Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NO, i can understand perfectly well why you are against unions.
Because you're stupid.
No, because in my line of work, I seen the jobs leave. We lost countless customers because of those unions that caused companies to either close down or move out of the country. That's why I'm against unions. If not for them, all those companies and all those jobs would still be here in the Cleveland area.
Again, guy, you are jealous you didn't negotiate such a good deal for yourself, but that's on you.
But I'm sure your boss is happy with that dressage horse he bought on your hard work.
Yes he is, and his limo and yacht too.
There are no negotiations. The union asks and Democrat politicians give. It's not their money so they don't care what they give away. If it was their money, they would be paid the same as the rest of us with the same kind of benefits.
Yes, because I'm the one that will be paying for that early retirement and health benefits. When I'm working and paying other people who are not, you bet I have something to say about it. It's a better reason than any to get rid of the public unions.
Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?
No, because nobody is protecting our tax dollars.
When an employer pays his workers what he wants, that's his business.
When taxpayers are paying workers what we don't want to pay them, that's ours.
There is nobody on our side. That's why these public sector unions are running states into the deep red. Liberal politicians use our money to buy votes as always and I'm about sick of it. But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions. They didn't negotiate a better deal because we were not at the table to make the deal.
This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.
I'm good with public unions, I don't think they should be allowed collective bargaining.
Liberals that love unions are not part of the unions, ever wonder why? Joe claims to love unions but doesn't belong to one. He could form one, however he won't. One percenter claims to love unions but then tells us his businesses aren't unionized.
They have excuses but they don't back their words with actions. It's all BS.
To be totally honest, I don't believe One Percenter one bit. I know successful people, and they don't talk anything like that.
If you want to know where the great jobs are, just look at the hardest places to get in. Government jobs are not a dime a dozen. It's pure luck if you are able to get one. Either that or you know a politician somewhere.
I don't mind unions either provided they are not running your state into a hole and their employees are doing way better than those in the private market. I don't mind my money paying a worker decent wages and benefits, just not ridiculous wages and benefits.
NO, i can understand perfectly well why you are against unions.
Because you're stupid.
No, because in my line of work, I seen the jobs leave. We lost countless customers because of those unions that caused companies to either close down or move out of the country. That's why I'm against unions. If not for them, all those companies and all those jobs would still be here in the Cleveland area.
Again, guy, you are jealous you didn't negotiate such a good deal for yourself, but that's on you.
But I'm sure your boss is happy with that dressage horse he bought on your hard work.
Yes he is, and his limo and yacht too.
There are no negotiations. The union asks and Democrat politicians give. It's not their money so they don't care what they give away. If it was their money, they would be paid the same as the rest of us with the same kind of benefits.
Was it the unions who caused the jobs to leave, or is it just that other countries can do the job much cheaper? This is capitalism. The right love capitalism when it benefits them, and hate it when it doesn't. What would you have then if you don't like capitalism?
Well the answer then is nobody should be applying for those jobs. Then of course people would say people are too lazy to work. Sorry ray but the pay on those jobs was probably bad. Really bad.
Yes, because I'm the one that will be paying for that early retirement and health benefits. When I'm working and paying other people who are not, you bet I have something to say about it. It's a better reason than any to get rid of the public unions.
Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?
No, because nobody is protecting our tax dollars.
When an employer pays his workers what he wants, that's his business.
When taxpayers are paying workers what we don't want to pay them, that's ours.
There is nobody on our side. That's why these public sector unions are running states into the deep red. Liberal politicians use our money to buy votes as always and I'm about sick of it. But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions. They didn't negotiate a better deal because we were not at the table to make the deal.
This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.
I'm good with public unions, I don't think they should be allowed collective bargaining.
Liberals that love unions are not part of the unions, ever wonder why? Joe claims to love unions but doesn't belong to one. He could form one, however he won't. One percenter claims to love unions but then tells us his businesses aren't unionized.
They have excuses but they don't back their words with actions. It's all BS.
To be totally honest, I don't believe One Percenter one bit. I know successful people, and they don't talk anything like that.
If you want to know where the great jobs are, just look at the hardest places to get in. Government jobs are not a dime a dozen. It's pure luck if you are able to get one. Either that or you know a politician somewhere.
