Page 104 of 375 FirstFirst ... 45494100101102103104105106107108114154204 ... LastLast
Results 1,546 to 1,560 of 5618
  1. #1546
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    These are generally not ordinary circumstances. The government mandated the shutdown of much of the country, including religious schools, as part of a largely successful effort to limit the spread of COVID-19. The religious schools did their part, and there is the argument that they should not suffer financial consequences as a result, and that this is not the time for culture wars about alternatives to public schools.
    I guess if you see private and religious schools as businesses then of course they should be entitled to some of the stimulus pie that's going around.

    Quote Originally Posted by The no face guy View Post
    Well we can argue the merits of private vs public schools, I am not entirely opposed to private schools for religious reasons. (Be they Catholic/Islamic) as that is part of Freedom of Religion. I was, as we debated, incensed that the money that was to be utilized to support poor income students with technology for online learning was being re-directed, for apparent other means.

    They tell me that the reason parents send their children to private schools is not necessarily that they will be getting a better education, but rather that the become part of community of parents who all have affluent connections into the best law and financial firms. In short, it's like a club where the parents of these children begin to hang out in the same social circles, and set their children up to the best Universities, and career firms through the social connections they've made.

    I can't statistically validate this, but if its true, than I am of course against it, as it sets up an elite community that becomes alienated from the regular citizenry....but they are going to live in separate neighborhoods anyways...so what can you do.
    In regards to religion, I'm not sure why private institutions receive public money to educate their people in a particularly dogmatic way. Religious education is fine of course, but isn't that what their family & church & community is for? If we're going to have separation of church and state then do it properly. Let's not forget the Catholic Church was involved in one of the largest instances of institutional child sexual abuse in history.

    But what you say in the bolded is 100% spot on. It's not about academic brilliance - it's about networking and maintaining that status quo. Oh sure, there's gonna be a few people who pop up from public schools, but the majority will be the well-heeled. Which is funny, because where I'm from, academic results at university are no better for children who come from private schools as compared to those from public schools.

  2. #1547
    Astonishing Member PwrdOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The no face guy View Post
    Hmmm, I suppose their is quite of a difference between the UK and Canada, as you are much farther along on two tier systems in health care and education. As a result, in part of our Francophone influence, Canada does seem to swing further to the left than the other big Anglophone countries (the USA, UK, Australia) For the most part, our private schools are either for the very wealthy or for religious affiliation, there is not much in the way of private middle or working class schools in Canada, it's seen as sort of a big no no.

    But were consistently ranked as one of the top achieving education systems in the world, so our public schools are doing something right, for now at least.
    Private schools for low income students aren't really a widespread thing anywhere, because shocker, most poor families can't afford to pay the fees. This is the gap that charter schools were largely set up to try and fill, but you end up with a lot of the same problems because they are skimming the best students from the top and taking up a disproportionate share of resources, which could be more equitably distributed.

  3. #1548
    Astonishing Member Kusanagi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've seen arguments that if Trump loses in the next election, he'll run again in 2024.

    Nathaniel Rakich of 538 sums it up.
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/c...gain-in-2024/]

    Basically, he'll have his following, and be younger than Biden, so he won't be seen as too old. He'll also be able to chalk up a loss to historically unusual circumstances, while it would be better for his legacy to have a comeback narrative than a one-termer. It might also delay the inevitable tell-all books.

    Jamelle Bouie is also worried.

    Jeet Heer of the Nation thinks it can help him complicate any efforts at prosecution.


    So, what do you guys think? Is there a strong possibility that Trump would try again? What would the response be? I doubt there are many fans of the idea here (and Trump fans would probably claim he's likely to win in November so it's a moot point) but it's a weirdly plausible scenario.
    Provided he loses, provided he doesn't go to Jail, and provided his health holds up for this to be plausible, how could the Republican party run an Impeached President, who would have lost the popular vote twice (can't see Biden just winning the EC) as the face of their party with a straight face? It would be admitting that that the reserves are empty and they have no one else left to challenge for the presidency.
    Current Pull: Amazing Spider-Man and Domino

    Bunn for Deadpool's Main Book!

