top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 360 points 2 months ago (38 children)

America isn't like this because Trump is president

Trump is president because America is like this

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 173 points 2 months ago (32 children)

    Decades of stripping education funding is taking its toll

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It’s worse than that. Everyone has been brought up to be a narcissistic consumer and they approach public policy the same way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    That's not the issue at all. It's the curriculum, the no child left behind act implementation, and the overall indoctrination and corruption of a system of government that rewards the rich.

    Most schools get plenty of money and just blow it on things they don't need. Buildings way too fancy and overpriced educational subscriptions to crap, instead of spending it on more teachers and teacher salary. The money is plenty there. None of the rich fucks get a cut from cheaper buildings and teacher payrolls.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Stripping education doesn't necessarily mean money. The GOP has waged an all out war on knowledge over the last few decades. Hell Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees.

    No Child Left Behind gas been terrible. And I agree that money needs to go to teachers, not admins

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (16 children)

    You say that like some of the most educated people in the country don't consistently vote Republican.

    This idea that earning a MBA or a JD or an MD makes your politics good is completely wrong. The idea that failing to earn a HS Diploma makes you unqualified to vote is equally dogshit.

    Politics is a consequence of your social affinity and your material conditions. You don't just take a class and become a liberal Democrat if your grade is high enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, but ceteris paribus, an educated electorate is going to make better decisions. Or rather, the number of obviously bad decisions rejected is increased as knowledge of history and concepts deems them unworkable. Society exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    an educated electorate is going to make better decisions

    I have seen no evidence to this effect. Consider South Africa under Apartheid. Once an individual realized how they benefited from systematic oppression of those below them, more and more fell in line. It is the "uneducated" underclass that made the revolution possible. And it was only possible through a strong social network that defied the "educated" understanding of micro-ethnicities that the Apartheid government sought to entrench.

    Same with Israel. You've got tons of educated professionals in that country who are explicitly and knowingly there to participate in a genocide. The Palestinian opposition has no education infrastructure. They can only resist through social cohesion and trust networks predicated on faith.

    The UK, another excellent example. A massive university system that largely exists to reproduce neoliberal ideological beliefs in a population that manages a predatory financial system and an arms export industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Yes, if you cut off those two proceeding words then hyper focus on a few examples (which have become examples of bad when once they were the norm- sort of making my point for me) without global or historic context, you've really made a strong case. Meanwhile, more people living in more places today have a better standard of life in more just nations than at any point in history and it correlates to increases in education.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

    This idea that earning a MBA or a JD or an MD makes your politics good is completely wrong

    Well, on average.. it does.

    You don't just take a class and become a liberal Democrat if your grade is high enough.

    No, but being intelligent is correlated with both of these things. Dumb people are more easily tricked by right wing talking points. Dumb people also don't get good grades. Smart people are, for whatever reason, more likely to agree with liberal or leftist talking points. Smart people are also more likely to get high grades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Well, on average… it does.

    The Republican majority in Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all have advanced degrees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (10 children)

    Average. On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. As a group. Separate the degrees from the non-degrees, and measure their liberalism/leftism, and find which group has the higher average. Average.

    Average.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

    On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist.

    On average, liberal neighborhoods and counties have more educated people.

    Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes. Mormons break 70 R / 22 D / 8 I for candidates while enjoying a 36% bachelor completion rate - 3pts higher than the national average.

    Hindus break 46 D / 49 R and have a staggering 70pt college competition rate.

    Meanwhile, historically black Protestants have a meager 24pt college rate, but regularly vote 80/20 Democrat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes

    No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons.

    Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons.

    You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block.

    we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone

    We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country.

    But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study.

    When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block.

    Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes.

    Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes.

    We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No.

    That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options:

    1. Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block,
    2. Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points.

    I have a perfect analogy:

    I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy.

    You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country".

    No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most.

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country

    When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs.

    That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation.

    No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    I have a perfect analogy

    What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy?

    Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”.

