#liberal view

How to Solve Poverty: An Impoverished Mother Testifies Before Congress

Last week, the House of Representatives conducted a hearing on the “War on Poverty” and ways to combat and address it.  They brought in Tianna Turner Gaines, someone who has experience with living in poverty, being homeless, and working non-stop to fight it. Gaines is the first person to testify before Congress with a firsthand account of poverty in America. Unlike when the right demonized and…

What did you think that, just because theyre an immigrant, the employer decided to be nice and give them the job instead of you? Lol, no. You were just the weaker applicant.

Don't blame others for your mistakes. No employer hires the weaker applicant. If you want a job, learn to network better, learn to sell yourself and stop blaming others for your mistakes. It's easy to blame it on the other people. So instead of wasting your time complaining that someone "stole" your job (which you never even got) how about you get the education that is required to get a secure job?

I have worked my ass off making sure I've always been in the 99th percentile of my university class and now I'm able to work for one of the big four accounting firms. It took struggling day and night to make sure my finals were studied for. It took me, making sure, I was getting 100% in all the courses I could possibly get a 100% in. It took me getting out of my comfort zone and meeting employers and making conversations with them when I am the most socially awkward person I know. It took me hours of volunteering and going into a field I completely hated just to make sure I would end up with a job that made enough money to sustain me. It took me making a big speech in front of rich men in business suits I could never afford when I am afraid of oral presentations. It took me sacrificing my social life to make sure I had an academic life. But now I can finally relax because I have finally finally secured myself a job that economically sustains not only myself, but both my parents, and my future husband, and any children I wish to have in the future.

A bit of context. Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force — the Tea Party, say, or a six-figure credit line at Tiffany — compels him to alter his stance, at a speed commensurate with the size of the force (usually large) and in inverse proportion to the depth of his beliefs (invariably negligible). This alteration, framed as a positive by the candidate, then provokes an equal but opposite reaction among his rivals.

But the Romney candidacy represents literally a quantum leap forward. It is governed by rules that are bizarre and appear to go against everyday experience and common sense. To be honest, even people like Mr. Fehrnstrom who are experts in Mitt Romney’s reality, or “Romneality,” seem bewildered by its implications; and any person who tells you he or she truly “understands” Mitt Romney is either lying or a corporation.

Nevertheless, close and repeated study of his campaign in real-world situations has yielded a standard model that has proved eerily accurate in predicting Mitt Romney’s behavior in debate after debate, speech after speech, awkward look-at-me-I’m-a-regular-guy moment after awkward look-at-me-I’m-a-regular-guy moment, and every other event in his face-time continuum.

The basic concepts behind this model are:

Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It isnot that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.

Probability. Mitt Romney’s political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms oflikelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.

Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle.”

Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.

Noncausality. The Romney campaign often violates, and even reverses, the law of cause and effect. For example, ordinarily the cause of getting the most votes leads to the effect of being considered the most electable candidate. But in the case of Mitt Romney, the causeof being considered the most electable candidate actually produces the effect of getting the most votes.

Duality. Many conservatives believe the existence of Mitt Romney allows for the possibility of the spontaneous creation of an “anti-Romney” (Fig. 2) that leaps into existence and annihilates Mitt Romney. (However, the science behind this is somewhat suspect, as it is financed by Rick Santorum, for whom science itself is suspect.)

What does all this bode for the general election? By this point it won’t surprise you to learn the answer is, “We don’t know.” Because according to the latest theories, the “Mitt Romney” who seems poised to be the Republican nominee is but one of countless Mitt Romneys, each occupying his own cosmos, each supporting a different platform, eachbeing compared to a different beloved children’s toy but all of them equally real, all of them equally valid and all of them running for president at the same time, in their own alternative Romnealities, somewhere in the vast Romniverse.

I don't understand how this works. I don't understand Republicans who believe that Obama is doing a shitty job and we need to put another conservative idiot in office because the last twelve years before Obama were sooooooooooo great. No, just, no.