Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

When Obama was first elected, one of the first things he the unions did was to target School Vouchers. Shit, Obama was correct......Elections do have consequences.

Yep, he certainly got rid of them in Washington anyhow.

 

[jc456]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

What do you want the billionaire do? Off himself?

Er... perhaps not tell people to support things that don't benefit themselves but only benefit the rich.

Like?

 

[jc456]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

Why don't you believe that the middle class and poor shouldn't have the same school available as the rich? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[jc456]

If people have a choice to not join unions then they should not be allowed a free ride on unions and the people who do pay.

They should have to negotiate their benefits, protections and salaries completely on their own.

Who says they don't? If you don't join a union, there is no law that states non-union people get the same deals as union people. If a company wants to pay their non-union people less, that's their call.

The benefits that the union negotiates for are applied to all the workers. Non-union workers should be made to negotiate seperately. That would only be right wouldn't it? You don't approve of free riders do you?

That's the choice of the company not the union or non-union worker.

Unions only negotiate for their employees. I don't know where they are forced to negotiate for everybody.

If the union contracts their workers out for $25.00 per hour plus benefits, what's stopping a company from paying their non-union employees $22.00 plus benefits? Nothing.

If non-Union members benefit, then they should pay also.

Benefit how? That makes no sense!

 

[Borillar]

i just hope that in 2017, none of our children will ever have to endure the painful suffering of being forced to eat those god awful/disgusting lunches that were created by a first lady who never liked America in the first place.

I didn't know that Michelle created fruits and vegetables. I thought God did that. Oh well, the republicans will probably go back to fatty, salty, sugary junk food and ketchup for the vegetable. Got to keep the profits going to Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i just hope that in 2017, none of our children will ever have to endure the painful suffering of being forced to eat those god awful/disgusting lunches that were created by a first lady who never liked America in the first place.

I didn't know that Michelle created fruits and vegetables. I thought God did that. Oh well, the republicans will probably go back to fatty, salty, sugary junk food and ketchup for the vegetable. Got to keep the profits going to Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola.

You mean we will have a choice on what we eat again????? Oh Goodie!!!!!!

 

[Borillar]

i just hope that in 2017, none of our children will ever have to endure the painful suffering of being forced to eat those god awful/disgusting lunches that were created by a first lady who never liked America in the first place.

I didn't know that Michelle created fruits and vegetables. I thought God did that. Oh well, the republicans will probably go back to fatty, salty, sugary junk food and ketchup for the vegetable. Got to keep the profits going to Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola.

You mean we will have a choice on what we eat again????? Oh Goodie!!!!!!

Republican lunch ladies all over the country: "Here. Have a Coke and a Twinkie and STFU."

 

[PoliticalChic]

This may bust your little race-baiting bubble, but most blacks in our country survive fine with police. How do they do it when our system treats them so unfairly? Could it be they don't break the law in the first place? Could it be that if confronted by a police officer, they just obey his commands? Could it be they make no threatening move (or move that could be construed as a threat) in front of a police officer?

You see, right or wrong, all these police shootings have one thing in common: the suspect didn't listen to the orders of the police officers. That's it. Real simple.......at least for Republicans it is. For liberals? Too complicated to figure out.

I don't want officers who shoot people without justification and I'm not sure why you do.

Of course, when you start out the country with only being 3/5th of a white person, don't you think that the culture is already against you?

All police shootings are investigated; some with the family of the deceased hiring their own people. Most are ruled justified. The ones that are not, the officer faces charges.

The culture against you? Why do you think white officers accept jobs in black communities, because they're hoping they get a chance at shooting a black person? The problem is you are media brainwashed. Most blacks support their police officers because it is they who risk their lives every day to keep those good black people safe.

