No they count on Republicans/Trump tax cuts for billionaires.
Interesting voting dynamic in my house
- Thread starter IUNorth
- Start date
If I had the choice between a shit public school and an excellent Islamic school, I’ll send my kid to the Islamic school and make sure they do some extra bible study outside school time.
Since conservatives are on board with religion in school, maybe Allah can be taught in all classrooms once muslims become the majority.
I could explain the typical arguments against this, sure. It’s not that I don’t know them - it’s just that I reject them.
Consumers of anything are pretty much universally better situated when they have the power of choice and the means to exercise it.
Yes but they will survive otherwise hence not actually dependent. As crazed had a nice post earlier setting forth this cycle of dependency Dems create. I encourage you to read it
You don’t think people who provide goods and services are motivated to earn and keep the business of their customers by the prospect of those customers taking their business elsewhere?
Hmm. Well, suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with that. It’s one of the most influential forces in the world.
A couple other things I’d add to this.
If money is the secret to quality education, then it’s really hard to explain why some of the highest funded school systems in the country produce some of the absolute worst outcomes.
Second, the single biggest reason college has become stupidly expensive is that there’s no fixed relationship between the cost to obtain a particular degree and the value of having it.
If we establish that relationship, it will go a long way towards addressing this imbalance.
Well she isn't the 80 year old empty suit that Biden has been and she is a she, so I agree that has and will continue to in the short term generate some excitement. But as your pointed out she is a very flawed candidate, and when those flaws and her record become the focus of the race, the realization will set in that there is little difference in an old empty suit and a middle aged empty pant suit. I don't see her generating much more excitement among the base or independents than Hillary did in 2016. A vote for her is a vote for the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration.
Craze, Indiana has been one of the more progressive states when it comes to school choice. Choice including charter schools both with and without religious instruction.
Craze, judging success by state testing (which is a subject of controversy as to its effectiveness) what grade would you give the state of Indiana for its effort in providing an alternative to the old fashioned practice of financing only public schools ?
Clinton had been attacked by the right wing for decades before she ran. Clinton was older. Clinton is white. I think most everyone knows the VP has very little to do with actual policies.
That’s a good question and, honestly, I don’t think I’m well qualified to answer it. I’d say the people best qualified to grade it are those who utilized it, especially those who moved kids from traditional public schools to either charter schools or private schools via vouchers.
But I’d also say that parents whose kids have remained in traditional schools are in a good position to rate our success. I realize critics of school choice think that advocates are seeking to kill public education. But it’s certainly not true for me. My sincere hope is that they, too, are improved by it. Because I believe strongly that competition is ultimately good for everybody.
I do know that, here in Evansville, we’re the proud home to the #2 high school in the country - which is a charter school. But, as great as it is, it’s certainly not for everybody.
I know that various organizations put out data which claims to deem school choice a massive success or a massive failure. But I don’t really pay much attention to those - as most of the ones I’ve seen are from interest groups with skin in the game.
I’m content to let people make up their own minds. That usually doesn’t steer us wrong.
I believe the opposite. Just like Trump's followers were energized by him being found guilty (seriously Pubs?) Biden dropping out has energized Dems heading into the Convention...
In the old days neither the RNC or DNC knew who would be their nominee till the convention. The campaign didn't really begin in earnest till Labor Day, and often conventions were marred by nasty floor fights and a bitter divide between candidates and delgates. Anyone who witnessed 1968 in Chicago with the battle between Humphrey and McCarthy and Daley's men beating protestors in the street, has seen what a disaster that type of turmoil can provide. I wasn't a Dem supporter then, but I fully believe the optics of bitter floor fights and cops clubbing demonstrators on tv every night for a week is what cost Humphrey the election...
Incidentally for anyone inclined to take Johnson/MAGA arguments that Biden should resign the Presidency because he's not running for re-election as anything but total nonsense, I'm curious what day you think LBJ resigned on? Just more moronic lunacy designed to appeal to people lacking common sense. And I say that as someone who feels it would be good strategy for Biden to resign now, and give Harris incumbency and the chance to shine on her own.
Harris has already faced the voters and was elected by voters who knew she was a heartbeat away from the Presidency in 2020. And it was the same scenario for any Dem who voted for the Biden/Harris ticket in the 2024 Primaries. Anyone who was diametrically opposed to the idea of Harris one day possibly becoming POTUS clearly had an oppty to vote for someone elsei in both 2020 and 2024 or not vote at all.
