General Election 2024 Biden vs Trump (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

As we head toward the summer and the National Party Conventions, it might be handy to have a thread focused on the upcoming matchup of current President Biden vs Former President Trump.
As of April 28,2024 , CNN's poll shows Trump leading. Yet polls are not always accurate and they are constantly changing.
Feel free to use this thread for all things relating to Biden vs Trump.
*
*

CNN Poll: Trump maintains lead over Biden in 2024 matchup as views on their presidencies diverge

Donald Trump continues to hold an advantage over President Joe Biden as the campaign – and Trump’s criminal trial – move forward, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And in the coming rematch, opinions about the first term of each man vying for a second four years in the White House...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Lapaz]

I think all student debt should be eliminated, and college should be free for anyone who can make the grades to get a degree.

The availability of loans in the future shouldn't matter because college should be free. Everyone benefits form a more educated society.

Free college seems appealing, but I think making college free has its own dangers and should be associated with some conditions to mitigate the dangers. I think the quality of the education could decline if it were free, and the value of the degree may be reduced unless it remains a limited commodity. I support it being free for all students that earn it. To that end, I would support government paying for many more merit scholarships based on objective tests like SATs or ACTs, and that maintain their grades. I would also add requirements that the school produce viable students, from among those free students, which I would determine by an objective evaluation of the earnings of their free graduates within a year after graduating. The earnings evaluation should account for professions, since technical schools will produce higher earnings than arts schools, but even arts school students should have viable earnings, otherwise their degrees are not worthwhile. If they are not producing students that can earn money using their degrees, then that college's free scholarships should be reduced, and redistributed to other colleges. This would steer more free students to better colleges, while keeping the scholarships.

 

[efil4]

Free college seems appealing, but I think making college free has its own dangers and should be associated with some conditions to mitigate the dangers. I think the quality of the education could decline if it were free, and the value of the degree may be reduced unless it remains a limited commodity. I support it being free for all students that earn it. To that end, I would support government paying for many more merit scholarships based on objective tests like SATs or ACTs, and that maintain their grades. I would also add requirements that the school produce viable students, from among those free students, which I would determine by an objective evaluation of the earnings of their free graduates within a year after graduating. The earnings evaluation should account for professions, since technical schools will produce higher earnings than arts schools, but even arts school students should have viable earnings, otherwise their degrees are not worthwhile. If they are not producing students that can earn money using their degrees, then that college's free scholarships should be reduced, and redistributed to other colleges. This would steer more free students to better colleges, while keeping the scholarships.

there is built in discrimination into SATs/ACT testing.

There is a host of ways to circumvent rules for SAT/ACT- one big one is folks paying $1500~ to have their child "diagnosed" with a learning disability, submitting the required ppwk to allot them additional time etc. This degrades the option for those ( like my youngest ) who have dyslexia and NEED the supplemental time along with other accommodations.

Many schools now are turning away from SAT/ACTs scores and looking at the students 9-12 grade history. It seems that provides a much better indication of a students success, than the 28 did on the ACT.

Further, having one in college now, and hearing some of the issues she has with instructors/professors, i would argue that the "decline" is well under way.

College has turned to business model. How much revenue can they generate? It allows them to expand, create a reputation for being "the school" thereby attracting more prospective enrollees, yet not necessarily providing a better education.

I agree with the technical school aspect. We arent steering enough that route because those schools arent "trendy" or carry " reputation" and gives off the appearance the child 'doesnt have it" to attend 4 year college. Which couldnt be further from the truth in many aspects.

Ask a college grad why he has a P trap on his toilet. lol

 

[Lapaz]

there is built in discrimination into SATs/ACT testing.

There is a host of ways to circumvent rules for SAT/ACT- one big one is folks paying $1500~ to have their child "diagnosed" with a learning disability, submitting the required ppwk to allot them additional time etc. This degrades the option for those ( like my youngest ) who have dyslexia and NEED the supplemental time along with other accommodations.

Many schools now are turning away from SAT/ACTs scores and looking at the students 9-12 grade history. It seems that provides a much better indication of a students success, than the 28 did on the ACT.

Further, having one in college now, and hearing some of the issues she has with instructors/professors, i would argue that the "decline" is well under way.

College has turned to business model. How much revenue can they generate? It allows them to expand, create a reputation for being "the school" thereby attracting more prospective enrollees, yet not necessarily providing a better education.

I agree with the technical school aspect. We arent steering enough that route because those schools arent "trendy" or carry " reputation" and gives off the appearance the child 'doesnt have it" to attend 4 year college. Which couldnt be further from the truth in many aspects.

Ask a college grad why he has a P trap on his toilet. lol

I've heard about some of the concerns with the SATs and ACTs, but they are probably still the best tools. High Schools can artificially prop up grades of their students, and the tougher schools may have students with lower grades that are more capable than easier schools with higher grades. Those are the tools that I think are available, but schools should be free to determine whatever tool they want to use, and will continue to evolve how they evaluate incoming students based on the results that those students produce. That's why measuring the product the schools produce is possibly the most important element. Schools will be motivated to find the people that game the SATs and ACTs, or whatever other method or tool the school uses, or the school will have to pay a price.