I was talking with Coyote last week about a similar subject when she brought up unfairness to blacks when it comes to the law. I told her I researched the subject and found no apples to apples evidence. So I asked a close personal friend about it since he works at the clerk of courts in downtown. He said he did think that some blacks got treated unfairly because of sentencing. But the judges that handed out those harsh sentences were black judges. Why? Because if a white judge really hated black people, the most destructive thing he could do is release those criminals back out into the black community. Black judges are just the opposite. They put other blacks away for as long as they can to help those black communities.

Our Leftist pals are quick to blame cops, white folks, Republicans, whatever, but I have yet to see any of the tunnel-vision crowd try to explain this phenomenon"

In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



Again?

'In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian.'


Brownsville population, ......60,000

Bay Ridge population.......70,000


And this:
"Standard anti-cop ideology, whether emanating from the ACLU or the academy,[or Barack Obama] holds that law enforcement actions are racist..."

 

[RealDave]

i just hope that in 2017, none of our children will ever have to endure the painful suffering of being forced to eat those god awful/disgusting lunches that were created by a first lady who never liked America in the first place.

I didn't know that Michelle created fruits and vegetables. I thought God did that. Oh well, the republicans will probably go back to fatty, salty, sugary junk food and ketchup for the vegetable. Got to keep the profits going to Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola.

You mean we will have a choice on what we eat again????? Oh Goodie!!!!!!

I knew you were still in high school.

 

[RealDave]

Another point against school choice through vouchers is that vouchers don't cover the costs 100%.

So no, you aren't rescuing poor kids because they can't cover the balance the vouchers don't cover.

That depends on how much you spend and where you want to go. Vouchers are for a set amount. If you can afford to kick in a couple bucks, then you can send your child to a better school. If not, you can send them to whatever school the voucher covers completely.

If a parent believe that fully covered schools are no better than their public school, they have the option to refuse the voucher and it will go to somebody else. In my opinion, only people with kids in school should pay for education in the first place.

Who paid for your education?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Another point against school choice through vouchers is that vouchers don't cover the costs 100%.

So no, you aren't rescuing poor kids because they can't cover the balance the vouchers don't cover.

That depends on how much you spend and where you want to go. Vouchers are for a set amount. If you can afford to kick in a couple bucks, then you can send your child to a better school. If not, you can send them to whatever school the voucher covers completely.

If a parent believe that fully covered schools are no better than their public school, they have the option to refuse the voucher and it will go to somebody else. In my opinion, only people with kids in school should pay for education in the first place.

Who paid for your education?

Mostly parishioners at the church and volunteer work by the nuns. We also used to hold bake sales and rummage sales. We used to go door to door selling candy and candles to raise money for the school as well. I went to public school later on which was (wrongly) supported by all taxpayers. Over here, we are taxed on property value and not if (or how many) children you have using those schools. So if my property (which we have no kids in public school) is worth twice as much as the guy down the street who has four kids in school, I pay more for those kids than their parents do. It's completely wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i just hope that in 2017, none of our children will ever have to endure the painful suffering of being forced to eat those god awful/disgusting lunches that were created by a first lady who never liked America in the first place.

I didn't know that Michelle created fruits and vegetables. I thought God did that. Oh well, the republicans will probably go back to fatty, salty, sugary junk food and ketchup for the vegetable. Got to keep the profits going to Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola.

You mean we will have a choice on what we eat again????? Oh Goodie!!!!!!

I knew you were still in high school.

More than likely, I was out of school before you were born.

 

[Coyote]

Like the choice between eating or having a roof over your head. "IT'S FREEDOM I TELL YOU" says the billionaire to the poor man.

I really have no idea what you're ranting about. Care to elaborate?

Yes, you said that choice is freedom (while stating that states are going to restrict abortion too, go figure), I disagree. Choice is not always freedom. If choice is about either doing one thing, or something else, when you should have both, that isn't freedom, is it?

How can you have both? You either have choice in something or you don't.

I believe that parents should have choice in education for their children while not going broke because they don't go with the flow. I believe people should have choice in joining a union or not without the threat of being denied employment because they don't believe in joining unions.