And plenty of both Pubs and Dems have been nominated by party conventions without facing a direct primary vote. The GOP's bluster on this is asinine...T
To try and maintain that the process is "unfair" is ludicrous. And Dems should certainly not take any moral lectures from a party full of people who not only nominated, but will actually vote for a twice impeached insurrectionist, who has been twice adjudicated to have committed sexual assault by two seperate juries and a judge. And oh, is a convicted felon as well...I think a lot of Dem voters feel this way, and it's heartening to see Dem resilliance to fight back and not be cowed by the MAGA crowd.
While normally in this day and age having to launch a candidacy on such short notice and proximity to Labor Day would be a disadvantage, I don't believe that is true this year. The one thing the Biden/Harris campaign excelled at is fundraising and campaign organization. Consequently if Harris is the nominee (when not if) the campaign structure is already in place.
The campaign had already locked in air/media time for Oct that far exceeded what the Trump campaign has at their disposal. The early fundraising lead meant that the Biden campaign had already established and staffed over 100 campaign offices in PA,WI and MI at a time Trump didn't have a single one. All of the money the Dems raise is earmarked for the campaign, not legal issues, court penalties, or the Trump family. Again a huge advantage for Dems...
The Trump campaign's entire focus was on making an issue of Biden's age, and Trump projecting a (phoney) aura of strength. That's all completely down the drain right now and they have to shift their entire focus and strategy to attacking Harris and probably an even more moderate VP candidate.
The Dems can merely juxtapose Harris for Biden, stress the same policies/issues that resonate with their constituency and continue to run anti-Trump ads that often require only a minor edit, if any at all. Not saying Harris will win necessarily, but the campaign is invigorated and in a much suprior position to where it was up until Sat night. The timing of Biden's announcement is (unintentionally?) strategic, on the heels of the RNC and heading into the DNC at a time Dem voters seem rejuvenated. I don't see the enthusiasm fading anytime soon...
"A vote for her is a vote for the failed policies of the Biden/Harris administration."
I think you're seeing things thru a MAGA lens. Most of the people who were already going to vote for Biden agreed with his policies. The fact that Kamala will likely follow the same path is a plus for her with them. I don't think diehard Biden voters blame Biden for issues the right is obsessed with. For example,imo it's stupid to blame Biden for inflation unless you want to blame him for worldwide inflation and rates in the 20s which occurred in Hungary and Russia.
And if Kamala is a "flawed candidate" then what the hell is Trump? The Pubs aren't running anyone normal who might be able to make inroads due to Kamala's "flaws". Trump is aside from his criminal issues, directly responsible for the corruption in SCOTUS, and the very unpopular over rule of Roe vs Wade. He also selfishly torpedoed the border security bill to benefit himself. I don't think there is any criticism of Kamal that is going to negatively resonate with non-Trump voters more than Trump's own flaws. The only people attacks by Trump on Kamala will resonate with are people who were never going to vote for Biden in the first place.
I think that is an interesting position. The big rub in this in private schools taking public funds but being able to reject students in a way that public schools are not allowed. The results of course being that private schools tend to cherry pick the students who are easier (and less expensive) to educate. How would you address this issue? Require private schools to take any child who applies to the school? Allow public schools to have the same ability to reject students that private schools have. Provide more funding to public schools to offset the difference? I think it's a thing to consider as we look how to shape choice in education.
How much has that been an issue in the 12 years we’ve had it?
I honestly can’t say - except that I know that the parochial school my kids attended has never turned away a student for any reason other than disciplinary. I asked the (former) president about that last fall when I saw him.
I can’t say that I’ve heard a lot of complaints about people being unable to find a school that would admit their kids. But I’m sure that some schools do fill up.
Signature School, the charter school I referenced, is highly competitive. I don’t know for sure, but I think I remember hearing the admission rate is something like 10%. But it’s intended for academic superstars. Those kids literally have to read Greek classics literature, as an example.
I haven't lived in Indiana during that time, so I can't speak to what's happened there, but I believe it's a pretty commonly discussed subject in academic circles. I'll look for some writing on it to share here, but for example it's much more expensive to educate a student on an IEP to basic state requirements than an honors student. And I believe the term some voucher opponents use to complain about private school and charter school advantages in direct comparisons is cream skimming or something like that.
I'm not opposed to school choice as long as we figure out how to address these sorts of issues.
He didn't mention one policy point, but being anti-Trump. to you, means she's "full dem". That's more about you than her.
That's fine, but how it started what a form of segregation. Well off to wealthy families, with political allies, living in urban school districts figured out how to divert their money from public schools to subsidize their private education costs. I was in real estate when "school choice" was being lobbied for by the NAR (National Association of Realtors). They wanted it because it made it easier to transact real estate, especially for homes that would produce very large commissions.
