Chicago Teachers Union president raises eyebrows with claims about conservatives
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) President Stacy Davis Gates told a news radio host that conservatives do not want Black children to read, adding that it is "part of the oath they take to be right wing."
In an interview published on WBBM News radio’s site on Sunday, the station’s political editor, Craig Dellimore, spoke with Davis Gates on "At Issue," about the union’s contract demands.
Some of the demands included social justice issues.
During the interview, Dellimore asked Davis Gates about the teacher union contract proposals that drew criticism from conservatives for being "too big," and raising concerns that too many elements are not directly concerned with education.
"Conservatives don’t even want Black children to be able to read," Davis Gates said. "Remember, these same conservatives are the conservatives who probably would have been championing Black codes, you know, during reconstruction or thereafter. So, forgive me again if conservatives pushing back on educating immigrant children, Black children, children who live in poverty, doesn't make my anxiety go up. That's what they're supposed to say. That is literally a part of the oath that they take to be right wing."
The teachers’ union is in the process of negotiating a new teacher’s contract with the public school system, which calls for an extra $50 billion in funding. The massive increase is being proposed to cover wage hikes as well as other demands. For instance, the money would be used to provide fully paid abortions for its members, new migrant services and facilities and a host of LGBTQ-related requirements and training in schools.
Last year, the total base tax receipts for the state of Illinois was $50.7 billion.
The incredible demands are being made despite its members delivering underwhelming results for its students. Only 21% of the city’s eighth graders are proficient readers, according to the Nation’s Report Card, which provides national results about students’ performance.
Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project and a conservative school choice and education advocate, told Fox News Digital that if conservatives did not want minority kids to know how to read, they would not protest.
"They would allow and support the teachers union and give them everything they want, because right now in Chicago public schools, only 20% of minority students can read at grade level ," he said. "Whatever the conservative goals are, I disagree with what she was saying. I want every kid to know how to read and write. I think that our country’s a lot better off when everyone’s literate, when everyone knows how to do math."
Schilling is a father of seven who lives in Fairfax, Virginia. During the pandemic, he pulled all of his kids out of public schools because he felt the academics were terrible.
He explained that he got to see firsthand what his kids were learning and found out that only about 36% of the students in Fairfax County Public Schools could read at grade level.
So, when looking at one of the wealthiest and best-funded schools in the country and finding out less than half the kids could read at grade level, "it was a no-brainer," he said.
Davis Gates touted having her children in public schools in 2022. She said it helps to "legitimize" her position within the union and that she could not advocate on behalf of public schools if that were not the case, according to NBC Chicago .
Tags
Who is online
456 visitors
She wants an extra 50 billion in funding for a state with an annual budget of 50 billion.
As Schilling said, if conservatives didn't want black kids to learn to read, they would just sit back and let Stacy Davis Gates educate them. Ms. Gates, naturally, sends her own kids to private school rather than let her teachers educate them.
What I find amazing about this is, in articles that allude that even if one is so disgusted with the current presidential choices this time around that they say they will vote for neither, they are subtly (or not so subtly) castigated for wasting their vote. The argument is that if someone on the right is so disgusted with Trump, they ought to "do the right thing" by voting for Biden because he is, in some never defined way, less horrible than Trump and so should be voted for on that basis.
I contend that a vote for Biden is a vote for people like Stacy Gates, as this, and so much else, is the kind of thing Biden and Dems stand for. It bewilders me that people think that Biden, and therefore Dems in general, is in any way better than Trump.
Yes, that it is the best argument for Trump, by far. He offers better government policies and avoids giving any more power to people like Stacy Gates. And if Biden wins and the Democrats control the Senate, hacks like Brandan Johnson are going to get billions in government bailouts from taxpayers around the country to enable even more of these shenanigans and create even bigger problems for the country down the road. Biden with a Democratic Congress hasn't even begun to borrow money.
