What is "Fair" Public School Funding?

[pknopp]

You give up so soon?

There is nothing else to discuss.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is nothing else to discuss.

Sure, there is.

You could say, "It was terrible that public schools used to expell students just for raping a classmate or assaulting a teacher. It is much better that they student be secretly moved to another school in the district and continue to have access to the girls bathroom by wearing a skirt."

Then we could discuss that.

 

[2aguy]

I did not dismiss it. It is a valid point. Public schools used to do the same. If a student came to school to disrupt school instead of learning, they were suspended. If they came back and did the same, they were suspended again. If a student assaulted a student or a teacher, they were expelled, and no one questioned the obvious need for that.

Students with disabilities were educated apart from their non-disabled peers, so they could learn what they could without hindering the education of others. Students who were too lazy to learn would fail, get left behind a grade or two, and realize that they aren't on the graduation track and drop out.

Schools were not twelve year warehousing institutions where at the end, you got a diploma whether you could read it or not.

So private schools can be the one-size-fits-all education nightmare that public school are?

How about we give one size voucher to typical students, one to gifted and talented, and a larger ones to students with disabilities or behavior issues that cost public schools more money. Then private schools seeking vouchers would tailor their services to different kinds of kids.

Yep.......no one questions the massive number of cell phones, cell phone plans, televisions, and any other item that people can purchase with different amounts of cash....we can get the plan that fits our need......the same thing applies to education if you give the money to the kid, and that kid's family can pick a school.....the market will create more and better schools to fit every need of every student.....handicapped, discipline problems.......schools will be created to teach those children....but the left doesn't want that...they want you stuck with the schools they control so you can only learn what they want you to learn. Giving the family control over the money and the school takes away control from the left, and they will not allow that to happen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I did not dismiss it. It is a valid point. Public schools used to do the same. If a student came to school to disrupt school instead of learning, they were suspended. If they came back and did the same, they were suspended again. If a student assaulted a student or a teacher, they were expelled, and no one questioned the obvious need for that.

Students with disabilities were educated apart from their non-disabled peers, so they could learn what they could without hindering the education of others. Students who were too lazy to learn would fail, get left behind a grade or two, and realize that they aren't on the graduation track and drop out.

Schools were not twelve year warehousing institutions where at the end, you got a diploma whether you could read it or not.

So private schools can be the one-size-fits-all education nightmare that public school are?

How about we give one size voucher to typical students, one to gifted and talented, and a larger ones to students with disabilities or behavior issues that cost public schools more money. Then private schools seeking vouchers would tailor their services to different kinds of kids.

When was your teacher's certificate suspended? If not, it should have been. You support educational malpractice.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ok, what is the name of the program and I will research it myself.

It is plain that you are hiding something about it.

The name of the program? Man, you are dumber than dirt!

 

[pknopp]

Sure, there is.

You could say, "It was terrible that public schools used to expell students just for raping a classmate .......................

I have zero interest in participating in your hyperbole.

 

[Unkotare]

.... If a student came to school to disrupt school instead of learning, they were suspended. If they came back and did the same, they were suspended again. If a student assaulted a student or a teacher, they were expelled, ...

Same as today.

 

[Unkotare]

... Students who were too lazy to learn would fail, get left behind a grade or two, and realize that they aren't on the graduation track and drop out.
...

Same as today.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I have zero interest in participating in your hyperbole.

You dont' know the difference between hyperbole and fact.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The name of the program? Man, you are dumber than dirt!

Yes, I want to know the name of the voucher program that you claim Florida had.

Becuase if I go research it, find one and tell you the flaws in it, you'll just say, "not that program, the other one."

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, I want to know the name of the voucher program that you claim Florida had.

Becuase if I go research it, find one and tell you the flaws in it, you'll just say, "not that program, the other one."

There was only one, dipshit!

 

[SweetSue92]

Sure, there is.

You could say, "It was terrible that public schools used to expell students just for raping a classmate or assaulting a teacher. It is much better that they student be secretly moved to another school in the district and continue to have access to the girls bathroom by wearing a skirt."

Then we could discuss that.

Last week. A teacher told our admin, "I will not be hit by this child one more time. Not one more time."

SHE was reprimanded. I repeat. SHE was reprimanded. For saying this.