By the way, I'm sorry that this thread has been diverted/hijacked. It should focus on Biden vs Trump.

 

[Lapaz]

Here are some of my initial pros and cons for Biden vs Trump. I'll gladly amend this based on comments.

Biden Pro	Biden Con	Trump Pro	Trump Con
Experienced legislator	seems old	appears energetic	dishonest in the extreme
Strengthen relationship with allies	slow to act against injustices like Gaza	good looking family	seeks to be authoritarian
supports democracy	speech impediment reduces messaging effectiveness	may scare immigrants from coming	profited from presidency
policies support jobs			Ivanka trademarks after policy
finds compromises			Kushner $2B after policy chg
decent person			childish and bullying behavior
Chips Act			questionable alliances
Inflation Reduction Act			seeks use government for revenge
Seeks to improve healthcare			treatment of immigrants/possible use of military
seeks better access to college			seeks to eliminate ACA
climate goals			anti-immigration bill
may seek abortion rights legislation			anti-climate legislation
appoint judges that expand rights			cavalier about national secrets
			may appoint more far right judges
			worsen national debt with tax cuts for wealthy

 

[Heathen]

Still fairly early, but Polls still show and neck and neck race

I'm nervous as hell if I'm either side.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think there is a legitimate concern with cancelling student debt, especially for high earners. I think the student loan cancellation should be based on ability to pay. If you make $300k per year, you probably can afford to pay the loan. For lower earners, the amount of debt that is relieved should only be enough to limit the amount they have to pay based on their income. The loaners should be taken into account, otherwise loans will be less available in the future. The debt cancellations could have unintended consequences.

Most of the student loan debt being cancelled takes ability to pay into consideration. Most of the debt is being cancelled through pre-existing rules. When someone gets reduced or deferred payments on their student loans based on their income being too low the make the full payment, each payment is supposed to count as a month of payment, even though it's only a partial payment or a completely deferred payment.

The student loan program has always had a rule that student loans could be forgiven after a certain number of months of payment if an individual's income continued to be too low to make full monthly payments. It's not a requirement. I think it's an option left to discretion of whoever is servicing the student loan.

Biden is giving an option to borrowers who have their loans serviced by a private company to transfer the debt to the government to service, which has been allowed by the student loan program. After someone has transferred their debt to the government, if they qualify for forgiveness under the rules of the student loan program, then Biden has instructed the government service agency to forgive their debt. The only way to qualify is to have income too low to make full monthly payments.

 

[samiam5211]

Free college seems appealing, but I think making college free has its own dangers and should be associated with some conditions to mitigate the dangers. I think the quality of the education could decline if it were free, and the value of the degree may be reduced unless it remains a limited commodity. I support it being free for all students that earn it. To that end, I would support government paying for many more merit scholarships based on objective tests like SATs or ACTs, and that maintain their grades. I would also add requirements that the school produce viable students, from among those free students, which I would determine by an objective evaluation of the earnings of their free graduates within a year after graduating. The earnings evaluation should account for professions, since technical schools will produce higher earnings than arts schools, but even arts school students should have viable earnings, otherwise their degrees are not worthwhile. If they are not producing students that can earn money using their degrees, then that college's free scholarships should be reduced, and redistributed to other colleges. This would steer more free students to better colleges, while keeping the scholarships.

We have completely different perspectives on the purpose of college.

I couldn't care less about how much money a college degree makes someone. That is a terrible metric to measure success.

We all benefit from better educated people. I don't care if that makes education less valuable in the market place.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SamAndreas]

I don't understand, in what way is that ad targeted toward Black men?

It looks to me like it's targeted toward gullible conservatives who's biannual mating call is, "poor people are getting hold of OUR taxpayer dollars for free again!!!".

Nine months later... ... ... .



Poor people getting free taxpayer money is a horrible of horribles for some people. It's apparently OK with them for rich corporation people to get our taxpayer dollars for free.

 

[coldseat]

The old "give one group another group to punch down on and they will support you".

A societal control mechanism as old as time itself. Used with great effect in the country by rich white power brokers to control poor white populations by setting them against black populations. Now that rich white power brokers need the votes of black minorities, it's being used to control them by turning them against immigrant populations.

It's sad that it's still so effective.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

I don't understand, in what way is that ad targeted toward Black men?

It looks to me like it's targeted toward gullible conservatives who's biannual mating call is, "poor people are getting hold of OUR taxpayer dollars for free again!!!".

Nine months later... ... ... .



Poor people getting free taxpayer money is a horrible of horribles for some people. It's apparently OK with them for rich corporation people to get our taxpayer dollars for free.

Is the usual complaint actually what you state? I thought the typical complaint is that illegal aliens are getting tax payer dollars at the expense of folks who were born here?