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

Why don't you believe that the middle class and poor shouldn't have the same school available as the rich? WTF is wrong with you?

They won't even with vouchers.

 

[Coyote]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

People generally live in an area they can afford. If you can't afford much, chances are your public school is a crime ridden drug infested rat hole. All the money in the world won't help it either.

Of course if you had the money, you would live in a much nicer area or be able to afford private education. But for many inner-city people, that's not an option at all.

We don't have the money to save all the kids from these tragic public schools, but if we can save a few of them, that's better than not saving any of them.

Or we can use that money to improve those public school and raise the quality for more than a few. It won't be Harvard but it will be better than giving a few of them Harvard quality education.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This may bust your little race-baiting bubble, but most blacks in our country survive fine with police. How do they do it when our system treats them so unfairly? Could it be they don't break the law in the first place? Could it be that if confronted by a police officer, they just obey his commands? Could it be they make no threatening move (or move that could be construed as a threat) in front of a police officer?

You see, right or wrong, all these police shootings have one thing in common: the suspect didn't listen to the orders of the police officers. That's it. Real simple.......at least for Republicans it is. For liberals? Too complicated to figure out.

I don't want officers who shoot people without justification and I'm not sure why you do.

Of course, when you start out the country with only being 3/5th of a white person, don't you think that the culture is already against you?

All police shootings are investigated; some with the family of the deceased hiring their own people. Most are ruled justified. The ones that are not, the officer faces charges.

The culture against you? Why do you think white officers accept jobs in black communities, because they're hoping they get a chance at shooting a black person? The problem is you are media brainwashed. Most blacks support their police officers because it is they who risk their lives every day to keep those good black people safe.

I was talking with Coyote last week about a similar subject when she brought up unfairness to blacks when it comes to the law. I told her I researched the subject and found no apples to apples evidence. So I asked a close personal friend about it since he works at the clerk of courts in downtown. He said he did think that some blacks got treated unfairly because of sentencing. But the judges that handed out those harsh sentences were black judges. Why? Because if a white judge really hated black people, the most destructive thing he could do is release those criminals back out into the black community. Black judges are just the opposite. They put other blacks away for as long as they can to help those black communities.

Our Leftist pals are quick to blame cops, white folks, Republicans, whatever, but I have yet to see any of the tunnel-vision crowd try to explain this phenomenon"

In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian. As a result, police presence and use of proactive tactics are much higher in Brownsville than in Bay Ridge.

This incidence of crime means that innocent black men have a much higher chance than innocent white men of being stopped by the police because they match the description of a suspect. This is not something the police choose. It is a reality..." The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement



Again?

'In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the per capita shooting rate is 81 times higher than in nearby Bay Ridge, Brooklyn—the first neighborhood predominantly black, the second neighborhood predominantly white and Asian.'


Brownsville population, ......60,000

Bay Ridge population.......70,000


And this:
"Standard anti-cop ideology, whether emanating from the ACLU or the academy,[or Barack Obama] holds that law enforcement actions are racist..."

It's really less of race than it is actions.

Years ago a friend of mine and I were driving in a suburb that didn't really care for our kind: young, long hair, older model vehicle, supped up a bit. We got pulled over and my friend started to give the cop lip about how he was not going over the speed limit which he clearly was. When the cop went back to write him a ticket, I told the asshole to never argue with a cop. It's not going to change anything. If you do anything, apologize to the officer and just tell him the truth which is we were talking and he was not paying attention.

About a year later we went down to the flats here in Cleveland and had a little too much to drink. My friend crashed a red light because it was late and there was nobody on the road, and we got pulled over.

It seemed that my friend remembered what I told him last time. It was "yes sir" "No sir" "I'm very sorry sir" and so on. The cop let us go with a warning.

A little bit of respect (which is all officers would like) goes a long way. Treat them good, and in most cases, they will treat you the same way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

School Choice is just the Republican scam for privatizing education. See in Republican world, the government can't do anything & everything must be done by private enterprise. Because we can certainly trust private enterprise to teach our kids what they need to know.