I don't mind unions either provided they are not running your state into a hole and their employees are doing way better than those in the private market. I don't mind my money paying a worker decent wages and benefits, just not ridiculous wages and benefits.
One Percenter is a liar, he claims he pays his employees double what the competition pays their employees, he sells it all for the same price as his competitors and claims his profits are higher than his competition.
The unions, if the state unions can't collective bargain, they can't hold a state hostage. FDR, Kennedy and other real Democrats didn't like collective bargaining.
Well the answer then is nobody should be applying for those jobs. Then of course people would say people are too lazy to work. Sorry ray but the pay on those jobs was probably bad. Really bad.
NO, i can understand perfectly well why you are against unions.
Because you're stupid.
No, because in my line of work, I seen the jobs leave. We lost countless customers because of those unions that caused companies to either close down or move out of the country. That's why I'm against unions. If not for them, all those companies and all those jobs would still be here in the Cleveland area.
Again, guy, you are jealous you didn't negotiate such a good deal for yourself, but that's on you.
But I'm sure your boss is happy with that dressage horse he bought on your hard work.
Yes he is, and his limo and yacht too.
There are no negotiations. The union asks and Democrat politicians give. It's not their money so they don't care what they give away. If it was their money, they would be paid the same as the rest of us with the same kind of benefits.
Was it the unions who caused the jobs to leave, or is it just that other countries can do the job much cheaper? This is capitalism. The right love capitalism when it benefits them, and hate it when it doesn't. What would you have then if you don't like capitalism?
Actually it was both. The unions caused the jobs to leave because the company could produce cheaper either out of state or out of the country. American companies have to compete with these foreign entities. In most cases, it was either pack up and leave or close shop and join their employees in the unemployment line. They were losing customers left and right and had to stop the bleeding.
The one I remember the best was a printing shop. I made a delivery there as they were packing the place up. They were a regular customer of ours but I had no idea WTF they were doing, so I asked the supervisor.
Before they unloaded me they went on their union 15 minute break, and the workers started to talk about the problem. I had nothing better to do so I listened in. After some talk, I asked one of the guys if it was worth losing his job because they didn't want to give concessions? He said "Let them close up. Good for them! They don't want to give us what we want, so F-them." When I questioned what he was going to do for a living, he told me his precious union would find him another job, and the rest of the guys were cheering him on as he spoke.
These union people are so brainwashed that common sense escapes their decision making. Even if you don't care about your job, at the very least, care about forcing an American company out of business or out of the country. These guys were like Zombies that didn't seem to care the least. They were convinced their precious union was going to take care of them.
Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?
No, because nobody is protecting our tax dollars.
When an employer pays his workers what he wants, that's his business.
When taxpayers are paying workers what we don't want to pay them, that's ours.
There is nobody on our side. That's why these public sector unions are running states into the deep red. Liberal politicians use our money to buy votes as always and I'm about sick of it. But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions. They didn't negotiate a better deal because we were not at the table to make the deal.
This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.
I'm good with public unions, I don't think they should be allowed collective bargaining.
Liberals that love unions are not part of the unions, ever wonder why? Joe claims to love unions but doesn't belong to one. He could form one, however he won't. One percenter claims to love unions but then tells us his businesses aren't unionized.
They have excuses but they don't back their words with actions. It's all BS.
To be totally honest, I don't believe One Percenter one bit. I know successful people, and they don't talk anything like that.
If you want to know where the great jobs are, just look at the hardest places to get in. Government jobs are not a dime a dozen. It's pure luck if you are able to get one. Either that or you know a politician somewhere.
I don't mind unions either provided they are not running your state into a hole and their employees are doing way better than those in the private market. I don't mind my money paying a worker decent wages and benefits, just not ridiculous wages and benefits.
One Percenter is a liar, he claims he pays his employees double what the competition pays their employees, he sells it all for the same price as his competitors and claims his profits are higher than his competition.
The unions, if the state unions can't collective bargain, they can't hold a state hostage. FDR, Kennedy and other real Democrats didn't like collective bargaining.
You can't explain that to these leftists. Most of the problem is the state goes into the red because of unfunded liabilities. If a state worker retires at 55, and doesn't pass away until 85, we the taxpayers have to pay him his retirement and medical benefits for 30 years while he's not working. As we all know, healthcare doesn't get cheaper, it gets more expensive. Then the politicians have to scramble to figure out how to support these retirees.
