The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[DU]

I don't know much about the possible candidates, but I am curious about why you like Cruz, Rubio or Paul. What is it they offer to make the country better?

Crickets.

 

[DU]

Try an article from this time period, not April.
....
Again, I'm waiting for the Republicans in this thread to tell me how this works in a National Election? These are Tea Party candidates, local red meat candidates, nothing more. Does not play well on a National level.

The article itself is very flawed regardless of the time period.

People are so focused on the national level that they don't realize the changes that these elections can have at the local level (some that influence the national level - gerrymandering, for example).

 

[Domainace]

--.

 

[Domainace]

Less government is the short answer, as I suggested above. I didn't know crickets were an issue, but I'm all for them.

 

[verbster]

Less government is the short answer, as I suggested above. I didn't know crickets were an issue, but I'm all for them.

This is exactly the kind of thing I don't understand. I hear it all the time, but I'd appreciate a good explanation and some good examples of what "less government" on the Federal level means.

 

[DU]

This is exactly the kind of thing I don't understand. I hear it all the time, but I'd appreciate a good explanation and some good examples of what "less government" on the Federal level means.

It means get rid of useless employees paid by the government - like teachers, for example

Top ideas I've heard so far:

Stop the war on coal. Make the Keystone Pipeline happen.

Made me lqtm:

https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/529848264204767232

 

[Domainace]

Well, we could in fact start with the Dept. of Education, and allow parents to choose schools based on quality. Might actually see the competitiveness of future generations rise again.

 

[verbster]

Well, we could in fact start with the Dept. of Education, and allow parents to choose schools based on quality. Might actually see the competitiveness of future generations rise again.

By "quality" schools, you must be talking about those with enough money to have the equipment and people to deliver a quality education. If that's the case, you must be talking about private or charter schools that can afford that. I can see how rich people could pay for that type of education, but of course the poor kids have to settle for lesser "quality," yes? Public school would be the same.. .Areas with a.higher tax base means more money, which means better schools. How would those better schools deal with all the kids from poor areas wanting in. And how would poor kids get transported to the public schools of their choice, presuming at least some of them get in?

 

[Domainace]

1-School vouchers.
2-There's little evidence that throwing more money at schools makes them better.
3-Of course there is government involvement. We are talking about eliminating federal govt. involvement.
4-If you are worried about the rich having access to better education, that's the case now. Where do you think Obama's kids attend school?

 

[DU]

By "quality" schools, you must be talking about those with enough money to have the equipment and people to deliver a quality education. If that's the case, you must be talking about private or charter schools that can afford that. I can see how rich people could pay for that type of education, but of course the poor kids have to settle for lesser "quality," yes? Public school would be the same.. .Areas with a.higher tax base means more money, which means better schools. How would those better schools deal with all the kids from poor areas wanting in. And how would poor kids get transported to the public schools of their choice, presuming at least some of them get in?

Not talking about merits of either program:

Optional opt out of designated school zone.
And School vouchers
Home Schooling

I have opinions though knowing how the for profit industry in education works

 

[verbster]

1-School vouchers.
2-There's little evidence that throwing more money at schools makes them better.
3-Of course there is government involvement. We are talking about eliminating federal govt. involvement.
4-If you are worried about the rich having access to better education, that's the case now. Where do you think Obama's kids attend school?

1. What about vouchers?
2. There's a ton of evidence that underfunded schools do not perform as well as adequately funded schools.
3. Why do you want to eliminate the role the federal government has in K-12 schools? NCLB? Would that elimination also apply to Head Start, even though it's in HHS?
4.I'm not worried about the rich having access to a better education. I'm merely pointing out your first priority of allowing parents to choose the school of their choice is untenable for many reasons. With all the nut cases out there, any president's kids would be better off in a secure school. That has nothing to do with Obama.

 

[Domainace]

As always, the thread demands too much time, and whatever I say you're not going to budge.

Let's turn it around, Can you think of a single good reason for the federal government to have any say at all in local schools? Leave aside the few beneficial programs that could just as easily be run on a local or state level. Tell me just one good thing that nobody else could do.