School Choice is bad.

Here in Pennsylvania, the State has a mandate to provide every kid with an education. This is why we have a public school system. In my opinion, you send your kid there & or are on your own.

But we have private companies that provide home schooling. They provide a computer hookup & students tap into their educational programming. Unfortunately, these companies get paid by the local school districts. Millions & millions of dollars are sucked out of the system that pay for this home schooling.

First, talking out one student does not save the district squat. Schools provide free transportation to school. Why should we pay for some kid to stay home instead of going to the school to get the education we are already paying for?

As for school choice, it would take a few kids out of poorer districts & put them in better schools while leaving the students in that poorer district with now fewer dollars.

Second, here in PA, when they tried to pass it, it was estimated that 40% of the funding would go to families with kids already in private school.

Third, If the is school choice, private schools must take every student that applies. No skimming off the smarter kids

4th, they must take the disabled & mentally challenged kids too. I was on a school board where we were paying $275k a year to send a severely retarded child to special school (we have to educate every kid). That was 30 years ago & would cost well over half a million a year today. ( it would have been cheaper to give the family a million bucks if they moved to another district)

So, if you don't like the local public school, then put up your own money to send your sniveling brat to private school. Where you live is a choice & if you were so stupid to move into a bad school district then it is your fault.

We have a great public school system & if your child is doing poorly then I suggest it is a problem with the kid's parents.

People generally live in an area they can afford. If you can't afford much, chances are your public school is a crime ridden drug infested rat hole. All the money in the world won't help it either.

Of course if you had the money, you would live in a much nicer area or be able to afford private education. But for many inner-city people, that's not an option at all.

We don't have the money to save all the kids from these tragic public schools, but if we can save a few of them, that's better than not saving any of them.

Or we can use that money to improve those public school and raise the quality for more than a few. It won't be Harvard but it will be better than giving a few of them Harvard quality education.

Okay, and how do you raise that quality? After all, the US spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world. Money isn't the problem.

When my suburb started to really go downhill (during the housing bubble) we had one of the best schools in the county. It was well funded and we had great teachers. But when the inner-city people started to move in, our schools became zoos.

Drug busts all the time, teachers getting assaulted every month, police had to attend the school to prevent gang fights after school. The good people who's family lived here for generations moved out in fear for their children. The good teachers found work in other cities to escape assault.

So what would you suggest for the people that didn't have the money to move out and wanted a secure and decent environment for their kids to learn?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i just hope that in 2017, none of our children will ever have to endure the painful suffering of being forced to eat those god awful/disgusting lunches that were created by a first lady who never liked America in the first place.

I didn't know that Michelle created fruits and vegetables. I thought God did that. Oh well, the republicans will probably go back to fatty, salty, sugary junk food and ketchup for the vegetable. Got to keep the profits going to Frito-Lay and Coca-Cola.

You mean we will have a choice on what we eat again????? Oh Goodie!!!!!!

Republican lunch ladies all over the country: "Here. Have a Coke and a Twinkie and STFU."

Wow! Choice. How scary.

 

[Flopper]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

If you do math, you'll find those blue states have 2/3 of GDP, over half the population and most of the kids. These states have more need for regulation because the they have more businesses and denser populations.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I also believe that parents should have the choice for which school they want to send their kids to. That doesn't mean I want a system of vouchers that hands rich kids loads of money to go to the rich school they already go to.

And I believe people should have the choice of joining a union or not.

However not everything you said was about choice. I believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion within a specific time frame, like 4-5 months. Yet this isn't a choice that the right want. In fact you posted that Republicans want to LIMIT ABORTION. That's not choice.

