Republicans gonna Republican with some Big Gubmint. Abortion, mar1juana. . . . Keep your hands off the states, Jeff Sessions! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-marijuana_us_582f58d5e4b030997bbf479c
The article doesn't disputed my approach. Just says some people need safes spaces to not be called out directly. I have gone by what I have read at Breitbart. The names I choose come from them. I don't call them neo-nazis. I haven't read them claim that mantle. But alt-right? They coined it themselves. White nationalist? Parts of their movement claim it. Just as some claim liberal or conservative. But I get that people, especially white people, are in a new political correctness in which it is no longer kosher to call out white supremacy in any form. I get that nobody wants to listen anymore. But you go read What Bannon has published. You go through their public statements and then tell me how they classify. Come back with nuance on what the facts as per written and spoken statements show. It isn't name calling; a claim whites made even in the 1950s. But I read the censorship you are asking for. It is reasonable to a degree. But I will call this spade a spade on this BBS. The tack I take on the real world is just what MLK suggested. To tip-toe around white sensitivity to what politics and social policy some engage in. Name calling? Try appropriate adjectives; ones even they use. Or are we all just that much afraid of this thing that is happening.
Crying wolf? Nope. Anti-Trumpers didn't see his election coming. There's probably other stuff they don't see coming in the next four years of the Trump administration. Need to stay vigilant not sleepwalk, as happened with the election. The idea that we should shut our mouths now in case there is someone worse in the future is ludicrous. The future is unwritten.
You're right, libtards should have been more tolerant of this: "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they (liberals) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing," [Bannon] said in an interview published Friday, his first outside of Breitbart since the election. Maybe you need to brush up on Revelation, son. Maybe we all should. God help us all.
I read in the Washington Post that because of rules pushed through by Harry Reid, it will only take a simple majority to approve Trump's picks. Dumbass.
I wasn't expecting much from Trump, but I'm certainly underwhelmed by these selections. Reince was the only one I thought was good. Sessions is nuts. Hope is he isn't worse than Ashcroft. People were freaking out over Bannon, but this is the guy they should be freaking out over. Flynn is nuts over Muslims and a douche. I don't think Bannon is the racist everyone says he is but the guy is certainly a populist and hard liner. Pompeo will fit right in with the CIA since he wants to spy on all Americans and he wants Snowden executed. He's a jackass.
Donald Trump has met with and is considering Michelle Rhee to be the Secretary of Education. She had previously been the Chancellor of Washington DC's public schools. DC hired her to reform the district, as DC schools were some of the worst in the country. But when she actually started making changes to implement the reforms, they became outraged and fired her. They were apparently expecting her to achieve different results using basically the same methods as always. Imbeciles. Anyway, Rhee is a strong supporter of school choice, as is Trump and are all Republicans, as far as I am aware. However, the teachers unions are opposed to school choice and also to the idea of merit based pay, so the Democrats are opposed as well. Of course real reform of the nation's schools will not be possible without a significant level of flexibility to deal effectively with the underlying problems that school districts and schools face. Rhee would be an excellent choice. However as the mouthpiece of the teacher's unions, the Democrats will not agree.
You know what school choice means? People with money choose to go to school in a better neighborhood; people without money are stuck at the neighborhood school that has just become worse after the kids with money bailed. Enrollment at the bad school goes down, funding goes down, schools that were already bad get worse, schools that were already good get more enrollment and funding. We can't just say "Well, if you want to go to a sucky school, that's your own fault." Public schools are not supposed to suck, period. The federal government should not be in the business of punishing schools for sucking. How about helping them? Oh, now you'r gonna say "Merit pay will make everything great!" How do you measure merit? Some kind of test? Gee, I wonder what happens when everyone's money is riding on test scores. . . . You get year-round practicing for standardized tests! It's been proven to be terrible for education, "teaching to the test." "School choice" really means "let the white kids get away from the 'urban' kids." It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, which is the sole purpose of the Republican party. Unfortunately Joe Sixpack in West Virginia keeps getting duped into thinking that Trump or Romney is going to make Sixpack Jr. into Trump2 or Romney2, and the poor keep getting poorer.
Not once in the 8000 words is that point made. Try reading it. I'm not sure you even read the excerpt. The article was written for people like you as a well researched counter to your approach. I could quote it to counter the second part of your post in fact.
It doesn't mean any of that and you know it. Charter schools are public schools funded by public dollars. Most of the charter schools around the country over the last 10 years have been established in lower income areas and benefit areas that typically have lower performing students. Without competition in the schools, traditional public schools have no incentive to change. Once they get competition, their attitudes begin to change immediately. It is like lighting a white-hot fire right underneath their rear ends, which is exactly what is needed here. Without school choice, this fiasco will continue just like it has been, with a lot of empty promises and talk, but no real change. With competition and a choice for parents - which they want, especially in lower income, inner city areas - there is at least an alternative to the spectacularly bad traditional public schools that have traditionally been the only option available to them, which has consigned generation after generation to academic hell. It should be noted that all of this failure is typically overseen by Democrat mayors and city councils, and has been for decades. Any Republican president was almost certain to support this sort of real reform. If Donald Trump follows through and selects Michelle Rhee as the Secretary of Education, that will clearly demonstrate that he is especially passionate about it.
Democrats whining about Sessions et al but they brought this moment on themselves. Their "demographics are destiny" theory got shat on and now they have to face the music.
Donald Trump will name Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN. This is a bit of a disappointment to me, as I was hoping John Bolton would get the job. If not him, maybe Nigel Farage (just kidding). Nevertheless, Haley will be a breath of fresh air after four years of the notorious Obamabot liar Susan Rice in the job, who became infamous for promoting the lie that the Benghazi massacre was motivated by a YouTube video, during the summer before the 2012 elections.
Well Harry Reid was suggesting that he would do the same, so if Democrats try to be obstructionists, I'd bet they do. Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton really screwed the Democratic party.
We might as well give credit where credit is due. 6 years of pure congressional obstruction by the GOP paid off... big league. Easy to prey on people's insecurities about the state of the nation, the economy, and the government when you can prevent government from serving the people while not having to take any responsibility of historic levels of obstruction (named calling avoidance link | google congressional obstruction). Low media scrutiny also helps when passing a wide array of voter suppression laws designed to help ensure wins can be eked out in pivotal states (example previous referred to many times on the bbs). Helps to have the top-rated cable news network be your propaganda wing (rehash link) and the second place network a distance wannabe looking to cash in. Add to that playing on white racial resentment and fears stoked during the term of a black president, and you have a 21st century update to the old Southern Strategy well played. The icing on the cake is then turning around and blaming your opponent for their lost when they still won the popular vote and the election was decided by a very small percentage of votes in particular states. Just sucks Trump instead of a guy like Romney cashed in. Democrats should take the "L" for not countering the GOP long game (the one in which they wanted to make Obama a one-term president while cementing their congressional gains; And expanding presidential power was not a wise counter) while waiting for Clinton to take the throne. But these inaccurate readings of the recent history and this election is just gonna continue to help pave the way for future Trumps. Given the margins Clinton lost by and the popular vote, the Democrats don't have much they need to revamp. It took Russian intervention and the FBI (why are we pretending Comey didn't happen?), on top of all else, to take states by a slim margin. Leaning away from their pro-corporate stances and emphasizing more the needs of lower and middle incomes while continuing a commitment to pluralism can still work. To draw too many definitive statements would be a mistake despite the intra-party trolls jumping all over the loss to push their white-identity politics vis-a-vis "the working class" despite what the data is showing.
