Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Homeschooling is not an option for two working parents. Perhaps they should be discouraged from having kids.

How about the more humane approach and allow vouchers.

This person has obviously not bothered reading the thread.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

She did plenty wrong, it's just with that little cabal they have up there has people watching out for their own kind that stopped them from doing the right thing. That's one of the reasons Trump won. It's also the reason Comey had a pile of resignations from his agents on his desk.

That sounds like the FBI was putting politics before good investigations. Point was, Comey investigated Hillary twice, broke the rules about announcing investigations before an election. Did it help Trump win the swing states and override the will of the people, or was it the Russian Hacking?

Doesn't really matter. The real problem is that a guy most of us didn't want is taking over... and there's going to be hell to pay when he fucks it up.

It's a good thing Trump won with a mandate....

the electoral college; there was no popular mandate.

Yes, a mandate, by the people....

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

The popular vote was never completely counted, so your statement is pure conjecture.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's a good thing Trump won with a mandate....

the electoral college; there was no popular mandate.

Yes, a mandate, by the people....

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, a mandate, by the people....

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

Read the constitution....you sound foolish.....

i am trying to be a poet, and know it. why do you appeal to ignorance?

Somebody has to save liberals from themselves.

 

[bendog]

the electoral college; there was no popular mandate.

Yes, a mandate, by the people....

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, a mandate, by the people....

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

That has to be one of the must ignorant statements I have seen in a while. Your high school teacher is somewhere shaking their head at such an incredible lack of learning.

Go back and look at how the Constitution was written and you just might see the massive error you are making. Heck, most people do not realize that Rhode Island never even attended the constitutional convention because they were certain that they were going to get screwed by the larger states. FACT.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, a mandate, by the people....

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

 

[bendog]

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

That has to be one of the must ignorant statements I have seen in a while. Your high school teacher is somewhere shaking their head at such an incredible lack of learning.

Go back and look at how the Constitution was written and you just might see the massive error you are making. Heck, most people do not realize that Rhode Island never even attended the constitutional convention because they were certain that they were going to get screwed by the larger states. FACT.

fck yourself, Rock

 

[bendog]

just right wing fantasy? the democrat won the popular vote.

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

That has to be one of the must ignorant statements I have seen in a while. Your high school teacher is somewhere shaking their head at such an incredible lack of learning.

Go back and look at how the Constitution was written and you just might see the massive error you are making. Heck, most people do not realize that Rhode Island never even attended the constitutional convention because they were certain that they were going to get screwed by the larger states. FACT.

fck yourself, Rock

You make a personal attack because I just showed your ignorance. Great job!

You must be a hoot at parties!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

Proof of this ridiculous assertion?

Were those faithless electors for Trump party officials? What about Hillary's faithless electors?

 

[Papageorgio]

What did they win?

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

Electors are not all party insiders or elites. The Republican electors were pretty common people, except for a few. The Democratic electors had Clinton and a few high profile names, however for the most part not insiders or elites. I knew an elector a few years back and she was far from an insider or an elite. She was a coworker with a 8-5 job, two kids a husband who worked a job, were just buying a home a modest home in a modest neighborhood.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

OK ray then how about nobody in america has kids except if they make at least 500 thousand dollars per year.
Then you would complain our military is shrinking because people aren't having enough kids. I would highly disagree and perhaps ahuge birthrate decline for many years would be the way to go. That means a lot more low paying jobs unfilled which to my retired viewpoint, and yes I collect social security...happily. With businesses struggling to find workers we all win.

You don't need a half-mil a year to educate your children. There are plenty of families making less than six figures that do it today. One of those families are tenants of mine. The father works as a computer tech (making nowhere near six figures) and his wife stays home and home schools their two children. A friend of mine the same. He works two full-time jobs and has been supporting his family since he and his wife got married. They raised three children all home schooled and again, he makes nowhere near six figures.

Now as far as public school, I don't mind doing my part. But I do believe that people with kids in the school should pay more than people with no kids in the school. As I stated earlier, I'm paying more to the schools with no children attending than other people on my street that do have kids in those schools. If anybody here thinks that's fair, I would sure love for them to explain to me how.

You own more valuable properties, therefore you pay higher taxes. There ya go!

There you go what????

