Booker has done some things that understandably turned off some voters (his comments on Bain Capital during Occupy Wall Street were the only things that really affected my opinion), but I think there’s a perception of him as inauthentic that’s unfair. He’s certainly ambitious, but I genuinely respect that he’s put in the work to get where he is. He climbed the ladder, gained experience, listened to the people in the communities he represented.
Plenty of reasons to disagree with him depending on your ideological bent, but I think he’s very much who he appears to be: earnest, guided by morality and principles, and interested in making the world better for those the world too often ignores.
Not an endorsement here, just some musings. If you like political documentaries, Street Fight is about one of his earlier (failed) campaigns, and it’s a good watch. Like many idealists, I think he’s been tempered somewhat by reality and time, but there’s a genuine outrage at inequality and a desire to help that I think he still displays.
Surprised with how many candidates support expanding/packing the Supreme Court honestly.
The Garland thing was a coup. It went mostly unnoticed in the general public but it was absolutely a government breaking move.
Yup once this happens things like court packing are explicitly on the table. Because weirdly it is easier to legally do court packing than it would be to remove a justice or do other reforms of the supreme court. Frankly it may have to get packed to the point it becomes so obviously stupid that both parties are willing to make the more logical long term fixes to it.
Just turn it into the House of Lords - pack the unelected chamber until it becomes irrelevant.
The Lords is actually interesting.
It was pointed out to me that it is where the UK government stashes it's Subject Matter Experts. If something is a big issue you have to deal with, find somebody really devoted to that field and well respected and then you toss them in the Lords. Now you've got a SME to help write the laws, they don't have to do the entire political career bullshit that keeps a lot of actual experts uninvolved. It does get a bigger share of former barristers, but they're basicaly SMEs on laws and writing laws is the whole job.
For the Supremes, long fixed terms with no reelection and clarification of Senate duties with a fail state that isn't "nothing" would be good. Also pretty much require an amendment so good luck. Kinda sad an amendment is more of a long shot than more norm breaking.
...Why did I get a 5-way tie at 5 agreements each between Biden, Booker, Sanders Warren and Yang?
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
I didn’t like the possible answers for whether or not the President should work on paying down the national debt.
Because, obviously they should, but I don’t think it should come at the expense of other programs or objectives that are important.
That's the same as saying that they shouldn't.
I don’t agree. For me it’s a matter of how much of a priority it should be. I would like any of them to work towards reducing the debt, but not devote themselves to it as their #1 priority.
With as many things are wrong, broken, and in need of dire repair yeah no president should be concerned with the debt. We don't give a shit when it comes to making new wars or giving out new tax cuts, but saving peoples lives or providing homes to the homeless is always a bridge too far how are you going to pay for that.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Overhaul our tax system so that the rich pay their share.
Spend the next 10-20 years overhauling our collapsing infrastructure including transit (bridges, tunnels, rail), energy and data.
That's an investment.
Worry about paying off the debt over the next 50 years. We need to spend this money to ward off both an ecological crisis and to remain competitive on a global scale.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The debt is also something that only comes up when a democrat is potentially going to be president. Trump has been fucking the debt up every year he's been in office and not a god damn word has been said about his plan to do anything about the debt. Bernie and Warren talk about doing something good for americans "WHAT ABOUT THE DEBT?!" Fuck off with this nonesense.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
A lot of "What about the debt?" arguments are correctly dismissed as concern trolling given that The Budget is not an issue when it comes to things like the military.
The whole "they want to give rich kids free college!" attack seems ridiculous and deliberately misleading. I saw Klobuchar throw that out in a post debate interview.
But it's actually a question on this WaPo quiz as well. Like, if you make college free, it's going to be being paid for by taxes. Taxes which will lean heavily on the rich. To try and characterize Warren and Sanders pushing for free college as giving rich kids freebies seems...real dumb.
I could not believe Biden ended that assault on women talk by saying to just keep punching and punching at the toxic culture. I wish I could see each individual candidates reactions to that. I think Harris was legit trying to not laugh in the aftermath and it threw her off the question they gave her immediately after.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
If some rich fucks want to send their adult son to a state college on tax payer money thats fine with me. The fewer of them that wind up in the ivy league the better.
If some rich fucks want to send their adult son to a state college on tax payer money thats fine with me. The fewer of them that wind up in the ivy league the better.