  4. #1549
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Private schools for low income students aren't really a widespread thing anywhere, because shocker, most poor families can't afford to pay the fees. This is the gap that charter schools were largely set up to try and fill, but you end up with a lot of the same problems because they are skimming the best students from the top and taking up a disproportionate share of resources, which could be more equitably distributed.
    Or, as is the case in my country, people bend over backwards and get into ridiculous amounts of debt to send their kids to private schools, for no academic benefit. It's probably the most sickening display of Keeping up with the Joneses. I'll never forget the girl in my class at university who said her parents had sacrificed a lot so she could get to the same university that I went to. Cost me nothing.

    And that's fine if that's their choice - just don't expect every other working class person to subsidise it.

  5. #1550
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've seen arguments that if Trump loses in the next election, he'll run again in 2024.

    Nathaniel Rakich of 538 sums it up.
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/c...gain-in-2024/]

    Basically, he'll have his following, and be younger than Biden, so he won't be seen as too old. He'll also be able to chalk up a loss to historically unusual circumstances, while it would be better for his legacy to have a comeback narrative than a one-termer. It might also delay the inevitable tell-all books.

    Jamelle Bouie is also worried.

    Jeet Heer of the Nation thinks it can help him complicate any efforts at prosecution.


    So, what do you guys think? Is there a strong possibility that Trump would try again? What would the response be? I doubt there are many fans of the idea here (and Trump fans would probably claim he's likely to win in November so it's a moot point) but it's a weirdly plausible scenario.
    Mike Pompeo 2024, apparently.

  6. #1551
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,383

    Default

    This is ridiculous.
    Two days after Reade's lawyer quit because she has trouble telling the truth.
    Are Democrats trying to lose this race?
    Twitter Link

    Ilhan Omar: 'I do believe' Tara Reade's claims against Joe Biden

    Of course, the article is from Fox News.

    Another take on it

    Ilhan Omar says she believes woman who claims Joe Biden sexually assaulted her

    Democrat "squad" member Ilhan Omar says she believes sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden but would vote for him anyway to defeat Donald Trump.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  7. #1552
    Extraordinary Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    You have to be able to administer discipline, and an environment where your position there is a privilege, not a right, controls behaviour a lot better. There is no point wasting energy on the 1% who really don't want to learn, than let the teaching of the other 99% suffer. It helps control bullying (to a degree), because again, you can kick them out.


    That sounds like a very American thing. I could be wrong. I don't recall schools here caring too much about that.


    True, but that's a two way street. They are being paid by ALL students, and if a few are requiring more "attention" (RE: discipline) that also failing all the rest (who pay the same) to get subpar attention. Either way it's not 'fair', so I'd favour on the side of those there to learn, not those who don't want to be there.


    My philosophy is education is a right and privilege, but it's not one you should keep indefinitely. Easier to say, harder to implement. Thank god I'm not the education secretary.


    I think there is a middle ground. YES, you can increase the overall "team" by the better performances of the upper end raising the bar, and pushing and challenging the rest. But the most effective way to increase the most, surely, is sometimes chopping away the 1% who are seriously hindering the progress of the majority?


    I mean let's not try and completely remove any fault with the troubled kids. Some are just bad apples.


    I think charter schools are a great way to both reward academia, and help low income students get a great leg up in life; as admittance is heavily based on grades, not money.


    Maybe at the super high end private schools in the UK that's the case, but I went to a private school, as did my sister; and I saw zero evidence of any of that going on. Maybe my parents are just super chill, but I never saw friends parents behaving that way to others when I was round their houses. In fact, from memory, getting parents to do anything involving free time for anything linked to the school seemed more a hassle, than an 'opportunity' they leapt on. Remember most private schools are not Eton. There are way more Waitrose than there is Harrods.
    Putting it another way, I was friends with a high school math teacher when I was in my thirties. I mentioned that one of my regrets is that I never took any math beyond the most basic. So he said he would teach me algebra. Three weeks after we started, he gave me a test and said, "Congratulations, you've just learned a year's worth of high school algebra". I was astounded. He said, "Teaching high school isn't teaching. It's babysitting. Look at you. It took me three weeks to teach you what a high school class would have taken nine months to learn and mostly because you weren't sitting in a room with a bunch of people who were wasting your time and mine".
    He soon went back to college and got his Masters so he could teach at the college level.
    His name is CAPTAIN MARVEL.

