Effectively conceding is not the same as saying "I lost" and "that guy won". The only real concession was leaving the White House, but he remains steadfast that the only reason he did so was that the election was stolen. The reason for the insurrection lives on with his supporters.
President Donald Trump effectively conceded the presidential election Thursday evening, calling for calm and condemning the storming of the Capitol Building by his supportersâa rampage many blame him for inciting, which led to at least four deaths and which sparked increasing bipartisan calls that he be removed from office.
Effectively conceding is not the same as saying "I lost" and "that guy won". The only real concession was leaving the White House, but he remains steadfast that the only reason he did so was that the election was stolen. The reason for the insurrection lives on with his supporters.
has he conceded? i'm thinking he just quite quit...
Right after the storming...
President Donald Trump effectively conceded the presidential election Thursday evening, calling for calm and condemning the storming of the Capitol Building by his supportersâa rampage many blame him for inciting, which led to at least four deaths and which sparked increasing bipartisan calls that he be removed from office.
Yes...and i recall similar language after Bush jr.
Biggest difference is trump took two months, and the violence of Jan 6 (and arguable continued emphasis on violence) to finally concede
has he conceded? i'm thinking he just quite quiet quit...
after a three second search i saw this edited montage
looks like the gop has their own partisan spin/take on this stuff as well
(didn't watch all of it)
where do we go from here?
regards
Yes...and i recall similar language after Bush jr.
Biggest difference is trump took two months, and the violence of Jan 6 (and arguable continued emphasis on violence) to finally concede
If you go back and look at the start of all of this, it's Trump's run-up to the 2016 election. As a way to "reject" what most thought was the likely outcome, Donnie started talking about corrupt elections. Before 2016, Republicans were already talking about "stolen elections" if he lost. He didn't, and nobody complained about 2016. He loses in 2020...it's stolen. Bottom line: he and those he supports have never lost an election...they've all been stolen. The only fair elections are the ones he wins.
The result of all of their whining: elections are less secure now than ever before, without any real proof of significant election fraud.
after a three second search i saw this edited montage
looks like the gop has their own partisan spin/take on this stuff as well
(didn't watch all of it)
where do we go from here?
regards
btw, i posted this after the 2020 election and people should watch it
bloomberg funded this effort and i think this is probably what happened
the gop was just out hustled
the dems got the votes needed
end of story
If you go back and look at the start of all of this, it's Trump's run-up to the 2016 election. As a way to "reject" what most thought was the likely outcome, Donnie started talking about corrupt elections. Before 2016, Republicans were already talking about "stolen elections" if he lost. He didn't, and nobody complained about 2016. He loses in 2020...it's stolen. Bottom line: he and those he supports have never lost an election...they've all been stolen. The only fair elections are the ones he wins.
The result of all of their whining: elections are less secure now than ever before, without any real proof of significant election fraud.
Ironic that you are responding to arguments I did not make. I stated that I do not understand those â and there are people making this barebones argument, not that I have seen it here â who seem to be basing their opposition solely on âif I had to pay, so should you.â And I stated that this â alone â would not be an argument on the merits, whether or not this policy is a good idea or not. This is not to say â and was not meant to say â that there are not good reasons on the merits to oppose this. You have cited some, as have others. I actually am not in favor of this policy, although I must admit that I have not looked into it much.
You were responding to a whataboutist claim with a strawman argument. I don't see every opinion posted everywhere by anyone but I honestly have never heard anyone make the argument you claim to not understand.
You aren't alone, I've seen many people make the same point, but they're all countering an imaginary argument. As you seem to acknowledge there are legitimate reasons to oppose this handout, and if you think they're wrong you should address them directly.
Now, if someone sees merit in this policy, would it be legitimate to oppose it because it was not in place when that person could have benefitted from it, thereby requiring that person and his or her family to make tough choices and endure hardships?
Again, that's not what's being argued. I bought my first computer for an embarrassingly large amount of money; a few years later much better computers were available for less. I was not outraged, I didn't demand that the people who bought cheaper computers or skipped buying them at all pay for a refund or an exchange for a better computer. I agreed to the terms of the deal I made and stuck to them even when a better deal was available later. That isn't the case here.
People made decisions that affect their lives and the lives of their children, weighing the consequences and agreeing to them. If you borrowed money to go to school you did so with the expectation that the cost was worth what you got. Now, for a select few, that cost gets reduced at everyone else's expense. That is fundamentally unfair. The graduate gets the benefit and everyone else gets the bill. Are we now supposed to factor future political pandering into the spreadsheet that determines whether to become a welder or a lawyer?
This isn't just changing the rules of the game that everyone was used to, this is changing the rules after the game has been played and retroactively changing the scores. Yes, it makes the (new) winners happy. Don't be shocked that it makes everyone else resent it.
When I was in law school, the school was formulating a loan forgiveness program for those going into public interest law. It came into being shortly after I graduated so I did not benefit from it. I thought it was a good idea, and I participated in some of the initial meetings to get the ball rolling. Before you fly off the handle again and mount your soapbox, let me say that I am not saying that program is akin to or justifies this policy. Nor am I giving myself a pat on the back for being selfless. What I am saying is that law school program made sense to me on the merits. That I had to make ends meet without the benefit of it was irrelevant.
Then sell the program on its merits. Change the rules for future games, not the ones already played. Convince enough parents of future welders that their children should subsidize giving their high school classmates an advantage in life.