That's how it went in Indiana. I sat in those meetings and seminars on the topic.
What I’ve always found funny about that criticism, from my own experience, is that our parochial school (my wife and I both went there too) has long been very predominantly white.
I can’t cite any numbers. But the advent of school choice has made it noticeably more racially diverse. I personally heard a parent complain about the school admitting voucher students. I reminded them that choice works both ways….there’s no law making them keep their own kids there.
(I should note that this parent didn’t specifically say anything about race. They were complaining about kids who were rougher and didn’t have the same kind of discipline at home that most of our school families did…but I took it as racially sotto voce)
Anyway, maybe school choice has turned other schools and systems less racially diverse. but that certainly hasn’t been our experience.
**** yes dude. **** yes. I think the vision of Catholic school most on this board have isn’t a Catholic school that exists in reality or that I grew up with my siblings attending (or myself).
Maybe more of a Catholic High School from the 1920’s.
Said High School my siblings attended has won the 8A state championship in Football 6 of the last 8 years or something crazy like that. You don’t do that with White kids.
My older siblings went to parties in Rogers Park, Austin and Ravenswood while I ran from cops who pulled up on gravel drives in Winnetka.
The idea that you can make any kind of generalizations about this stuff is ridiculous. Move the money from poor performing schools to well performing schools. How bout that?
Let's be honest here. Tell yourself and her, your votes won't matter. Red all the way like normal in this state. This whole political board is a ruse acting like opinions mean anything. Most people aren't stupid to fall for lefty propaganda.
I’m surprised a woman that claims to be an independent is excited by a more liberal candidate than Biden has acted out to be. Student loan forgiveness, reparations and all of that is going to be back in play under Harris.
On top of that, I’d be curious to hear her take on a 20-something “dating” with a 60 year old, as if that’s normal. Oh and he just happened to be a man in a position of significant influence and power. She also had repeatedly played the minority card.
Lastly, what does your wife think about her job as VP, with the border crisis, etc? Does she give Harris a pass for all of the foreign policy failures, domestic blunders, and economic issues (not just inflation, but Tariffs)?
If so, it seems like she only cares about voting for anatomy.
Jason Willick went LeeRoy Jenkins on the bullshit narrative being hastily propagated on Kamala in the WaPo yesterday.
It will be interesting to reread it in November - where it will either stand as a brave and rare clarion call to try to stop Democrats from jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire…or else as a paean to bed-wetting, to use David Plouffe’s term.
The proposition that Kamala D. Harris is the Democratic candidate best suited to defeat Donald Trump is about as believable as the proposition that Joe Biden was mentally and physically equipped to serve as president until 2029.
That is to say: Both are obvious fictions. Democrats coalesced around the fiction of Biden’s acuity during the primary season. Now that Biden has dropped out, they are adopting the fiction that “no one is better” (as California Gov. Gavin Newsom put it on Sunday) to take on Trump in Biden’s stead. Any prospect of a competitive nomination process is evaporating as Democratic politicians — even those previously mooted as possible Biden replacements should he step aside — stampede to Harris.
Does anyone really believe Harris is the Democratic candidate most likely to block another Trump term? Unable to conceal Biden’s infirmity any longer, panicked Democratic leaders forced the president out of the 2024 race. They have a chance to put forward a strong candidate in a high-stakes election that is likely to be close. If they swiftly coronate Harris, Democrats would be elevating one of the weakest candidates available.
We've talked, a little, on some of these things. As I've posted in a few other threads, she'll pick from both policy and feelings and perceptions. Her favorite political figure in her lifetime, to this day, is GWB. I've playfully listed some of his bigger failures, and she's pretty dug in..."he's a good man"... its simple, its true, and these days...probably just as important a virtue as policy points.
So the student loan forgiveness, reparations...probably wouldn't move the needle for her much. Though I will say she hated the loan forgiveness, and some of the other more progressive tax/budget policies.
The 20 something dating a 60 year old...Got news for you, though I suspect you already know this...that isn't going to play, really at all, for many women voters...when the alternative is Trump. And I don't think I should need to go down his list of transgressions on those sorts of things. And if my wife is any sort of barometer...its not going to be wise for any GOP person to bring it up, if they're trying to convince a woman to vote for Trump over Harris...or better yet, try to use that to get them to vote GOP down ballot. There are many other things that could be focused on that will land, and not completely erase the other stuff.