  8. #1553
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Seems to be a lot of liberals here subscribing to something that borders on to social Darwinism.

  9. #1554
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    996

    Default

    I'm sure Biden will win the popular vote but I feel he'll lose the electoral vote. I wish the US would do away with that.

  10. #1555
    Ol' Doogie, Circa 2005 JDogindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kusanagi View Post
    Provided he loses, provided he doesn't go to Jail, and provided his health holds up for this to be plausible, how could the Republican party run an Impeached President, who would have lost the popular vote twice (can't see Biden just winning the EC) as the face of their party with a straight face? It would be admitting that that the reserves are empty and they have no one else left to challenge for the presidency.
    Depends on the strength of the party in 2024. Mike Pence strongly would want to run for the nomination in 2024, but I don't think he has the "oomph" factor Trump provides with his base. Similar politicians with radical views like Trump, such as Steve King of Iowa and Joe Arpa, have much smaller pulls and would not be able to run with the ticket. This is a party that is firmly entrenched in the reactionary wing right now, and has no need for moderates.

  11. #1556
    Ol' Doogie, Circa 2005 JDogindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy_hansen View Post
    Seems to be a lot of liberals here subscribing to something that borders on to social Darwinism.
    Um... where are you getting this? The problem I have with Social Darwinism is that it argues about, in society, the strongest and the toughest are able to survive through shrewdness and being unscrupulous, along with having beneficial traits. Not to mention, "If you don't work, you don't eat... if you can't work, well, you don't deserve to eat". I still find it ironic that people that often prescribe to this way of thinking don't like the actual concept of Darwin's teachings; natural selection in terms of how creatures adapted and advanced through time to the current forms we see today, but find it acceptable in a socioeconomic state.

    Except, there are countless cases of people who do work, in plenty of cases several jobs and to the point of exhaustion, and still don't eat; those that do want to work or are able to work but can't work due to a lack of job investment or lack of foresight into job growth (i.e. believing we need to save declining industries like assembly or coal mining at all costs, or not investing in services or programs to transfer people into new or burgeoning careers); and believing that those that can't work don't deserve to eat, ignoring the reality that people do deserve to eat, whether or not you like it, as it's the right thing to do, yet undermining services designed to help them survive, since you feel they're an unnecessary burden on the economy.

    Again, I don't know where this is coming from, but at least in America, the problem lies in always having to play peacemaker with people who are always concerned with spending and having to be diplomatic as the slightest thing can send them into a rage.

  12. #1557
    The Nature Boy AnakinFlair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Saint Ann, MO
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy View Post
    Seriously.

    Trump doesn't have the ability or cunning to deal with institutional enemies. He's used to suing or settling with all his problems. Once the government starts working like it should, and he's no longer protected by a bullshit Justice Department ruling, he's done

    Okay, serious question here. If Trump looses the election, on the way out can he issue blanket pardons for himself and his family? And probably anyone else, just to 'piss off the libs'? Would those pardons be legal, or could the next government challenge them?



    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    I'm sure Biden will win the popular vote but I feel he'll lose the electoral vote. I wish the US would do away with that.
    We ALL wish that.

  13. #1558
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Private schools for low income students aren't really a widespread thing anywhere, because shocker, most poor families can't afford to pay the fees. This is the gap that charter schools were largely set up to try and fill, but you end up with a lot of the same problems because they are skimming the best students from the top and taking up a disproportionate share of resources, which could be more equitably distributed.
    Correct.

    Now looking at US News top charter schools-they are all in states or towns with 80% white population. Only one is in Lousiana.

    And guess what NO SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. The one in Lousiana does 504.

    They start at KEY grade levels. K-12, 5-12 and some 9-12. Two of these avoid certain state testing levels.

    Some admissions EXCLUDE kids. One requires having to take Latin classes.

    Funny the worst ones have 97% POC and 23% graduation rate.

    Oh and there is something else they do that we in the public can't. FORCE PARENTS TO BE ACTIVE.

    Yes we have charters that say be active or write us a check to be excused from being active.

    They also toss out kids faster or those parents bolt. As we have learned some of those schools are BEHIND public schools. So when the kid goes to or comeback they are behind.