What you pointed out with One Percenter is what tipped me off he doesn't own a hotdog stand. You can't stay in business in our consumer environment that way. People want cheap products, and they don't care who they put out of work to get them. It's why Walmart is number one and has been for some time. One of our customers makes products for Walmart, and they are constantly on their ass about producing cheaper. So they deal with vendors that can provide them with the cheapest products possible. For that to happen, they have to either pay their employees the least possible, make investments in automation, or both. Walmart is a huge customer of theirs. When Walmart says jump, they ask how high.
No, because nobody is protecting our tax dollars.
When an employer pays his workers what he wants, that's his business.
When taxpayers are paying workers what we don't want to pay them, that's ours.
There is nobody on our side. That's why these public sector unions are running states into the deep red. Liberal politicians use our money to buy votes as always and I'm about sick of it. But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions. They didn't negotiate a better deal because we were not at the table to make the deal.
This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.
I'm good with public unions, I don't think they should be allowed collective bargaining.
Liberals that love unions are not part of the unions, ever wonder why? Joe claims to love unions but doesn't belong to one. He could form one, however he won't. One percenter claims to love unions but then tells us his businesses aren't unionized.
They have excuses but they don't back their words with actions. It's all BS.
To be totally honest, I don't believe One Percenter one bit. I know successful people, and they don't talk anything like that.
If you want to know where the great jobs are, just look at the hardest places to get in. Government jobs are not a dime a dozen. It's pure luck if you are able to get one. Either that or you know a politician somewhere.
I don't mind unions either provided they are not running your state into a hole and their employees are doing way better than those in the private market. I don't mind my money paying a worker decent wages and benefits, just not ridiculous wages and benefits.
One Percenter is a liar, he claims he pays his employees double what the competition pays their employees, he sells it all for the same price as his competitors and claims his profits are higher than his competition.
The unions, if the state unions can't collective bargain, they can't hold a state hostage. FDR, Kennedy and other real Democrats didn't like collective bargaining.
You can't explain that to these leftists. Most of the problem is the state goes into the red because of unfunded liabilities. If a state worker retires at 55, and doesn't pass away until 85, we the taxpayers have to pay him his retirement and medical benefits for 30 years while he's not working. As we all know, healthcare doesn't get cheaper, it gets more expensive. Then the politicians have to scramble to figure out how to support these retirees.
What you pointed out with One Percenter is what tipped me off he doesn't own a hotdog stand. You can't stay in business in our consumer environment that way. People want cheap products, and they don't care who they put out of work to get them. It's why Walmart is number one and has been for some time. One of our customers makes products for Walmart, and they are constantly on their ass about producing cheaper. So they deal with vendors that can provide them with the cheapest products possible. For that to happen, they have to either pay their employees the least possible, make investments in automation, or both. Walmart is a huge customer of theirs. When Walmart says jump, they ask how high.
The state of Oregon has a retirement program called PERS and it almost bankrupted the state. Many employees after retirement are getting more than their monthly salary in this system which was killing the state. Terrible for the taxpayers.
NO, i can understand perfectly well why you are against unions.
Because you're stupid.
No, because in my line of work, I seen the jobs leave. We lost countless customers because of those unions that caused companies to either close down or move out of the country. That's why I'm against unions. If not for them, all those companies and all those jobs would still be here in the Cleveland area.
Again, guy, you are jealous you didn't negotiate such a good deal for yourself, but that's on you.
But I'm sure your boss is happy with that dressage horse he bought on your hard work.
Yes he is, and his limo and yacht too.
There are no negotiations. The union asks and Democrat politicians give. It's not their money so they don't care what they give away. If it was their money, they would be paid the same as the rest of us with the same kind of benefits.
Was it the unions who caused the jobs to leave, or is it just that other countries can do the job much cheaper? This is capitalism. The right love capitalism when it benefits them, and hate it when it doesn't. What would you have then if you don't like capitalism?
Actually it was both. The unions caused the jobs to leave because the company could produce cheaper either out of state or out of the country. American companies have to compete with these foreign entities. In most cases, it was either pack up and leave or close shop and join their employees in the unemployment line. They were losing customers left and right and had to stop the bleeding.