The VP stuff is where she's more seriously questioning. A lot of it is frustration that she basically disappeared. But those other things, and her role in them, are definitely things she's thinking about and processing. But like many issues...the alternative is so stark...even on what is probably Harris biggest F-up, Border Crisis management...she still referred to the kids and families being put in cages under Trump. Trump has been an absolute master at using phrases and images, and tapping in to voters emotions on things. And I think this is an area where he might be vulnerable, on a policy topic that should be a strength for him. The visuals of those cages, which obviously aren't exclusive to Trump, but are also obviously very closely tied to him now...those videos are going to be blasted by Harris campaign. Trump is one of the best politicians in my lifetime at deflecting his own failures and mistakes, with stronger rhetoric, often lies, back at his opponents. This is one area where it might come back at him a little. I only explained through that because my wife brought it up...so it must have stuck with her. I personally hadn't thought about that, and it probably won't sway my views that Trump was pretty strong on border stuff, and the Dems have been awful.
I just think her reaction was intriguing to me...because she's never really noticed, or liked, or even talked about Harris before. So its got me thinking about how the woman voting block, by and large, is going to react when she's officially the singular Trump opponent, which certainly appears to be a formality at this point. Because Harris isn't normally a person my wife would be this excited about. It has to be 1)she's not Trump 2)she's even more not Trump than anyone that's faced him thus far.
I do think as she learns about some of her policy stuff, her excitement will fade a little bit.
Nevertheless, Harris has been on board with Biden's numerous plans to tackle student debt over the last four years, having raised the current administration's record on tackling mounting student debt....
Speaking to CNBC, a White House spokesperson said that Harris is proud of the current administration's work to forgive $167 billion in student debt for nearly 5 million borrowers so far, and that more relief is being planned.
What makes you think she is going to dramatically change this mentality, given she needs to attract young deadbeats?
I mean, I get it. Trump is a pretty disgusting person who also happened to be fed by a silver spoon, of sorts. Women seem to cry about his actions, but where is the self respect? You aren't fvcking a person double your age when you are nearly 30 without some sort of angle or agenda (money, power, fame, etc.). That's low character and low-class, whether it's a woman or a man (seems very seldom to happen where the sexes are inverse, but I would feel the same about a man who is dating a grandma in the peak of his social life). Might as well have a tramp stamp tattoo.
It would be interesting to hear a report back. She sounds very dismissive of this administrations' failures thus far. I'll be curious to see if she actually takes the time to digest or has already made up her mind (fwiw, I wouldn't expect her to suddenly not vote for Harris or Trump, but rather just the enthusiasm to wane, to your point).
Really? That's kind of unusual.
It reminds of me Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech to the Republican convention in 2004. He talked about when he came to America and heard a politician giving a speech about his basic principles. Arnold said "If that man is a Republican, then I am also a Republican!"
The politician whose speech had inspired Arnold to become a Republican was...Richard Nixon.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Never said more money was a guarantee of anything because money isn't always spent wisely. Less money is only going to increase issues
If a private school takes public funds then they should have to follow the exact same rules because they are really a public school in all but name... that should include not teaching religion
This all boils to down to one thing for me: Education is mandatory for all children in Indiana from 7-18, unless they graduate before they turn 18. Public schools must take all students in their district, which includes all children with developmental and physical issues. That means paying for ADA compliance, specially trained teacher's aides, and wheelchair ramps just to name a few. A private school in Indiana gets public $$ and then they can turn away any student for any reason, and they do not have to make accommodations for children that require them in order to attend their school. Now those kids with issues have to go to a public school that has less $$ to deal with their issues because vouchers are funneling those $$ to charter schools that do not have to accommodate these kids. Taking away $$ from public schools to give to private schools only makes sense if they have to accommodate all the kids that want to attend. As long as they get to turn kids away then they shouldn't get a dime of our tax $$ meant for educating kids.
That was an unintended consequence. So families starting pushing more out into suburbs, and now the suburbs are becoming more diverse, not just demographically but also politically.
So now we have the Heritage Foundation funding Moms For Liberty to try and do their dirty work, trying to create discontent in suburban public schools. They need a lot of that money to start their charter schools, and at least in central Indiana they are struggling mightily.
That's fair.
School choice has evolved in terms of motivations by those who fight to keep it. Charter schools came into the cities to fill a void as community schools were robbed of their money. Now charter schools are the way for conservative groups to benefit in money rich suburbs. At first I thought it was just about that, but even that has evolved into ways to control what students are being taught.
But the key point is that parents get to make that choice. That’s the thing opponents can’t run away from - so generally don’t even acknowledge.