--eyes Cornell nervously--
(Cornell is an Ivy League university made up of both state colleges and private ones)
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If some rich fucks want to send their adult son to a state college on tax payer money thats fine with me. The fewer of them that wind up in the ivy league the better.
If we could also fund State Colleges and Universities properly, that'd be nice as well.
The attack "do you want to pay for rich peoples college?" is just trying to turn like middleclass/lower class voters against a plan that will benefit them greatly because some people above them will also benefit. When spoiler alert I'm pretty sure I already do pay for rich kids to go to college I'm just not then also getting a benefit for my fucking kid to get to go.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
If some rich fucks want to send their adult son to a state college on tax payer money thats fine with me. The fewer of them that wind up in the ivy league the better.
If we could also fund State Colleges and Universities properly, that'd be nice as well.
Also remove their ability to give preferential treatment to the children of donors and wealthy alumni to prevent top state schools from trying to become the new Ivy League.
The attack "do you want to pay for rich peoples college?" is just trying to turn like middleclass/lower class voters against a plan that will benefit them greatly because some people above them will also benefit. When spoiler alert I'm pretty sure I already do pay for rich kids to go to college I'm just not then also getting a benefit for my fucking kid to get to go.
It's a way to use left-wing eat-the-rich rhetoric against people on the left. Either cause your attacking them from the right and don't care about hypocrisy or because you are also on the left but want to win instead of them.
A lot of "What about the debt?" arguments are correctly dismissed as concern trolling given that The Budget is not an issue when it comes to things like the military.
The military and, as pointed out earlier, when republicans are in charge.
I agree with the posters that say that the debt is a low priority task.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
While my answers to that quiz looked a lot like I thought they would, some of the available answers seemed simplified into uselessness. There are so many "short answer: 'yes with an if,' long answer: 'no, with a but' options where you only get yes or no, and many others are simplified into misrepresentations of what the supporters/detractors on the list actually push and why. It was annoying to sit there thinking "uh, wait just a damn minute."
If some of them had had more dept to the available options it's likely that my first place tie would have gone hard one way and my third and fourth choices would have been completely different. For example, wrt "free for all" vs "free for some," depending on the income bracket you're targeting for "some" and the other safety nets in place (health care, etc) you can end up with some very disproportionate results. If the income bracket you exclude is upper middle class, that can go very poorly for students/parents suddenly affected by health problems or layoffs if there aren't protections for those things available to them. If you make ONE BILLION DOLLARS the cap, like.. nobody is realistically going to be harmed in a meaningful way because they have to pay out some pennies so their kid can go to the finest college any more than I am realistically harmed when I buy my son some books he wants to read.
I had a similar issue with the question about nuclear power. What are you doing while you pause expansion? Does the candidate want to use the pause to upgrade existing infrastructure and research safer and more efficient tech? Or sit on it and wait for somebody to think of something and hope that happens before something spills or explodes? Does phasing out mean safe, strategic dismantling of certain plants over time while safely maintaining those still in operation, or letting them run until they break down and then just not bringing them back online?
My answers to both those questions are radically different depending on the details, and I know it's a simple survey but if your answers would be changed by information not presented, or the somewhat sneaky use of the word "consider," it it won't be useful to you.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
The attack "do you want to pay for rich peoples college?" is just trying to turn like middleclass/lower class voters against a plan that will benefit them greatly because some people above them will also benefit. When spoiler alert I'm pretty sure I already do pay for rich kids to go to college I'm just not then also getting a benefit for my fucking kid to get to go.
It's a way to use left-wing eat-the-rich rhetoric against people on the left. Either cause your attacking them from the right and don't care about hypocrisy or because you are also on the left but want to win instead of them.
But its stupid to me. Like this is the same argument I've heard against universal healthcare. "You want to pay for Bill Gates healthcare?" Well yeah if it means we all are being covered? That's kind of what universal means.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
While my answers to that quiz looked a lot like I thought they would, some of the available answers seemed simplified into uselessness. There are so many "short answer: 'yes with an if,' long answer: 'no, with a but' options where you only get yes or no, and many others are simplified into misrepresentations of what the supporters/detractors on the list actually push and why. It was annoying to sit there thinking "uh, wait just a damn minute."