The one I remember the best was a printing shop. I made a delivery there as they were packing the place up. They were a regular customer of ours but I had no idea WTF they were doing, so I asked the supervisor.
Before they unloaded me they went on their union 15 minute break, and the workers started to talk about the problem. I had nothing better to do so I listened in. After some talk, I asked one of the guys if it was worth losing his job because they didn't want to give concessions? He said "Let them close up. Good for them! They don't want to give us what we want, so F-them." When I questioned what he was going to do for a living, he told me his precious union would find him another job, and the rest of the guys were cheering him on as he spoke.
These union people are so brainwashed that common sense escapes their decision making. Even if you don't care about your job, at the very least, care about forcing an American company out of business or out of the country. These guys were like Zombies that didn't seem to care the least. They were convinced their precious union was going to take care of them.
Okay it was both. The Unions trying to give their members a living wage or a wage they think their members deserve, and the companies seeing that they can get things cheaper. Now, remember that Trump wants these low paid jobs that can be done much cheaper abroad to come back to the US instead of improving education so that higher paid jobs are made in the US. Go figure.
But it's all about competition. You either out perform your rivals or you go bust, or in the case of the US you run to the govt and demand loads of money in order to stay. Capitalism is good because it gets rid of the deadwood. Workers doing a job they're not willing to accept the money for (because it's too low) are deadwood and that deadwood should go to other countries, and the US should then learn from this. But no. They do the opposite, demand that these jobs stay. It never ends well. The UK had this problem with their car industry. What car industry? Oh, yeah, they propped up the car industry so much that it never improved, was never able to compete then when they took the money away it collapsed in an instant.
The Unions aren't doing anything wrong. In fact they're doing the right thing. They're helping in destroy the poor companies, allowing space for up and coming companies to come in and take their place, and forcing the country to analyze how it should work in the future. But no, everyone does the opposite. That's how countries end up going downhill.
which doesn't help the problem you guys say you want to correct. if you are too poor to afford private school, you are still too poor even with a voucher.
How does that help the poor kids again?
Oh, wait. Helping the poor kids was never the plan, was it?
I said in most cases. When you get a voucher, you can spend it anyway you like. Find a school that you can afford to send your children to.
Do you really believe that parents are too stupid to make the best decision for their children's education? If your public school is loaded with drugs and violence, any school is better for your kid if he or she really wants to learn.
You want me to pay school taxes AND pay you a voucher to put your kids in private school?
It would only be the start. When it becomes more popular, you can take public money out of the public schools and apply it to vouchers. I have a better idea though: I think home school parents should be able to teach other children in the neighborhood as well. Last I looked, the average cost per capita is something like 12K per year per student. Why not give home school parents 8K a year for each student they decide to teach? It would replace that lost second income while at the same time, save the taxpayers 4K per student every year.
That 12k a year figure is bogus because of the exorbitant amounts spent on special education. In the 1960s, if your child was disabled, they simply did not go to school. Now we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate ONE child with serious medical issues. The actual dollar figure that a school sees is probably closer to half that amount. In 2006, we received 4K per student in my high school. That was it.
Here is a breakdown of costs that are included in total price of public education. I don't see special education as a separate category:
Fast Facts
And to be honest, private school is not that much cheaper if at all compared to public school.
Where is that? I'll check the teacher pay scale and cross reference it with other professionals living in that area.Where are schools excellent, and teachers low paid?
Where I live the schools are not very good and the teachers are paid excellent. How do I know? My former tenant used to work as a teacher here.
Teaching in Maple Heights City School District | Salary | Jobs | Employment (Ohio) | Teacher.org
That ENTIRE school district has fewer teachers than ONE high school where I taught.
I think if you check anywhere in this area it's around the same if not more depending on where you go.
Where is that? I'll check the teacher pay scale and cross reference it with other professionals living in that area.Where I live the schools are not very good and the teachers are paid excellent. How do I know? My former tenant used to work as a teacher here.
Teaching in Maple Heights City School District | Salary | Jobs | Employment (Ohio) | Teacher.org
That ENTIRE school district has fewer teachers than ONE high school where I taught.
I think if you check anywhere in this area it's around the same if not more depending on where you go.
In that case, your school districts are grossly inefficient.
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.
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.
