Some girl asked about student loan debt (despite the fact that she says she's going to become a dentist and will have 500k of debt...but likely make 200k+ at some point...) but anyway. His answers to that were, more accreditation boards for things so 'real life experience' can get you credit. Transparency from colleges saying 'x major makes y dollars from here' before you enroll. Treating loans like investments so companies or funds invest in students and if the students don't graduate or default then they made a bad investment. And tying payments to income so they don't default but can pay over a longer time. Not one sentence had to do with rising education costs or the fact that traditional student loans are a pretty high APR.

The format just let them spew whatever they wanted for however long they wanted. At least from the 10 minutes I could stomach.

jerseyhoya wrote:Second before going into the GOP nomination stuff, a few words about the Supreme Court fight. There are few things more certain in life than political process fights devolving into hypocrisy. I think there's something approaching a 100% chance that if RBG died in February 2008 that the Dem Senate would not have confirmed a Bush nominee to her spot. And we would have screamed our heads off about how unfaithful to the constitution Dem sens were being, and maybe they'd have paid a bit of a price at the polls (Ted Stevens might have won and maybe Obamacare would've never happened, who knows), but the Democrats would have been right to stand their ground given the consequences for the party and the progressive movement for shifting the court if Bush had replaced a liberal stalwart. The GOP is completely right to eat shit on this because the stakes are so high. McConnell could've handled it better without saying no hearings/no votes - I think we'd get 51+ no votes for any non GOP nominee (Kirk/Collins/maybe Murkowski) - but it's vital that the line is held. So I think it will be. If resulting unpopularity costs a senate seat or even the White House, that would suck, but allowing Obama to appoint someone who makes the court 5-4 or 6-3 lib on every contentious issue isn't something a conservative GOP senate can just roll over on. It's going to be good times 8 years from now when Stephen Breyer dies and President Rubio breaks his pledge to defer a last year nomination to the next president, and we get to hear how much of a hypocrite Rubio is.

Thanks for weighing in jh.

I quoted this bit because I think the obvious miscalculation made by the Republicans is announcing out loud what everyone knows that they were secretly thinking. And, if you are interested in long term "good of the nation" /conservative issues, refusing any Obama nomination, sight unseen or otherwise, is a risky move because right now the political capital is about evenly split, maybe a slight edge to the Republicans, which could well result in a Kennedyesque nominee - liberal on social issues, but conservative enough on guns and labor unions, for example. By doing what they are doing they are betting everything on a presidential election that they are very publicly screwing up even as we speak - if Hillary (or Bernie) wins in November over the eventual Republican nominee - who I agree will be Rubio - you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a more liberal justice nominated and confirmed than you would get right now.

So, it's an interesting choice. I would think Republican party elites would take a Kennedy style nominee "in hand" over a Scalia "in the bush," because such a shift would get Rs what they really want - conservative rulings on business and labor - and put a bullet in the head once and for all of nuisance issues like abortion and gay marriage. That would be a fine outcome from a Republican perspective, and they could get it without risking another genuine lefty on the bench.

Me, I am fine if the Republicans want to make this bet.

Ted Cruz's father was on Castro's side and was imprisoned by Batista. didn't realize that. apparently othersdidn't either.

so, his father changed his opinions...like Trump?

Trump and Cruz are pandering to folks who support whacky positions faithfully. The key is, how many actual voters are in that cohort? Enough to get a nomination? Enough to win a General Election?

I think not but I'm not 100 percent confident. There are many examples of political candidates being supported by out to lunch supporters. I'm not sure if any of them won anything but many of them won some states over the years.

Too soon to tell how this election will go. But Trump has been persistent for a while now. The media has failed to do a good job refuting his most stupid "positions" and it seems it's getting to the point where it might be too late. Prepare for lots of crazy talk for a few months at least.

smitty wrote: The media has failed to do a good job refuting his most stupid "positions" and it seems it's getting to the point where it might be too late.

Chump really is the new Mussolini, but it's not the job of the press to refute him, and more than it is to refute Saint Bernie or Hillary.

"We report, YOU decide"

TomatoPie wrote:

smitty wrote: The media has failed to do a good job refuting his most stupid "positions" and it seems it's getting to the point where it might be too late.

Chump really is the new Mussolini, but it's not the job of the press to refute him, and more than it is to refute Saint Bernie or Hillary.

"We report, YOU decide"

Uh, they can report when Trump - or any candidate - tells outright lies. That is their job.

mozartpc27 wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

smitty wrote: The media has failed to do a good job refuting his most stupid "positions" and it seems it's getting to the point where it might be too late.

Chump really is the new Mussolini, but it's not the job of the press to refute him, and more than it is to refute Saint Bernie or Hillary.

"We report, YOU decide"

Uh, they can report when Trump - or any candidate - tells outright lies. That is their job.

Exactly. It's not just lies. It's whacky things like building a beautiful fence and making Mexico pay for it. No follow up by the media. They just move on to another stupid question and answer.