 

[SaintForLife]

The old "give one group another group to punch down on and they will support you".

A societal control mechanism as old as time itself. Used with great effect in the country by rich white power brokers to control poor white populations by setting them against black populations. Now that rich white power brokers need the votes of black minorities, it's being used to control them by turning them against immigrant populations.

It's sad that it's still so effective.

Or we could just look at the numbers. Why do you think Democrats are losing minority support?

New data shows that Democrats' longtime advantage with Black, Latino and Asian American voters has shrunk to its lowest point in more than 60 years — creating a massive vulnerability for President Biden and congressional Democrats.

Why it matters: One of the most loyal parts of the Democratic coalition is suddenly in danger. Black and Hispanic men could vote Republican in numbers not seen since President Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected in the 1950s.

The big picture: Latinos, the nation's largest non-white group, still lean Democratic. But they've been shifting Republican over the last two decades, and are no longer the slam-dunk Democrats they were in 1960 when JFK ran for president.

By the numbers: Democrats' advantage among Black, Latino and Asian voters is at its lowest since 1960, Financial Times columnist and chief data reporter John Burn-Murdoch found by analyzing a massive set of polling data.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/13/why-democrats-black-hispanic-vote-republican

 

[SamAndreas]

Still fairly early, but Polls still show and neck and neck race

I'm nervous as hell if I'm either side.

Funny that, I'm not nervous about the polls. At the moment I think the social situation in America is such that it has affected telephone behaviour in a way that has made it impossible to conduct accurate polls. People use screening devices before answering their phones. That undercuts the basis upon which polling is founded, "the random sample" is no more.

 

[SamAndreas]

Is the usual complaint actually what you state? I thought the typical complaint is that illegal aliens are getting tax payer dollars at the expense of folks who were born here?

Year by year it varies as to what the "pin up" subject is. Sometimes it's "illegal aliens," Other times it's aimed at welfare moms. Or college students.

 

[SamAndreas]

Or we could just look at the numbers. Why do you think Democrats are losing minority support?

New data shows that Democrats' longtime advantage with Black, Latino and Asian American voters has shrunk to its lowest point in more than 60 years — creating a massive vulnerability for President Biden and congressional Democrats.

Why it matters: One of the most loyal parts of the Democratic coalition is suddenly in danger. Black and Hispanic men could vote Republican in numbers not seen since President Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected in the 1950s.

The big picture: Latinos, the nation's largest non-white group, still lean Democratic. But they've been shifting Republican over the last two decades, and are no longer the slam-dunk Democrats they were in 1960 when JFK ran for president.

By the numbers: Democrats' advantage among Black, Latino and Asian voters is at its lowest since 1960, Financial Times columnist and chief data reporter John Burn-Murdoch found by analyzing a massive set of polling data.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/13/why-democrats-black-hispanic-vote-republican

There are no factual numbers in that which you posted.

There are factual numbers available which one can use. One can look at the recent results for special elections across America. Those factual election result numbers are real. Taken as a whole those results are not showing anything like what the current polling numbers are showing.

For the last whole year when it comes to special elections Democrats have been way out performing what the polls say before those elections.

 

[efil4]

There are no factual numbers in that which you posted.

There are factual numbers available which one can use. One can look at the recent results for special elections across America. Those factual election result numbers are real. Taken as a whole those results are not showing anything like what the current polling numbers are showing.

For the last whole year when it comes to special elections Democrats have been way out performing what the polls say before those elections.

@SaintForLife thinks "main stream media" is the debil....


That is until it lines up with his preconceived notions....then he uses it to support his position.

Its like watching 6 yrs old play a tennis match. Baaaaaack aaaaaaaaaaaaand fooooorth.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The old "give one group another group to punch down on and they will support you".

A societal control mechanism as old as time itself. Used with great effect in the country by rich white power brokers to control poor white populations by setting them against black populations. Now that rich white power brokers need the votes of black minorities, it's being used to control them by turning them against immigrant populations.

It's sad that it's still so effective.

I think this is one of the dynamics that show that the strife in our country is more driven by a caste system that is based on skin color. I say skin color instead of race, because the lie that there are different races of humans is a lie created and perpetuated by our caste system to keep us from seeing the truth.

As you point out above, there are rich white skinned people who manipulate and exploit poorer white skinned people. The following is generalized and oversimplified just to illustrate the basics of the American caste system.

There's an upper white caste and a lower white caste. The lower white caste sits above all of the non-white skinned castes.

The lower white caste does not have as much privilege as the higher white caste, but the lower white caste does have more privilege than all of the non-white castes. That's how the majority, non rich white skinned people, are manipulated into allowing the very small minority of rich white people to get rich off of them while keeping them poor.

There are individual exceptions, but those exceptions actively or passively allow themselves to be used as evidence to falsely deny the existence of the caste system, openly support the caste system, or are punished if they defy and threaten the caste system.