-Obama. Over that time, the following states voted for each party at least once: NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, IA, CO, NM, NV, and one Congressional district in Nebraska since electoral votes are awarded that way there and in Maine. That's 10 states and part of a 11th over 4 elections, a cross section of geographies, economic strength, etc. Candidates and their message matters. Put in two other near misses of WI and MO over that time as well. If you include Senators and Governors, the list would be even larger over the last few elections.
Kep I read it cover to cover.
To further my case against the notion that voters are locked into their preferences, put aside once-in-a-generation Presidents like Reagan and Clinton and just take the last 4 elections from Bush-Obama. Over that time, the following states voted for each party at least once: NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, IA, CO, NM, NV, and one Congressional district in Nebraska since electoral votes are awarded that way there and in Maine. That's 10 states and part of a 11th over 4 elections, a cross section of geographies, economic strength, etc. Candidates and their message matters. Put in two other near misses of WI and MO over that time as well. If you include Senators and Governors, the list would be even larger over the last few elections.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Democrats are no more altruistic than Republicans. Both (D) and (R) vote for what we think is "right." What seems "right" to us is primarily a matter of what the people who had a formative influence on us thought was right. This may not be explicit communication (for example, I talk politics almost never with my daughter) however the messages get delivered -- voting patterns strongly replicate in offspring.
Nor are the Republican poor and lower middle class who vote (accidentally) against their economic interest any more or less "rubes" than the Democratic poor and lower middle class who vote (accidentally) for their economic interest. Everybody decides who to vote for based on filtering that is mostly determined for them rather than by them -- some ideas seem "right" or "sensible" or "dangerous" or "naive." Some personas seem "trustworthy" or "strong" or "reactive" or "unsteady." And at the end of the day there is "what they stand for," a vague catch-all that can paint over any dissonance and reinforce what was the pre-set choice. The art of campaigning is to activate as many of the positive emotional connections of as many of your voters as you can -- so you hold the dog and smile with the kids and put a big flag on a sunny day in the background and use a deeper voice and look steadily into the camera with kindness but firmness and do everything you can to remind the voter of their dear old dad.
And at the end of the day it probably doesn't even matter since by the third election the voter's voting patterns (both who and whether) are set.
Democrats are no more altruistic than Republicans. Both (D) and (R) vote for what we think is "right." What seems "right" to us is primarily a matter of what the people who had a formative influence on us thought was right. This may not be explicit communication (for example, I talk politics almost never with my daughter) however the messages get delivered -- voting patterns strongly replicate in offspring.
Nor are the Republican poor and lower middle class who vote (accidentally) against their economic interest any more or less "rubes" than the Democratic poor and lower middle class who vote (accidentally) for their economic interest. Everybody decides who to vote for based on filtering that is mostly determined for them rather than by them -- some ideas seem "right" or "sensible" or "dangerous" or "naive." Some personas seem "trustworthy" or "strong" or "reactive" or "unsteady." And at the end of the day there is "what they stand for," a vague catch-all that can paint over any dissonance and reinforce what was the pre-set choice. The art of campaigning is to activate as many of the positive emotional connections of as many of your voters as you can -- so you hold the dog and smile with the kids and put a big flag on a sunny day in the background and use a deeper voice and look steadily into the camera with kindness but firmness and do everything you can to remind the voter of their dear old dad.
And at the end of the day it probably doesn't even matter since by the third election the voter's voting patterns (both who and whether) are set.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Then I dunno what to say. Either you or Thomas Frank is right.
Then I dunno what to say. Either you or Thomas Frank is right.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I try to read or listen to what the individual candidate supports and decide based upon that. It's probably a bad approach, based upon the fact that it seems like politicians are either forced or ultimately choose to fall in line with whatever party leaders may tell them to do. But it's the approach I've used, and I'm a little old to change now.
It's interesting that some here have had actual discussions with their kids about politics. Different experience than mine. But I guess that's good it's being discussed in at least some households.
I have no idea what the Republican party stands for, and candidly, I'm not sure the Republican party knows either. I've never been to a Republican party meeting or caucus. But I haven't been to a Democratic party one either, and I have no interest in reading the "platforms" of either party.
I try to read or listen to what the individual candidate supports and decide based upon that. It's probably a bad approach, based upon the fact that it seems like politicians are either forced or ultimately choose to fall in line with whatever party leaders may tell them to do. But it's the approach I've used, and I'm a little old to change now.
It's interesting that some here have had actual discussions with their kids about politics. Different experience than mine. But I guess that's good it's being discussed in at least some households.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I've been to both and believe me, you're not missing anything. You know how sometimes before the game they roll out a crappy threadbare carpet at center ice and the dipsht local pol gives a 2 minute speech (which is 1:45 padding) and then hands the middle aged haus frau charity co-chair a blown up check for $27,458.62 the team raised for early onset hyperthyroidism from a car wash?
A party meeting is that, for three hours.
A party caucus is that, except people are jabbering at each other about whether to give the money instead to traumatic fecal syndrome.
A party convention is that, except most people are borderline drunk, and there are inexplicably great -- and I mean great as in 1954 Ritz Carleton escort -- looking women hanging off the arms of dried up prune-human hybrids who look like Mort Sahl after a 12-day coke binge.
I've been to both and believe me, you're not missing anything. You know how sometimes before the game they roll out a crappy threadbare carpet at center ice and the dipsht local pol gives a 2 minute speech (which is 1:45 padding) and then hands the middle aged haus frau charity co-chair a blown up check for $27,458.62 the team raised for early onset hyperthyroidism from a car wash?
A party meeting is that, for three hours.
A party caucus is that, except people are jabbering at each other about whether to give the money instead to traumatic fecal syndrome.
A party convention is that, except most people are borderline drunk, and there are inexplicably great -- and I mean great as in 1954 Ritz Carleton escort -- looking women hanging off the arms of dried up prune-human hybrids who look like Mort Sahl after a 12-day coke binge.
- Status