General Chat / 2016 Elections

DeVos is terrifying. Her hearing last month was nothing short of hilarious but also, again, concerning. Guns in schools to thwart potential grizzlies? What in the actual fuck. Not to mention she (not even her children) never attended a public school. If I believed in God I would be praying for our children.

On the topic of DeVos, here is a nice argument for her qualification on r/changemyview by u/shade_1 in reply to this:

https://www.reddit.c...o_serve_as_the/

 

https://www.reddit.c...as_the/ddgr1ue/

"In order to change your view, I would ask what you think the Department of Education does where her lack of experience in a public school system would hurt her?

The vast, vast majority of the ED budget goes to Pell grants, Title 1 (low income) grants, Special Ed Grants and others. They don't control the content of curriculum, states decide that (even NCLB was ultimately up to the states). They don't control standards, again states decide that. The ED only issues guidelines that states/schools may implement or not. The standards are very loose as well, and states implement them very differently from each other. (again look at NCLB). Even the current controversy over Common Core is ultimately left to the states as to how it's implemented.

So to quote :

"As demonstrated in her Senate hearing, she does not know the difference between proficiency and growth, one of the most eminent controversies in standardized testing today. At the hearing, she also declined to state that she supports equal accountability of results for private schools to public schools. A lack of accountability would leave private schools able to progress students through the education system without preparing them properly or by teaching them biased material."

 

The ED currently doesn't manage those items, the states do. I would imagine that the ED under her (really under Trump ultimately) would steer more grant money to charter schools, and to issue different guidelines to states regarding charter schools. I gather that you wouldn't like more of an emphasis on Charters, but in terms of qualifications, she is qualified. She's been involved in at the district level (executive level) in school systems.

So what qualifications does the head of the ED need in order to steer grant money?"

 

 

 

~~

This is why I think her appointment has the chance of doing some good, it will force people to look at the problem itself rather than just rattle off the common misconceptions about the system.  Though, its not like the last 10 SoEs haven't been horrendous in their own right, so who knows.

There's certainly some kind of smoke/fire relationship at play there.  If she's really so qualified and has been involved at low levels, why does she stumble over basic edupolicy points that apply at those levels?  How can we trust her decision-making authority to hand out grants based on metrics she doesn't understand or have experience with?  If she's been engaged in Michigan at a district level, why doesn't she seem to recognize the import of the IDEA, which would have directly impacted her district's funding, etc. etc.  

 

I think the furor about qualifications is that she's been involved, sure, but purely as a lobbyist and a pay-to-play advocate for charter schools and religious espousement.

 

All that said, it's not particularly unexpected.  She's much more in the mainline republican vein than most of Trump's nominees and even if she's openly hostile to public education she hasn't stated she wants to disband the department she's being put in charge of.  She's being crucified on the basis of those confirmation hearings and that's - at least in part - a disappointing angle, considering confirmation hearings are more or less "throw nasty accusations and talk over the person the other party nominated" no matter what.  

 

SO this leaves us with - Is she the worst nominee possible?  Well, maybe she wasn't - until the confirmation hearings blew up and public opinion soured quickly.  The amount of public pressure from the concerned suburban parent type managed to pivot two republican senators, who had a relatively easy choice since they knew the vote wouldn't change the confirmation outcome.  

 

Where things get interesting is with Pat Toomey or Rob Portman, who represent swing states and came under a lot of pressure to vote nay.  They didn't, and that bowing to internal party pressures - or worse, donor contributions directly from the nominee - over some pretty noisy constituent concerns is what irks me most.  If I can't trust a senator to make a relatively inconsequential call like this - the next nominee would be just as bad, I'm sure, and with public attention moving on to something else they'd coast in - then I don't have all that much faith left in the process.

I'm wondering something, G Force. And please don't take it hostile as it isn't meant to be taken that way. But do you hear all the bad stuff about Trump and look for positives/nuances or do you hear the positives first and use them to nuance the negative opinions/facts you hear from other sources? Asking because you seem so optimistic in a time where most people seem concerned about the apocalypse being near.

I'm wondering something, G Force. And please don't take it hostile as it isn't meant to be taken that way. But do you hear all the bad stuff about Trump and look for positives/nuances or do you hear the positives first and use them to nuance the negative opinions/facts you hear from other sources? Asking because you seem so optimistic in a time where most people seem concerned about the apocalypse being near.

 

Mostly the former, a lot of the things that have been happening are mostly negative, but I don't think there is much point is only looking at the negatives of things, especially when that is all anyone in this thread is doing.  If I were to just agree with all the points made here, there would be no discussion.  Most of these topics I really don't have much of an opinion on, I just push one forward which contrasts with the general consensus of the community, for the sake of the discussion.