Since I am generally pessimistic when it comes to human motivations, I have to agree with you. My opinion is that it is being done on purpose. I fear that if Dems gain enough power, they will intentionally continue to enact disastrous policies in order to create such a dire situation that they can (in their minds) justify tossing the Constitution and replace it with a socialist government. Of course, they will call it a democratic socialism but we all know how well those turn out. But, like I say, I'm pessimistic when it comes to human nature.
You're mistaken. Democrats unfailingly support the Constitution. You Dear Leader Trump said he wants to terminate the Constitution.
Actually, you are. Trump is not my leader. At this time, I do not plan to vote for him. I probably won't vote at all, given that I am one of those disgusted by both choices.
I would encourage you to vote third party, if we don’t send the message that a senile pedo, or a narcissistic jackass are unacceptable then there is no incentive for the parties to give us better choices.
Oh, gosh, you opened a can of worms there!
Voting third party is fine but one needs to be realistic about what they are trying to accomplish.
People have been voting third party, in recent history, for more than 50 years (the Libertarian party, for example, is over 50 years old). It has been more than 150 years since a viable third party emerged (i.e. the Republican party emerged but then consumed the Whig party leaving us again with a two party system).
So if one is voting third party to send a message, history shows that the message is weak and is ignored. If one perceives a difference between Trump and Biden and can discern that one is better for the nation than the other, it would be far more effective to use one's vote to help elect the more favorable candidate.
I am absolutely in favor of three or four viable parties in the USA. I think that would solve a lot of our problems. But history shows that this is not going to simply happen by people waiting until election day and then merely voting to 'send a message'.
IMO, what is required is a substantial upfront effort. It would not be easy, but I think this is what is needed:
The critical factor for a viable third party is a charismatic candidate with a killer platform. That is a very high bar, but without it I see no hope for a third party.
Then, given this stellar candidate, the third party needs to be extremely well-funded to attract the talent to build the infrastructure and staff same to produce a highly effective, multi-dimensional force that could rival that of the D and R parties. And this all needs to be in place years before the votes start.
Merely voting for various third party candidates sprinkles a tiny minority of votes around ½ dozen feckless third parties and, as we have observed for at least 150 years now, accomplishes nothing.
An understandable choice. But it presumes you see no difference in terms of positive effect on the nation between a Biden and a Trump presidency. Personally, I cannot see how anyone could not see stark differences and have an opinion on which is better for the nation.
I am considering it. What some miss is that it isn't that no third party in particular will receive any significant amount of votes. It is the amount of third-party votes in aggregate, not individual third-party candidate votes, that would be significant, if there were enough of them.
I'm not sure I agree that the goal would be to force the two parties to give us better choices. In my opinion, their concern is for their party, not the country. They may put forth more tolerable candidates, but their goals would not change. I'd prefer the establishment of something like a centrist party with a Constitutional originalist mindset.
It isn't that I don't see a difference in positive effects, it's that I see little to no positive effects at all. Rather, I see negative effects by both by different means. I am not looking at simply Biden and Trump but also what stands behind them.
[✘]
Okay, I will rephrase in a negative tone. Do you see both choices (and what stands behind them) equally negative? Do you have no opinion on which of the two negatives is worse?
Please give us all the reasons that a vote for Biden would be better for the nation. Without mentioning Trump.
Yes, and I know you already know the answer. I'm not going to engage in a pointless debate about it. Especially when our differing values and belief systems make it especially meaningless. Sorry, TiG, but I'm becoming sick to death of pointless arguments.
I realize that you were addressing Drak with this, but if I may can I offer my thoughts on this?
