Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
TikTok is Working Again in the U.S., But Still Removed From App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly what Marxist Leninism did Biden dish out on the US?
The Dicktator and the Nazi-saluting Elon, America first, then Greenland, then Panama,…
1. There is absolutely no proof any of that was effective. Social distancing was made up by a middle school kid. Masks did nothing but possibly increase the rate of illness from waking around with a Petri dish on your face all day. And the vaccines didn’t work. People that took the vaccines have a higher rate of infection than those that didn’t. Never once did we receive the message to eat healthy go outside and exercise. That is what promotes a healthy immune system.
2. Let’s include car loans and home loans. Why stop at education? College forces students to take useless humanities classes. How about we cut those requirements out of engineering degrees? Education suddenly becomes much more affordable.
3. everyone is entitled to their day in court. If the January 6 committee did nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear. The Biden administration told us so.
5. His qualification is he won the election. Three times in fact.
6. Rich people are ok as long as they’re rich people I like. 😂 One question, were you ok with the DAVOS crowd the Biden administration was buddy buddy with?
Wow, you believe that? JFK would be kicked out of today’s democrat party.
School loan program.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. I'm not addressing the issue of universal health care. There is a serious counter argument here. In light of these points, it does not appear 'objectively good.'
1.) There is no such thing as student loan forgiveness, only transfer of debt. Unless, of course, a private donor chooses to pay a student's loans off for him/her, and that wouldn't be controversial.
2.) These loans were sought and deliberately taken out by adults who had the terms before them, to pay for educations these adults were to receive. None of that applies to anyone but the adults who took out those loans.
3.) Biden's 'loan forgiveness' effectively transferred their loan debt obligations onto all of us. And it seems Biden and some of his allies 'consented' to that, but a great many of 'us' did not.
4.) It is reasonable to regard that as a from of theft.
5.) The assertion education (I presume you're talking about college, since we have public schools already) 'should' be free seems arbitrary. First off, it wouldn't be free under any system. The issue is who would pay for it. What you're calling 'free' is similar to the public school model where all tax payers bear the load, but nearly everyone goes to public school (which is seen as required to function in adult society), and many people don't go to college. College is needful for some occupations, but it is not a bare necessity to function into U.S.
6.) If you believe post-high school education is a scam, trying to saddle the tax paying American public with obligatorily paying for it seems...odd. Especially since the combination of guaranteed tax payer funding and government bureaucratic demands aren't necessarily going to fix things.
7.) Student loan is not the only type of debt. People are reasonable for their mortgages, car payments, etc... And many paid off their own student debt, so making them feel like chumps by cancelling the debt of many who didn't seems blatantly unjust.
8.) Average student debt is not that huge per person. Some of the people who rack up very high debt turn out to have made decisions and taken a course that appears rather unwise.
Currently states often invest some public funds in state universities, but don't foot the entire bill. This shifts some onus onto those considering college to strive to make it a worthy investment. Merit scholarships help encourage those with exceptional aptitude to go.
An argument can be made that it might be worthwhile to invest in subsidized higher education for highly employable majors and specific fields where we need staff, re-education technical certification training to help people transition between careers, etc... The very existence of government loans is an attempt to invest in people, but it should make sense with an expectation of good societal return. In some vocations, years of employment in an underserved area may offer some loan repayment.
Free education is so evil, I’m not sure it’s exactly Marxist or lennisim but probably just a solid decision.
Do you think education for children should be free if so why is that not Marxist or Leninism?
Regarding Musk's Nazi salute: People saw what they saw. Trying to convince them it wasn't a Nazi salute by making counterfactual claims or by showing other people waving and claiming it is the same is the very definition of gaslighting.
If you think it is evil because a society wants to educate its young...
If you think it is only justifiable under Communist doctrine...
Then you are at odds with the founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson believed education was a necessary safeguard. He argued that an educated citizenry was necessary to prevent tyranny and ensure democracy. As he said: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” He didn't stop with rhetoric. He proposed a system of publicly funded primary schools that would teach all children, regardless of wealth or status. He founded the University of Virginia as a secular school to train leaders in law, politics, and science to ensure the nation's prosperity and good governance.
John Adams strongly believed that education was vital for creating informed citizens to safeguard democracy. In the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which Adams authored, he explicitly included provisions for public education, stating that it was the duty of the state to provide education to ensure civic virtue and knowledge among its citizens.
Benjamin Franklin advocated practical and accessible education for all, emphasizing learning that served practical purposes such as trades, science, and civic responsibility. He founded the Academy and College of Philadelphia, which later became the University of Pennsylvania.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, stressed the importance of knowledge for a functioning government and society. He proposed the establishment of a national university to promote unity, civic knowledge, and the education of future leaders.
