[ This post was revised, as being too judgmental as first written. Posing it as a question, not as a fact seemed proper.]
Link. Naming names -
The letter is signed by 22 Republican governors, including:
- Kim Reynolds, Iowa
- Doug Ducey, Arizona
- Brian Kemp, Georgia
- Mike Parson, Missouri
- Chris Sununu, New Hampshire
- Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma
- Bill Lee, Tennessee
- Mark Gordon, Wyoming
- Kay Ivey, Alabama
- Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas
- Brad Little, Idaho
- Greg Gianforte, Montana
- Doug Burgum, North Dakota
- Henry McMaster, South Carolina
- Greg Abbott, Texas
- Mike Dunleavy, Alaska
- Ron DeSantis, Florida
- Larry Hogan, Maryland
- Pete Ricketts, Nebraska
- Mike DeWine, Ohio
- Kristi Noem, South Dakota
- Spencer Cox, Utah
The governors are also challenging Biden's power to go through with the plan, saying "As president, you lack the authority to wield unilateral action to usher in a sweeping student loan cancellation plan."
WTF? "sweeping student loan cancellation plan?" That bandaid bit? Sweeping? No.
These Republican governors, are they just like their lead barker, "I love the poorly educated?" They, the poorly educated, are who most easily can be gulled into voting against their best interest.
The better educated hold their nose and vote lesser evil, gulled into thinking you can't beat the system but can at least lessen the hurt.
I love the two party system.
It gives us so much. The power of a single vote.
Back to the headline. Trustworthy? Follow the opening link. Read all about it.
Also, this - from the 2016 Nevada Republican primary day-after reporting -
Let's set aside the fact that "poorly educated" is not the same as "less educated" and look at the numbers:
Trump did well across the board in Nevada, garnering 45.9% of the vote, but he did even better among voters with a high school education or less. Fifty-seven percent of those voters supported him, according to entrance polls, courtesy of CNN.
The next closest candidate among high-school-or-less voters was Ted Cruz, who had 20%.
That's a sizable gap of 37 percentage points.
Trump didn't just win with less educated voters, or "poorly educated," as he called them, he crushed it.
It's true Trump did perform the best of any candidate among highly educated voters, too, but not nearly so well.
He gained 37% of the votes from those with postgraduate education, with Marco Rubio earning 29%
As much as Trump loves the "poorly educated," he didn't want to join them: The Ivy League grad got his degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968.
Trump's "poorly educated" line sparked much reaction, including smirking and shock.
But some — journalists, mostly — noted that Trump's proud embrace of
poorlyless educated voters and the resulting shock may only cause those less educated voters to embrace Trump all the more.
Duh. Of interest, on the theory the poorly educated = most gullible - NOTE
Trump first. Ted Cruz second. (That's the Mercer family in reverse, but that is an ancillary point. The Mercers buy. A key distinction, shoping to lead voting differs from voting expecting great-again leadership.) Leadership? Two blowhards. Pick one.
Highly educated? In the Republican Party there are some, wealth aggregates and shops (the Mercers again), and on a lesser rung, in Nevada in 2016 at primary time, they were more tepid for Trump in Nevada, Rubio second. A Hispanic bloc?
Yet - Again, back to the headline. The crux of the matter.
Trustworthy?
__________UPDATE__________
The original source, a document, supplements reporting of it. Usually, however, a source document is more revealing because it is more detailed. This rga.org link.
Take the time to go there, and read it. It is best to route readers to the source rather than keeping readers on this page by posting a page by page reproduction of two pages of content, signatures running on to a third page. The first page, below, is posted here because it is so colorful with all those state seals - click the image to enlarge and read the page.
Divide-and-conquer intention? Having the gall to have - as Republicans - written:
Shifting the burden of debt from the wealthy to working Americans has a regressive impact that harms lower income families.
The Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts are running up the national debt astoundingly, with those tax cuts for the privileged "shifting the burden of debt from the wealthy to working Americans" while having a regressive impact that harms lower income families. Bet your life on that.
These several governors are blowing smoke and that smoke blowing capacity is probably what, among their states' gullible, got each elected.
They seem to represent states where progressives are few and far between. Demographic retardation, that way, their way.
They all signed that letter and had some schmuck compose it. Don't blame the schmuck. He did it for the money. They did it against the fact that an educated populace is necessary to be an ongoing factor in a worldwide economy where other nations are governed by asshole elites just like them, but ones smart enough to want their people as educated and competitive as possible. Think the Germans. Think the Chinese. Think Japan. Korea. The Swiss. Nations with gaining nationwide prosperity. Nations without demographic retardation because they think, they plan, and they act. Leadership in these other nations respect education. India is on the move because they've lots of smart people, who they willingly educate. As a public good. Competitive in doing so. Brain drain and all, they are getting it done.
These Republican governors seem intent on scoring points. Putting career as the foremost goal. Today's gotcha attempt is like today's tweet. Career building. Yet the future is the young and the young can smell a miasma when there is one.
The young, today, are less gullible than whoever made the mistake of voting any of this lot of careerists into office. Being less gullible, the young have to be coerced to vote at all, for either party's stuff.
Even this tiny marginal step is a step toward convincing the young that lesser evil does matter, even with evil being evil.
These Republican governors begin their for-show letter:
As governors, we support making higher education more affordable and accessible for students in our states, . . .
Do you believe that? For even one second, do you really believe that? Of each and every one, or of even any single one of them? For a tenth of a second, do you believe? It seems ineffective to begin a two page nagging thingy with that lead-in. With an arguable fiction. It calls the entire effort into question.
They say so, and to back it up they have done - what?