The negatives of the of two candidates and "what stands behind them" is far too varied and general to make a choice for one of them the right thing to do, IMHO. Both parties and the leaders thereof have drifted toward, or kowtow to, the whims of their extremes. Neither presidential candidate projects the stature of a strong and reasonable leader, and one being worse than the other is not a selling point to me for the other. Neither party "platform" fits what I believe to be good for America in the long term, and both seem happy to bloat the power and reach of the Federal Government (and the national debt) in their own ways, which to me is not a good thing. In my opinion, voting for the lesser of two evils is just not a rational choice, given where I see both parties going and given that both are bent on complete domination of the other rather than a healthy and cooperative effort to do what is best for the country.
Despite the fact that third parties have not been successful in the past, we have to start somewhere as voters in making our displeasure with the worsening dysfunctional two party system known despite the tremendous power they continue to wield. No political "platform" is going to satisfy everyone, but if we can get behind independent candidates who can take the best parts of what both parties once were and return some measure of rational and reasonable compromise to our body politic, our children will be better off down the road. Continuing to play the game and strengthening the choke hold that the two parties have on our elections does not seem like a good choice to me. Change has to start somewhere, and those of us who have had it with both parties need to take a stand. Even if that stand may not make a difference now, it will pave the way for others who recognize that the current highly polarized two party path is unsustainable and a threat to our future.
Absolutely. Drakk, as you can see, does not care to discuss this.
I am absolutely in favor of three or four viable parties in the USA. I think that would solve a lot of our problems. But history shows that this is not going to simply happen by people waiting until election day and then merely voting to 'send a message'.
IMO, what is required is a substantial upfront effort. It would not be easy, but I think this is what is needed:
The critical factor for a viable third party is a charismatic candidate with a killer platform. That is a very high bar, but without it I see no hope for a third party.
Then, given this stellar candidate, the third party needs to be extremely well-funded to attract the talent to build the infrastructure and staff same to produce a highly effective, multi-dimensional force that could rival that of the D and R parties. And this all needs to be in place years before the votes start.
Merely voting for various third party candidates sprinkles a tiny minority of votes around ½ dozen feckless third parties and, as we have observed for at least 150 years now, accomplishes nothing.
Ok.
Should be interesting, if it is possible.
Before there is supply, there must be an established and growing demand or need. In the last 150 years, the two parties have not been nearly as polarized as they have become in the last couple decades, nor have their extremes wielded as much power. Generally speaking, we have never seen such poor choices in presidential candidates as we have recently. The fastest growing segment of American voters is the independent or unaffiliated voter (upwards of 43% of voters according to a recent Gallup poll ). There has never been a better time than now to establish the demand, and sow the seeds for the supply of a charismatic independent candidate with a killer platform. If we don't show such prospects, and those who might fund those prospects, that there is indeed a serious demand for a strong and viable third party or independent candidate, it is never going to happen.
What if our forefathers had said, "You know what, King George wields far too much power, we need to remain his loyal subjects and let him tell us what to do from thousands of miles across the ocean"? Where would we be today? Do you feel that the current two party system and the power it wields (not to mention the massive size/power of the Federal Government) is what those forefathers had in mind? Not from what I've read.
I am not one to back down from what might seem to be an insurmountable task. It has to start at some point, and I feel that this time is as good as any for independents to quit "leaning" and take a stand against the two party system starting now at the ballot box and as you say continuing in the "off-season" to develop a strong and effective candidate and a rational and reasonable platform that works for America and not for party.
No, this time is not as good as any to vote for a third party as TiG has gone over tirelessly.
Thanks for your input. As always I respect TiG's opinions, even though we do not always agree. Do you mind if I discuss it further with TiG, or shall I just shut up until you give me permission to speak?
Demand in politics, as well as in business, does not always simply materialize. In many cases the demand must be guided and encouraged. One of my key points is that we have at least 5 recent decades and 15 historical decades that show that merely waiting until election time and voting third party does not work. It is too little, too late. And while I agree that our political parties both suck and are arguably worse now than any time in our lifetimes, that does not mean that continuing to merely vote third party is going to make a difference.
