Doc Brown
-
Posts
18,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc Brown
-
-
Come on Dareus. Just a few more weeks buddy.
-
Injuries during the season,boneheaded decision in the off-season. I was hoping for a clean break this time around wishful thinking I guess..
On the bright side. It's only Adolphius Washington.
-
"The Beloved Aunt" typo and "Am I your Caucasian?" were some of the funniest scenes I've ever seen. Best comedy since Seinfeld. Can't wait.
-
Anybody interested in Clinton SNL jokes back in the 90's when SNL was more of an equal opportunity offender.
-
When they played the Packers in 1997 and against the Rams, only because I wanted an AFC team to win the Superbowl. I regret it as well.
Yup. My two most hated teams are the Patriots and Seahawks. Superbowl 49 sucked.
-
Why should that church embarrass a young lady who is obviously suffering from mental illness?I agree with cutting the mike.
I know. She's supposed to grow up and share a husband with nine other women.
-
Especially when "math is hard" to most people, having a good heart often times trumps having a good head.
I see what you did there.
-
I see it as a positive thing that a Presidential contender is opening dialogue with Russia, this is a country that the US needs as a somewhat-friendly ally in this present day and age.
I don't know what to think of Russia and Putin. The general vibe I got from various news outlets over the years is that both Bush and Obama were optimistic in having a positive working relationship with Putin at the beginning of their term only to be disappointed by the end. I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the intelligent agencies have lied to us before and maybe Trump is right in that Russia didn't hack the election to the extent where meant to believe. Maybe I'm being too naive.
-
This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other.
Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential.
Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential.
If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children.
Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children.
That's the biggest drawback with a strict, rigorous curriculum and standardized testing. When NCLB came out under Bush the children that were left behind were the gifted ones. AP classes now usually aren't available until you get to high school unless you're a student lucky enough to live in a rich district.
One thing worth mentioning is the high turnover rate for teachers at charter schools due to either lower pay and/or a lack of union protection. There's now a push nationwide to get charter schools unionized. Charter schools often serve as a training ground for young, inexperienced teachers, but then lose teachers just as they are becoming experienced and truly knowledgeable in their field. So, are these advanced students who may become bored in a public education classroom more engaged at charter schools if they have new or inferior teachers?
On the flip side, I've seen a small percentage of public education teachers get tenured (who I didn't think deserved it) and now you're stuck with an ineffective, lazy teacher who shows up right as the kids do and leave 15 minutes after.
I'm slightly more optimistic than you with your long term projections for students "at risk". I've had kids who've had learning disabilities in either math or reading get the extra help they needed and thrive once they get to college because they can then pick what career they want based on their strengths. Also, since we're dumb enough to make state college tuition free for low income students, lets eliminate pointless majors like art history, sociology, philosophy, etc... All those majors do is qualify you to work at Geico or a collection agency.
-
I don't think you'll find many true conservatives or libertarians who are anti-union. Most rightly view union membership as well within the purview of the freedom to associate. The only issues most would take with unions would be when their associations are no longer voluntary, but rather are an internal pre-requisite for employment or have mandatory funding; and public sector unions which are a perversion of our process. (IE. private sector unions must be careful not to push too far, because the companies their employees work for ultimately report to a bottom line, and pushing too far results in job losses as a company shuts it's doors. This is not the case with public sector unions, as there is no bottom line, and tax payers will be continually soaked in perpetuity even as their municipalities crumble as excessive benefits packages erode tax bases.)
As far as the education issue goes, your argument is one that insists that the purpose of public schools is to provide high paying jobs for teachers rather than provide high quality education for at risk students and their families. That may not be your intention, but under the current structure it's all that's possible.
No. It's absolutely my intention for teachers to have high paying jobs and for me to have an even higher paying one
. More research is needed about if charter schools actually help improve student outcomes and most of the peer reviewed studies I've reviewed showed students in charter schools perform either worse or equal to students in public schools. My main complaint about charter schools is that they often fail to meet the required services for students with disabilities under the IDEA act (the federal act passed in 1975 and expanded in 1990 preventing discrimination against students with disabilities that Betsy Devos amazingly never heard of). Once in a while I'll receive a student with an IEP or 504 plan from a charter school whose parents were unsatisfied with the lack of services their kid was receiving.
-
Other than your wife being a public school teacher, with I assume your support being 100% behind the unions in everything they stand for, I really don't understand why you're a Democrat.
That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do.
-
Doc, are they in shock that could continue for years from this loss?
Elections often turn on people fed up with a party and voting for the opposition, no matter whom is in charge.
Used to it more in Canada perhaps.
Seems to me a lot of the party is still in shock and still don't understand Trump's appeal that caused many people who usually vote Democrat to vote for Trump. That's why the corporate neoliberalism propagandist channels (CNN, MSNBC) are pushing this stupid Russia narrative because they don't know what else to do. Unfortunately, a populist progressive candidate who promises too many free things with no way to pay for them is our only chance of regaining the White House in 2020.
-
The main problem is going to be that the corporate Democrats in charge now still think last years election was a fluke. Even if they do realize it's not Russia and Comey, the corruption runs so deep that they'd rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive. Your proof is they wouldn't even fund a progressive (a guy named Thompson) in Kansas's special district who asked for only 20k from the DNC and was denied. He lost by 7 points (Trump won the district by 27 points). Meanwhile, they funded Ossoff (a corporate Democrat) with 20 plus million dollars and he lost.