    Not relative to a public universal health care system, no.

    If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    Not relative to a public universal health care system, no.

    I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy.

    If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”,

    Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this.

    but we’re ignoring the...

    For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true.

    If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter.

    It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving.

    You know, the thing you're measuring for.

    But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    It matters enormously.

    Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy.

    Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy

    If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization.

    The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees.

    Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation.

    No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It a fair and accurate criticism and it probably shouldn’t have snuck up on us like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    For those of us watching this ramp up from the 90s into the 2000s and the Tea Party and the 2010s.... it… really wasn't a shock.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly. I gave up hope when W was elected a second time after an abysmal presidency and terrible performance in the debates prior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    I honestly thought that W was the lowest you could go. But in comparison with the current president you somehow wish you could at least go back to that level of presidency. Much bad to be said about him, but at least he was gentleman with respect for other people, institutions and the constitution.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 115 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Dipshit is so delusional he thinks he can send the military after bond traders.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 97 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I laughed about your comment, paused, and then started getting nervous.

    I decided to take a quick glance at the article and came across this:

    President Donald Trump suggested Friday he could use the military to stage an "intervention" on bond markets in a confusing response to a reporter asking about Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's efforts to bring down soaring yields.

    Much to my dismay, you weren't exaggerating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago

    Just for the record: in the comments section of a post about a news article in a news community, you described a story about how you read what the lead says when you took a quick glance at the article.
    We’re talking about an “article” that is shown as a “2 minute read”, and takes about 30 seconds to read.
    Fun fact: the demographic in which Trump gained the most before the 2024 election was “people who don’t read news daily”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    He can. There's literally no process to stop him right now. He could have people executed in the streets and his supporters would cheer and sell merch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 73 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    He is having people executed in the street, and they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 85 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    This is insane even for Trump. What would a military intervention in the bond market even mean?

    My guess is this is just dementia related word salad.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The largest chunks of US bonds are held by nations, so I think the subtext is that if any nation starts dumping bonds to hurt the US economy he may consider it a casus belli. Basically forcing them to hold the bag at gunpoint. This is a dream situation for a conman like him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago

    This is what he means. In fact, I think he is specifically referring to Canada. The first time Trump brought in tariffs, Carney initiated a little bond market run, causing him to back down. It was the first "CO" in TACO. Trump has been bristling since then.

    I hate how the headline tries to trivialize the fact that America is threatening to attack its former allies on the basis of trade irritations. This guy is fucking mental.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Maybe he just watched Beverly Hills Cop 2 and wants to steal a bunch of bearer bonds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    "And then we'll send the Marines to shoot inflation in the FACE." -- Some president soon, probably

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Let's hope we never have another president as fucking stupid as this one

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    don't worry, the next guy will make Trump look like Dubya

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    This needs to stop. Why are we letting a dipshit pedophile destroy our country?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    the poor are too busy dying without healthcare

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago

    The poor are overworked and overwhelmed, extremely underserved or disserved, and floundering about as best they can for solutions.

    They need to take a cue from what is supposedly taught in scuba lessons: if you forget which way is up, stop swimming and watch the bubbles.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's not a case of the people "letting" him destroy your country. The people wanted him to. Maybe not all the specific details of how he's doing it, but the previous election was largely a choice between "status quo" and "break the system" and break the system won. For some reason few of those voters seemed to be aware of how well the system was serving them, it appears they may have been misled. But that's democracy for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Plesse stop with this nonsense narrative. The super-rich and corporations want that, regardless of who is in office, and they get that. They are ecstatic that it's hastening under the current mouthpiece, everyone spouting this nonsense are just mad it's so mask-off, and kidding themselves it wasn't still happening under the fake opposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Epstein files? Can the military be used to get those?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 70 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Same guy who wanted to nuke hurricanes.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    He’ll lose that war too.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    He just doesn't know what's happening anymore, between periods of amphetamine-induced clarity

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    11 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    6 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post