Further, because we have myriad third parties (and even a new one 'No Labels' the third party market is splintered. So those who would vote third party are not working together but competing against each other.
Your question makes me think that you interpret my words as defeatist. Hardly. My words argue that merely voting third party is not enough. They go on to outline what I believe must happen to be successful. And, yes, I acknowledge it is difficult to do, but that does not mean I am arguing we do nothing. My net argument is that those who are voting third party in 2024 to 'make a point' are wasting their time. No point will be made as long as the two main parties continue to dominate. And the domination will certainly be present in 2024 even if all third party voters voted for a single third party (which, as you know, is not going to happen either).
My recommendation is to start after the 2024 election in preparation for the 2028 election (and that would be pushing it). In the meantime, if a disgusted third-party likely voter sees a difference between Biden and Trump and thus can determine which of the two is better for the nation, then I suggest using one's vote accordingly. That could make a difference in 2024. Merely voting for one of the non-viable extant third parties will not make a difference in 2024.
Don't I have the right to offer my opinion?
Did I tell you to shut up?
Not at all, I simply used the analogy to illustrate that as dangerous the situation was at the time of the revolution the forefathers took great personal risks and the first steps to gathering the support, the leaders, and the militia necessary to defeat a much more powerful force. I did not mean that you were being defeatist, as I know that you are just as certain as I that an alternate to our current two-party system is a good thing and absolutely necessary for our future. I think we just differ on how/when we get that kindled and put into motion.
The ballot box in this case is the only weapon and power we have to send a strong message, and then we can grow our army and leaders to challenge those who currently hold the power. As I said before, voting for a third party now might not make a difference in this election, and I understand that it alone will not be enough. But it provides the kindling necessary to build the infrastructure you mentioned to finally field a viable third party challenge.
At least we both agree that a viable third party and strong independent candidate is worth fighting for, although we may disagree on how/when that effort might get started. Thanks for letting me butt in here my friend.
sounds like Freewill, is not as Free as we will it to be...
Of course, but all you gave us with that comment was TiG's opinion, and a simple "no" to mine as though that should be the end of the discussion.
Nope, not in so many words, but given your rather abrupt statement I had to wonder if that's what you meant. Hence my question at the end of my post 1.1.21.
It's all good. Thanks for chiming in.
Whatever.
Move on.
So we now have two parties and some people here feel that both Trump are Biden are both pretty bad candidates.
But what makes people assume that if we had two more parties (for a total of 4 major parties) that the candidates of the two new parties would be any better?
Competition.
With two parties, each party knows that when the other party goes out of favor they get 'their turn'. No matter how shitty the parties are, we are forced to go back and forth. Kind of like a tennis ball going back and forth with each player knowing they will get their turn.
With three (or more) viable parties we will have competition. If one party fucks up, there still are two more parties who will compete. We break free of this 'I will get my turn no matter how poorly I do' guarantee for the parties.
Nobody is assuming that. All we are assuming is that we will have more than two bad options and that we will participate in seeing to it that the new options are preferable to the extremes that are represented by the current D and R options. If we despise Coke and Pepsi at least we can choose Dr. Pepper or Mountain Dew, or we can create a new brand of soda more palatable yet, without Coke and Pepsi rigging and dominating the game.
#34 wipes his big fat ass with the Constitution
I was hoping to read the entire thread before posting a comment, but it is too long and I do wish to 'lose' my opportunity to at least touch on this "no party" abstinence being stated. I don't believe it.
This is a yet grand(er) opportunity than ever for more YOUTHFUL judges and justices for some conservatives OR liberals and we won't even begin to touch on the Project 2025 aspirational government (replacing and ruining the lives and prosperity of civil servants currently working out their new and continuing careers) that will surely materialize under Donald once he starts fielding it publicly. Notice some conservatives downplay and nuh-uh it
They're attempting to GASLIGHT people into staying home or diluting the liberal vote count/power.