Remember, US education isn't exactly a shining beacon, despite being among the most highly funded systems in the world. What exactly does DC contribute, except politics?

So far as how kids would pay for school, and how kids would get to school - these are things that are worked out by parents around the world. Even poor parents generally want to see their children get an education, so they work their asses off for it. You suggest that the only solution is for the government to take everyone by the hand and lead them to water (or drive them). All that does is create dependence on government, which is what those in power want.

 

[verbster]

As always, the thread demands too much time, and whatever I say you're not going to budge.

Let's turn it around, Can you think of a single good reason for the federal government to have any say at all in local schools? Leave aside the few beneficial programs that could just as easily be run on a local or state level. Tell me just one good thing that nobody else could do.

Remember, US education isn't exactly a shining beacon, despite being among the most highly funded systems in the world. What exactly does DC contribute, except politics?

So far as how kids would pay for school, and how kids would get to school - these are things that are worked out by parents around the world. Even poor parents generally want to see their children get an education, so they work their asses off for it. You suggest that the only solution is for the government to take everyone by the hand and lead them to water (or drive them). All that does is create dependence on government, which is what those in power want.

Didn’t suggest anything of the sort.

Waiting for a bus every morning also creates a dependence. Is that a conspiracy, too?

I am more than willing to budge, but I want a good plan that will improve our education system, not some knee-jerk temporary political pseudo-solution that may do more harm than good. I'm looking for some empirical evidence that shows, for now, that no federal government involvement will improve our current system, not just let the states maintain the status quo. Maybe it will, but I'd like to understand how. Most of the time, the states and local schools do administrate the Federal programs and disburse the funds and get paid to do so.

(I found this article about Finland's system very educational: http://www.weareteachers.com/hot-topics/special-reports/teaching-around-the-world/finlands-a-plus-schools)

As far as what is worth keeping, how about the federal school lunch program? Title I? Title IX? The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (that creates a funding source specifically for Special Education students)?

On the other hand, Common Core might be a boondoggle, not sure.

The Department of Education has only been around for 35 years, but maybe they just need a little nudge to change their focus from putting band-aids on the current system to preparing for a complete overhaul. I don't think that could be implemented by 50 separate states, mainly because it will take at least a generation, and if someone doesn't keep it focused, it will fail.

 

[Domainace]

Do you need or want the federal government to provide bus services for you? (And what was the first conspiracy I mentioned? I haven't talked about conspiracy, but you implied I did. Where did you get that idea?)

When you speak of "our education," who does "our" refer to? Is there any reason why people in Alaska should have any say over LA, New York or Miami education? There isn't one good plan that will fit all - that's the point. People have different educational needs, and they are best worked out as locally as possible. And, of course, it would be much cheaper if the money wasn't funnelled through Washington first.

I'm glad you seem to agree the status quo sucks. That in itself is a good reason to try something completely new.

Finland is interesting. They spend less than the US (per capita) on education, and the students have fewer hours in school. There are other methods of interest, such as the Steiner method.

US education, and much of Western education is dated, and churns out barely literate drones for the most part. The system is tailored to the lowest common denominator, and tainted by political agendas. Federal control means that change is nearly impossible (because of political interests). Of course, if somehow Washington was able to mandate sweeping changes in schools across the country, that might even be worse.

I'm simply saying that federal government control of local issues is way beyond reason, insanely expensive and bureaucratic, and harmful to the nation. And yet, in 35 years of mostly failure, they have managed to convince the public that the key to success is yet more control.

 

[verbster]

Do you need or want the federal government to provide bus services for you? (And what was the first conspiracy I mentioned? I haven't talked about conspiracy, but you implied I did. Where did you get that idea?).

"All that does is create dependence on government, which is what those in power want."

When you speak of "our education," who does "our" refer to? Is there any reason why people in Alaska should have any say over LA, New York or Miami education? There isn't one good plan that will fit all - that's the point. People have different educational needs, and they are best worked out as locally as possible. And, of course, it would be much cheaper if the money wasn't funnelled through Washington first..