Also I believe people should have the choice to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, choose which political party they want, have one person one vote etc. This is all choice. Did the people of the USA choose the president? No, they did not. The people of 4 states chose the president. That's not choice if a person in California doesn't have choice, is it? And they only really had the choice of two parties, I'd open up choice to many more political parties with Proportional Representation.

So who is more for choice? Me, or the Republicans? certainly it is me, and yet I have no doubt most Republicans on this forum would disagree with me on opening up choice for most of the things I have said. So why do they want choice for education? Is it because they really want choice, or is it because they see a way of taking money for themselves? Why do they want choice with Unions? Is it because they see a way of making money? Sure it is.

So how would Republicans make money from giving choice of whether people have to join a union or not? How about choice in education?

Nothing is stopping any other political party from joining a presidential race. In fact, you had four choices to vote for this past election.

Your claim here is that four states chose the President and one was disenfranchised. So do you think only one state should choose the President instead? We've been voting the same way for over 200 years now. the electoral college guarantees that every state has some representation. Popular vote guarantees states with smaller populations have no vote at all.

Many Republicans push the voucher scheme which in many cases gives money to any student to go to any school they like. In Arizona 75% of the recipients of this money already went to private schools and merely paid the school less money.

Choice can exist without vouchers, it's not hard, the UK does it. The only reason to promote vouchers is as a way of funneling money back to the rich.

Nothing is stopping any other party joining the presidential race, and other parties do join. That's not the point here. The point is the mentality that people have towards politics. Many people voted AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump by voting for the other. The money goes to the main two parties, the spending is from the main two parties, and people get into that mentality. Without change, nothing changes, it stays a two horse race.

The Republicans aren't calling for it to change, are they?

You're not calling for it. You go on about CHOICE and then when I show you where you can have CHOICE and where it leads to FREEDOM and you REJECT it. Go figure.

What am I rejecting? And BTW, the Democrats sure as hell like the two party system as well, so don't say it's just Republicans.

So how do you expect to "change the minds" of the voters? Brainwashing? If people want to vote for a third party, it's up to them. Because you don't like voters not exercising that option is not restricting anybody from anything. You're just making that all up.

As for vouchers, they go to lower income families in most cases. That's what they were designed for. The rich don't necessarily make out because with vouchers, you can send your kid to a religious school and even another public school in your area.

Our schools are mostly locally funded. The only way to have school choice without vouchers is to make education federal or state run which I'm sure many don't want to do.

So what if the Democrats like the system too? I don't like them and I don't like the Republicans.

How do you change the minds of voters? Sometimes you need that person who can do it. Sometimes you turn it into a cult. Sometimes it's out of necessity. However in the US I'm not sure it's possible any more. The country is lost.

Vouchers don't always go to lower income parents. That's why in Arizona 75% of vouchers went to RICH KIDS IN PRIVATE SCHOOL. Don't tell me they were designed for poor kids, you need to go research vouchers.

No, I don't think the only way to make school choice is with federal or state run schools.

I'd sure like to see where you get your stats from. Do you have a credible link that shows 75% of kids in Arizona that gets vouchers are rich kids?

Yes, we are stuck with a a two-party system. That's because as time goes on, both parties are drifting further and further from the middle, so the goal is to keep the other side out of power.

On the right, the Tea Party types are fighting for power over the establishment. On the left, the US Communist Party supported their last three presidential nominees. So where is the middle ground between Communism and constitutionalism? There is none. And let's be honest here, if not for Hil-Liar, your nominee would have been an admitted Socialist.

No Child's Behind Left - Greg Palast

"According to No Child Left expert Scott Young, 76% of the money handed out for Arizona's voucher program has gone to children already in private schools."

Greg Palast is a BBC journalist and Guardian (one of the most respected papers in the UK). He seems to specialize in journalism which goes and finds out the truth of things.

Scott Young is, apparently, an expert on No Child Left Behind.

https://commons.wvc.edu/jminharo/pols202/Articles to Choose/No Child Left Behind.pdf

Here's an article.