MAGAs are going to vote—early, for Donald, and on election date.
Why? Because, for instance, these so-called, "Christian nationalists" are in it to win it for their perverted cause. And yes, I called it, a perverted cause because we have "Christians' with an unChristlike wish to CONTINUE (as in the history of this country up to liberal wins against them) and RENEW their abuse and suppression of all who are not of their sorry, religious, persuasion.
I am pretty sure you would. It would benefit your cause. . . and hurt the cause of 'universal' justice for all. But, Christian Nationalists would be fat and happy as crows eating other people's prosperity along with their own. This country has a storied beginning of taking what belongs to others and dole it out in largesse to the Majority. But, but, MAGAs are a minority now and still fighting to dominate a society that has outgrown the hatred and divisions MAGAs conjure up out of whole cloth (and vociferously and repeatedly) shout from the rooftops!
Precisely.
I wonder why so many are so scared of them all the time.
I have serious doubts whether he "has a cause". Most people don't.
This is not the time and this is the right presidential season to make protests votes - one of the candidate seriously has a bad attitude (has actually stated and sent out surrogates to put a fine point on it—Bannon) that he will seek RETRIBUTION against the people who 'hurt' him, because he can't acknowledge that he is a 'dick' and a 'jerk' to everybody who won't let him steamroll THE COUNTRY THEY LOVE TOO!
We had better get this right or it will go bad, bad, bad, for a very long time. Our country is pulling itself apart for the wrong groups of people who simply can't stand the facts of the matter that MINORITIES do not wish to serve their whims, religions dogmas, and domination over the masses/obsessions any longer.
It ain't just the LYING MAGAs who wish to be free . . . (they already are and it ain't good enough: they want it all (again). . . the citizenry as a whole wants to be FREE ONCE AND FOR ALL of the bull coming from the self-interested party that will do anything to wield power over their fellow citizens!
Being a new conservative minority does not mean lacking in power and influence. As you damn well know. Don't come at me with waste of time shit that is beneath the level of what is occurring. MAGAs are already making strides and in-roads into trying to overpower the systems of government and establish an apartheid of sorts (even going so far as to try to dominate schools in Louisiana by posting Christian teachings in LARGE FONT in public classrooms). I know why they are doing it!
Apparently, a church on 'every' block in towns, cities, and states is not enough to get evangelical numbers up! The lies simply are not workable, they're not selling, because the foundation of the faith is starting to wobble and show the strain of what Christian Nationalism is doing, in real time, to it.
One more thing, there are so-called "some Christians" , who are so SCARED of their faith being exposed for its weaknesses that they DARE NOT even engage others with it . . . because it would be exposed as head stuck in. . . cheeks.
But you are not him so don't bother with any further divination.
Well, that's all well and good, I suppose, but I simply refuse to go into hysterical fits over MAGA or Trump or Christian Nationalists.
They simply don't warrant that much of my time and attention.
Oh, no bother whatsoever.
Yes! It is well and good!
Much better for my own mental health not to become obsessed over such trifling stuff, but I kind of admire the folks who do--their stick-to-it-iveness is amazing! Such singular focus!
It is not the case that people are frightened of MAGA; that is a misunderstanding — it is more appropriate to say that people are dismayed that MAGA has consumed the GOP. The reality is that MAGA is a cult that could elect Trump to the presidency. That would be bad for the nation, right?
Why do you keep asking these type of questions of me?
What specific answer are you looking for when I have repeatedly told you I don't consider Trump fit to be President?
Look, if I don't find Trump to be fit for President (which I have made MORE than abundantly clear to anyone bothering to read my posts) what on earth would make you think I would think it good for him to win?
Logic dictates that OF COURSE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF TRUMP IS ELECTED. Frankly, I am wondering why you asked.
I will not be bothering to answer any more of type of questions, as this post can always be referred to.
Must every use of English be explained to you? The question was more of an affirmation. It presumes that you will agree. Have you never come across this use of language in life?