You're probably going to need a populist on the left to beat Trump in 2020 and the DNC (like the RNC did with Trump) will do everything they can to prevent that. My guess is this party is so stupid and corrupt that Republicans will be in power for the next 8 years.
-
He has no agenda
Health care, tax reform, funding for a border wall, combating ISIS, and deescalating tensions with North Korea are just some of the things that constitute his agenda. The only area where his agenda has been successful so far is a significant decline in illegals crossing the border.
-
Ironic how 8 years ago Obama's use of Twitter and social media was hailed as a revolutionary stroke of pure genius
I'd say Trump's use of twitter and manipulation of the media during the campaign was genius. Now it's hurting his agenda.
-
He needs to get off Twitter.
It's an effective way for him to bypass the press to communicate with people who don't like to read anything over 140 characters like an official press release. It's also an effective way to show his stupidity and then the media to show theirs.
-
Not before 2020 when the census is. And a Republican in the WH will start to undo the Republican dominance at the state level. Not having a black president will hopefully lead to more Democrats elected.
LOL. What? It has nothing to do with having a white president in the White House. It has everything to do with Trump and Republicans policies that should energize the Democratic base. Another problem with the Democratic party is IDENTITY politics that you just mentioned. Hillary catered to minorities, called Trump supporters a basket of deplorables as if everyone who voted for him was racist, homophobic, or sexist, and had Madeline Albright say all women that don't vote for Hillary are going to hell. She said nothing that would inspire the white working class who usually vote Democrat to vote for her. She was probably the most corrupt candidate in recent history as she was in bed with Wall Street and took money anywhere in the world she could find it.
-
What you should be worried about is that people like gator are running your party; the people who believe the only reason Trump won the election is because of Russia and Comey, and not because of anything or anyone else.
Well aware of that. Pelosi has to go as we've lost over 1,000 seats at a state and federal level. That was NOT Russia. I'm more center left but all the energy in the party right now is with the progressive wing and you usually go towards where the energy is.
-
I'm sure they tried n 2016, let's hope they do better. So far Republican in the House are fouling up the sanctions bill, so so much for that. But you are not worried, huh? A Trump veto wouldn't look much worse than him showing the Russians top secret info n the WH, really.
Yes, I know all about the CIA trying to fight communism in foreign countries, they paid the Catholic Church in Italy to not support the communists and it worked, for instance. Good call! But Putin, who is a criminal, doing it is a very different matter. You don't seem to understand that. Yes I know about Chili and Gautamaula also, not good. You are just making Trump's basic argument when he said we have all done bad things.
I'm pry not as worried as you because now that there's a greater public awareness of Russia's meddling that more pressure will be put on the government to act on it. I'm more worried about Republicans redrawing district lines even more to their advantage as 33 of the 50 states have Republican governors.
-
As a Democrat, are you not worried about further attempts to obstruct elections? Or do you welcome the Russian help? And no the intelligence agencies are not hypocrites, they are working in the interest of the USA and the free nations of the world. What is the criminal Putin working for?
You don't think our intelligent agencies aren't going to do everything possible to block Russian interference in future elections? You just had a Senate pass a new bills with a vote of 98-2 to push for more sanctions on Russia and giving Congress more power to block Trump from rolling back any penalties against Putin's government. How would it look if Trump vetoed the bill once it makes it out of the House?
Also, a simple google search will show you a long history of America trying to interfere in other countries elections.
-
Imagine if Dems get their wish and Trump disappears.
Not much changes really except for more peace of mind because we wouldn't have a man child as president. You still have a Republican party that is so split ideological wise that they can't seem to agree on a health care bill they've been promising to repeal and replace since 2010 despite having a majority in the House and Senate.
Then you have the Trump base who are so disgusted with politics as usual that they may withdrawal from the political process if Trump disappears making it easier for Dems to improve their status in '18 and '20. Not obsessing about Trump would force Democrats to take steps to fix what's wrong with their party.
-
My interpretation of this is that the White House is putting 2016 and the Russia probe behind it and will not let those events stand in the way of working with Russia where possible. That is as it should be. Nations don’t have friends or enemies, nations only have interests.
That's mine is as well and it's the reason Trump hasn't spoken ill of Putin yet despite the media and politicians across the aisle pleading him to do so. Bush and Obama maintained an open dialogue with Putin but their relationship soured with him towards the end of their administration. The US intelligence agencies are huge hypocrites when it comes to condemning Russia for interfering in ours and others elections when we've done exactly the same to numerous countries dating all the way back to the Cold War. Like it or not, a more friendly and cooperative relationship with Putin makes the world a safer place.
-
NATO entered and bombed formerly Warsaw Pact territory despite promising not to do so, which understandably would incur some mistrust and animosity from Putin.
Yeah. That's one of the reasons. He wasn't happy about NATO expansion towards his borders and has a contempt for Western values that he fears will spread to his country.
-
How were those Pats fans doing the half hour before it all fell into place for them?
Sitting there with a stunned look on their face when the Falcons went up 28-3 and me in pure jubilance. An hour or so later I'm asking god how much punishment can us Bills fans can take.
Trump and Russia
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Well, I guess I'm not as partisan as you because I've never been embarrassed with any president. I just find Trump's childishness at NATO pushing through to the front of the line funny and only makes himself look like the man child he is. I'm glad you're getting some satisfaction in your party winning. The thing with EO's is they will likely be reversed once a Democrat is in office again.