Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[tands]

My opinions are only that. You can skip those too, If you want.

 

[Script]

Congratulations. Still hoping the DJ will put the other record on soon. Well, if we could force him to read through all these...

 

[micaddict]

I have a feeling we've only just begun.

 

[Matador]

My opinions are only that. You can skip those too, If you want.

You you still want to include many-pages long articles, just wrap them in 'quote' tags so we can tell what you are quoting and what you are writing yourself.

[quote author=Some text from somewhere else]
Like this....insert some long post from somewhere else
[/quote]

And then comment on it here, if you feel like it.

Looks like the de-legitimization of the judicial branch has begun.  Someone needs to get DJ a Cliff's-Notes version of the Constitution so he can figure that it's the entire point.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Looks like the de-legitimization of the judicial branch has begun.  Someone needs to get DJ a Cliff's-Notes version of the Constitution so he can figure that it's the entire point.

There has always been tension between the branches of government and I recall Pres Obama rebuking SCOTUS in his State of the Union speech in 2010, and in 2015 three SCOTUS justices did not attend.

There is valid (IMO) criticism of activist jurists exceeding their job description so maybe all in government could benefit from studying the constitution.
 
Trump is just reacting in his personal fashion (not very presidential), but it might be nice to stop delaying the vote on his attorney general so Jeff Sessions could properly address this issue, and vote on his other cabinet appointments too so they could get to work.

JR

 

[Matador]

There has always been tension between the branches of government and I recall Pres Obama rebuking SCOTUS in his State of the Union speech in 2010, and in 2015 three SCOTUS justices did not attend.

JR

Disagreeing with a decision isn't the problem:  yes, Obama has, and so did Bush, Clinton, Nixon, etc.

Are you referring specifically to this?

"With all due deference to the separation of powers," [Obama] said, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

You really think that is the same thing?  Disagreement and de-legitimization aren't the same thing.  Nowhere in the 2010 State of the Union transcript was there anything about how the SCOTUS judges 'weren't real judges, acting without authority'.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You really think that is the same thing?  Disagreement and de-legitimization aren't the same thing.  Nowhere in the 2010 State of the Union transcript was there anything about how the SCOTUS judges 'weren't real judges, acting without authority'.

I believe Trump's tweets get parsed hyper-critically imputing all kinds of intent (in fact some pretty remarkable ASSumptions from excitable critics). We won't find any deep intent behind his tweets if they are purely reactive and lack serious reflection. I wish he would shut down his twitter acct, but at least it keeps media busy and gives them something to talk about.

Trump has been disrespectful toward judges before, but he is disrespectful toward everybody and anybody who doesn't agree with him. He's an equal opportunity offender. 

Trump is like that 70 YO relative who doesn't filter his comments or care much what people think. Imagine if he wasn't a teetotaler.  This is him sober...

JR

 

[DaveP]

Trump is like that 70 YO relative who doesn't filter his comments or care much what people think. Imagine if he wasn't a teetotaler.  This is him sober...

Yes I like that image, we all knew one of those.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Devos.

Another great appointment. Republicans rejoice. Finally Wyoming or wherever it was can get guns in schools to protect the children from grizzly bears. And hopefully we can deregulate the system so we won't have to put up with all the mandated help for disabled children.

Sprinkle some pro-Christianity into the school system and some pray-away-the-gay and we'll be all set.

It's ok though, because despite those idiotic views, not knowing what growth rate is and having zero experience in education, at leas she's a billionaire.

What can possibly go wrong?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Devos.

Another great appointment. Republicans rejoice. Finally Wyoming or wherever it was can get guns in schools to protect the children from grizzly bears. And hopefully we can deregulate the system so we won't have to put up with all the mandated help for disabled children.

Sprinkle some pro-Christianity into the school system and some pray-away-the-gay and we'll be all set.

It's ok though, because despite those idiotic views, not knowing what growth rate is and having zero experience in education, at leas she's a billionaire.

What can possibly go wrong?

You missed a few of the opposition talking points but that horse has left the barn already (she was approved today).

#1 complaint, she does not have public education experience. (I am not sure that is a bad thing looking at current public school results).

#2 complaint, she has connections to charter school organizations (once approved she can now divest her interests.)

The 2 republican senators who opposed her were from rural states (AK and ME)  and apparently believed she would hurt public schools in rural areas.

I am optimistic that more teacher accountability and school choice will help children get better educations (but I remain an unreformed optimist).

JR

PS: She's no Arne Duncan, who was recruited to play on Barry's white house pick-up basketball team. Arne was respectable playing in an all-star celebrity game a few years ago.

 

[mattiasNYC]

You missed a few of the opposition talking points but that horse has left the barn already (she was approved today).

Sure. We should just turn our ears and eyes off.

What baffles me though is that you care at all. You made some quip earlier about overly parsing Twitter statements by Trump, yet you're the one who voted for him and basically looked the other way whenever he lied blatantly. And the excuse was that 'everyone lies'.

So here we are, with new lies by Trump regarding reports on terrorists attacks as well as homicide rates in the US, blatant lies, and with his Twittering continuing unabated on the same adolescent level. You keep saying you think he should stop, but we all warned this would happen because of his personality. Well fear not, the people who you think hopefully will balance him out and  keep him in check are getting elected, and that includes pray-away-gay-Devos.

Own it.

Kakistocracy.

 

[musika]

Was never a Glenn Beck fan, so needed to look this up...

A kakistocracy (English pronunciation: /kækɪsˈtɑkɹəsi/) is a state or country run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.[1][2] The word was coined by English author Thomas Love Peacock in 1829.