Because my property is valued better than others on the street, I should pay more for their kids education? Again, please explain the equity or how that makes any sense.

Your property is valued less than mine, but you have four kids in the school. I have no kids in school, yet I'm paying more into that school than you are and you call that fair?

I have a better idea: why don't people with kids in school pay more for the school than people that don't? That's much fairer than forcing people with higher property value to pay for education.

You have a strange concept of what is fair. THAT is the problem. Don't like it? Vote to change it. As it stands, that how we fund schools.

How is that a strange concept?

When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?

When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?

It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

 

[bendog]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

Electors are not all party insiders or elites. The Republican electors were pretty common people, except for a few. The Democratic electors had Clinton and a few high profile names, however for the most part not insiders or elites. I knew an elector a few years back and she was far from an insider or an elite. She was a coworker with a 8-5 job, two kids a husband who worked a job, were just buying a home a modest home in a modest neighborhood.

More or less they are longtime party members and workers who are rewarded. For example.

11 Tennesseans Confirmed as Presidential Electors | TNGOP

The state gop executive committees were not, by and large, places where Trump got love. He ran an insurgent campaign to drain the swamp, after all. But that's not really the issue. Almost all electors will respect the votes of their states, even if they voted for someone else in the primary. (and Trump received a plurality not a maj in the primaries)

But that's not really the issue. The issue is the concept of the EC was 1. to prevent a tyrant or someone who didn't respect the notion of transfer of power based on elections and 2. preserve the numbers advantage of allocating the number of electors partially on each state having two senators despite population size.

There's no danger we Americans will elect someone who is not committed to the republic. If states just allocated electors based on the pop vote in each state, the protection for less populous states is still there. The EC is an anachronism that doesn't reflect the will of voters as well as it could. And I really have no idea who'd have won had the EC been figured proportionally. It still wouldn't be just a pop vote wins.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

She did plenty wrong, it's just with that little cabal they have up there has people watching out for their own kind that stopped them from doing the right thing. That's one of the reasons Trump won. It's also the reason Comey had a pile of resignations from his agents on his desk.

That sounds like the FBI was putting politics before good investigations. Point was, Comey investigated Hillary twice, broke the rules about announcing investigations before an election. Did it help Trump win the swing states and override the will of the people, or was it the Russian Hacking?

Doesn't really matter. The real problem is that a guy most of us didn't want is taking over... and there's going to be hell to pay when he fucks it up.

Comey didn't break any law by telling Congress the investigation was reopened. What was he supposed to do, wait until after the election, and then what? If Hillary won and he had more evidence against her, there would have really been hell to pay. He had no choice but to tell them what new developments came about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK ray then how about nobody in america has kids except if they make at least 500 thousand dollars per year.
Then you would complain our military is shrinking because people aren't having enough kids. I would highly disagree and perhaps ahuge birthrate decline for many years would be the way to go. That means a lot more low paying jobs unfilled which to my retired viewpoint, and yes I collect social security...happily. With businesses struggling to find workers we all win.

You don't need a half-mil a year to educate your children. There are plenty of families making less than six figures that do it today. One of those families are tenants of mine. The father works as a computer tech (making nowhere near six figures) and his wife stays home and home schools their two children. A friend of mine the same. He works two full-time jobs and has been supporting his family since he and his wife got married. They raised three children all home schooled and again, he makes nowhere near six figures.

Now as far as public school, I don't mind doing my part. But I do believe that people with kids in the school should pay more than people with no kids in the school. As I stated earlier, I'm paying more to the schools with no children attending than other people on my street that do have kids in those schools. If anybody here thinks that's fair, I would sure love for them to explain to me how.

You own more valuable properties, therefore you pay higher taxes. There ya go!

There you go what????

Because my property is valued better than others on the street, I should pay more for their kids education? Again, please explain the equity or how that makes any sense.

Your property is valued less than mine, but you have four kids in the school. I have no kids in school, yet I'm paying more into that school than you are and you call that fair?

I have a better idea: why don't people with kids in school pay more for the school than people that don't? That's much fairer than forcing people with higher property value to pay for education.

You have a strange concept of what is fair. THAT is the problem. Don't like it? Vote to change it. As it stands, that how we fund schools.

How is that a strange concept?

When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?

When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?

It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.