As for "your nominee", I'm not a Democrat, I don't vote Democrat. Don't paint me with that "if you're not Republican, you're Democrat" nonsense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So how would Republicans make money from giving choice of whether people have to join a union or not? How about choice in education?

Nothing is stopping any other political party from joining a presidential race. In fact, you had four choices to vote for this past election.

Your claim here is that four states chose the President and one was disenfranchised. So do you think only one state should choose the President instead? We've been voting the same way for over 200 years now. the electoral college guarantees that every state has some representation. Popular vote guarantees states with smaller populations have no vote at all.

Many Republicans push the voucher scheme which in many cases gives money to any student to go to any school they like. In Arizona 75% of the recipients of this money already went to private schools and merely paid the school less money.

Choice can exist without vouchers, it's not hard, the UK does it. The only reason to promote vouchers is as a way of funneling money back to the rich.

Nothing is stopping any other party joining the presidential race, and other parties do join. That's not the point here. The point is the mentality that people have towards politics. Many people voted AGAINST Hillary or AGAINST Trump by voting for the other. The money goes to the main two parties, the spending is from the main two parties, and people get into that mentality. Without change, nothing changes, it stays a two horse race.

The Republicans aren't calling for it to change, are they?

You're not calling for it. You go on about CHOICE and then when I show you where you can have CHOICE and where it leads to FREEDOM and you REJECT it. Go figure.

What am I rejecting? And BTW, the Democrats sure as hell like the two party system as well, so don't say it's just Republicans.

So how do you expect to "change the minds" of the voters? Brainwashing? If people want to vote for a third party, it's up to them. Because you don't like voters not exercising that option is not restricting anybody from anything. You're just making that all up.

As for vouchers, they go to lower income families in most cases. That's what they were designed for. The rich don't necessarily make out because with vouchers, you can send your kid to a religious school and even another public school in your area.

Our schools are mostly locally funded. The only way to have school choice without vouchers is to make education federal or state run which I'm sure many don't want to do.

So what if the Democrats like the system too? I don't like them and I don't like the Republicans.

How do you change the minds of voters? Sometimes you need that person who can do it. Sometimes you turn it into a cult. Sometimes it's out of necessity. However in the US I'm not sure it's possible any more. The country is lost.

Vouchers don't always go to lower income parents. That's why in Arizona 75% of vouchers went to RICH KIDS IN PRIVATE SCHOOL. Don't tell me they were designed for poor kids, you need to go research vouchers.

No, I don't think the only way to make school choice is with federal or state run schools.

I'd sure like to see where you get your stats from. Do you have a credible link that shows 75% of kids in Arizona that gets vouchers are rich kids?

Yes, we are stuck with a a two-party system. That's because as time goes on, both parties are drifting further and further from the middle, so the goal is to keep the other side out of power.

On the right, the Tea Party types are fighting for power over the establishment. On the left, the US Communist Party supported their last three presidential nominees. So where is the middle ground between Communism and constitutionalism? There is none. And let's be honest here, if not for Hil-Liar, your nominee would have been an admitted Socialist.

No Child's Behind Left - Greg Palast

"According to No Child Left expert Scott Young, 76% of the money handed out for Arizona's voucher program has gone to children already in private schools."

Greg Palast is a BBC journalist and Guardian (one of the most respected papers in the UK). He seems to specialize in journalism which goes and finds out the truth of things.

Scott Young is, apparently, an expert on No Child Left Behind.

https://commons.wvc.edu/jminharo/pols202/Articles to Choose/No Child Left Behind.pdf

Here's an article.

As for "your nominee", I'm not a Democrat, I don't vote Democrat. Don't paint me with that "if you're not Republican, you're Democrat" nonsense.

Wait a minute, you said "wealthy" parents, not just parents with kids in private schools. My sister sent her two children to Catholic schools. With that and college, she is in debt until after retirement. She's now working two jobs trying to catch up. She makes a good living, but hardly what anybody would consider wealthy.