If some of them had had more dept to the available options it's likely that my first place tie would have gone hard one way and my third and fourth choices would have been completely different. For example, wrt "free for all" vs "free for some," depending on the income bracket you're targeting for "some" and the other safety nets in place (health care, etc) you can end up with some very disproportionate results. If the income bracket you exclude is upper middle class, that can go very poorly for students/parents suddenly affected by health problems or layoffs if there aren't protections for those things available to them. If you make ONE BILLION DOLLARS the cap, like.. nobody is realistically going to be harmed in a meaningful way because they have to pay out some pennies so their kid can go to the finest college any more than I am realistically harmed when I buy my son some books he wants to read.
I had a similar issue with the question about nuclear power. What are you doing while you pause expansion? Does the candidate want to use the pause to upgrade existing infrastructure and research safer and more efficient tech? Or sit on it and wait for somebody to think of something and hope that happens before something spills or explodes? Does phasing out mean safe, strategic dismantling of certain plants over time while safely maintaining those still in operation, or letting them run until they break down and then just not bringing them back online?
My answers to both those questions are radically different depending on the details, and I know it's a simple survey but if your answers would be changed by information not presented, or the somewhat sneaky use of the word "consider," it it won't be useful to you.
This was my issue as well. According to that quiz I agree with Yang a lot but the devil is in the details.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
College has become increasingly a gate keeper on higher paying jobs in america. It should be a benefit we offer anyone who wants to go, and that would also strengthen trades because people going into them would actually want to instead of feeling "well I can't afford school I guess I should be a tradesman?"
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
tl;dr Biden did meh but support went up. Sanders support marginally down, Warren marginally up (noise more than signal for both). Mayor Pete the big gainer.
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
I think you can offer both free college and free vocational school, while also making widely available information about which of those options (if either is even necessary) will provide one with the best tools for the future they want to work toward. The candidate who will advocate for that is much closer to being the candidate I would like to see in office.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Sanders has openly addressed the high school --> college --> entry level job pipeline, which is... bizarre and stupid at this point in our society. Not everything needs college to do a job well. Want to be an administrative assistant? A few classes would probably be really helpful. Want to be a carpenter? Apprenticeship might be best. Engineer? You're going to need college for that. Want to be a sex worker? Business school might be a great choice. A system that can match what a person wants to do with the tools to make that happen is ideal in my opinion, and that's one of the things I really appreciate about Sanders.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
Vocational work is a trap, which people who grew up working class have seen firsthand many, many times. It provides you with a very narrow set of skills in a world where the innovators and employers are all working very hard to make sure they find a way of doing the same job cheaper and with less skilled labor. The "My uncle got so rich as a plumber/electrician/bricklayer" stories are all anecdotes that don't match the overall data on lifetime earnings for trades and don't translate to a world where millions of kids are thrown onto the market as tradesmen. College education doesn't prevent you from being downsized, but it does prepare you with a body of skills that make it easier to retrain for a new career.
The people who advocate for an expansion of trade school are always cushy office types who are also saving to make sure their kids go to college. Just like so many of the Boomer generation are kids who were prepared for college by tradesmen families willing to do anything to keep their kids from going into the same professions they worked.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
Vocational work is a trap, which people who grew up working class have seen firsthand many, many times. It provides you with a very narrow set of skills in a world where the innovators and employers are all working very hard to make sure they find a way of doing the same job cheaper and with less skilled labor. The "My uncle got so rich as a plumber/electrician/bricklayer" stories are all anecdotes that don't match the overall data on lifetime earnings for trades and don't translate to a world where millions of kids are thrown onto the market as tradesmen. College education doesn't prevent you from being downsized, but it does prepare you with a body of skills that make it easier to retrain for a new career.
The people who advocate for an expansion of trade school are always cushy office types who are also saving to make sure their kids go to college. Just like so many of the Boomer generation are kids who were prepared for college by tradesmen families willing to do anything to keep their kids from going into the same professions they worked.
People who see themselves as beekeepers like the idea of more worker bees.
Especially when those bees aren't unionized.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
Vocational work is a trap, which people who grew up working class have seen firsthand many, many times. It provides you with a very narrow set of skills in a world where the innovators and employers are all working very hard to make sure they find a way of doing the same job cheaper and with less skilled labor. The "My uncle got so rich as a plumber/electrician/bricklayer" stories are all anecdotes that don't match the overall data on lifetime earnings for trades and don't translate to a world where millions of kids are thrown onto the market as tradesmen. College education doesn't prevent you from being downsized, but it does prepare you with a body of skills that make it easier to retrain for a new career.
