U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Spaghetti Cat]

 

Not to take away from anything you've said, but coming from the joe on the street, we see spending in education going up and up over the years. Yet there is little that go to teachers ( I guess I should say teachers that start out or aren't unionized)

Teachers are generally underpaid. Teachers unions are a right-wing boogeyman but in reality they haven't even managed to get the wages seen in other professions where you need an expensive four year degree (engineering and such). Also we're talking about public sector unions, they would represent all teachers.

 

'Teacher should get minimum wage' for f*cks sake. Like how removed from reality do you have to be where you think huge multinational corporations that use slaves and don't pay their taxes are fine but teachers and their crazy demands are an obstacle we have to overcome?

 

 

Ok a couple things here, let's try and go over them...

 

I'm not sure that you are correct that public sector unions represent all teachers, maybe Queen can shed some light on this. From what I recall, and this may just be my state, most teachers starting out have to work for something like 2-5 yeas before being accepted into a union. Again this might vary state from state. My only point would be that the customers (in this case the kids and their parents) should be prioritized above any union. Educating the kids are more important than maintaining a bureaucracy, at least in my opinion.

 

Never said that teachers should get minimum wage. In fact here's what I did say:

 

 

 

Minimum wage seems a bit low for that kind of education that you all have to go through. I know you don't do it for the money, but you should be compensated in regards to the job that you do.

 

and:

 

 

 

Seems like that money gets hovered up at higher levels and doesn't find it's way to the folks that need it the most. I have no problem spending money on education, but I do want that money to be spent well.

 

I think that's pretty clear where I stand on the issue. Not really sure how slaves, taxes, and corporations got into the mix, but there you go. Hope that clears things up.

 

 

E: gah this copy and past never has worked for me, hope you guys will put up with that.

[make total destroy]

Hulk Hogan wants to be Donald Trump's running mate in the US Presidential election

 

http://i.imgur.com/4Snvkt8.gifv

[Clem Fandango]

I'm not sure that you are correct that public sector unions represent all teachers, maybe Queen can shed some light on this.

It's a public sector union. Teacher's salaries are decided by the state and standardised, and the unions negotiate directly with the state. If they ask for a pay rise then it's for all teachers in public schools.

 

 

 

My only point would be that the customers (in this case the kids and their parents) should be prioritized above any union. Educating the kids are more important than maintaining a bureaucracy, at least in my opinion.

If we find ourselves at a point where we can't compensate teachers fairly and educate students then we aren't even running an education system. The system will have broken down entirely. 'The customers come first' is kind of a redundant point like 'yeah pilots are important but what about the PASSENGERS.'

 

 

 

I think that's pretty clear where I stand on the issue. Not really sure how slaves, taxes, and corporations got into the mix, but there you go. Hope that clears things up.

You're a Republican.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Again, I'm not sure that ALL teachers are represented by the union. This may vary from state-to-state. Which is why I was asking Queen about it.

 

But let's get to the meat of you argument. What is the point of the union? Is it to protect the bureaucracy? Or is it to educate the kids?

 

I would say that a majority of the teachers out there really want to do right for their classes. I would say that a majority of the unions out there want to protect their members. So what happens when those two conflict? I would side with the educator. It's more important to get the kids an education than it is to protect some benefit, wouldn't you agree? Or is feeding the machine the most important thing, and the students get the crumbs? I think this is what Queen was touching on, and what I was stating in my posts.

 

You're getting into the weeds with corporate slaves and whatnot. If you want to comment on education, and how it effects this election, go right ahead. But if it's just to bash people for their beliefs, then maybe you need give the keyboard a rest for a bit.

[sivispacem]

What is the point of the union? Is it to protect the bureaucracy? Or is it to educate the kids?

No, it's first and foremost for protecting the teachers from the kind of "pay 'em all minimum wage and not a penny more" bullsh*t that they're faced with more and more. And this is coming from a proponent of performance related pay.

[Eutyphro]

I would say that a majority of the teachers out there really want to do right for their classes. I would say that a majority of the unions out there want to protect their members. So what happens when those two conflict? I would side with the educator. It's more important to get the kids an education than it is to protect some benefit, wouldn't you agree? Or is feeding the machine the most important thing, and the students get the crumbs? I think this is what Queen was touching on, and what I was stating in my posts.

You completely misunderstand Queen, and have no understanding whatsoever of what the purpose of a union is. When Queen in his comment 'opposed the bureaucracy' as you call it, he opposed the politicians that are imposing testing for stupidity and obedience (standardized testing) on teachers and students, and teachers getting paid based on how stupid and obedient their students are able to perform on these standardized tests..

 

Teachers unions aren't about 'maintaining a bureaucracy'. They are about making sure that teachers are in charge of education and not bureaucrats. They are about making sure that teachers get paid properly and that teachers aren't exchangeable tools that can be fired when their students aren't performing according to bureaucratized standards of stupidity and obedience on standardized tests. Off course republicans embrace these standards, considering their ideal society is one where no critical thinking exists and all people are obedient consumers.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Eutyphro

[Svip]

I should point out to our European friends, that labour unions in the US has a general bad rap compared to their European counterparts. While it is not unheard of in Europe, concepts like corrupt union leaders and 'union thugs' are far more common in the US; or rather used to be.

 

Despite this, unions have been incredibly important for American labourers, just like in Europe. But have since fallen out of favour, particularly among private employees. Whereas most Europeans (both private and public) are union members, primarily only public employees in the US are.

 

When going up against the state, unions are incredibly important, as it would be impossible for a single employee to make any sort of dent in that system. The unions are there to fight the bureaucracy if anything, because they actually have the resources to do so.

[Queen]

Good point, Svip.

 

I used to work for a big grocery store chain and when I was employed we had to watch orientation videos. In one of the videos, it urged us not to join a union, as if it was like taking drugs. I'll never forget the video. It showed an employee stocking shelves, and soon after some shady looking guy looks around to make sure no one's eavesdropping, and says, "hey man...you wanna join the union?" and then the employee says something along the lines of "No thank you, sir. I trust my employer!" It was corny as hell.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Queen

[Spaghetti Cat]

Yeah thanks Svip, that was more-or-less what I was going for.

 

To reiterate, I'm not against unions, teachers, or paying teachers well. I was simply trying to address one possible reason why first, second, or third year educators might not receive enough pay or even just basic supplies. If I recall correctly education is the number one budget item in most states. Again, I have no problem with that, just how that money is distributed. In my opinion it's a top-down system that rewards administrators and Dept. of Ed employees more than it does those doing the actual education.

 

Some examples of that:

 

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/education/77068-8th-philly-educator-charged-in-standardized-test-cheating-scandal

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/school-district-rebuilds-_0_n_1933327.html

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/us/georgia-atlanta-public-schools-cheating-scandal-verdicts/

 

 

 

Hope that clears things up.

[X S]

Chris Christie is just blowing a lot of hot air, so I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. At most, he cut pensions for teachers; that's about it, and it's about all he can do.

 

If anyone is familiar with New Jersey, the teacher's union is a behemoth and a force to be reckoned with, and because of that, it is riddled with political corruption. It takes 10 years to gain tenure in New Jersey. New Jersey has the highest level per-student educational spending in the nation, yet some of the most poorly performing schools. They allocate money to problems that cannot be addressed with budget increases. Not even a $100 million grant from Mark Zuckerberg was going to save the city of Newark's public school system. They've failed to understand the inherent socio-economic problems that have been plaguing cities like Newark for years. I have family that teaches in the system, so I know how the political game works here. So when Christie cuts the budget, the union screams "bloody murder". It's a tit-for-tat game, a roll of the eyes.

 

Also, one of the bigger problems with unions in New Jersey is that they have been a target for organized crime since the earliest days of inception. That was back when "Vinny Goombats" and "Joey Soprano" were breaking legs for union control. So it's naturally met with skepticism around here.

 

f*ck this state. Can I come live with any of you?

[darthYENIK]

Thank god. They've found a weakness on Trump. Just ask him anything about diplomacy, specifically middle eastern foreign affairs. He's less informed on the middle east than George W Bush was. And that's saying something.

[Queen]

Darth is referring to this interview.

 

 

[Eutyphro]

Like the people currently supporting Trump can be convinced to stop supporting him by more of his stupidity... If that would've been possible then he wouldn't have had any support to begin with. He's an idiot on all issues, not just foreign policy.

[El Dildo]

you know what, at this point I'm actually going to be disappointed if Donald Trump doesn't pick Hulk Hogan or Kanye West as his running mate. can you imagine the presidential debates between Trump or Hillary or between Hulk Hogan and Bernie Sanders. and I thought the GOP debate was must-see television, holy sh/t. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the realization that - more and more every day - we are basically sliding right into the vision of the future laid out for us by Mike Judge in Idiocracy.

 

you guys have seen that movie.

the prophecy is true!

 

 

[Dingdongs]

Thank god. They've found a weakness on Trump. Just ask him anything about diplomacy, specifically middle eastern foreign affairs. He's less informed on the middle east than George W Bush was. And that's saying something.

His supporters don't care. He will just say "don't worry I'll hire the best experts, and let me tell you something I have a lot of money so they'll come work for me" verbatim

[darthYENIK]

He's already trying to spin that interview as some sort of "gotcha" piece.

 

I love the part where he says if he's elected he'll know more about foreign policy than Hewitt. He's a giant child, That can't admit he doesn't know something he should know.

[El Dildo]

CAN YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLL WHAT THE BERN IS COOKIN??

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa-poll/index.html

 

closing the gaps...

[Queen]

She was caught in a lie and now her campaign is going to pay the price. I'd be surprised if she recovers from this.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Queen

[X S]

CAN YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLL WHAT THE BERN IS COOKIN??

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa-poll/index.html

 

closing the gaps...

 

If Sanders and Trump earn the nominations of their respective party, this will be the most polarizing election ever.

 

It's gonna be better than Yankees vs. Red Sox.

[El Dildo]

it will not be Trump.

it's difficult to say which one of the other [realistic] candidates will get the nod but it definitely won't be Donald.

 

if someone had a gun to my head and forced me to place a bet right now?

I would probably say that the GOP ticket will look something like Jeb Bush with Marco Rubio as his VP running mate.

[Dingdongs]

it will not be Trump.

it's difficult to say which one of the other [realistic] candidates will get the nod but it definitely won't be Donald.

 

if someone had a gun to my head and forced me to place a bet right now?

I would probably say that the GOP ticket will look something like Jeb Bush with Marco Rubio as his VP running mate.

Why do you say that? I think it very well could be Trump. He's now polling in the 30s and no matter what he says, people still love him. He's got support amongst all parts of the GOP. I think he has a very, good shot at the nomination.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html?mwrsm=Email

 

Article on his strengths

[Queen]

I agree about Trump. Many Americans appreciate his intense demeanor and refusal to be politically correct. He says the things people wish they could get away with. For better or worse, that appeals to many voters. He's even pulling in people who don't typically give a sh*t about politics. I really don't think he's going anywhere any time soon.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Queen

[gooeyhole]

Yeah the whole Trump will ruin America is nothing but a meme. Unless he seriously pissed off world leaders, I don't see what could go so wrong other than the Left pulling a chicken little every time he does something. He's not the perfect candidate by any stretch of the imagination. But who is?

[El Dildo]

you guys are acting pretty naive.

 

you think the powers that be within the Republican party will allow Trump to be the candidate?

they won't.

 

he cannot win a national election.

he has already carpet-bombed his chances with Latinos, women, and most minorities. you cannot win an American election as the kind of candidate that Trump is unless the vast majority of his opposition simply stays home and/or forgets to vote.

[Dingdongs]

you guys are acting pretty naive.

 

you think the powers that be within the Republican party will allow Trump to be the candidate?

they won't.

 

he cannot win a national election.

he has already carpet-bombed his chances with Latinos, women, and most minorities. you cannot win an American election as the kind of candidate that Trump is unless the vast majority of his opposition simply stays home and/or forgets to vote.

He hasn´t, though. Did you read the article? He's polling at 25% amongst blacks, the highest a Republican has ever polled in the black community. Furthermore, the powers that be in the GOP can't stop him. You cannot stop a guy that has 30-40 percent of the vote, you just can't. He has too much money and too much power in this thing to be simply shoved aside by some people in a smoke filled room.

[Svip]

you think the powers that be within the Republican party will allow Trump to be the candidate?

 

they won't.

 

Which will be their undoing. If Trump is forbidden to run as a Republican candidate, despite the support of the voters, he will run as a third party candidate in the general election. He won't win, but that's little consolation to the Republicans, because they won't win either.

 

However, I think you are the one being naïve. Trump could definitely win the nomination and even win the national election. Are you forgetting what sort of country the United States of America is? If you hold your countrymen to such a high standard, that's cute, but unfortunately, a lot of them like Trump. And the more the campaign is progressing, the more people are coming around on Trump.

 

From August to September, the people in New Hampshire turned 180 on him, from 80% disapproval to 20% disapproval. That's not just unusual, that has never happened before. That a candidate can go from that much disapproval to approval in one month.

 

Analysing Trump using conventional wisdom will be a mistake, because regardless of what happens now, Trump has changed the 2016 election for good. And he is in it for the long haul.

[El Dildo]

He hasn´t, though. Did you read the article? He's polling at 25% amongst blacks, the highest a Republican has ever polled in the black community. Furthermore, the powers that be in the GOP can't stop him. You cannot stop a guy that has 30-40 percent of the vote, you just can't. He has too much money and too much power in this thing to be simply shoved aside by some people in a smoke filled room.

you sound as if you started following politics yesterday

that or you really don't understand the analytics at play here.

 

for starters, polls don't mean anything.

they especially don't mean anything over a year outside of the election.

 

Trump is virtually the only GOP candidate with any exposure thanks to our sickening, horrific, f/cking useless "journalism" in this country. our mainstream media ensures that Trump is the only one of the 20-something Republicans who appears on TV most of the time, who gets all the talk, all the late night jokes, and gets most of the soundbite airplay. polls are just notoriety and name recognition.

 

when you ask a black person who the hell they would vote for in the GOP and they answer 'Trump,' it's not because they're going to vote for Donald Trump. it's because he's the only cock sucker they can think of or would even consider voting for because he's funny and popular. it doesn't matter what he's "polling" at right now because you seem to have confused "poll" with "vote" and polls do not equal votes. it doesn't matter how much money you have because candidates do not buy the nomination; the nomination buys them.

 

the GOP is stupid but they're not stupid enough to allow their candidate be Donald Trump.

they do not want this guy appearing in debates or representing the brand they were so desperately trying to change.

[Dingdongs]

 

He hasn´t, though. Did you read the article? He's polling at 25% amongst blacks, the highest a Republican has ever polled in the black community. Furthermore, the powers that be in the GOP can't stop him. You cannot stop a guy that has 30-40 percent of the vote, you just can't. He has too much money and too much power in this thing to be simply shoved aside by some people in a smoke filled room.

you sound as if you started following politics yesterday

that or you really don't understand the analytics at play here.

 

for starters, polls don't mean anything.

they especially don't mean anything over a year outside of the election.

 

Trump is virtually the only GOP candidate with any exposure thanks to our sickening, horrific, f/cking useless "journalism" in this country. our mainstream media ensures that Trump is the only one of the 20-something Republicans who appears on TV most of the time, who gets all the talk, all the late night jokes, and gets most of the soundbite airplay. polls are just notoriety and name recognition.

 

when you ask a black person who the hell they would vote for in the GOP and they answer 'Trump,' it's not because they're going to vote for Donald Trump. it's because he's the only cock sucker they can think of or would even consider voting for because he's funny and popular. it doesn't matter what he's "polling" at right now because you seem to have confused "poll" with "vote" and polls do not equal votes. it doesn't matter how much money you have because candidates do not buy the nomination; the nomination buys them.

 

the GOP is stupid but they're not stupid enough to allow their candidate be Donald Trump.

they do not want this guy appearing in debates or representing the brand they were so desperately trying to change.

Of course the polls don't mean much in terms of the general election but they do for the primaries. You're the one that started following politics yesterday if you actually think the Republican Party establishment could get away with sidelining a guy that 40% of their voters supports. Usually when we talk about the polls not meaning anything we say that in terms of there being a lot of fluctuation early on, think Giuliani and Huckabee in 2008, or Santorum and Perry and Gingrich in 2012. Guess what? No fluctuation here. Trump has been #1 since his comments about building the wall and about rapists coming in from Mexico and he's not moving. You're using the traditional political/historical analysis here which, if it were anyone but Trump, would apply. Let's say you had Ben Carson at #1 or Fiorina. I'd agree with you 100% that the party would stop them and they'd implode. Trump? No f*cking way. The guy is worth 10 billion dollars, and thus has zero dependence on the GOP for anything at all, has unparalleled name recognition, and speaks in a way that gets people of all republican backgrounds behind him. As you said, anything he says is played over and over by the media in an attempt to defame him but it just helps him.

 

We will see in a few months which one of us right, but I think he's here to stay.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Irviding

[El Dildo]

well 'here to stay' and winning anything are pretty far apart.

 

ultimately Trump is electable the way a deep fried potato is electable.

I mean this is the United States and anything can happen. all the good and all of the bad...

 

but Republican nominee or not, I just don't see any way that Trump wins a national election.

his personal bank account guarantees nothing. he can win polls with the base. he can make a big fuss in Iowa. he can find favorability or approval from certain groups. he's great at making a big hub bub around himself where he goes. but most of the voters who would oppose him on election day would have to drop dead or stay home for him to have any real chance.

[Zyo]

 

if someone had a gun to my head and forced me to place a bet right now?

I would probably say that the GOP ticket will look something like Jeb Bush with Marco Rubio as his VP running mate.

 

I actually think this is a pretty astute prediction, Carson's surge is interesting too, but the Bush machine has really yet to start rolling. I think we'll be hearing a lot more about Jeb Bush as the campaign progresses. He is (despite the Trump money) probably the best funded candidate. Might put Fiorina in as a strong possibility for VP too.