When I relayed the story to a family member in business, she said with wide eyes, "Your school is going to be sued. Badly. So badly."

Right. I know. But here we are in 2022, when there is no common sense, reason, or rationality at all.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There was only one, dipshit!

Are you sure you're not making this up, or it was just something that you "read somewhere?"

Florida's Voucher Program: Data Snapshot and List of Participating Schools

More than 2,100 private schools participate in at least one of Florida's private-school choice programs. Get a closer look at the popularity of these programs and the schools that participate in them.

www.edweek.org

Florida's Voucher Program: Data Snapshot and List of Participating Schools​

More than 2,100 private schools participate in at least one of Florida's private-school choice programs. Get a closer look at the popularity of these programs and the schools that participate in them.

Florida's Voucher Program: Data Snapshot and List of Participating Schools​

More than 2,100 private schools participate in at least one of Florida's private-school choice programs. In the charts below, you'll see how the popularity of these programs have grown over time and how many of the participating schools are accredited or religious. Also below is a searchable list of all participating schools by district and information about their accreditation status and religious affiliation.
Related: 'There Is No Oversight': Private-School Vouchers Can Leave Parents on Their Own

Student participation in the state’s three voucher-like programs has grown steadily in recent years. Click on the different years to see the full data.

You're not the first wokester to say "We know vouchers can never work, because they tried them in Florida," and then not be able to provide a single detail about how it was a voucher program and what evidence there is that it "didn't work." Obviously, there is a meme or an article published in multiple websites that says that in the headline, or a throwaway line in the article, but provides no details.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Last week. A teacher told our admin, "I will not be hit by this child one more time. Not one more time."

SHE was reprimanded. I repeat. SHE was reprimanded. For saying this.

When I relayed the story to a family member in business, she said with wide eyes, "Your school is going to be sued. Badly. So badly."

Right. I know. But here we are in 2022, when there is no common sense, reason, or rationality at all.

As so often, our tort system puts schools in a position in they can be sued no matter what they do. Option A, and one greedy trial lawyer will want to cash in, Option B, and another greedy trial lawyer will cash in. On the weekend, they will play golf together with the greedy politician and the greedy lobbyist that make their legalized theivery possible.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And yes slavery and segregation were CONSERVATIVE policies. That you come up with "all Democratic policies" shows that you're not really interested in proper debate.

Yes, it's vague because it's a huge subject and I don't claim to have all the answers. It's a discussion for a country to have. The answer of "What should an American adult be like?"

For example - law abiding, having skills to get a job, a good parent, a good spouse.

Then, how do we achieve this?

And again, another jibe. You teach behavior, and yet you come on here and you're full of crap.

I can't be bothered to be honest.

I don't care about "conservative" versus "Liberal," as those have become meaningless terms.

There is one party that promotes programs that lead to massive inflation, economic stagnation, reduction of respect for the U.S. and division among citizens of the U.S. I oppose that party, and the GOP is the only organization capable of stopping that party, flawed as the Republicans are.

Yes, debates should happen. However in the US with a two party system and these two parties being exceedingly negative, and using narratives to try and force people to accept their policies, rather than having people dictating what the politicians do, as happens in many proportional representation countries.

Take Germany. The AfD appeared in 2013, it's a further right party (not far right, but further to the right than the CDU, the traditional right party). By 2017 they had gained 12.6% of the vote and 90 seats. They took votes and seats from the CDU. That was an instant impact.

In the UK, with FPTP, UKIP, a similar type party formed in the early 1990s, managed to get 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They got one seat. They did change politics, because they forced a Brexit vote, but then they virtually died.

In Germany the people have a much faster way of getting heard and if the politicians don't listen, they lose and lose big time.

In the US there isn't even a chance that third parties like UKIP will get voted for, which means no one listens. Which means the two parties can control their narratives. Which makes for crazy politics and a lack of open debate without being called a "racist" "communist" "fascist" etc etc.

If you are competing with people, and you have one interviewee who has the skills, and another who can read and write and do basic math, which one will get the job? If an employer has to train their employees to do things they should have learned at school, the US will be less efficient and foreign employees will be more sought after.

Yes, parents are the primary teachers of how to become parents. And you get cycles of it failing. Once one parent fails, the whole stack of card fails for generations. And the numbers failing just grow and grow, especially as such people are far more likely to produce more kids.