You have a choice in education. Either attend the tax-payer provided public schools or pay your own way at a private school. That is your choice.
Your replies are confusing. In this conversation, we were discussing the presidential election and the electoral college. Are you sure something isn't wrong with your computer?
The Florida Voucher programs is limited to Students with certain disabilitiesThe charters schools aren't doing any better on average.
That may well be the case, but the Stanford University CREDO study in 2015 shows that urban charter schools are greatly outperforming public schools.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...charter-schools-making-a-difference-in-cities
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/03/16/why-charter-schools-work-or-dont
But, I feel that with Charter Schools and allowing the money to follow the student, competition in the school system is a good thing. It enables parents to choose any school, public, private, or charter, that best meets their children's needs.
As for your assertion that troubled or special needs children are shuttled off to only public schools is patently incorrect. Whether a child is exceptional, troubled, or special needs, there are many private and charter schools that cater to such children, with outstanding results. Especially in urban areas.
So what about the vast numbers of kids with no opportunity for charter or private schools?
Florida has vouchers when I was a teacher there. Do you know how many private high schools accepted vouchers? None. We were the largest school district in Florida and had no high school students choose vouchers.
Where I taught last year, the private Catholic school stops at 8th grade. All of the students go to public high school. Where I teach now has no private or parochial schools inside about a 40 mile radius. Where do those kids go?
and students with IEP's. However, in Miami Dade, the largest school district, there are many charter schools. I would estimate at least a hundred. They are tuition free but may have admission requirements.
Miami-Dade County Public Schools - Senior high Schools Directory
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx
I said in most cases. When you get a voucher, you can spend it anyway you like. Find a school that you can afford to send your children to.
Do you really believe that parents are too stupid to make the best decision for their children's education? If your public school is loaded with drugs and violence, any school is better for your kid if he or she really wants to learn.
You want me to pay school taxes AND pay you a voucher to put your kids in private school?
It would only be the start. When it becomes more popular, you can take public money out of the public schools and apply it to vouchers. I have a better idea though: I think home school parents should be able to teach other children in the neighborhood as well. Last I looked, the average cost per capita is something like 12K per year per student. Why not give home school parents 8K a year for each student they decide to teach? It would replace that lost second income while at the same time, save the taxpayers 4K per student every year.
That 12k a year figure is bogus because of the exorbitant amounts spent on special education. In the 1960s, if your child was disabled, they simply did not go to school. Now we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate ONE child with serious medical issues. The actual dollar figure that a school sees is probably closer to half that amount. In 2006, we received 4K per student in my high school. That was it.
Here is a breakdown of costs that are included in total price of public education. I don't see special education as a separate category:
Fast Facts
And to be honest, private school is not that much cheaper if at all compared to public school.
That just shows that your stats are suspect.
I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.Well, good for them......if they turned out so wonderful, why are you whining about it?
Because tax money only goes to public schools. At the very least, parents that send their kids to private school should not be funding the public school since their kids don't attend. Then they can use that money to help pay for their own children's education.
I don't have any children attending school. I pay taxes for everyone's kids to attend school.
Me too unfortunately. Here you are assessed tax by how much your property is worth and not by how much you use the school. Me nor any of my tenants have children in the school system. But I probably pay more tax to the school than the guy down the street with five kids in the school. I do have a problem with that.
Does everybody benefit when yards are mowed nicely and hedges are trim? Why doesn't the public pay for that? Does everybody benefit by me going to work in the morning? I can feed myself, pay for the roof over my head, and create tax money for the city I work in and the city I live in. Should taxpayers buy me a new car every three years so I can get to work? The internet is a source for getting unlimited information. You can use that information to see weather patterns, to learn things you've never studied before, to help your children with homework. So why am I paying for my own internet when informed people benefits society so much?
You can use that "benefit society" for just about anything. Sure, educated children can benefit society, but it should not be their liability either. What's wrong with the parents educating (or paying for) their children? Society doesn't benefit anymore with me paying for their education than the parents.
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.
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.
You have a choice in education. Either attend the tax-payer provided public schools or pay your own way at a private school. That is your choice.
Your replies are confusing. In this conversation, we were discussing the presidential election and the electoral college. Are you sure something isn't wrong with your computer?
You must be straying off topic then. Reread your post I quoted. It is in big red letters now.