Quit complaining about everything; it accomplishes nothing.
The point is that people are not frightened but rather dismayed because MAGA is the underlying force that could reelect Trump and clearly that is bad. (Understand now?)
Then very little point to asking.
magats can be a pretty scary bunch but I can usually spot one and stay away
Huh? I don't recall Dwight D. Eisenhower doing that! As I recall, he was quite fond of the Constitution. I don't recall his ass being all that fat either, but you know I don't generally notice those sorts of things...
Why not? Especially now, since the debate, ( and even before ) independents have polled more in favor with Trump at this point. A concerted effort to have them vote for a third candidate instead will only hurt Trump's chances. I'd think that would be a selling point for those who are so scared of a second Trump term. I don't share some of the more irrational fears of a Trump victory, but I certainly don't want to see him as president any more than I have in past elections. Until the Republican party flushes him out, they will not get my vote, that is for certain.
Don't quit your day job.
You all know full well that I am referring to the convicted felon former 'president' 34 felonies former 'president'
Another space shot.
here's a graph of Chicago schools' performance since she took over. She's doing a great job keeping black and other kids from learning how to read.
Chicago racial demographic’s:
Chicago Public School demographics;
Black: 35.0%
White: 11.1%
Asian: 4.5%
That is so whack we are going to need to see your links...
https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/illinois/districts/city-of-chicago-sd-299-110570#:~:text=The%20student%20body%20at%20the,Hawaiian%20or%20other%20Pacific%20Islander.
There is a typo in there somewhere. Chicago is way more than 3.2% hispanic.
Maybe they counted Black Hispanics as Blacks and White Hispanics as White and some Hispanics as two or more races. Mixing racial identities identity with ethnic or national identity becomes tricky in identity politics.
The takeaway that I got was that more White Chicago parents don’t want their kids in Chicago public school.
All his whack numbers really show is that whites tend to go to private schools way more than every other racial groups which is unsurprising and tends to amplify the Superintendent's point...
Not my numbers, I don’t count people racially as there is any science to it.
Because the White Dems are racist or they want their kids to get a better education?
Do you mean the Mayor?
Actually it was the Chicago Teachers Union President...
Your numbers back up her claims about white MAGAs!
Yep, Chicago is MAGA country, as Smollett taught us.
Huh?
She is talking about white conservatives who abandoned the Chicago Public Schools and thus do not care about them now!
No parent that can afford it should leave their children in a shit school.
Who? Biden won Chicago by 74% of the vote. Maybe she’s talking about all the racist white Dem’s in Cook County.
Quality Public Schools are the drivetrain of American progress!
Home and church schooled kids will get left behind by society...
Unless you are an Elite who can afford high dollar private school!
Public schools are failing our children and communities, every teacher should be fired and forced to reapply for their jobs and be rated every year based on performance and immediately fired if they aren’t performing.
NYC public school demographics:
Still the most segregated large school district?
Segregated? No. Most culturally and ethnically diverse? Yes!
“Over 65 years after the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case ruled school segregation unconstitutional, New York City’s schools are still some of the most separate and unequal in the country. The following post draws on the information presented in an educator workshop hosted by the Museum of the City of New York in the fall of 2020, which explored the role of education activism in the Civil Rights Movement and connected that history to the youth-led movement for educational justice in the city today.”
And you think the teachers' union is going to do that?
Despite mountains of money per student spent, Chicago experiences horrific results.
Most Whites are no more elite or well off than their Hispanic or Black neighbors.
Exactly jbb!
Indeed those white Dems send their kids in disproportionately to private schools, is it racism or do they just know the schools suck? Same story in Baltimore isn’t it?
My guess is that English is the predominant language of all major cities.
And again — Christianity is the predominate religion of all major cities.
(There must be some smaller cities that are different— maybe San Antonio or others close to the Mexican border— but even there my guess would be that many people are bilingual)?