If you think universal education is evil, then your thoughts are unamerican.
Last edited:
It's important here to not to lump too much under one label.
To function in U.S. society, there is a level of basic education that for practical purposes serves as a least common denominator and is expected of most any citizen...a high school diploma or GED. Some of the specific requirements to get that are debatable, but on the whole, the ability to read and write in our mainstream language, a basic grasp of our governmental structure and a range of thing things have clear value and there is a clear need for our citizenry to have them.
Nearly everyone (excepting some severely mentally disabled people, and some strong efforts are made to include them to the extent they can be included) is to engage in that.
What's more, children are minors. They are legally obstructed from living independently and working for a living to support themselves.
And from a strictly selfish perspective, a society where a substantial portion of the populace never attended school or had decent home schooling sounds like a dystopian nightmare to live in, and not just for them.
The public school system is a joint investment expected to result in a strong net good 'profit' to all, well beyond the cost of the investment, that virtually all benefit directly from, with a mission that would not be handled adequately by the private sector (private schools exist, but haven't functionally displaced the public school system).
But some of what I've written above doesn't apply to adults who can function in society without going to college, making their own choice to do so, making willful decisions agreeing to terms of loans they chose to take on, to attend colleges that only a portion of Americans attend, and some pursue courses of study that appear...let's say vocationally dubious, or squander the opportunity in other ways.
In other words, there is a strong case for full public funding of a public school system, but the matter regarding college for adults is different.
I've been told elsewhere in some nations getting into universities is harder than here - you have to test in, etc... In the U.S., the bar of entry is pretty low, if you come up with the money (loans or otherwise). If we adopt a foreign model, rather than render post-high school education 'accessible to all' (well, many), it might shut a lot of people out. A number of universities quit requiring achievement test scores (e.g.: ACT, SAT) because it wasn't conducive to a politically correct student body.
If you know about DEI and it's critical race theory underpinnings, you would undertand that it is firmly grounded in Marxist ideology both in tactics and theory. Promoting equality of outcome (the theoretical underpinnings of critical race theory) with equality of opportunity (the classical liberal position) is very clearly derived from Marxism.
As for Biden ... assuming he was actually aware and functioning as the president ... and putting aside his administration's focus on DEI mandates for the federal government (and those applying to the states and public companies), you could point to many other issues like, for example, student loan forgiveness -- which is obviously an affront to free market capitalism (no matter what you think about the merits of the program).
These are all the capitalist arguments for debt. The real issue is the system is pretty broken. Many loans are structured in very predatory ways and can't be discharged with bankruptcy. Yes sharing the burden of paying for higher education would be beneficial for all of us as a more educated populace is better for the economy and better for society as a whole. It is a public good. It isn't theft in the same way paying for police or fire or medicare is theft. It is tax payer money being used for the benefit of the taxpayer. Currently wealth inequality is at the highest it's been since the census has been recording it. If we are to change that we need more educated people, and we need to tax the wealthiest to pay for that. Just 3 people in the US have more wealth than 50% of Americans combined. Same with healthcare. It should be a human right. You can't have "free market" economy and competition in an industry that is literally life or death for the consumer. Especially when there isn't the realistic ability to shop around for a better deal. As it is the people who can't afford proper healthcare only get treatment at the emergency rooms because they couldn't afford to treat the condition before it became an emergency. That blows the cost of healthcare for everyone.
Finally the argument of "I did it, why can't you" assumes a level playing field. Which is really never the case. Education should be free and if someone else had to pay for theirs in the past (and it was easier in the past to pay back student loans) they shouldn't wish the same pain on others. They should be focusing on those that prevented them from getting the same benefit back when they were going through that. I paid back my student loans back in the 90's but it was much easier back then to do that. There are other countries that pay for higher education for their people. We are the richest country in the world. If we claw back some of that wealth for the oligarchs and the military industrial complex we can get healthcare and higher education for any that need it. Or we can keep going down the horrifying road of monetizing everything so we can't go to the bathroom without paying for the privilege.
You know what, I'm done. You are too far gone down the propaganda hole. You think the student loan forgiveness program was communist. You think Harris running in Bide's place proves a dictatorship. You think Trump won in 2020. That last one right there is proof that you don't listen to reason.
That would depend heavily on what they did with the education. The infamous meme of the Starbucks barista with a Bachelor degree doesn't sound like a worthwhile investment. The very claim of a 'student loan crisis' suggests many of these people resent having to pay for their own educations and didn't get enough benefit to do so without struggle - hardly sounds like a compelling investment for everyone else.