 

I mean if all we are going to do is act like all of a sudden Politics is a corrupt, awful etc.. etc... thing simply because of the most recent election, then we're all completely missing the problem.

 

Truly I do think its fun to look at both sides of all of these actions and gauge the opinions of others, often times who know more than me about the issues.  As opposed to simply denouncing them or swearing by them right off the bad.

 

I mean, I think DeVos is a bad appointment, but does that mean I'm going to make a rant about it on this site?  No, that would be a complete waste of time if no one pushing the opposite opinion.

 

Mostly the former, a lot of the things that have been happening are mostly negative, but I don't think there is much point is only looking at the negatives of things, especially when that is all anyone in this thread is doing.  If I were to just agree with all the points made here, there would be no discussion.  Most of these topics I really don't have much of an opinion on, I just push one forward which contrasts with the general consensus of the community, for the sake of the discussion.

 

I mean if all we are going to do is act like all of a sudden Politics is a corrupt, awful etc.. etc... thing simply because of the most recent election, then we're all completely missing the problem.

 

Truly I do think its fun to look at both sides of all of these actions and gauge the opinions of others, often times who know more than me about the issues.  As opposed to simply denouncing them or swearing by them right off the bad.

 

I mean, I think DeVos is a bad appointment, but does that mean I'm going to make a rant about it on this site?  No, that would be a complete waste of time if no one pushing the opposite opinion.

 

Playing Devil's Advocate is one of my favorite pastimes as well. It does indeed allow for discussion of things that will never be brought up in the echo chambers we are used to.

 

Having said that, however, trying to claim that DeVos's nomination is anything but a slap in the face to the education system is really reaching. It's like saying "If you get cancer, then you'll wake up and realize just how unhealthy you've been..." How about let's point out those unhealthy habits and fix them BEFORE we get cancer? Not the best analogy tbh, but it's also not far off.

 

Appointing an absolutely unqualified woman to the BoE is way too extreme of a way to get people to care, and as much as you're right that with Trump and all his shenanigans we've gained a stronger consciousness against corruption within government as a whole, the negative effects of all these actions severely outweighs these "silver linings". 

 

Can we not find ways to expose the many many problems with our political system without destroying the system in the process? Repair them instead of blow them up? Is that really the only way? And if it is the only way because the system is beyond repair, then I guess a revolution and potential civil war will be the logical next step.

 

And lastly, my very good friend posted this recently on FB and I thought it was appropriate:

 

"Not really trying to call anyone out, but I just found an articulation of something I have been feeling for a while:

Which do you do more of? Playing devil’s advocate or advocating for marginalized people?

When a hurt, angry person confides in you, do you empathize with them or tell them to empathize with their oppressor?"

So are we gonna talk about this or nah?

 

Honestly at this point I'm convinced that absolutely nothing he does will matter to his base.

He seems to have only wanted to be president for his own ego...

So are we gonna talk about this or nah?
 
Honestly at this point I'm convinced that absolutely nothing he does will matter to his base.

Just goes to show how people view Clinton.

Well she didn't share information, but that was a risk of her actions

Just goes to show how people view Clinton.

 

more than half the US support impeaching the moron right now, just goes to show how people probably would've preferred clinton in the long run, instead of this idiot. 

more than half the US support impeaching the moron right now, just goes to show how people probably would've preferred clinton in the long run, instead of this idiot.

Where are you getting that statistic from?

Where are you getting that statistic from?

Survey Monkey duhh

G Force are you seriously still willing to defend Trump at this point?

G Force are you seriously still willing to defend Trump at this point?

 

No I'm asking where GDB got his statistic from.

http://www.independe...t-a7738891.html

 

please don't be so doubtful when you hear negative news about somebody you like (face it, Donald Trump is an absolute detriment to stability, the US status as a superpower, and various other things such as NATO and climate change).

and keep in mind, this poll was created after Trump commited actual treason, the numbers will be even higher at the moment. this moron should not only be impeached, he should be proscecuted. (lock him up, heheheh)

http://www.independe...t-a7738891.html

 

please don't be so doubtful when you hear negative news about somebody you like (face it, Donald Trump is an absolute detriment to stability, the US status as a superpower, and various other things such as NATO and climate change).

 

This article does not say that "more than half of the US support impeachment".

Looks like I misread, however when a president is starting to outrank nixon on the account of people in favour of impeachment, is there anything left to say at such a point?

Looks like I misread, however when a president is starting to outrank nixon on the account of people in favour of impeachment, is there anything left to say at such a point?

 

The only thing left to say is that if you want to achieve anything in relation to Trump or politics from the outside, you probably should at least read the first paragraph.  Otherwise, you are no better than his "base".