I don't benefit from them seeing the movie, or eating dinner. I do benefit from the fact that there is an employable person at the ticket counter or cooking the food. You do too, despite all of your ridiculous posturing and excuses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't need a half-mil a year to educate your children. There are plenty of families making less than six figures that do it today. One of those families are tenants of mine. The father works as a computer tech (making nowhere near six figures) and his wife stays home and home schools their two children. A friend of mine the same. He works two full-time jobs and has been supporting his family since he and his wife got married. They raised three children all home schooled and again, he makes nowhere near six figures.

Now as far as public school, I don't mind doing my part. But I do believe that people with kids in the school should pay more than people with no kids in the school. As I stated earlier, I'm paying more to the schools with no children attending than other people on my street that do have kids in those schools. If anybody here thinks that's fair, I would sure love for them to explain to me how.

You own more valuable properties, therefore you pay higher taxes. There ya go!

There you go what????

Because my property is valued better than others on the street, I should pay more for their kids education? Again, please explain the equity or how that makes any sense.

Your property is valued less than mine, but you have four kids in the school. I have no kids in school, yet I'm paying more into that school than you are and you call that fair?

I have a better idea: why don't people with kids in school pay more for the school than people that don't? That's much fairer than forcing people with higher property value to pay for education.

You have a strange concept of what is fair. THAT is the problem. Don't like it? Vote to change it. As it stands, that how we fund schools.

How is that a strange concept?

When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?

When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?

It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.

I don't benefit from them seeing the movie, or eating dinner. I do benefit from the fact that there is an employable person at the ticket counter or cooking the food. You do too, despite all of your ridiculous posturing and excuses.

Sure I do. Education is a good thing at times. But what does that have to do with having the parents pay more of the bill than the rest of the public? Will these kids learn more if I pay for their education than their parent(s)?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

Electors are not all party insiders or elites. The Republican electors were pretty common people, except for a few. The Democratic electors had Clinton and a few high profile names, however for the most part not insiders or elites. I knew an elector a few years back and she was far from an insider or an elite. She was a coworker with a 8-5 job, two kids a husband who worked a job, were just buying a home a modest home in a modest neighborhood.

More or less they are longtime party members and workers who are rewarded. For example.

11 Tennesseans Confirmed as Presidential Electors | TNGOP

The state gop executive committees were not, by and large, places where Trump got love. He ran an insurgent campaign to drain the swamp, after all. But that's not really the issue. Almost all electors will respect the votes of their states, even if they voted for someone else in the primary. (and Trump received a plurality not a maj in the primaries)

But that's not really the issue. The issue is the concept of the EC was 1. to prevent a tyrant or someone who didn't respect the notion of transfer of power based on elections and 2. preserve the numbers advantage of allocating the number of electors partially on each state having two senators despite population size.

There's no danger we Americans will elect someone who is not committed to the republic. If states just allocated electors based on the pop vote in each state, the protection for less populous states is still there. The EC is an anachronism that doesn't reflect the will of voters as well as it could. And I really have no idea who'd have won had the EC been figured proportionally. It still wouldn't be just a pop vote wins.

Tell that to the people of Wyoming. God gave you a brain. Please use it accordingly!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You own more valuable properties, therefore you pay higher taxes. There ya go!

There you go what????

Because my property is valued better than others on the street, I should pay more for their kids education? Again, please explain the equity or how that makes any sense.

Your property is valued less than mine, but you have four kids in the school. I have no kids in school, yet I'm paying more into that school than you are and you call that fair?

I have a better idea: why don't people with kids in school pay more for the school than people that don't? That's much fairer than forcing people with higher property value to pay for education.

You have a strange concept of what is fair. THAT is the problem. Don't like it? Vote to change it. As it stands, that how we fund schools.

How is that a strange concept?

When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?

When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?

It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.

I don't benefit from them seeing the movie, or eating dinner. I do benefit from the fact that there is an employable person at the ticket counter or cooking the food. You do too, despite all of your ridiculous posturing and excuses.

Sure I do. Education is a good thing at times. But what does that have to do with having the parents pay more of the bill than the rest of the public? Will these kids learn more if I pay for their education than their parent(s)?

You pay a percentage, just like they do.

It is just like income tax. Why are you so wrapped up in appearing to be ignorant and grouchy at the same time?