“I personally don’t give a lot of attention to grades,” Mayor Brandon Johnson said”. How do you grade a system, when the system has not fulfilled its basic obligation of providing an equitable system that speaks to the needs”.
Mr. Johnson went on to explain a better way to evaluate Chicago’s school system, count the money.
“My responsibility is not simply to just grade the system, but to fund the system,” he said. “That’s how I’m ultimately going to grade whether or not our public school system is working: based upon the investments that we make to the people who rely on it.”
It’d an amazing grift for teachers. They now Control the city and will ensure they get to feed first at the troth while they graduate illiterate kids who will loyally vote democratic in exchange for handouts. It’s
I used to know a woman who was a public school teacher in New York City. IIRC she said they only work half a year (I believe she said they only work something like 186 days/year minus 10 days paid sick leave).
Another fine example of why the argument that it would be wrong to vote third party or not to vote for Biden because one may be dissatisfied with Trump is actually gaslighting. The Honorable Brandon Johnson is literally saying that success in educating is measured by how much money is thrown at the problem, not whether the system is producing functionally literate young adults. The stupendous amount of fantasy necessary in believing that Biden, and by extension the Dems, is at all better than Trump or the Repubs is truly staggering.
How can a Christian support Donald Trump, the most corrupt and immoral president and presidential candidate in history?
I guess Christians delude themselves.
nah, it's simple, they're not real christians...
As for how, I wonder about that as well. As for being the most corrupt, etc., I would suppose that depended on the metrics one used to make such a determination.
Also, you ignore that, for many Christians, it isn't a matter of supporting Trump. It is a matter of opposing Biden. The same goes for many who call themselves Christian and are in Biden's camp. They aren't voting as much for Biden as they are against Trump.
Yet, Christ Himself said that there would be a false prophet who would abuse His Name for his own selfish worldly reasons and that many who claimed to follow Him would follow him, to Hell!
And, that is all I have to say about that...
Small c christian "Saulist - Paulist" evangelicals...
"No Real Christian" could support The Beast of Mar-a-Lago!
Biden isnt the most corrupt and immoral presidential candidate in history, Trump is.
So vote for Biden, a corrupt man who oversees an incredibly corrupt party that can’t govern and is punishing future generations with prolific borrowing? Shouldn’t Christians care about those who come after them?
Over Trump ? Yes, all day.
They just have to look at Biden and Democrats; and Trump suddenly becomes far more palatable.
DEFLECTION ALERT!
Are referring to that devout Catholic, Joe Biden?
PROJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, does President Biden support The Beast of Mar-a-Lago?
Don't know.
Ask his handlers
Same here. And I wonder also about all those who consider themselves members of the party of family values. From a morals perspective, Trump is an anathema to what the (prior) GOP stood for (for as long as I have been around).
And it is quite amazing that religious folks cannot see that Trump is playing them for fools. When I watch him pretend to be religious it makes me sick (and I am clearly not religious).
Just amazing ... we are living in crazy times.
In what I see as your alternate political reality, do you consider Trump a religious man and Biden a non-religious man?
Biden may very well be the most religious President ever.
What other President can say he attended Mass almost every day, but still found time to attend synagogues and black churches?
Just stick with what I implied: Biden is genuinely religious while Trump pretends to be religious.
Just stick to what I actually wrote then.
Clearly Biden is one of the most devout Presidents ever!!
Are you disputing that claim, or do you just always want to compare Biden and Trump?
I doubt that. Historically, people (and that includes presidents) were far more religious than now.
Your doubt is irrelevant.
I never have heard of any other President who attended Mass almost daily, or attended synagogues and black churches, but maybe you are privy to more info than is available to me.
besides, I clearly and deliberately wrote "One of the most devout", NOT THE MOST DEVOUT!