But it’s an incredibly critical factor. Read the court’s opinion in Zelman. It was testing an Ohio program against the Establishment Clause. And the decision hinged on the fact that the parents, not the state, were directing these funds.
I’d extend this same point to IU_Hickory when he says “that should include not teaching religion.” The fact that parents direct these funds, rather than the state, renders is legally similar to a Social Security recipient putting some of her monthly benefit in the collection plate at church.
What exactly do we think churches use those funds to do, other than promote religious doctrine? But would it be reasonable for SSA to tell recipients that they aren’t allowed to give any of their benefit to a religious entity?
I really don’t think we should fear allowing parents to fill this role. It doesn’t violate the 1A, that’s long been established.
And parents are virtually always going to be better situated to determine if their children are receiving a quality education than some bureaucrat is. Why do you think so many people who can afford to spring extra for private education to begin with?
Anyway, this is our new paradigm. Certainly in this state - and it’s been expanding to many others. Even Gov. Shapiro in PA has expressed interest in it - which is not surprising to me.
To the degree it actually is an issue, I would certainly agree. But I’m just not convinced it actually is a major issue. It’s usually presented as an argument made in the abstract. It's been presented here as an argument in the abstract in this thread, a couple times.
I mean, what percentage of voucher students (in Indiana or elsewhere) have applied to private schools only to be denied admission? I don’t know. I can’t recall seeing any statistics on that.
If it was a significant and chronic problem, isn't it reasonable to suspect that I would have?
That said, it’s certainly true that any particular school can only accommodate so many students. That's also true of doctors -- but I don't think anybody would use that as an example why the use of Medicare benefits should be restricted to public healthcare providers like, say, the VA Clinic. We can use Medicare benefits at the providers of our choice. And that's good. But that doesn't mean we won't run into providers who have full patient rosters and can't accommodate any more.
The idea of public school was for the school to represent the community.
White flight led to families leaving urban school systems. You view it as choice. Some of us view it as defunding schools, pushing kids to be disenfranchised. School choice is GREAT for those who can make it work. A public school gets a child to school by bus. That typically isn't available for children at private schools, charter schools or when they're forced to attend schools which aren't in their neighborhood.
Try being an IPS family on the South, West or East sides of Indianapolis figuring out where your child is going to attend school and how they're going to get there.
Opponents don't run away from the choice notion. They confront it square in the face and know, from day one, it was never really about choice.
I haven't read what IU_Hickory said, but the notion of public schools teaching religion is ludicrous and a violation of the 1st Amendment. There are classes which do teach the Bible as a literature class, but that's not the same.
Just because you frame it as your money doesn't you can violate laws with it. It would be like me arguing to a cop, my car is able to reach 130 MPH, so I should be allowed to drive that fast.
I don't care what someone uses his/her SS benefits for.
Bureaucrats don't determine if a child is receiving the necessary education. Teachers do, along with their administrators.
I don't care that families send kids to private schools. They should have to pay for without defunding public schools. Otherwise it puts kids in harm's way who aren't as able through no fault of their own.
I had a kid live with me for 14 months, as a result his entire senior year. For his junior year, his school coach and I would take turns getting him to school. No bus was available to him, and his parents were unable to take him. His decision to move in with me was more of a safety issue, but it make it a hell of a lot easier to get him to school. (He didn't change schools.)
This is not a new paradigm. We've had it in Indiana since the late 90's, or at least that's when it legislated. It's been the downfall of urban school systems, and those who are work hard to defund public schools are also the loudest voices when it comes crime in those same areas.
A lot there, maybe I’ll respond more fully at a later time.
But I’d just want to say that this is not a 1st amendment violation. I linked the most notable court decision regarding the Establishment Clause test. It was Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - from 2002. There have been several others. But that was the landmark one.
Again, the key idea is that individuals are directing the funds, not the state. This is what keeps it faithful to the EC. You may not agree with that - and you wouldn’t be alone. But that’s one of those things where only 9 opinions actually matter.
That wasn't my argument, which is also to say I didn't know about Zelman.
I know my voice doesn't specifically matter when it comes to how vouchers are used - public, private, charter. Indiana has been open enrollment since the early 00's, even though many schools still require residency. I deal with that on a yearly basis just in covering HS basketball as I do in this state, often times advising privately or correcting publicly, how it applies to kids transferring from one HS to another.
I thought you were implying because of 'school choice' parents could dictate to public schools the teaching of religion. I misunderstood your point entirely because I didn't specifically know about Zelman, but I know vouchers can be used in whichever school systems allow them.
Oh, no. Religion can’t be taught in public schools. I certainly didn’t mean to say that.
Similar threads