Well, I'd say that people become more radical when sensible doesn't happen.

If you have a government that is sensible, people will see that sensible doesn't work. When governments are wacky, like in the US, people see the normal system isn't working so they go much further left or right.
We can see this on both sides of the party. The Dems are moving left, the Reps moving right.
Spain is an example of what happens when this is the situation. Civil War in the 1930s, or Weimar Germany, pre-Soviet Russia, many examples.
Either the US introduces a sensible electoral system (proportional representation) or the left and right become more radical and more wacky shit happens.

Yes, our two party system leads to non sensible government, and I also wish we had proportional representation.

But the Democrats seem determined to make it into a one-party system. A one-party system would not be twice as bad as a two-party system, it would be many, many times worse.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't care about "conservative" versus "Liberal," as those have become meaningless terms.

There is one party that promotes programs that lead to massive inflation, economic stagnation, reduction of respect for the U.S. and division among citizens of the U.S. I oppose that party, and the GOP is the only organization capable of stopping that party, flawed as the Republicans are.


Yes, our two party system leads to non sensible government, and I also wish we had proportional representation.

But the Democrats seem determined to make it into a one-party system. A one-party system would not be twice as bad as a two-party system, it would be many, many times worse.

They haven't become "meaningless terms" at all.
They only become meaningless if your conversations are down in the depths of nonsense. It's like saying that high level physics words are meaningless. Sure, they're meaningless for people who know nothing about physics, but for people who are at the top end of physics, they're very useful.

"There is one party that promotes programs that lead to massive inflation, economic stagnation, reduction of respect for the U.S. and division among citizens of the U.S. I oppose that party, and the GOP is the only organization capable of stopping that party, flawed as the Republicans are."

Wow, this is ridiculous.

You think the Democrats are all about "massive inflation" do you?
Inflation Rate - By Country

The US has 7.7% inflation.
The UK, a country with a conservative government (should I say Republican as "conservative" is meaningless?) for the last 12 years, has an inflation rate of 11.1.

Then again inflation is everywhere, Switzerland and Lichtenstein are low at 3%, France at 6.2, Luxembourg at 6.9 along with Canada, New Zealand at 7.2, Spain Australia at 7.3, but they're close to the US's figures.

Biden didn't make the inflation. The inflation would have happened regardless.
It's like saying Trump was responsible for the HIGHEST post was unemployment rate. He wasn't, but it happened on his watch.

"economic stagnation"???
He's a fact. Every post war Democratic president has ended their term of office with higher employment than when they started, except Carter who had the same level.

Every post war Republican president has ended their terms of office with lower employment, except Reagan.

Also, which might sound contradictory, boom and bust is bad for the US, massive rising economic figures, hitting new highs, like Trump was boasting about, merely leads to higher busts. 2008 saw the second worst ever recession for the US, had Bush not pushed the economy, the recession might not have been bad.
The rich did well out of it.

Here's a chart showing that in 2008 the rich, the top 10% increased their wealth, the bottom 90% lost wealth. 7 million people lost their homes to rich people, banks etc.
The rich control the government, mostly with their money, and they push for boom and bust because right now everyone is trying to take as much of the pie before the whole house of cards comes falling down due to the corruption.

"reduction of respect for the U.S." From outside the US? Bush and especially Trump are the ones who have done this the most.

"division among citizens of the U.S." always existed. The north hated the south in 1776, they hated each other in 1861, they hate each other now. Division is sown by both sides, it's different now, it's more political. The Koch brothers have spent the last 40 years using their money to push the right further right, they've jumped on all kinds of cases to get the right to be more wacky that the previous year. I'm not saying the left don't do it, but the right are a big part of it.

I get the feeling a lot of people vote based on the things you've said. I can come onto this forum and I can disprove with logic and facts the things people say. Usually people just ignore me because they like this division, they like waking up in the morning and getting on the internet and attacking the other party. It's their entertainment. I'd say 95% of this forum is that. Nonsense threads started about the same topic that's been hashed over a million times with the only result being entertainment and fake outrage.