Telling me a lot of it's bad debt doesn't make me any more willing to see it dumped on us all.
Well, the U.S. is a capitalist society. These borrowers presumably choose to take on debt to invest in themselves, building their earning potential. That's why the debt is theirs.
To be clear, I don't blame people for taking advantage of it. Biden unilaterally inflicting their debt on the rest of us, including me, can rationally be seen as a form of theft. We as a society have collectively agreed to pay for police and firefights; Biden came along after the fact and unilaterally 'agreed' to inflict other people's debt on us all. Not the same thing.
People typically go to college to achieve wealth inequality...for themselves.
What we now call 'healthcare' in the modern sense didn't exist for most of human history, and I acknowledge no obligation to pay for other people's, which is really what calling it a 'right' entails. On the other hand, universal health care might be a worthwhile public investment much the way our highway system is. It's not an entitlement, but it might be worth doing anyway (especially compared to what we have now).
The level of education near mandatory and given to nearly everyone, as minors, yes. Past that, no. That just forces everyone to pay for something optional only a portion receive, and that many people don't take advantage of well. And yes, people who honorably met their obligations should expect the same going forward, as opposed to wishing the 'pain' be inflicted on everyone, including those who get no direct benefit and have no choice.
And may largely restrict access to those with high demonstrated aptitude. We have scholarships. I wonder how America would accept 'free college' with rigorous academic requirements to get it? Shutting out a lot of those who enter now?
We have an immense, hardly imaginable national debt, ever growing annual spending deficits and our nation often resembles the old metaphor of a snake eating itself. We control a lot of resources - 'richest' and 'vast, seemingly unpayable debt' are strange bedfellows.
You claimed the Biden administration censored information leading up to the 2020 election. Something that would have required time travel. Seems like you’re not very good at separating fact from fiction.
Just because Trump’s ego can’t admit he lost 2020 doesn’t mean you have to carry his water. He lost every single court case on it, and never provided any evidence whatsoever to even give a shred of credibility to the idea it was stolen.
He’s such a strong man he can’t even admit he lost. Hell even Al Gore, who actually had an election stolen from him, conceded like an adult.
Last edited:
Other nations have national standards that don't vary widely by local government. In the US, the level of scientific education a student gets can vary widely based on the prevailing politics in the state. Other countries put children into standardized tracks at an early age based on the intellectual potential demonstrated by the student. Students are tested along the way. If you've been put on a trade school track, you will find it much harder to get into college. If you've been put on a college track, it will likely be easier to get into some college and likely not be subjected to onerous tuition.
The American ideal of equality has led to a tiered set of institutions, which gives everyone a chance to reinvent themselves and succeed if it is within their capacity and their desire. If you don't graduate high school, you can get a GED, go to community college, then onto a state college, or even a world-class private school.
Which system would you really prefer?
Money only makes a huge difference if you are marginally qualified. There are always for-profit "universities" that will take your money. Shy away from those. Your education will be substandard. Your student debt will be outrageous. Your job prospects will be minimal.
The best and most competitive schools (e.g. Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, Stanford, University of California, etc.) fully subsidize tuition for low-income students. They provide tiered tuition subsidies for students with higher income levels. Take Stanford as one example, if a student comes from a family that makes under $75k per year, not only will the student's tuition be covered, but also full room and board. Columbia has eliminated loans. State schools offer reduced tuition to in-state students and often subsidize those from low-income families.
Yes. And that would run counter to the American ideal of equality.
It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with predicting student success in a fair and equitable manner. Numerous studies have demonstrated that standardized tests show racial, socioeconomic, gender, and cultural bias. Likewise, there are many studies which show tests like the SAT and ACT have limited value in predicting a student's academic success. That's why many colleges have dropped testing or have given it very low priority in favor of holistic admissions, which place emphasis on essays, non-cognitive factors (e.g. resilience, leadership, motivation, etc.), extracurricular activities, recommendation letters, and high-school GPA.
A number of these nations are about the size of one of our states. Francis is roughly the size of Taxes, Sweden of California. The U.S. is larger than Western Europe. Our very name shows that our states were supposed to be important political entities. My point is that the practical dynamics in the U.S. are different from some European nations. The thinking that goes into shaping policy in Manhattan might not fly for rural people in Louisiana.
And as soon as there's an obviously racial disparity between the trade (e.g.: more black and Hispanic) and college (e.g.: Asian and white) tracks, political outrage will derail it. To be fair, some people are late bloomers - I was blessed with strong grades in college, but you wouldn't have predicated that from my middle school and early high school years.