    And for you parents out there-THEY DON'T HAVE TO HIRE CERTFIED TEACHERS. Yes it seems at least in Texas-ANYONE can be a teacher to your kid as long as a certfied teacher sign off on grades.
    Now LEGALLY parents are suppose to be told about that.

    Also look at who makes up the board of directors and others. You might see someone you know.
    Like a Lebron James, Deon Sanders, Brooke Shields, Andre Aggassi & Steve Buscemi. I want to say Al Pacino too. Look through the paperwork and you'll see.

    I know Brooke and Andre have one because it made the news. Their names popped up on the list of investors.
    Deon had his shut down by the STATE. Although his school did produce one NBA player-Emanuel Mundiay.

  14. #1559
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kusanagi View Post
    Provided he loses, provided he doesn't go to Jail, and provided his health holds up for this to be plausible, how could the Republican party run an Impeached President, who would have lost the popular vote twice (can't see Biden just winning the EC) as the face of their party with a straight face? It would be admitting that that the reserves are empty and they have no one else left to challenge for the presidency.
    I obviously don't want to see Trump as the nominee in 2024, if as appears likely, he gets his ass kicked by Biden.

    I don't know if he'll run. I thought it was interesting that some columnists I followed were worried about the possibility.

    A potential positive for Republicans would be that it would be a potential way to move past him, to argue that they are not the party of Trump, because their party beat him.

    That said, he would have some advantages in a primary, due to high name recognition, and the perception that he's defending the right in the culture wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Depends. Can Trump make a run while in jail? A lot can happen in 4 years, and I think trump's supernatural luck has to run out eventually at the rate he is going.
    One of the arguments is that he could use a potential run as part of a legal defense, argue that he's being targeted due to his status as a potential future nominee.

    I don't know how relevant all of that will be. It would be a costly fight by prosecutors to demonstrate wrongdoing. There are some advantages for Democrats (establishes norms for future Presidents, keeps a former President in the news when the Republicans would be inclined to go in different directions) as well as disadvantages (it's a costly fight; a lot of the base might have a tough time accepting when there isn't enough evidence to go forward.)

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    No. There’s no path if he loses.

    Whoever wins is inheriting an awful economy and the fallout of Covid. It’s such a mess they whoever gets the job is going to likely end stronger then they started. Which pretty much cute Trump off because there will be metrics to say “this was where we were at when you left, this is us now”.

    When the prior President does well, you need something totally different to him to get a “what if” out there.

    You don’t want a known commodity that compares poorly
    2024 would be interesting just because Biden's likely a one-termer. If he did well, it will be pretty much impossible for Republicans to win. Democrats would have to lose.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  15. #1560
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogindy View Post
    Um... where are you getting this? The problem I have with Social Darwinism is that it argues about, in society, the strongest and the toughest are able to survive through shrewdness and being unscrupulous, along with having beneficial traits. Not to mention, "If you don't work, you don't eat... if you can't work, well, you don't deserve to eat". I still find it ironic that people that often prescribe to this way of thinking don't like the actual concept of Darwin's teachings; natural selection in terms of how creatures adapted and advanced through time to the current forms we see today, but find it acceptable in a socioeconomic state.

    Except, there are countless cases of people who do work, in plenty of cases several jobs and to the point of exhaustion, and still don't eat; those that do want to work or are able to work but can't work due to a lack of job investment or lack of foresight into job growth (i.e. believing we need to save declining industries like assembly or coal mining at all costs, or not investing in services or programs to transfer people into new or burgeoning careers); and believing that those that can't work don't deserve to eat, ignoring the reality that people do deserve to eat, whether or not you like it, as it's the right thing to do, yet undermining services designed to help them survive, since you feel they're an unnecessary burden on the economy.

    Again, I don't know where this is coming from, but at least in America, the problem lies in always having to play peacemaker with people who are always concerned with spending and having to be diplomatic as the slightest thing can send them into a rage.
    Read some of the previous posts. People are in effect saying that difficult and poor performing students at public schools should just be kicked out and left to fend for themselves. Bad apples. That's not the kind of liberalism I'd subscribe to. I'd try to ensure that nobody gets left behind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •