[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Rage Racer]

So, the inauguration is tomorrow, and before Trump becomes the president, I'd like to leave my general thoughts. It could be said earlier, but now is the right time.

First, about the 'Kremlin's hand', or the alleged Russian influence in the US elections.
No one ever had complimented Russia like the Democrats and their media with their "Russian hackers" hysteria. John McCain called Russia a 'gas station masquerading as a country', Obama branded it a 'regional power'. But now, seeing how this 'regional gas station' interferes into presidential elections in the 'world's only superpower' (this is how Putin once called the US)... That's a slap in the face of the American security agencies. If the hacking really occured, the US government should have classified all the information regarding it and denied any rumors of hacking. Instead, they admit that the US security system has fallen to some hungry students from Russia, and the famous American media empires like CNN and Fox have lost to pathetic Kremlin propaganda from RT. This whole thing make Russians feel nothing but pride for their country.

And second - about Trump, from the Russian perspective.
When the news about his victory hit the world, the Russian social media fell in hype. Like Zhirinovskiy predicted that 'Russia will drink champagne if Trump wins" (this was mentioned in the US intelligence report on 'Russian influence in the elections'). People expressed happiness as if Trump had become the Russian president and they wanted it. The government was more moderate in their comments - the Foreign Ministry expressed hope for the US-Russia relations to be improved, but added, 'we will judge the new US president by his deeds, not words'.

But the hype is one thing, and the reality is another. It is too early to call Trump a 'pro-Kremlin president'. Labeling Trump as a 'Russian agent' was a normal and expectable thing for the Democrats during the elections race, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. It is not even certain that he was a better candidate for Russia than Clinton. There's absolutely no guarantee that Trump won't be a hypocrite asshole worse than his rival.

A blogger who I read and often agree with who (he writes about history and politics, I even met him personally), has said: "We have recieved an unknown envelope. We don't know what's inside. It may be empty, or there may be a handful of money, or spores of anthrax."

To think that Trump immediately lifts the sanctions and lets us become friends again... that would be too naive (again? Who was the last US president to have friendly relations with Russia? Abraham Lincoln? Well, alright, Franklin D. Roosevelt maybe).

Of course, there is hope that Mr. Trump will be an easier person for RF to speak to and to negotiate with. But let's see what happens. Like they say: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

 

[mister dog]

The 'Russia is the boogeyman' narrative of these past months is downright stupid IMO. As far as I can tell there still hasn't been any concrete evidence to prove that Russia interfered with the US elections. The dems lost because Hillary wasn't a popular candidate due to her dubious and corrupt history, but instead of admitting their defeat and stepping aside gracefully, they want to make everyone believe 'the Russians did it!.

Ridiculous. And I bet that if populist candidates win elections in the EU next year they will blame Putin again...

It's dangerous and unjust warmongering. One of the biggest reasons also that I'm happy that Trump won and it will hopefully stop now. The world can only benefit from good relations between the US and Russia, and I hope they will now work together properly on a military level too so they can get rid of ISIS which is the real threat to world peace.

 

[Danoff]

That's a slap in the face of the American security agencies. If the hacking really occured, the US government should have classified all the information regarding it and denied any rumors of hacking. Instead, they admit that the US security system has fallen to some hungry students from Russia, and the famous American media empires like CNN and Fox have lost to pathetic Kremlin propaganda from RT. This whole thing make Russians feel nothing but pride for their country.

To be fair, the hacked documents came (over and over) out of poorly handled personal email accounts.

 

[mister dog]

To be fair, the hacked documents came (over and over) out of poorly handled personal email accounts.

Wikileaks? Because Assange said he got it from an insider of the democratic party if i'm not mistaken.

 

[Danoff]

Wikileaks? Because Assange said he got it from an insider of the democratic party if i'm not mistaken.

Well that's not a hacked document then.

 

[Joey D]

She has absolutely no experience, and wants to change the education system to promote "God's Kingdom" (her exact words). Huge NO for me. Get her out of there.