However, all of this is "division among citizens of the U.S.", the two party system creates this. I propose Proportional Representation, most people are unbothered by the destruction of their country to even bother finding out what PR is, or even reading what I write. They don't want REALITY. They like their fantasy conflict world.

Democrats AND Republicans are making it a one party system. The reality is the Dems and Reps are too big to be "one party" or a united party. The Dems and Reps don't stand for one thing. The Republicans especially are seeing offshoots of the party, the Tea Party, Trump etc.

In Germany that manifested itself as the AfD, they lost 1.9% of their vote from 2017 in 2021. Why? Because they get a chance to prove themselves and people can then judge them. The Tea Party couldn't prove itself because it wasn't in charge of anything, it was just within the Republican Party. People can't vote Tea Party, they can only choose Republican or not Republican.

Essentially the US has one party, the Demublicans or whatever you want to call them. They win EVERYTHING, it's like a dodgy dictatorship.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You think the Democrats are all about "massive inflation" do you?
Inflation Rate - By Country

The US has 7.7% inflation.
The UK, a country with a conservative government (should I say Republican as "conservative" is meaningless?) for the last 12 years, has an inflation rate of 11.1.

No, you should not say "Republican" when speaking of a Party in the UK. The UK takes some pride in not being a republic. There is a movement called "Republic," which is a republican movement with a small L. I don't know if they'll ever get traction.

I don't know what it means to be "Conservative" in the UK, and I don't like what it means in the US.

Then again inflation is everywhere, Switzerland and Lichtenstein are low at 3%, France at 6.2, Luxembourg at 6.9 along with Canada, New Zealand at 7.2, Spain Australia at 7.3, but they're close to the US's figures.

Biden didn't make the inflation. The inflation would have happened regardless.
It's like saying Trump was responsible for the HIGHEST post was unemployment rate. He wasn't, but it happened on his watch.

Of course Trump was responsible for the highest post-war unemployment rate, and that after having achieved the lowest unemployment rate for people of color in history.

He allowed himself to be scammed by Fauci and his followers to the point that he became just another follower. He listened to the shreiking voices of the most radical of Democrats who seized on the pandemic to push the concepts of individual rights off the table.

The shutdowns were disastrous for our economy. The only reason I still vote for him is that no other prominent politician advated against Fauci-ism. I'd vote Libertarian, except that it is vital not to let the Democrats have enough power to realize their dream of a one-party system.

Sweden decided early on not to get caught up in the fake pandemic by participating in the pandemic of fear. Their economy suffered few ill effects, and their health outcomes were on par with all the mask up/shut down nations.

Democrats AND Republicans are making it a one party system. The reality is the Dems and Reps are too big to be "one party" or a united party. The Dems and Reps don't stand for one thing. The Republicans especially are seeing offshoots of the party, the Tea Party, Trump etc.

An interesting point about offshoots.

Trump originally ran as essentially a third party candidate in Republican clothing. He co-opted the party aparatus and defeated each of the established candidates badly. The only person who might have had a chance to win the nomination against him would have been a "generic non-Trump Republican. We'll never know if such a person would have won, because no Republican was willing to to step down and support another until their campaigns became hopeless.

He was an outsider, but Trump is not now an offshoot of the Rebublican Party, Trump is the leader of the Party selected by its voters. The Liz Cheney/Mitch McConnel/Mitt Romney faction may need to form their own offshoot. They are doing nothing to appeal to Trump voters, and certainly not declaring against him in the primary.

Barring a Republican willing to stand up to Trump, he will win the primary unopposed as he did in 2020. I'd like your take on who in your party can defeat him?

Essentially the US has one party, the Demublicans or whatever you want to call them. They win EVERYTHING, it's like a dodgy dictatorship.

I used to say that also. The Democrats and the Republicans would each adjust their policies toward the middle, to attract undecided voters. When conservatism became popular, Bill Clinton ran as more conservative than George W., and he won. While the parties have indeed started to blend, that competition for the undecided has at least kept either from going off the deep end.

What threatens that is the Democrats refusal to accept tightening of election security. With no election security and with Democrats at all levels being so willing to cheat, we now have the possibility of Democrats being able to run the most radical among them and win anyway. Once they realize their dream of not being reliant on voters, they will be free to realize also their most excessive policy goals.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you should not say "Republican" when speaking of a Party in the UK. The UK takes some pride in not being a republic. There is a movement called "Republic," which is a republican movement with a small L. I don't know if they'll ever get traction.

