Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Conservative65]

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

I'm on the right and don't say anything about a popular mandate. I've made it clear that electoral votes matter, popular votes don't, and your bitch lost.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

I have no idea what you mean by popular mandate. Do you know what a mandate is?

The point is we don't know who would have won the popular vote because nobody campaigned to get the popular vote. You're trying to make a point that she was the clear winner when it came to the majority, but there is no truth to that. She just happened to get the popular vote while trying to get the electoral votes.

In order to find out what the majority of voters think, we would have to have two elections: one for the electoral college, and another one for the popular vote. Then we can say what the majority actually wanted. Because I'm sure there are many Trump supporters who just stayed home in states like New York and California realizing their vote wouldn't change anything because there is no way in hell the Republicans could get the electoral votes.

 

[danielpalos]

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

What you keeping saying is things about the popular vote. THEY DON'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTING A PRESIDENT.

winning is the Only thing that matters to the right; i got it.

 

[Conservative65]

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

What you keeping saying is things about the popular vote. THEY DON'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTING A PRESIDENT.

winning is the Only thing that matters to the right; i got it.

Since the goal is to win in an election, that's all that matters. When it's done accordion got the Constitution, that's all that matters.

Your bitch lost.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

What you keeping saying is things about the popular vote. THEY DON'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTING A PRESIDENT.

winning is the Only thing that matters to the right; i got it.

Isn't that what matters to the left?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

I just thought of a good scenario for this.

Let's say that you and I wanted to see who the best pool player was, so we decide to play a game of 8 ball.

You break and end up with stripes, so you aim to pocket as many striped balls as you can. In the process, you accidentally pocket two or three of my solid balls.

I sink the rest of my solid balls and then the eight ball to win the game, but you make claim you are the better pool player and should be the winner since you sunk more balls than I did.

We were not playing to see who could sink the most balls, we were playing to see who could put their own balls in the pockets and win by sinking the eight ball.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

The difference is both candidates ran to get the most electoral college votes--not the popular vote. Now if Trump ran to get the most people, he might have just won that battle too. But he didn't campaign for that. He campaigned to get the most electoral college votes.

Since both candidates were campaigning for the same thing, it's more than a fair contest. The popular vote is irrelevant because that was not the goal of either candidate.

What you're trying to say is that Trump won the election the way we've always had them, but Hillary won by a different set of rules. You can't change the rules after the game--only before.

the only thing i am trying to say is that the right is simply being disingenuous, like usual, when claiming any popular mandate for their candidate.

What you keeping saying is things about the popular vote. THEY DON'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTING A PRESIDENT.

winning is the Only thing that matters to the right; i got it.

Isn't that what matters to the left?

not when we had the popular vote and popular mandate.

 

[jon_berzerk]

and they should

with bullshit like this happening in the public schools

another area that needs to be drained of the insidious poison known as liberalism



DESPICABLE: Teacher bullies 9-year-old girl for deer hunting: “Killing animals is not what we do!”


DESPICABLE: Teacher bullies 9-year-old girl for deer hunting: “Killing animals is not what we do!”

 

[bripat9643]

It's great to see these kids doing so well. Kids who would otherwise be treated as victims because of their skin color and family income are doing great because they're held to the same standards and expectations as anyone else. In a tougher academic environment.

My mixed-race family is so proud of my daughter, and we love it when she tells us stories of these kids. Brown or black skin doesn't mean a kid should be treated differently, and this school proves it.

Nice dodge to not answer the questions, Mac.

One more try.

Is this charter school taking the special needs kids and the disciplinary problem kids? Or are they just taking kids where they can show good results with?

Not trying to dodge anything. It's not a private school, it's a charter school. Apply, do the paperwork, you're in.

Ain't that great for the kids?

This IS about the KIDS, right?
.

charter schools pick and choose the kids they want. they divest public schools of funding and make unaccountable corporations rich.

Charter schools are public schools, dumbass.

 

[Papageorgio]

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

There is not a difference, because the "will of the people" is to follow the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the Constitution then fine. But the "will of the people" elected Trump.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because he didn't get his way and now he is crying, if the situation was reversed he would have been praising the Electoral College and the process. If that is all you got, then that is all you got.

How long are these idiots going to bring up popular votes when the Constitution says absolutely nothing about them when it comes to choosing the President. It's safe to safe when the founders created a system where each State got electoral votes based on representation in Congress they didn't consider the concept of using popular votes to determine how those electoral votes within each State would be decided. The choice to use popular votes to determine how a State's electoral votes are decided is a State decision not one set by the Constitution.

it is about the right's claim to any popular mandate.

You keep moving the bar. You didn't mention a mandate until now. Do you often move the bar when you are losing?

 

[JoeB131]

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

Because it was written by a bunch of slave raping assholes who shit in chamber pots and thought bleeding was a valid medical treatment?