Biden just handed the MAGA crowd a crate of ammunition for the class and culture wars. Trump is in front of a mirror right now practicing his applause lines.
Maybe it does a little good,
maybe a little harm.
But that is not the point...which is this neither the democrats nor the republicans have a plan to tackle any of the real problems the country is facing, and the cost of education/student debt being one of them.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 26, 2022 - 1:20pm
islander wrote:
I suspect that most are in favor of the greater good as long as they are a tangible part of the receiving end. Otherwise, it's just waste and corruption.
And sometimes â perhaps often â that is just eye of the beholder.
That is one of the rubs, isnât it? Perhaps the primary one. Take, for example, what I believe may be an easier one. Should a person who has never had any children and will not have any be expected to help pay for public elementary and secondary schools for the children of others? Then take it out a bit. In many jurisdictions, community college tuitions are subsidized; in some, it is free. Is that fair?
I believe in the greater good. I agree with you that we often have disagreements as to whether this or that policy is for the greater good.
I suspect that most are in favor of the greater good as long as they are a tangible part of the receiving end. Otherwise, it's just waste and corruption.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 26, 2022 - 1:11pm
islander wrote:
. . .
Disclaimer, I also have a gut "it's not fair!" reaction to this. I took loans and was well into my 40s when I finally paid them off. But I also got a Pell grant and Had a bunch of other advantages so what's really 'Fair' anyway, and how would we ever enforce it if we could possibly agree?
That is one of the rubs, isnât it? Perhaps the primary one. Take, for example, what I believe may be an easier one. Should a person who has never had any children and will not have any be expected to help pay for public elementary and secondary schools for the children of others? Then take it out a bit. In many jurisdictions, community college tuitions are subsidized; in some, it is free. Is that fair?
I believe in the greater good. I agree with you that we often have disagreements as to whether this or that policy is for the greater good.
As opposed to real reform that would reduce the cost of education rather than forcing other people to pay for it.
No, republicans don't have a plan for this. Why does that make this counter-productive act better?
now see what you did - I have to quote Donald (the other one): You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
We all think lower debt is a good idea, along with spending less on frivolous things. We also love puppies, ice cream, fruit flavored Jelly Belly candies, rainbows and unicorns. We seem to come to odds when we discuss what is frivolous or if butter popcorn jelly belly is really worse than toasted marshmallow (it is, fight me).
The governments we have (flavor closer to stinkbug) don't seem interested in doing the things we all (mostly) agree are correct. They are a hammer, giving away money is a nail. Sure, I'll vote trowel or level, or anything else in the shed, but at the end of the day, some one is getting nailed. I do think it's probably more productive to give it to student loan holders than corporations or billionaires.
Disclaimer, I also have a gut "it's not fair!" reaction to this. I took loans and was well into my 40s when I finally paid them off. But I also got a Pell grant and Had a bunch of other advantages so what's really 'Fair' anyway, and how would we ever enforce it if we could possibly agree?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 26, 2022 - 9:37am
Lazy8 wrote:
It's OK to not understand that argument because no one is making it.
It's not that people who
â saved money for decadesâputting off expenditures and purchases that would have made their lives better
â sent their kids to colleges (or trade schools, or apprenticeships, or jobs) they could afford instead of colleges that would inflate their resumes
â made sure their kids learned a trade that could pay their bills if they had to take a break from school
â spent summers working instead of taking unpaid interneships or studying abroad
resent the good fortune that Saint Biden bestowed on the poor bedraggled Art History graduates from ivy league schools (who were kidnapped in the dead of night, hauled off to spring break in Cabo and forced to take out loan after loan) out of his own generous pockets.
He's bestowing this gift upon those poor (earning less than $125K/year!) climbers of the ladder out of their pockets, their children's pockets, their grandchildren's pockets. He's inflating the currency to pay for it, making everyone a bit poorer. He's making it easier for those colleges to charge even more, because if you think you won't have to repay the money why not borrow and pay more?
He gets to pretend he's solving a problem when his act of supreme generosity will make the problem worseânot reducing the cost but shifting it to other shoulders. Shoulders that probably didn't even go to college, but who now have to compete in the workforce with a favored constituency who got a one-time bribe to vote for Democrats, all while having to face the same issueâmade somewhat worseâfor their own kids.
Is that too long? Do you understand that?
Ironic that you are responding to arguments I did not make. I stated that I do not understand those â and there are people making this barebones argument, not that I have seen it here â who seem to be basing their opposition solely on âif I had to pay, so should you.â And I stated that this â alone â would not be an argument on the merits, whether or not this policy is a good idea or not. This is not to say â and was not meant to say â that there are not good reasons on the merits to oppose this. You have cited some, as have others. I actually am not in favor of this policy, although I must admit that I have not looked into it much.
Now, if someone sees merit in this policy, would it be legitimate to oppose it because it was not in place when that person could have benefitted from it, thereby requiring that person and his or her family to make tough choices and endure hardships?
When I was in law school, the school was formulating a loan forgiveness program for those going into public interest law. It came into being shortly after I graduated so I did not benefit from it. I thought it was a good idea, and I participated in some of the initial meetings to get the ball rolling. Before you fly off the handle again and mount your soapbox, let me say that I am not saying that program is akin to or justifies this policy. Nor am I giving myself a pat on the back for being selfless. What I am saying is that law school program made sense to me on the merits. That I had to make ends meet without the benefit of it was irrelevant.