I don't know what it means to be "Conservative" in the UK, and I don't like what it means in the US.

Of course Trump was responsible for the highest post-war unemployment rate, and that after having achieved the lowest unemployment rate for people of color in history.

He allowed himself to be scammed by Fauci and his followers to the point that he became just another follower. He listened to the shreiking voices of the most radical of Democrats who seized on the pandemic to push the concepts of individual rights off the table.

The shutdowns were disastrous for our economy. The only reason I still vote for him is that no other prominent politician advated against Fauci-ism. I'd vote Libertarian, except that it is vital not to let the Democrats have enough power to realize their dream of a one-party system.

Sweden decided early on not to get caught up in the fake pandemic by participating in the pandemic of fear. Their economy suffered few ill effects, and their health outcomes were on par with all the mask up/shut down nations.

An interesting point about offshoots.

Trump originally ran as essentially a third party candidate in Republican clothing. He co-opted the party aparatus and defeated each of the established candidates badly. The only person who might have had a chance to win the nomination against him would have been a "generic non-Trump Republican. We'll never know if such a person would have won, because no Republican was willing to to step down and support another until their campaigns became hopeless.

He was an outsider, but Trump is not now an offshoot of the Rebublican Party, Trump is the leader of the Party selected by its voters. The Liz Cheney/Mitch McConnel/Mitt Romney faction may need to form their own offshoot. They are doing nothing to appeal to Trump voters, and certainly not declaring against him in the primary.

Barring a Republican willing to stand up to Trump, he will win the primary unopposed as he did in 2020. I'd like your take on who in your party can defeat him?

I used to say that also. The Democrats and the Republicans would each adjust their policies toward the middle, to attract undecided voters. When conservatism became popular, Bill Clinton ran as more conservative than George W., and he won. While the parties have indeed started to blend, that competition for the undecided has at least kept either from going off the deep end.

What threatens that is the Democrats refusal to accept tightening of election security. With no election security and with Democrats at all levels being so willing to cheat, we now have the possibility of Democrats being able to run the most radical among them and win anyway. Once they realize their dream of not being reliant on voters, they will be free to realize also their most excessive policy goals.

Of course I shouldn't say Republican, the reality is I was showing you that "conservative" and "liberal" are very useful words.

You don't like what "conservative" means in the US? But it is what it is, and you seem to be a conservative.

Could Trump have done anything to stop there being the highest unemployment rate? No. The people will blame someone or other, without ever taking any responsibility, but it was out of Trump's hand. And the same for "people of color" low unemployment. Had Trump want in 2008, he'd not have had low unemployment. Obama saw the economy out of the mess. The reality though is that the president of the USA often can have a negative impact but not much of a positive impact. Like a ship's captain, sailing the seas. They get to port intact, job well done, but mostly because of the weather, and some because of the ship building etc etc.

Sweden Unemployment Rate

Unemployment Rate in Sweden decreased to 7.10 percent in November from 7.40 percent in October of 2023. This page provides the latest reported value for - Sweden Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar...

tradingeconomics.com

Sweden had high unemployment, they got above 10%. You really should research things before posting them. Why? Because then you learn things, you don't wait for others to teach you. It's one of the reasons I come on this forum, it gives me the impetus to go research. Took me 30 seconds to find that.

Trump is product of the Koch brothers, ironically because they hate him (or at least one does, as the other is dead). The Tea Party was a Koch brothers funded group. Trump jumped on top of the craziness that the Koch brothers have created and made it his own. Without the Koch brothers, Trump would never have been president.

And it shows the direction the country is going in. And it's all bad.

I don't know who can defeat Trump, I don't tend to pay much attention to who could, I wait and see what happens, it's just what interests me most. Trump might end up defeating himself. Who knows?

Democrats and Republicans run on negative emotions. They attack each other. The Republicans say it's all about electoral fraud, Democrats don't believe it and the people in the middle will make their decisions on which negativity they believe the most.

It's a pretty bad way to elect a government, based on which party is the least disastrous and shit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course I shouldn't say Republican, the reality is I was showing you that "conservative" and "liberal" are very useful words.