Works for me, too. I sent my kids to private school which means I had to pay in addition to paying the taxes for public schools. In the end, my kids would have received the same thing they did and I wouldn't have had to pay for something they didn't use.

Obviously, you didn't learn the meaning of sarcasm while you were away...

 

[JoeB131]

There is not a difference, because the "will of the people" is to follow the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the Constitution then fine. But the "will of the people" elected Trump.

no, most people voted against that Nazi fucker...

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not a Republican, and Kasich was my man, I would have voted Sanders over Trump, I don't care if you believe me or not. I love how you knuckle dragging idiots have to bring up race when it has nothing to do with the subject. You are a dumb SOB.

Mostly because we've been watching you guys lose your shit for the last 8 years when you saw a Negro in the White House.

Thing is, again, if we turned education into a free market, the market would correct. If private school tuitions went up too high, the market's response would be for someone to see the opportunity to undercut them and provide solid education for a much lower price. Let the actual consumers of the product (in this instance, education) do the shopping, and you will see the providers dropping prices and offering incentives to gain business, just like any other industry.

No, dummy, the market would do what is most profitable, not what is most effective or even good policy.

We have already seen what happens when you make higher education a for-profit business. You really want to do that to primary education?

 

[Papageorgio]

There is not a difference, because the "will of the people" is to follow the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the Constitution then fine. But the "will of the people" elected Trump.

no, most people voted against that Nazi fucker...

Change the Constitution don't bitch to me about it. I voted for someone else, dumb ass!

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm not a Republican, and Kasich was my man, I would have voted Sanders over Trump, I don't care if you believe me or not. I love how you knuckle dragging idiots have to bring up race when it has nothing to do with the subject. You are a dumb SOB.

Mostly because we've been watching you guys lose your shit for the last 8 years when you saw a Negro in the White House.

That's right, I forgot you are an ignorant moron that has to lump people into two categories.

I didn't lose anything, I didn't like many of his policies and a few I supported. Sorry you aren't very smart and have to play the race card because you are smart enough to do anything else.

Now it's time to watch you lose your shit because you didn't get your way and are crying like a baby.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Please log off and go read your Constitution.

i already did; that is why i noticed you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause. did you have a point to make?

Then I suggest reading comprehension lessons because you wasted your time.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Technically, they can do that now, assuming they live in a state that's amenable to homeschooling in the first place. Arizona, for example. Nothing says that THE PARENT has to be the one to do the schooling. My adult daughter was homeschooled, and at the time, our church operated a small school in their annex that actually put the kids through the homeschool curriculum they used. By the time my adult son came along, the church was no longer doing that, but they facilitated us continuing to get the curriculum materials, and we taught him at home.

Now that I'm homeschooling our "surprise" third child, we use a different curriculum, and I've had a few friends ask about the possibility of me including their kids, as well, so that they can get the benefits of homeschooling without having to slash their income in half. If Arizona was willing to provide vouchers to homeschoolers, I would be more than happy to quit my job and teach homeschoolers full-time. I guarantee you, they would graduate with skills FAR surpassing those of public school kids.

I think that would be the greatest thing in the world. But there is one reason why you'll never see that--Unions.

Taking money and students out of the public school system would be a huge threat to the NEA. That's because it would probably become so popular they would lose a considerable share.

True, and I frankly think that's as it should be. It would do NEA members - and society - a world of good if they learned how to operate in a competitive, results-oriented environment.

You education-haters put too much power to the NEA. There are other teacher's unions and numerous states where unions are not even allowed. Shouldn't those states be far and above those where the NEA has dominance?

They do not.

I have been a union member twice. They screwed me over twice. Never again.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

The CONSTITUTION says the electoral votes chooses the President. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you hate the Constitution?

nothing but diversion as that form of fallacy? the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

That is completely irrelevant. That is what everyone is trying to get you to see.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They will of the Republic, which is for the people and by the people.

no one is questioning that. however, it is not the will of the People.

Yes it is, the "will of the people" set ratified the Constitution and the process of electing a President and Vice President. The "will of people" have not changed this procedure, so the "will of the people" has been carried out according to the Constitution. If the "will of the people" want to change the election process, then that is what the "will of the people" need to do. To say that the results of the election were no the "will of the people" is a dishonest statement.

the electoral college is not the popular vote. the people are the popular vote.

We already established that there is a difference between the two. You claim it wasn't the "will of the people". According to the Constitution it is the "will of the people". You are simply wrong with that statement. Please try to focus.

The point is, there is a difference between the will of the Electoral College and the will of the People.

No. There are 51 individual presidential elections, and each state decides how those electoral votes are awarded.. You do realize that two states are NOT winner-take-all.

The candidate who wins the most electoral votes nationwide gets elected if they get 270. If not, it goes to the House and Senate.