The people who advocate for an expansion of trade school are always cushy office types who are also saving to make sure their kids go to college. Just like so many of the Boomer generation are kids who were prepared for college by tradesmen families willing to do anything to keep their kids from going into the same professions they worked.
That and most trade jobs are pretty rough on your body.
Im fine with vocational schools existing but its hard not to view them the same as the whole "we need more students in STEM" was just an effort to drive down wages.
We have a long history as a country of deciding that certain people are undeserving of certsin benefits and thus either actively or passively deciding that means there shouldn't be universal benefits.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
How would free college not be a benefit?
Vocational work is a trap, which people who grew up working class have seen firsthand many, many times. It provides you with a very narrow set of skills in a world where the innovators and employers are all working very hard to make sure they find a way of doing the same job cheaper and with less skilled labor. The "My uncle got so rich as a plumber/electrician/bricklayer" stories are all anecdotes that don't match the overall data on lifetime earnings for trades and don't translate to a world where millions of kids are thrown onto the market as tradesmen. College education doesn't prevent you from being downsized, but it does prepare you with a body of skills that make it easier to retrain for a new career.
The people who advocate for an expansion of trade school are always cushy office types who are also saving to make sure their kids go to college. Just like so many of the Boomer generation are kids who were prepared for college by tradesmen families willing to do anything to keep their kids from going into the same professions they worked.
That and most trade jobs are pretty rough on your body.
But hey, if I can sit behind a computer or in a meeting room into my 60s then you can dig ditches till the same age for sure
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+2
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I also think that emphasis on STEM or vocational programs ONLY devalues the arts and humanities to a truly disturbing extent, we're basically just forgetting the bulk of human experience in order to encourage young people into being not whole human beings but merely productive workers.
+16
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited November 2019
I think much of that can be mitigated by a minimum wage that is actually a useful amount of money.
It all has to go together in order for it to really work, and no, the President can't actually do all that. But their worldview on it is very important at this point, with all the power the executive branch seems to have now, and the candidates who want to work toward that are preferable to the ones who don't like it to begin with. The President should be someone who wants to help the poorest and most marginalized by helping them, rather than people who pinky-swear they'll help them, and will lead accordingly.
And free education needs to include the freedom to change one's mind.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Posts
How many of them would actually do it
Plenty of reasons to disagree with him depending on your ideological bent, but I think he’s very much who he appears to be: earnest, guided by morality and principles, and interested in making the world better for those the world too often ignores.
Not an endorsement here, just some musings. If you like political documentaries, Street Fight is about one of his earlier (failed) campaigns, and it’s a good watch. Like many idealists, I think he’s been tempered somewhat by reality and time, but there’s a genuine outrage at inequality and a desire to help that I think he still displays.
The Lords is actually interesting.
For the Supremes, long fixed terms with no reelection and clarification of Senate duties with a fail state that isn't "nothing" would be good. Also pretty much require an amendment so good luck. Kinda sad an amendment is more of a long shot than more norm breaking.
Well that's the real question of course.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
I don't see the President being the limiting factor there, sadly. You do need one who's actually saying they'd do it though.
That's the same as saying that they shouldn't.
I don’t agree. For me it’s a matter of how much of a priority it should be. I would like any of them to work towards reducing the debt, but not devote themselves to it as their #1 priority.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Spend the next 10-20 years overhauling our collapsing infrastructure including transit (bridges, tunnels, rail), energy and data.
That's an investment.
Worry about paying off the debt over the next 50 years. We need to spend this money to ward off both an ecological crisis and to remain competitive on a global scale.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
pleasepaypreacher.net
But it's actually a question on this WaPo quiz as well. Like, if you make college free, it's going to be being paid for by taxes. Taxes which will lean heavily on the rich. To try and characterize Warren and Sanders pushing for free college as giving rich kids freebies seems...real dumb.
I could not believe Biden ended that assault on women talk by saying to just keep punching and punching at the toxic culture. I wish I could see each individual candidates reactions to that. I think Harris was legit trying to not laugh in the aftermath and it threw her off the question they gave her immediately after.