You don't like what "conservative" means in the US? But it is what it is, and you seem to be a conservative.

I'm not, I'm libertarian as an ideal, but Trump's policies have not been geared to be conservative or liberal, rather to put America first and improve the lives of Americans. Until that unlikely libertarian ideal is achieved, I support American first, secure borders, economic growth and tarrifs to prevent American consumers from being available to foreign countries but their consumers not available to our manufacturers, and a return of our troops from foreign lands.

Trump was doing that, with some success, until the panicdemic.

Could Trump have done anything to stop there being the highest unemployment rate? No. The people will blame someone or other, without ever taking any responsibility, but it was out of Trump's hand. And the same for "people of color" low unemployment. Had Trump want in 2008, he'd not have had low unemployment. Obama saw the economy out of the mess.

So, it is never the president, except for the God-like Obama? Obama handed Trump a mess which Trump was well on the way to fixing. Not just the economy, but the border, and foreign relations. Biden has been a disaster for all of those, and crime has skyrocketed. He isn't personally responsible for the crimes in Portland, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. But it is the Democratic method of solving crime by defunding police and releasing criminals that has caused it.

The reality though is that the president of the USA often can have a negative impact but not much of a positive impact. Like a ship's captain, sailing the seas. They get to port intact, job well done, but mostly because of the weather, and some because of the ship building etc etc.

Then stop stressing about who is president.

Sweden Unemployment Rate

Unemployment Rate in Sweden decreased to 7.10 percent in November from 7.40 percent in October of 2023. This page provides the latest reported value for - Sweden Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar...

tradingeconomics.com

Sweden had high unemployment, they got above 10%. You really should research things before posting them. Why? Because then you learn things, you don't wait for others to teach you. It's one of the reasons I come on this forum, it gives me the impetus to go research. Took me 30 seconds to find that.

Your thirty second google search doesn't convince me that the information I found while monitoring Sweden's progress after they announced that they would not be going along with the pandemic craziness is now invalid.

Here are a couple of places that you can start if you are willing to spend more than thirty seconds googling and cherry picking.

UPDATE 2-Swedish economy surpasses pre-pandemic size, economists say

* Sweden imposed few restrictions during pandemic (Recasts on size of economy, add fresh economist comment)

www.reuters.com

* Swedish GDP +0.9% in Q2 - preliminary figures

* Reuters poll had forecast 0.7% growth

* Sweden imposed few restrictions during pandemic (Recasts on size of economy, add fresh economist comment)

STOCKHOLM, July 29 (Reuters) - Sweden’s economy looks to have recovered all of the losses wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, economists said, after preliminary figures released on Thursday showed the country was at the forefront of the economic rebound.

While its economy shrank 2.8% in 2020 when the pandemic first hit, Sweden was not hit as hard as many other countries thanks in part to less onerous COVID-19 rules which allowed most businesses to stay open.

Economic measures on account of the pandemic 2020–2021

Since the infection started to spread, the Government and the Riksdag have taken a large number of measures to safeguard people’s lives, health and...

www.government.se

The IMF’s most recent estimate of countries’ financial support measures suggests that Sweden’s measures are well in line with those of several comparable countries, chiefly with other Nordic countries. The Swedish economy coped much better than that of many other European countries in 2020 and, so far, its recovery has been faster. In the second quarter of 2021 the Swedish GDP was back at the same level as before the pandemic (see figure 1.3). In the other Nordic countries activity in the economy has also been maintained relatively well.

Trump is product of the Koch brothers, ironically because they hate him (or at least one does, as the other is dead). The Tea Party was a Koch brothers funded group. Trump jumped on top of the craziness that the Koch brothers have created and made it his own. Without the Koch brothers, Trump would never have been president.

Maybe.

Without Rush Limbaugh, maybe W. Bush would not have been president. Without Carter's honest but bizarrely incompentent presidency, maybe Reagan would have never been president. Without Nixon's criminality, maybe the honest but utterly incapable Carter would never have been elected. current events influence future events.

Just out of curiosity, what was crazy about the TEA Party? Please be specific about which crazy policies they advocated. Avoid ad hominem attacks, if you please.

And it shows the direction the country is going in. And it's all bad.

Be specific. Where are we going and why is it bad?