Well Betsy DeVos is from Grand Rapids, MI, which is probably one of the most religiously conservative areas in the whole country. When I lived there there were always people advocating for more God in public schools because that's apparently where we went wrong or something. It really doesn't shock me that she says stuff like that and it's pretty well known she essentially bought her position on the cabinet so she's not even remotely qualified

 

[prisonermonkeys]

She has absolutely no experience, and wants to change the education system to promote "God's Kingdom" (her exact words). Huge NO for me. Get her out of there.

There is scope for religious education in public schools, mostly because families may be religious, but cannot afford private education. However, it should be an opt-in program that runs parallel to the curriculum, which can be complemented by extra-curricular activities. As soon as you start trying to integrate religion directly into the curriculum, you run into all sorts of moral minefields - and not just the usual creationism vs. evolution debate.

 

[CodeRedR51]

There is scope for religious education in public schools, mostly because families may be religious, but cannot afford private education. However, it should be an opt-in program that runs parallel to the curriculum, which can be complemented by extra-curricular activities. As soon as you start trying to integrate religion directly into the curriculum, you run into all sorts of moral minefields - and not just the usual creationism vs. evolution debate.

Teaching about the different religions around the world is one thing, and I don't really have any issues with that. After all it is part of our history. But the way she wants to go about it definitely should not be happening. Not to mention it will be purely Christianity based, you can count on that.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Technically correct. But the current administration has not been enforcing this and other immigration-related laws, frustrating law enforcement personnel and rendering the law a moot point. I don't expect the Trump adminstration, however zealous they may be , to fix more than a fraction of this issue.

I do think that the 8 years of amnesty deals that we got under Obama can't be an easy fix under Trump. Even if he tries, there are an estimated 14 million illegals living in the US and most of them have children who are anchor babies, and he can't get them all out.

 

[Johnnypenso]

She has absolutely no experience, and wants to change the education system to promote "God's Kingdom" (her exact words). Huge NO for me. Get her out of there.

She compared her work in education reform through school choice, to a biblical battleground where she wants to advance God's Kingdom. Some of that might involve charter schools and/or religious based schooling but it would be the parent's choice, not the states. She helped devise Trump's plan to spend $20Billion and give low income students the choice to attend private or charter schools. Are you against that too?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Teaching about the different religions around the world is one thing, and I don't really have any issues with that. After all it is part of our history. But the way she wants to go about it definitely should not be happening. Not to mention it will be purely Christianity based, you can count on that.

Which is the beauty of having an opt-in scripture program. Religious kids get one period per week dedicated to their faith, and non-religious kids get a free period.

Down here, we started down the rabbit hole of trying to introduce more religion into state schools, with the government increasing funding to school chaplains - but they only funded Christian chaplains, and refused to incresse funding for school counsellors. Fortunately, the various teachers' federations fought back.

 

[CodeRedR51]

She compared her work in education reform through school choice, to a biblical battleground where she wants to advance God's Kingdom. Some of that might involve charter schools and/or religious based schooling but it would be the parent's choice, not the states. She helped devise Trump's plan to spend $20Billion and give low income students the choice to attend private or charter schools. Are you against that too?

The reasons I already listed are enough for me to not like her. Just one of many bad decisions Trump has made already.

Which is the beauty of having an opt-in scripture program. Religious kids get one period per week dedicated to their faith, and non-religious kids get a free period.

Then you have to do that for every represented religion, and convince the largely Christian population to go along with that. Chances are they would throw a hissy fit.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then you have to do that for every represented religion

When all the schools in an area co-ordinate, it works really well. Every student who signs up for the scripture program goes to scripture at the same time; everyone else has a study period. Students from the different faiths go off to various corners of the school; faiths with a larger membership might divide up into smaller groups. All of this is built into the students' timetables, so there is no disruption.

convince the largely Christian population to go along with that. Chances are they would throw a hissy fit.

I don't see why they would resist it. The alternatives aren't appealling - either no faith-based education in schools, which satisfies nobody; or only offering Christian scripture in schools, which would kick up a storm of controversy.

The reasons I already listed are enough for me to not like her.

