2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[acbytesla]

Did you read the link? There are public court documents showing Douglas Rutnik (Gillibrand's father) worked for NXIVM as an attorney.

There isn't evidence that he knew about the really bad sex slavery stuff they were doing, but the link doesn't claim he did.

Yes I did. That certain individuals involved in the cult had dealings with others says nothing about the others. The connection is weak and tenuous.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes I did. That certain individuals involved in the cult had dealings with others says nothing about the others. The connection is weak and tenuous.

Sounds like you're not actually contesting the contents of the link, only whether it matters.

And maybe it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it won't.

 

[acbytesla]

Sounds like you're not actually contesting the contents of the link, only whether it matters.

And maybe it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it won't.

How could I? I only have ever heard of some of them. Can't speak about the depth of their involvement with each other. And neither can you.

I've met Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and even Trump. Doesn't actually mean anything.

And both Trump and Bill Clinton knew Epstein. Doesn't mean either were pedophiles.

This is the kind of conspiracy thinking. Like the dumbass Clinton Body Count.

 

[Ziggurat]

How could I? I only have ever heard of some of them. Can't speak about the depth of their involvement with each other. And neither can you.

I know that NXIVM hired Gillibrand's dad as an attorney. That's in public court documents. That's a lot more than just meeting them.

And I have no reason to disbelieve any of the rest of it. Not that it's all that terrible.

This is the kind of conspiracy thinking. Like the dumbass Clinton Body Count.

This is a bizarre accusation. And it's essentially backwards: you're essentially alleging a conspiracy to lie about Gillibrand's family. The story only really posits that they worked for a client that turned out to be shady.

 

[acbytesla]

I know that NXIVM hired Gillibrand's dad as an attorney. That's in public court documents. That's a lot more than just meeting them.

So? I have hired accountants and lawyers too. I've even socialized with them. Big deal.

And I have no reason to disbelieve any of the rest of it. Not that it's all that terrible.

You also have little reason to believe it.

This is a bizarre accusation. And it's essentially backwards: you're essentially alleging a conspiracy to lie about Gillibrand's family. The story only really posits that they worked for a client that turned out to be shady.

No I'm not. I'm saying you don't know what you think you know. You know nothing other than these people had some connections to each other.

Trump is close with Roger Stone. The woman he was living with when his house was searched and he was arrested was a Madam in New York. Doesn't say a damn thing about whether Trump used her services.

Trump is also friends with Robert Kraft who visited a massage parlor and the woman who owned that massage parlor was at Trump campaign events. Does that mean Trump used that massage parlor too.

 

[Ziggurat]

So? I have hired accountants and lawyers too. I've even socialized with them. Big deal.

That almost sounds familiar...

Sounds like you're not actually contesting the contents of the link, only whether it matters.

And maybe it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it won't.

Placing undue importance on something isn't a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, I'm not even claiming it should be a big deal.

You also have little reason to believe it.

Sure I've got reason to believe it. The claims are being made by a publicly named source who would be in a position to know, and who so far seems to be reliable on the subject, and the claims themselves are highly plausible and can probably be verified or refuted, and at least one of those central claims (that Rutnik worked as an attorney for NXIVM) has already been verified. If new information comes to light then all of this is subject to reevaluation, but provisionally accepting it at this point is completely reasonable. It's as good as any news story you read in the papers.

No I'm not. I'm saying you don't know what you think you know. You know nothing other than these people had some connections to each other.

You seem to think I've claimed more than I actually have. That's the only way this objection makes any sense.

 

[acbytesla]

Placing undue importance on something isn't a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, I'm not even claiming it should be a big deal.

Hmm...And yet you felt the need to post the link along with this comment.

Well this doesn't help Gillibrand's chances:

You seem to think I've claimed more than I actually have. That's the only way this objection makes any sense.

No, I think you're engaged in surreptitious mudslinging and rumor spreading but manufacturing a bit of plausible deniability to go with it. Claims of innocence seem so disingenuous.

 

[applecorped]

1 down, 17 to go

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmm...And yet you felt the need to post the link along with this comment.

I specifically addressed the distinction between what should be and what is. Did you not notice?

If you want to claim that this won't be a big deal, that the public in general won't care, go ahead. You haven't actually done so yet. If you do, and even if you are right, none of that makes anything I said resemble a conspiracy theory as you claimed.

No, I think you're engaged in surreptitious mudslinging and rumor spreading but manufacturing a bit of plausible deniability to go with it. Claims of innocence seem so disingenuous.

Like I said, this is a publicly named source in a position to know, a reliable track record, with at least one key claim already verified. That's a lot more than "rumor". The idea that I'm guilty of anything for passing along that news story is simply absurd. I doubt even 10% of the news items linked in this forum would withstand the standard you're trying to apply here.

 

[carlitos]

Elizabeth Warren just announced that she supports free college for everyone and forgiveness of debt up to $50,000 for those making less than $100K household income.

Plan cost ~ $1.25 Trillion. Just by my own back-of-the-envelope math, 20 million college students at $10K tuition = $200 Billion per year, or about 5% of the federal budget in a single year. Plus the debt forgiveness piece. Sounds ambitious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Elizabeth Warren just announced that she supports free college for everyone

Not everyone should go to college. That's a massive waste of money.

and forgiveness of debt up to $50,000 for those making less than $100K household income.