I don't know who can defeat Trump, I don't tend to pay much attention to who could, I wait and see what happens, it's just what interests me most. Trump might end up defeating himself. Who knows?

Trump defeating himself seems unlikely. BUt a generic Republican beating him is extremely unlikely, because our primaries don't work that way.

My understanding of UK politics is very limited, so I apologize in advance if I get this wrong: Do they vote for the party and then the party selects the government, either by itself, or in coalition with another party if they only win a plurality?

If we had that here, and people could just vote for "Republican," instead of for an actual Trump opponent, maybe. Maybe . . . but the Party would have to pull a fast one on the voters by installing another leader after Trump voters went out and voted Republican.

Democrats and Republicans run on negative emotions. They attack each other. The Republicans say it's all about electoral fraud, Democrats don't believe it and the people in the middle will make their decisions on which negativity they believe the most.

The problem is that if the Republicans (and a large number of Democrats) are wrong about cheating influencing elections, then it just means that we will only have confidence when Republicans win, which is not fair to the Democrats (if the majority of Americans are wrong about cheating).

Democracy would still work and we would see the cycle of one party winning, then the other until it became clear that the Democrats don't have a lock by their cheating.

However . . . if the majority are right about cheating, then left unaddressed, the election security weaknesses will allow Democrats to win elections without compromising with the Republicans, and without needing to care that their worst excesses will offend even Democrat voters.

Voting will be meaningless.

It's a pretty bad way to elect a government, based on which party is the least disastrous and shit.

Agreed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not, I'm libertarian as an ideal, but Trump's policies have not been geared to be conservative or liberal, rather to put America first and improve the lives of Americans. Until that unlikely libertarian ideal is achieved, I support American first, secure borders, economic growth and tarrifs to prevent American consumers from being available to foreign countries but their consumers not available to our manufacturers, and a return of our troops from foreign lands.

Trump was doing that, with some success, until the panicdemic.

So, it is never the president, except for the God-like Obama? Obama handed Trump a mess which Trump was well on the way to fixing. Not just the economy, but the border, and foreign relations. Biden has been a disaster for all of those, and crime has skyrocketed. He isn't personally responsible for the crimes in Portland, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. But it is the Democratic method of solving crime by defunding police and releasing criminals that has caused it.

Then stop stressing about who is president.

Your thirty second google search doesn't convince me that the information I found while monitoring Sweden's progress after they announced that they would not be going along with the pandemic craziness is now invalid.

Here are a couple of places that you can start if you are willing to spend more than thirty seconds googling and cherry picking.

UPDATE 2-Swedish economy surpasses pre-pandemic size, economists say

* Sweden imposed few restrictions during pandemic (Recasts on size of economy, add fresh economist comment)

www.reuters.com

* Swedish GDP +0.9% in Q2 - preliminary figures

* Reuters poll had forecast 0.7% growth

* Sweden imposed few restrictions during pandemic (Recasts on size of economy, add fresh economist comment)

STOCKHOLM, July 29 (Reuters) - Sweden’s economy looks to have recovered all of the losses wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, economists said, after preliminary figures released on Thursday showed the country was at the forefront of the economic rebound.

While its economy shrank 2.8% in 2020 when the pandemic first hit, Sweden was not hit as hard as many other countries thanks in part to less onerous COVID-19 rules which allowed most businesses to stay open.

Economic measures on account of the pandemic 2020–2021

Since the infection started to spread, the Government and the Riksdag have taken a large number of measures to safeguard people’s lives, health and...

www.government.se

The IMF’s most recent estimate of countries’ financial support measures suggests that Sweden’s measures are well in line with those of several comparable countries, chiefly with other Nordic countries. The Swedish economy coped much better than that of many other European countries in 2020 and, so far, its recovery has been faster. In the second quarter of 2021 the Swedish GDP was back at the same level as before the pandemic (see figure 1.3). In the other Nordic countries activity in the economy has also been maintained relatively well.


Maybe.

Without Rush Limbaugh, maybe W. Bush would not have been president. Without Carter's honest but bizarrely incompentent presidency, maybe Reagan would have never been president. Without Nixon's criminality, maybe the honest but utterly incapable Carter would never have been elected. current events influence future events.