Oh, I completely agree. I'm no fan of organised religion myself, but I am not prepared to completely disregard the idea of faith-based education in schools when I know that there is a workable alternative out there.

 

[CodeRedR51]

When all the schools in an area co-ordinate, it works really well. Every student who signs up for the scripture program goes to scripture at the same time; everyone else has a study period. Students from the different faiths go off to various corners of the school; faiths with a larger membership might divide up into smaller groups. All of this is built into the students' timetables, so there is no disruption.

There's already a place for this = Sunday school.

I don't see why they would resist it.

Then you don't know them very well.

Oh, I completely agree. I'm no fan of organised religion myself, but I am not prepared to completely disregard the idea of faith-based education in schools when I know that there is a workable alternative out there.

"This is what people around the world believe" is OK.

"This is what you should believe" is NOT OK.

That's my opinion.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then you don't know them very well.

Maybe our Christians aren't as aggressive as yours. But denying people the opportunity to practice and learn more about their faith simply because their faith is not Christianity is ironically un-Christian.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Maybe our Christians aren't as aggressive as yours. But denying people the opportunity to practice and learn more about their faith simply because their faith is not Christianity is ironically un-Christian.

I agree, but it would never happen on a large scale here. At all.

 

[xyloscissor]

She compared her work in education reform through school choice, to a biblical battleground where she wants to advance God's Kingdom. Some of that might involve charter schools and/or religious based schooling but it would be the parent's choice, not the states.

That would be a violation of the establishment of religion clause, not allowing it's teaching would be a violation of the free exercise clause. Both can be found in the 1st amendment, it's funny how some are quick to understand the first part while completely ignoring the second part because it's not to their liking.

The parent's choice bit is a good start, that's why I agreed with @prisonermonkeys about having a small oversight of sorts on a federal level as a minimum education standard, giving the states more power and ultimately keeping parental rights.

Besides, education is not an authority granted by the Federal Government, and thus should be granted to the States.

This is true, it's ran as a social program atm under the general welfare clause and we know it has no real standing in the judiciary.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The parent's choice bit is a good start, that's why I agreed with @prisonermonkeys about having a small oversight of sorts on a federal level as a minimum education standard, giving the states more power and ultimately keeping parental rights.

So, you're tailoring curriculum to meet the demands of governments and parents, then?

Okay, what about teachers and students?

 

[CodeRedR51]

it's funny how some are quick to understand the first part while completely ignoring the second part because it's not to their liking.

What I don't like is public schools telling children what they should believe. That's the only issue. As I stated before, teaching them what the multitude of different religions believe around the world is different, which fits nicely into a history class.

 

[xyloscissor]

So, you're tailoring curriculum to meet the demands of governments and parents, then?

Okay, what about teachers and students?

The education should of course be tailored to the student, who is better to have a say in that than their parents(we are capable and willing to listen to teachers). As for tailoring teachers I love that idea and would go hand in hand with supply and demand quite nicely once the chains are loosened up.

College is an example, when I child becomes an adult he/she chooses what to study however there is always a chore they have to complete as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

As for tailoring teachers I love that idea and would go hand in hand with supply and demand quite nicely once the chains are loosened up.

That's not what I mean. Teachers are the ones who have to teach the curriculum. Writing a curriculum can become a very politicised process very quickly, and one of the first casualties can be the needs of the teaching staff - the people who know the content and how to teach it, and the students and how they learn.

 

[xyloscissor]

That's not what I mean. Teachers are the ones who have to teach the curriculum. Writing a curriculum can become a very politicised process very quickly, and one of the first casualties can be the needs of the teaching staff - the people who know the content and how to teach it, and the students and how they learn.

Supply and Demand can take care of that as well, if we need you we will take care of you. Besides there will always be state laws to protect you no matter where you might work. 👍

On another note;

I don't remember the Trump campaigning on education particularly but it sounds like he's making good on his promises in a general way. Less government and a following of our laws.