The plan is to increaee taxes on their parents anyway, so I have no issue with rich kids getting free college if it means we'll actually bother to give it to poor kids.
--eyes Cornell nervously--
(Cornell is an Ivy League university made up of both state colleges and private ones)
If we could also fund State Colleges and Universities properly, that'd be nice as well.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also remove their ability to give preferential treatment to the children of donors and wealthy alumni to prevent top state schools from trying to become the new Ivy League.
It's a way to use left-wing eat-the-rich rhetoric against people on the left. Either cause your attacking them from the right and don't care about hypocrisy or because you are also on the left but want to win instead of them.
The military and, as pointed out earlier, when republicans are in charge.
I agree with the posters that say that the debt is a low priority task.
If some of them had had more dept to the available options it's likely that my first place tie would have gone hard one way and my third and fourth choices would have been completely different. For example, wrt "free for all" vs "free for some," depending on the income bracket you're targeting for "some" and the other safety nets in place (health care, etc) you can end up with some very disproportionate results. If the income bracket you exclude is upper middle class, that can go very poorly for students/parents suddenly affected by health problems or layoffs if there aren't protections for those things available to them. If you make ONE BILLION DOLLARS the cap, like.. nobody is realistically going to be harmed in a meaningful way because they have to pay out some pennies so their kid can go to the finest college any more than I am realistically harmed when I buy my son some books he wants to read.
I had a similar issue with the question about nuclear power. What are you doing while you pause expansion? Does the candidate want to use the pause to upgrade existing infrastructure and research safer and more efficient tech? Or sit on it and wait for somebody to think of something and hope that happens before something spills or explodes? Does phasing out mean safe, strategic dismantling of certain plants over time while safely maintaining those still in operation, or letting them run until they break down and then just not bringing them back online?
My answers to both those questions are radically different depending on the details, and I know it's a simple survey but if your answers would be changed by information not presented, or the somewhat sneaky use of the word "consider," it it won't be useful to you.
But its stupid to me. Like this is the same argument I've heard against universal healthcare. "You want to pay for Bill Gates healthcare?" Well yeah if it means we all are being covered? That's kind of what universal means.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This was my issue as well. According to that quiz I agree with Yang a lot but the devil is in the details.
College isn't a benefit.
I'm not well versed in the free college plans, but are there components in the major ones that try to reduce the number of people enrolling, and drive them toward other kinds of vocational training instead?
pleasepaypreacher.net
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-november-poll/
tl;dr Biden did meh but support went up. Sanders support marginally down, Warren marginally up (noise more than signal for both). Mayor Pete the big gainer.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think you can offer both free college and free vocational school, while also making widely available information about which of those options (if either is even necessary) will provide one with the best tools for the future they want to work toward. The candidate who will advocate for that is much closer to being the candidate I would like to see in office.
How would free college not be a benefit?
Vocational work is a trap, which people who grew up working class have seen firsthand many, many times. It provides you with a very narrow set of skills in a world where the innovators and employers are all working very hard to make sure they find a way of doing the same job cheaper and with less skilled labor. The "My uncle got so rich as a plumber/electrician/bricklayer" stories are all anecdotes that don't match the overall data on lifetime earnings for trades and don't translate to a world where millions of kids are thrown onto the market as tradesmen. College education doesn't prevent you from being downsized, but it does prepare you with a body of skills that make it easier to retrain for a new career.
The people who advocate for an expansion of trade school are always cushy office types who are also saving to make sure their kids go to college. Just like so many of the Boomer generation are kids who were prepared for college by tradesmen families willing to do anything to keep their kids from going into the same professions they worked.
People who see themselves as beekeepers like the idea of more worker bees.
Especially when those bees aren't unionized.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
That and most trade jobs are pretty rough on your body.
But hey, if I can sit behind a computer or in a meeting room into my 60s then you can dig ditches till the same age for sure
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It all has to go together in order for it to really work, and no, the President can't actually do all that. But their worldview on it is very important at this point, with all the power the executive branch seems to have now, and the candidates who want to work toward that are preferable to the ones who don't like it to begin with. The President should be someone who wants to help the poorest and most marginalized by helping them, rather than people who pinky-swear they'll help them, and will lead accordingly.
And free education needs to include the freedom to change one's mind.