Can you say "moral hazard"? How about "perverse incentive"?

Plan cost ~ $1.25 Trillion. Just by my own back-of-the-envelope math, 20 million college students at $10K tuition = $200 Billion per year, or about 5% of the federal budget in a single year. Plus the debt forgiveness piece. Sounds ambitious.

Sounds insane. And desperate.

 

[theprestige]

Elizabeth Warren just announced that she supports free college for everyone and forgiveness of debt up to $50,000 for those making less than $100K household income.

Plan cost ~ $1.25 Trillion. Just by my own back-of-the-envelope math, 20 million college students at $10K tuition = $200 Billion per year, or about 5% of the federal budget in a single year. Plus the debt forgiveness piece. Sounds ambitious.

She calls it "transformative". I'm thinking, if you really want to transform higher education, change how much it costs, not who pays for it.

 

[applecorped]

How

 

[acbytesla]

She calls it "transformative". I'm thinking, if you really want to transform higher education, change how much it costs, not who pays for it.

Why not do both? I don't agree with her plan in total. I think we need more vocational schools and those need to be affordable.

 

[carlitos]

No question about vocational schools. There are a lot of trades where the workers are aging out and will need to be replaced with younger, trained workers. I don't forsee robot plumbers or robot linemen in our near future.

I sympathize with students and their debt load, but Zig is right about the perverse incentive. Getting a $50,000 English degree was a bad decision in some cases. I don't know what's a fair way to handle that; lots of people were sold a bill of goods that their college degree was "worth" more than it really was. Not to mention for-profit education scams.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why not do both?

Because if the buyer doesn't have to pay any costs, they will buy what they don't need because, hey, free!

I don't agree with her plan in total. I think we need more vocational schools and those need to be affordable.

Sure. But if the student isn't paying anything for it (even if it's not the entire cost they would be paying), you face the same problem as with free college. No skin in the game means little incentive to get the choices right.

 

[theprestige]

Why not do both?

Why not change who pays for higher ed? Because who pays for it isn't the problem. How much it costs is the problem.

I'm not convinced that subsidizing arbitrary college degrees is a good use of taxpayer funds.

I have no idea how to reduce the cost of higher ed, other than to reduce funding. Transferring costs away from the school and away from the student, to the taxpayer, is the opposite of that.

If taxpayers must invest in college education, I'd prefer to do it on the following basis:
- underwrite vocational training and certification, for certain in-demand trades. Wherever skilled workers are needed, let's get some.
- underwrite college degrees in certain specific majors, on a rotating basis. Not all majors. Not always the same majors. But a short list of important majors - STEM, basically. And adjust the list periodically depending on demand and other factors. Demand by employers for such graduates. Not demand by incoming students for such degrees.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no idea how to reduce the cost of higher ed, other than to reduce funding.

Part of it is simply to reduce the size of college administrations. They have grown way larger than they used to be even a couple of decades ago, and they don't need to be that big.

That won't solve the problem completely, but it's an easy first step.

 

[acbytesla]

Why not change who pays for higher ed? Because who pays for it isn't the problem. How much it costs is the problem.

I'm not convinced that subsidizing arbitrary college degrees is a good use of taxpayer funds.

I have no idea how to reduce the cost of higher ed, other than to reduce funding. Transferring costs away from the school and away from the student, to the taxpayer, is the opposite of that.

If taxpayers must invest in college education, I'd prefer to do it on the following basis:
- underwrite vocational training and certification, for certain in-demand trades. Wherever skilled workers are needed, let's get some.
- underwrite college degrees in certain specific majors, on a rotating basis. Not all majors. Not always the same majors. But a short list of important majors - STEM, basically. And adjust the list periodically depending on demand and other factors. Demand by employers for such graduates. Not demand by incoming students for such degrees.

Reducing funding would be disastrous. We are putting an untenable burden on students. The loan burdens the average student incurs is unacceptable. When I went to college the government paid for a significant percentage of my costs through various programs including Pell grants. I think I graduated with about 4K in student debt. Today, we have students graduating with sometimes 150K in debt and then cannot pay off the loan.

Something has to be done.

I absolutely agree that the government should underwrite vocational and STEM type majors.

 

[Craig4]

Elizabeth Warren just announced that she supports free college for everyone and forgiveness of debt up to $50,000 for those making less than $100K household income.

Plan cost ~ $1.25 Trillion. Just by my own back-of-the-envelope math, 20 million college students at $10K tuition = $200 Billion per year, or about 5% of the federal budget in a single year. Plus the debt forgiveness piece. Sounds ambitious.

This is how we end up with four more years of stupid bitch we have in the Whitehouse now. This scares the middle of the road. We need to get college debt and expenses under control not make it free for everyone. It's a worthy goal but will take a generation to get there. Get into office, move incrementally. Partner with states moving this direction.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...ge-tuition-is-spreading-from-cities-to-states

Free tuition, free medical care are often translated as "I have to pay for someone else". This is not a popular sentiment with blue collar swing voters in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Work with states offering free tuition and change the question from "why do I have to pay for it", to "why can't I have that". But please do get into office first.