Our education system was once the best in the world, would that have made it great? "Let's make America great again"
http://www.historynet.com/was-the-usa-ever-no-1-in-education.htm Worth a look.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Our education system was once the best in the world, would that have made it great? "

You've got your work cut out if you want to reclaim that mantle.

 

[xyloscissor]

You've got your work cut out if you want to reclaim that mantle.

Well it's obvious keeping on with the way we've been going doesn't work then does it. The point is we've not had a limited constitutional government in 1/2 a century and the recent past has been even worse. If he keeps to that promise alone I believe better days ahead.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well it's obvious keeping on with the way we've been going doesn't work then does it. The point is we've not had a limited constitutional government in 1/2 a century and the recent past has been even worse. If he keeps to that promise alone I believe better days ahead.

Like I said, moving away from common core will require an increase in standardised testing. And the only thing that's going to do is put you in reverse.

 

[xyloscissor]

Like I said, moving away from common core will require an increase in standardised testing. And the only thing that's going to do is put you in reverse.

I don't believe that first off because the fed has no power to mandate either, and where did I say move away from common core anyway? I said keep it as a minimum because that is all it is imo.

Anyway... Back to Tump and his promises, this is a really good article and perhaps can even explain why we are having this republic democracy argument. Damn I don't want to keep going back and forth with that again, nor do I want to keep going around and around with this education arguement. But if you want to jab, our education has become much worse since common core and standardized testing have been introduced so there is that.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/president-trumps-limited-government/

Trump is a strict constitutionalist and has no expectations to usurp power or to grow the government. To the contrary, he has said he will give more powers and redirect funding to the states and use checks and balances as they were originally conceived. He will limit both his own executive powers and ask Congress and the courts to do the same. In other words, power will be returned “to the people.” This is the kernel of Trump’s populism, and it is as basic as the Boston Tea Party or the shots fired in Lexington by farmer militiamen.

 

[ryzno]

All I'll say is, my childs report cards look more like a check the box psychological exam, than the report cards that I remember.
It's seriously 3 pages of descriptions, boxes and Xs.
This is kindergarten mind you at a public school.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

where did I say move away from common core anyway?

You didn't. Trump did.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's seriously 3 pages of descriptions, boxes and Xs.
This is kindergarten mind you at a public school.

Which is the way it should be.

The whole point of a report card is to update you on your child's progress - how well they are achieving the objectives for a child their age. They use qualitative (rather than quantitative) data to achieve this. As a result, it's much more accurate and meaningful.

Compare that to the model you're thinking of, with the letter grades. Those are calculated based on the final mark, where you receive a letter by achieving a pre-determined mark (eg 85 and above for an A, 75 to 84 for a B, and so on). All it really does is tell you how a student is performing relative to everyone else in the year group.

The benefit of the "descriptions, boxes and Xs", as you put it, is that the focus is on your child's development. It's more important that they acquire the skills necessary to succeed in school, rather than just getting a mark, because it's theoretically possible for the top-performing student in a year group to achieve a mark of 100 but fail to achieve their outcomes (which means that there's something seriously wrong with the school).

 

[xyloscissor]

All I'll say is, my childs report cards look more like a check the box psychological exam, than the report cards that I remember.
It's seriously 3 pages of descriptions, boxes and Xs.
This is kindergarten mind you at a public school.

Feeling better yet?

In the news, this one is with a vid so you can see how it's going for the snowflakes.

Raucous protesters squared off against Washington police Thursday night outside a meeting of Trump supporters, the first of what may be several demonstrations before and after the new president's inauguration.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ington-new-york-city-defiance-trump/96811098/

And of course there is always that one guy

A man protesting President-elect Donald Trump set himself on fire outside the Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. Tuesday night... In a video, the unidentified man says he was protesting the election of somebody who's "incapable of respecting the Constitution."

http://abc13.com/politics/protester-sets-himself-on-fire-outside-trump-hotel-in-dc/1709178/

While I am not a Trump supporter I'm not a protester either, he is our President for crying out loud.

Sorry I missed this post.

You didn't. Trump did.

The states already have there own common core stuff because they can do that and it's not really a federal issue anyway, perhaps that's why he said what he did.