Yes. Given the low bar of entry to making that attempt, unless you earn a scholarship, it's largely 'bring your own funding.' Tax dollars subsidize state universities to an extent, but I don't approve of a 'free ride for everybody' mindset when admissions are pretty indiscriminate.
Largely what we have. You want to try, you're not shut out, but don't expect me to pay your tuition.
Highly selective schools that reject over 90% of applicants are mainly dealing in students who could get good scholarships elsewhere, I imagine. Plus I think their 'list price' tuition is way high. I get your point, just pointing out some nuance. Such schools are so selective they aren't an opportunity for most of the college-bound public.
Which is very contentious these days. When I was a kid, people spoke of 'getting head' in a positive way. You leverage your advantages/resources, practice clean living, and barring awful luck you leverage yourself into a better lifestyle for yourself and your family. Inequality/inequity was seen as something to strive to achieve (by advancing yourself, not oppressing others).
These days, it's portrayed as the product of oppression. Successful people are labeled as 'privileged' (as though it was unfairly handed to them for no reason), as though they should feel guilt.
Any achievement test is going to produce politically inconvenient results, and there will be a political reaction.
The real world also has those things. I'm not talking about overt racism, but rather how well positioned various people are to succeed. As for 'fair and equitable,' the tests render an objective number to be considered. Without the tests, admissions people wade into much more subjective (and subject to a range of biases) considerations. When people claim the achievement tests have these biases you mention, it seems implied by omission that other assessment measures will not.
They will. The further one gets from objective numbers, the more so I expect. For example, the wealthy and ambitious (for their kids) can help their kids achieve varied accolades to pad their applications.
I'm not saying achievement test scores should be the end all, be all. I'm saying they provide a standardized objective measuring tool.
It would be fascinating if the government and public universities announced that henceforth, university and community college education with be 100% government subsidized, but only about 1/3rd of students admitted today will be qualified to enter. That will lead to a big upswing in admissions to for-profit, private universities that I agree with you most should often avoid.
The university 'system' in the U.S. is a complex topic.
He doesn’t want Panama. He wants the canal. You know the one that we paid for? And while we did agree to give it to them, China is beginning to have too much influence over them. Trust me you want us controlling it and not China.
So the UK can just claim the eastern seaboard back? You know we paid for a lot of that infrastructure and the people in charge now don’t seem that capable.
Sounds utterly ridiculous doesn’t it?
There's a difference between losing a court case and not getting your day in court. Trump did not get his day in court. He didn't "lose" any case no matter what CNN tells you otherwise.
It does, so stop using this utterly ridiculous example.
I never get why some people are so dead set against the U.S. controlling things they built, and requiring nations to live up to the agreements they signed, but are perfectly okay with allowing real communist dictatorships do whatever they please? Controlling the Panama Canal, greenhouse gas emissions, low worker's wages, censorship. 🤔
Right, the canal. Yes, a Dicktator President and his Nazi-saluting sidekick would just takeover the canal, it would make Putin proud. But, the US we all like would explore other options like co-administration of the canal.
We don’t have the right to just “take something back” whenever we want
That’s incredibly imperialist
That maybe one view -- but I believe it is not the correct way of looking at things. It's not an issue of "imperialism." If a country enters into an agreement (or in this case even more than a mere agreement -- an actual treaty), and then proceeds to breach that agreement, it is not entitled to keep the compensation it received. This is how rule of law works. See Panama Canal Treaty and Neutrality Treaty (September 7, 1977).
Panama is violating its Canal Treaty by cozying up to China — risking US safety
Donald Trump has threatened action to end the outsourcing of Panama Canal operations to a Hong Kong company, which has given Beijing de facto control of a vital conduit of US maritime traffic.
nypost.com
Why would you cite an opinion piece that doesn't actually provide any evidence that any traffic through the canal is being discriminated against?That maybe one view -- but I believe it is not the correct way of looking at things. It's not an issue of "imperialism." If a country enters into an agreement (or in this case even more than a mere agreement -- an actual treaty), and then proceeds to breach that agreement, it is not entitled to keep the compensation it received. This is how rule of law works. See Panama Canal Treaty and Neutrality Treaty (September 7, 1977).
Panama is violating its Canal Treaty by cozying up to China — risking US safety
Donald Trump has threatened action to end the outsourcing of Panama Canal operations to a Hong Kong company, which has given Beijing de facto control of a vital conduit of US maritime traffic.
And no, violating the treaty does not mean we can take it back. Per the treaty, we are only allowed to intervene to insure neutrality.