Trump is good for ratings so they wanted him around for a while. Now it doesn't matter what he says, his supporters eat it up.

jerseyhoya wrote:Second before going into the GOP nomination stuff, a few words about the Supreme Court fight. There are few things more certain in life than political process fights devolving into hypocrisy. I think there's something approaching a 100% chance that if RBG died in February 2008 that the Dem Senate would not have confirmed a Bush nominee to her spot. And we would have screamed our heads off about how unfaithful to the constitution Dem sens were being, and maybe they'd have paid a bit of a price at the polls (Ted Stevens might have won and maybe Obamacare would've never happened, who knows), but the Democrats would have been right to stand their ground given the consequences for the party and the progressive movement for shifting the court if Bush had replaced a liberal stalwart. The GOP is completely right to eat shit on this because the stakes are so high. McConnell could've handled it better without saying no hearings/no votes - I think we'd get 51+ no votes for any non GOP nominee (Kirk/Collins/maybe Murkowski) - but it's vital that the line is held. So I think it will be. If resulting unpopularity costs a senate seat or even the White House, that would suck, but allowing Obama to appoint someone who makes the court 5-4 or 6-3 lib on every contentious issue isn't something a conservative GOP senate can just roll over on.

Enjoyed the read, but if it costs the GOP the White house, then they lose anyway. Are you suggesting that GOP may stonewall for 5 years?

Monkeyboy wrote: I would honestly rather have Trump than Rubio because I think Trump would at least fall back on advisors.

Why would Trump listen to advisors when he is always the smartest guy in the room? Trump = our Putin.

Mitch McConnell looks like the most unhappy person ever.

Have we talked about how it's weird that Scalia was on a hunting trip with a bunch of other men and not with his wife on Valentine's Day yet?

Senator McConnell,

I am terribly disappointed in the continuing blocking of anything that comes from a side that is not yours.

As a pastor, I work with people all the time who disagree with me on many things, such as financial issues in the congregation, the presence of youth in worship, and what is appropriate for the church in the 21st century. Many of these things are a matter of opinion.

I believe the issue between you and President Obama is also a matter of opinion. Saying that you will outright deny any person he would nominate to the Supreme Court is essentially saying that you will not play ball with the man. This saddens me and makes my heart grieve.

I speak all the time to my congregation about the need to make contact with those who are not the same as I am or they are. I believe by making positive connections with people who are not Mainline Protestant, as we in the ELCA are, we gain understanding and we build bridges.

Jesus talked with people who he wasn't supposed to talk to all the time. The Syrophonecian woman. The woman at the well. Pretty much any woman he spoke to! Foreigners. Tax Collectors. Possibly Prostitutes depending on which Biblical scholar you talk to.

Why can't you build a bridge with President Obama? Surely there is someone who would suit the both of you. Where I am from, many of the Democrats are "Blue Dog" Democrats. Tim Holden was my representative for years. These people were essential in working between the parties.

I grieve a country that has become so divided. I don't think that is what anyone wants. I don't think it is what you want.

Senator McConnell, I wish for you to speak about this issue and make serious efforts to build bridges rather than supporting walls that are doing nothing good except separating people from each other.

In Christ's Love,
Rev. Brian Beissel
Trinity Lutheran Church
Valley View, PA

I don't think he posts here.

Dammit.

Superb letter Rev. Right on the money.

Rev Beez has my vote for next pope

so want to drive 10-penny nails with Turnip's pig face

smitty wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

smitty wrote: The media has failed to do a good job refuting his most stupid "positions" and it seems it's getting to the point where it might be too late.

Chump really is the new Mussolini, but it's not the job of the press to refute him, and more than it is to refute Saint Bernie or Hillary.

"We report, YOU decide"

Uh, they can report when Trump - or any candidate - tells outright lies. That is their job.

Exactly. It's not just lies. It's whacky things like building a beautiful fence and making Mexico pay for it. No follow up by the media. They just move on to another stupid question and answer.

Trump is good for ratings so they wanted him around for a while. Now it doesn't matter what he says, his supporters eat it up.

I know you both know this, but the media is not built like that, at least not in this country's version of capitalism. Journalism is this country exists for page views and profit making, not for finding facts. Most people find reporting on the facts to be boring, but watching candidates engage in a WWE style debate where they don't say anything but platitudes and talking points is fun, exciting "reporting". It's not the media's fault the media is garbage. It's the fact that most people actually want a media that reports mostly on garbage.

smitty wrote:Superb letter Rev. Right on the money.

Agreed.

On the one hand, you have Bernie Sanders who goes to Liberty fucking University to try to find common ground with people who obviously disagree with him. On the other, you have Donald Trump, who encourages his supporters to physically assault people who disagree with him and attend his rallies. Pretty amazing how many people are drawn to the latter.

I like Kasich a lot... i wish he could hang in there