"Our education" refers to the US education in general. No, of course Alaska should have no say over another state's education process. And it doesn't. But that's not to say they couldn't share common approaches to education if they work. Of course different locales have different educational needs. That is usually up to the local public schools, but they get financial help from the state and feds. The money is funneled through the state and dispersed locally. I don't think the dollar per student figures differentiate between admin, overhead, auxiliary (like sports and such) and direct teaching costs.

I'm glad you seem to agree the status quo sucks. That in itself is a good reason to try something completely new..

I didn't say it sucks, just that it could be better. Lots of kids are getting good educations, some lucky ones get great educations. unfortunately many don't . . . for many reasons.

Finland is interesting. They spend less than the US (per capita) on education, and the students have fewer hours in school. There are other methods of interest, such as the Steiner method..

What's interesting about both of those approaches is they both encourage cooperation over competition, unlike the US.

US education, and much of Western education is dated, and churns out barely literate drones for the most part. The system is tailored to the lowest common denominator, and tainted by political agendas. Federal control means that change is nearly impossible (because of political interests). Of course, if somehow Washington was able to mandate sweeping changes in schools across the country, that might even be worse..

I don't think the majority of kids are barely literate drones. About 70-75%% of the students I taught at the university level made it, but, yes, many slide through the system. It's not just political interests that are hurting the education system, it's political posturing by both sides. Mostly grown men being obstructive just because they can. Who knows? Widespread mandate might be successful. Neither of us know.

I'm simply saying that federal government control of local issues is way beyond reason, insanely expensive and bureaucratic, and harmful to the nation. And yet, in 35 years of mostly failure, they have managed to convince the public that the key to success is yet more control.

Control of what issues? Way beyond what reason? I hardly hear about the Dept of Ed. They haven't convinced me of anything. Almost everything is controlled and administered by the states and local areas.
I get your point, but speaking in tired generalities and exaggerated blanket statements isn't convincing either.

 

[Domainace]

Those in power want more power. That's not a conspiracy, that's human nature.

And interesting that you don't like generalities.
I find them far more interesting than flinging Google-searched statistics at each other and calling that a discussion, as usually happens in these threads.

 

[verbster]

Those in power want more power. That's not a conspiracy, that's human nature.

It just seems that way sometimes . . . .

And interesting that you don't like generalities.
I find them far more interesting than flinging Google-searched statistics at each other and calling that a discussion, as usually happens in these threads.

Generalities have been reincarnated into quotable sound bites meant to be as flexible in meaning as possible to those who repeat them.

 

[verbster]

 

[Domainace]

Generalities have been reincarnated into quotable sound bites meant to be as flexible in meaning as possible to those who repeat them.

Well yes, by people in debates, by the media and by others looking for shortcuts in persuasion (or when preaching to the choir). That's the problem with mass media - everybody can lock on to a common word or phrase and not have to worry about the meaning or truth of it.

It's like a password. "Bushitler" gets you into one club, "Muslim in Chief" gets you into another. Just mantras to reassure the faithful.

That said, conversations are made up of generalities that slowly become more specific. Where everything is a debate, there's little possibility for conversation. Or maybe that's just the internet. Brings out the worst.

 

[Theo Goodman]

“ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks,” said Omer of crossing the border into Turkey, “and they reassured us that nothing will happen, especially when that is how they regularly travel from Raqqa and Aleppo to the Kurdish areas further northeast of Syria because it was impossible to travel through Syria as YPG [National Army of Syrian Kurdistan] controlled most parts of the Kurdish region.”

http://www.newsweek.com/isis-and-tu...rds-former-isis-member-reveals-turkish-282920


Keep in mind that the routes into Syria that they talk about have been used for that past 2-3 years in the so called "civil war" in Syria, would make sense, you need plenty of outsiders in a civil war. Turkey is in NATO with the USA, and has let plenty of what the USA calls "TERRORISTS"(al nursa front, ISIS, and XYZislamist front) enter Syira without a problem, good job!

Im sure Alex Jones has quoted from newsweek before so just do a google and connect the dots, this discredits newsweek forever and it can now be refered to as a "wakko" "nut job" and "conspiracy theorist" newspaper.