Just out of curiosity, what was crazy about the TEA Party? Please be specific about which crazy policies they advocated. Avoid ad hominem attacks, if you please.

Be specific. Where are we going and why is it bad?

Trump defeating himself seems unlikely. BUt a generic Republican beating him is extremely unlikely, because our primaries don't work that way.

My understanding of UK politics is very limited, so I apologize in advance if I get this wrong: Do they vote for the party and then the party selects the government, either by itself, or in coalition with another party if they only win a plurality?

If we had that here, and people could just vote for "Republican," instead of for an actual Trump opponent, maybe. Maybe . . . but the Party would have to pull a fast one on the voters by installing another leader after Trump voters went out and voted Republican.


The problem is that if the Republicans (and a large number of Democrats) are wrong about cheating influencing elections, then it just means that we will only have confidence when Republicans win, which is not fair to the Democrats (if the majority of Americans are wrong about cheating).

Democracy would still work and we would see the cycle of one party winning, then the other until it became clear that the Democrats don't have a lock by their cheating.

However . . . if the majority are right about cheating, then left unaddressed, the election security weaknesses will allow Democrats to win elections without compromising with the Republicans, and without needing to care that their worst excesses will offend even Democrat voters.

Voting will be meaningless.

Agreed.

Libertarians are conservative.

Trump's policies have been geared up to put TRUMP first. All he's done is gone out and found what crazy politics there is, and repeats it.

On China he was first "let's make money, China's the place to make money, Xi is great" then two years later he realized he could make nationalistic political capital out of China, and suddenly China was the big evil.
With guns, he saw a problem with Sandy Hook, and he wanted to do something about it, then spoke with the gun crowd and all of sudden he didn't give a damn how many people got killed.
This is not a guy putting the US first. This is a guy who is a snake oil sales man, who tells everyone that he's the greatest, and you're buying it. It's INCREDIBLE.


You support:

"secure borders"
What did Trump do? He put up a wall that would never work. He did it because people who want simplistic answers to complex problems demanded a wall.
I'm not saying I agree with the Democrat's way of dealing with things either, I think both sides are full of crap and just trying to please people in the short term rather than having real long term policies. The Republicans do not have real long term policies for secure borders.

"economic growth"
What does "economic growth" even mean. You can't always grow economically.

"and tarrifs"
Take a look at the EU, the UK left but it did so well out of the EU because of the lack of tariffs, lack of borders. In 2004 when loads of former Warsaw Pact countries joined, the UK's economy went well for the next four years until the economic crisis. The coronavirus period has been much harder on the UK because it's not in the EU, inflation is higher, all these problems you're complaining about, and they get made much worse because of tariffs.
The reality is the US became rich, and is rich, because of its dealing abroad.

Trump was messing things up, he didn't have a long term vision, he had no real understanding of how the US makes money.

The US president, internally, has very, very little power. And the same for "God-like Obama", why you think he's God-like is beyond me. The US president is the EXECUTIVE, he carried out policies, he doesn't make laws, he doesn't have that much impact, except in the negative. Like Bush, Bush went to two costly wars and this helped the 2008 crisis become much worse.

Did I say I was stressed about who the US president was? The biggest impact is in terms of the Supreme Court appointments which is having an impact decades later.

Fuck me, you're "not convinced" by the data I have? Then what's the fucking point? You sit behind your keyboard and you just make stuff up, you read an article that is convenient for your point of view and you swill it around your brain for a few years and then throw it back out, and it's all completely false. But you won't accept REAL FACTS? Unbelievable.

Let's check out your cherrypicked article, shall we?

The article is from July 2021. It's not up to date, it's old.

"* Swedish GDP +0.9% in Q2 - preliminary figures"

The UK's GDP in 2021 was higher than ever before

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=GB

The US's was higher than ever.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US

China who did strict lockdown went THROUGH THE ROOF again

GDP (current US$) - China | Data

GDP (current US$) - China from The World Bank: Data

data.worldbank.org

Germany's went up too

GDP (current US$) - Germany | Data

GDP (current US$) - Germany from The World Bank: Data

data.worldbank.org

So, all in all, you didn't do research to find out that Sweden's GDP rising was nothing special.

Wonderful. You really need to UNDERSTAND what it is you're looking at, rather than cherry picking articles that say something positive.