 

[Matador]

I am optimistic that more teacher accountability and school choice will help children get better educations (but I remain an unreformed optimist).

Can you source any proof that shows improved outcomes by funneling money out of public education and into charter programs?  I know you don't like homework assignments, so I'll give you a hint:  you'll have a hard time finding any.

What makes this difficult is most of the research in this area carries the following caveat (I'll quote a representative example):

These [charter] schools are publicly financed, but are freed from many of the regulations that govern traditional public schools, such as those involving staffing, curriculum, and budget decisions.

This is more of the reason for Devos:  it's the de-regulated version of a federal program, no different than the current plans going forward in the EPA and other programs.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sure. We should just turn our ears and eyes off.

What baffles me though is that you care at all. You made some quip earlier about overly parsing Twitter statements by Trump, yet you're the one who voted for him and basically looked the other way whenever he lied blatantly. And the excuse was that 'everyone lies'.

So here we are, with new lies by Trump regarding reports on terrorists attacks as well as homicide rates in the US, blatant lies, and with his Twittering continuing unabated on the same adolescent level. You keep saying you think he should stop, but we all warned this would happen because of his personality. Well fear not, the people who you think hopefully will balance him out and  keep him in check are getting elected, and that includes pray-away-gay-Devos.

Own it.

Kakistocracy.

More name calling .... evidence of lost arguments.

Again with putting words in my mouth that differ from what I actually wrote.

I refuse to waste my time, thus. Surely you can find someone else to take the bait.

JR

 

[Matador]

Look, this thread can spin on for another 100 pages, and it's fun to debate these things.

But we are all circling around a basic fundamental question, which lies at the heart of all of these debates about education, taxes, etc:  does the federal government have a duty to provide a collective good?  Without an answer to this question (the forest), it seems pointless to debate the individual issues (the trees).

 

[JohnRoberts]

Can you source any proof that shows improved outcomes by funneling money out of public education and into charter programs?  I know you don't like homework assignments, so I'll give you a hint:  you'll have a hard time finding any.

I have been following this for years but do not have a comprehensive report for you.

for one anecdote of throwing good money after bad...  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627858/Mark-Zuckerbergs-100million-gift-Newark-public-schools-spent-students-arent-getting-better-education.html

Mark Zukerberg donated $100M to Newark public schools.  Now years later the money is gone with questionable results besides making some consultants wealthy.

Devos and her husband have been active contributing to socially conservative organizations and christian schools. As a government employee she will need to expand her horizons.  Trump has already talked about reprioritizing a $20B education budget to create a block grant for 11 million school age children living in poverty (probably another lie?) .

What makes this difficult is most of the research in this area carries the following caveat (I'll quote a representative example):

This is more of the reason for Devos:  it's the de-regulated version of a federal program, no different than the current plans going forward in the EPA and other programs.

This editorial from the detroit news is surprisingly supportive. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2017/01/12/editorial-devos-will-good-public-education/96514642/

Maybe later I will dig up some hard numbers for you but this seems like pure team politics with democrats supporting the teachers union who like things the way they are and don't appear to want more accountability and reform. Devos is an advocate for change.

I don't think anybody suggests there are easy answers to this, but what we are doing now isn't working, and just throwing more money at it (like Zukenberg tried) doesn't seem to work . We are paying more and getting worse results than many western nations. There is no excuse for this. Time to apply some common sense management practices.

JR

 

[dmp]

does the federal government have a duty to provide a collective good? 

People also fundamentally disagree about whether government CAN provide for a collective good. I've tried to make arguments (with facts) that government regulation has led to better outcomes than would have been possible otherwise (environmental regulation, technology innovation, etc). Unfortunately, it's almost become fundamental to the Republican mindset that this is not true.
The opposition was started with Reagan's famous proclamation "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  If only he had known how the anti-government movement that would have latched onto this, I think he would turn over in his grave.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Look, this thread can spin on for another 100 pages, and it's fun to debate these things.

But we are all circling around a basic fundamental question, which lies at the heart of all of these debates about education, taxes, etc:  does the federal government have a duty to provide a collective good?  Without an answer to this question (the forest), it seems pointless to debate the individual issues (the trees).

No, the government has a duty to protect individual rights as enumerated in the constitution. 

Government doing "collective good" seems like a subjective concept defined differently by different interest groups.

Of course opinions vary. Political campaigns are based on promises made by both candidates to benefit different interest groups. Without these promises a candidate would never get elected. The legislative system is designed to make it a little harder to deliver on unrealistic promises.

JR

 

[dmp]

No, the government has a duty to protect individual rights as enumerated in the constitution. 

The Constitution does not define everything that Government should do.It defines some things it should do, and some things it should not do. The government could pass sweeping legislation to do more for the collective good without violating any of the guiding principles of the constitution.
The constitution specifically protects some individual rights.  But it does not protect the individual rights of the extremely wealthy to have extraordinaire privileges in comparison to the populous. 

In no way that I see, can the constitution be seen as a "no" to the question of should the Government provide for the collective good.

Government doing "collective good" seems like a subjective concept defined differently by different interest groups.

Like all things, it can be spun in many different ways, especially as it's focused in on the trees to distract from the forest. But if you take a high level question, like should the government provide a system where everyone can access equal opportunity, education, health care, clean water, etc it's pretty clear that the government CAN do a collective good. It is often in opposition to the government doing "good" for a minority of powerful people, which turns out to be the case more often than not.

 

[Matador]

No, the government has a duty to protect individual rights as enumerated in the constitution. 

To start with, isn't there a good argument that 'common goods' (for lack of more accepted terminology) such as healthcare would fall under the preamble of the Constitution?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.