What's new
By:

Could Our Education System Soon Look Like This?

JustTheTip said:
Well, because of him a confirmation only requires 51 votes. DeVos only got 51 votes. You following?
Click to expand...
Ya, I already knew everything is his fault. That has been established.
 
For those who claim that education needs to be "innovative", when was the last time you job shadowed a k-12 teacher? Teachers today are some of the most creative and innovative people there are. Because they deal with obnoxious, hyper, and immature kids with little to no support from their state legislatures, admins, policies, or parents, they've been forced to become more innovative in their teaching. This couldn't be more apparent here in Utah, where class sizes are the largest in the nation and funding is the worst. Teachers have had to invent incredibly innovative ways to engage and educate students.

For those who attack public education as "government", just who the hell do you think the "government" is? Some alien entity? I often hear about getting "government" out of education. Never does that apply to the state legislature, always it applies to the feds. When in reality, the feds offer good programs and necessary funds. While the legislature bends and sways to the latest bright shiny object (or to whomever bribes Sen Howard Stephenson from Draper).

I think the confirmation of DeVos today confirms what most of us have suspected already:

A. Trump's presidency is a serious "F-YOU" to 99 percent of Americans. It is a huge plus for the already well established.
B. Congress won't serve as his watch dog. They will serve as his lap dog.
C. Democrats really blew it with Hillary.
 
JustTheTip said:
That's not what I'm saying, and you know that, I expect better from you Fish.
Click to expand...
I'm just joking around.... but on a serious note, if Obama changed the procedure for the worse then does trump have the ability to change it back to how it was?

Could trump make it so a confirmation requires the same number of votes that it did before obama screwed it up?
 
moevillini said:
I wonder if she understands the concept of regression to the mean
Click to expand...

Pretty sure she could google it in about two minutes and know it oh about as good as you do. But I suspect you mean something more here than a statistical term. Someone who's a billionaire, according to the theorem, must trend towards being average over time. However, in real life, people with money, statistically, make more money, and get disproportionately more wealthy. yah, like Hillary and Obama.

A kid who aces one test is likely going to fail the next? Likely, the principle of regression towards the mean presumes no actual talent, and no actual reason for a success.

Might be true of casino slot machines, not so much humans.

I think the goal of education is to help people do better than they otherwise could do without some help. I bet she understands that much.
 
fishonjazz said:
I'm just joking around.... but on a serious note, if Obama changed the procedure for the worse then does trump have the ability to change it back to how it was?

Could trump make it so a confirmation requires the same number of votes that it did before obama screwed it up?
Click to expand...
Obama didn’t make the change. The simple majority vote for cabinet positions and judicial vacancies, not including the Supreme Court, is a Senate rule. The Senate makes their own voting rules, not the president. The change (from a 60 vote threshold) was made a few years ago by Harry Reid (albeit no doubt with Obama’s support) when Democrats held the majority and voted to make the change. The Senate can change it back now that Republicans hold power, or it could be further relaxed to include Supreme Court nominations.
 
fishonjazz said:
I'm just joking around.... but on a serious note, if Obama changed the procedure for the worse then does trump have the ability to change it back to how it was?

Could trump make it so a confirmation requires the same number of votes that it did before obama screwed it up?
Click to expand...

I'm honestly more sure, but he has no incentive to.
 
No, because the party in power benefits from the way it is now as it is easier to push their stuff through. The Democrats were short-sighted and arrogant when they changed it, forgetting that they would not always be in power. No one will change it back.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
JazzGal said:
No, because the party in power benefits from the way it is now as it is easier to push their stuff through. The Democrats were short-sighted and arrogant when they changed it, forgetting that they would not always be in power. No one will change it back.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
So do we know for certain that if the Democrats hadn't done it when obama was in office that the Republicans wouldn't just do it now anyway?
 
JazzGal said:
No, because the party in power benefits from the way it is now as it is easier to push their stuff through. The Democrats were short-sighted and arrogant when they changed it, forgetting that they would not always be in power. No one will change it back.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Bingo. Which is why I am always wary of giving DC more power. It's unlikely that it will ever be given back.

One reason I'm opposed to Trumps Muslim policies (from the campaign at least).
 
fishonjazz said:
So do we know for certain that if the Democrats hadn't done it when obama was in office that the Republicans wouldn't just do it now anyway?
Click to expand...

I believe it took 60 votes to change at the time and the Ds had 60. Rs do not have 60. They only have 52. And the tie breaker vote in the VP.
 
*Trump nominates neo-nazi*


That pesky little Obama though!
 
dalamon said:
Lol Obama nominated Devos & convinced 51 reps to vote him in?


You're being obtuse
Click to expand...

Am I?

This is what happens when the executive branch over extends their power. It's literally a direct result from changing the # of votes needed. Pretty damn obvious, Dala.
 
dalamon said:
Lol Obama nominated Devos & convinced 51 reps to vote him in?


You're being obtuse
Click to expand...

not entirely sure you're sober, but what did I miss in this pissing match?

cabinet appointments have generally been pretty mundane things. The President picks his team, and the Senate confirms if there's no serious reason not to. It's been mostly courtesy, really, until now. R Senate confirmed all Obama picks after the D's lost it.

Congress should be wary about the assumption of powers by other branches of govt and protect their own turf. "Adminsistrative Law" and Exec agency "rule making" degrade the role of the legislature. If you don't want to worry so much about Presidential cabinet members, don't give fed agencies their own courts, their own police, their own lawmakers. If you don't want to worry so much about the makeup of the Supreme Court, don't let it become a lawmaker on it's decisions and rulings.

I think we should limit Supreme Court appointments to twenty years, and Congress should remove Justices who write law into their rulings, stuff better left to elected officials. Congress has pretty much laid back and invited the other branches to do the heavy lifting, so voters won't care if they get re-elected.

Congress should be limited in their offices to three terms max, but they'll never do it. We need the states to ratify the specific amendment necessary, if 37 States will approve the amendment, it doesn't need congressional passage or Presidential approval. Article 5 of the constitution.


DeVos is not a Nazi, she's an effective administrator with entrepreneurial expertise for getting things done. She is against "Common Core", favors local control of education maybe even the abolishment of her own Fed agency, and it follows she's not power-crazed. She's not anything like that. She looks for better ways to do things for less money, and more freedom.

Sure the educational cartel is being challenged. If they really wanted their power they should have seen to it that "education" was not hijacked by politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top