2 ms·

If that worked then drunk toddlers wouldn’t win elections promising the baseball bat. Thus is a claim that you will be unable to justify. There are lots of ex

by sympil 2y ago

If that worked then drunk toddlers wouldn’t win elections promising the baseball bat. Thus is a claim that you will be unable to justify. There are lots of examples of good governance. The current actions by the administration are a very bad way of going about reform. Causing great chaos to a system that produces first rate research is not a intelligent way to go about things.

rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- sympil 2y ago
  ….getting better while costs are being controlled? This is a vague enough notion so that every proposed counterexample can be denied. Of course research costs are going to increase over time as there are no more low hanging fruit. … Governance by bureaucracy One party has actively sabotaged most efforts at getting better outcomes. For example, Michelle Obama was criticised for wanting healthier school lunches. One party has actively labelled government as incapable of doing anything right and we voted them in. They are now demonstrating that what is really true is that a party against good governance is not good at governance.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    School lunches are a state issue. I assume my deep blue state has amazing school lunches?
    - sympil 2y ago
      You are wrong; it’s a local, state, and federal issue. And even if you are right it is still the case that Republicans criticised Michelle Obama for advocating for healthier school lunches. Are you incapable of admitting that it’s stupid to criticize someone for advocating for healthier school lunches? You talk about bad outcomes and are presented with a concrete case of how it’s hard to have good outcomes when one party is opposed to even the discussion of healthier school lunches. Your response isn’t to say that the people who criticized her are morons. Your respons is: Its a state issue. Vapid. People like you are enablers of the system you decry. A broken system results from Citizens United that lets concentrated wealth (and foreigners) spend as much as much money as they want influence elections. A broken system results from gutting the Voting Rights act and shutting down thousands of pollomg stations. You defend such lunacy and the say, “Hey, we need to destroy science fudning becuase the system has bad outcomes.” You are the problem.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        90% of school funding is state and local. Whether or not it makes sense to criticize Michelle Obama for anything is irrelevant. “People like me” aren’t running anything in Maryland (where I live) or California, etc. If Americans were capable of good governance blue states would have good governance. Rather, it seems that blue state people have the will to govern but not the competence to do so.

by sympil 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

sympil 2y ago
….getting better while costs are being controlled? This is a vague enough notion so that every proposed counterexample can be denied. Of course research costs are going to increase over time as there are no more low hanging fruit. … Governance by bureaucracy One party has actively sabotaged most efforts at getting better outcomes. For example, Michelle Obama was criticised for wanting healthier school lunches. One party has actively labelled government as incapable of doing anything right and we voted them in. They are now demonstrating that what is really true is that a party against good governance is not good at governance.
- rayiner 2y ago
  School lunches are a state issue. I assume my deep blue state has amazing school lunches?
  - sympil 2y ago
    You are wrong; it’s a local, state, and federal issue. And even if you are right it is still the case that Republicans criticised Michelle Obama for advocating for healthier school lunches. Are you incapable of admitting that it’s stupid to criticize someone for advocating for healthier school lunches? You talk about bad outcomes and are presented with a concrete case of how it’s hard to have good outcomes when one party is opposed to even the discussion of healthier school lunches. Your response isn’t to say that the people who criticized her are morons. Your respons is: Its a state issue. Vapid. People like you are enablers of the system you decry. A broken system results from Citizens United that lets concentrated wealth (and foreigners) spend as much as much money as they want influence elections. A broken system results from gutting the Voting Rights act and shutting down thousands of pollomg stations. You defend such lunacy and the say, “Hey, we need to destroy science fudning becuase the system has bad outcomes.” You are the problem.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      90% of school funding is state and local. Whether or not it makes sense to criticize Michelle Obama for anything is irrelevant. “People like me” aren’t running anything in Maryland (where I live) or California, etc. If Americans were capable of good governance blue states would have good governance. Rather, it seems that blue state people have the will to govern but not the competence to do so.