I doubt that Biden is one of the most devout presidents because historically, people (and that includes presidents) were far more religious than now. There are 43 (ignoring Trump) former presidents to compare Biden to.
As before, your doubts are irrelevant. I would assume if you had any info to back your claim up, you would have already provided it. I note you didn't.
And yet, you singled out Trump to compare him to. I won't bother asking why.
Take a breath Tex, b 4 u explode.
Amazing how Bidens harmless exaggerations' bother you so much more than Trumps' crucial Lies!
Yet, since you won't be voting for either, you leave US all guessing why one who went to church 8 days a week, is worse than one who has threatened executing those in disagreement, and/or removing their ability to speak...?
I see you can not tell the difference between someone angry and someone voicing their opinion.
Sad.
I am sorry my lack of an obsession with every word Trump utters bothers folks here to no end.
But I do find it very interesting that Bidenistas will call every lie from Biden a mere "exaggeration" while castigating Trump for LYING.
I have no idea why you are guessing about a damn thing when I have been crystal clear--I will vote for neither.
I see the biggest difference between us is I know Trump is an idiot, not deserving of the Presidency, and I know Biden fits that bill, too, while you pretend Biden is a good President and will vote for him and his fucked up policies.
Info already provided:
Because Trump and Biden are the presumptive nominees and one of them will be the next PotUS.
President Biden has done a pretty good job overall, with what he faced when first WINNING the 2020 election.
I believe he waited far too long to address the border and immigration issue, but the spineless GOP not taking that awesome bipartisan bill because it was against Trumps' will....it really tends to take away from the urgent threat Trump and the Republicans have been selling, by attempting to promote fear via exaggerations', and blatant LYING about something they deem SO URGENT all the time.
And right there is an example of exaggerating/lying, where there is way more of a consequence from said exaggeration.
If Biden's uncle wasn't eaten by Cannibals because Joe was the first in his family to attend college, while Trump pushes the thousands of terrorists walking across our southern border, all carrying kilos of phentanol and they were just released from Mental Patient Facilities after being sent there for other sexual deviate/RAPE crimes, something Trump might be an authority on...
But that doesn't make any of them more devout because they lived in those times, it is poor "proof" of anything at all.
And what exactly does religion have to do with the election again? [deleted][✘]
Lots of words signifying nothing.
I got a laugh out of that one as well.
Me too, as it was irrelevant!
are you referring to your post history ? Cause do tell me of all the great things Trump accomplished while kissing Authoritative asses of Despotic rulers and significantly reducing taxes for mega rich and corporations.
What great policies is Trump proposing ? The 2025 plan ?
cause that is one fckd up plan, by a fckd up man
thus why Biden is our ONLY CHOICE at this time. I'm all for more parties with REAL CHOICES, ain't gonna happen in this year's presidential election.
How in the Hell do you figure what TiG said is, "Irrelevant"?
Clearly not, can't quite see how it is at all confusing exactly what I referred to.
Seems to be an ignorant question since it is clear I am not a fan of Trump. Ask someone who gives a shit about him.
Don't know, don't give a fuck, but I am sure one of the infamous Trump-obsessed here can tell you all about it.
Biden is clearly and honestly not the only choice.
[deleted][✘]
I'll let you work that out all on your own.
Well THIS, right here, is why you are severely raising suspicions about yourself, and your po history, as it has to do with your self proclaimed voting for neither honesty.
Trumps 2025 Plan is reason far enough, to keep this 'man' out of office, and bascally requires ANY Patriotic citizen to not throw their vote away on a third party or write in, and to vote Biden.
Read his plan Tex, then attempt to tell US All Y any should chance Trump again being elected ???
I am not responsible for anything people choose to believe. Raise suspicions because I won't vote for either.............okey-dokey, then!
[deleted.] [✘] There are hundreds of other reasons much more relevant to not vote for him. Your opinion of what constitutes patriotism is duly noted.
Why bother reading something bout Trump when I am not going to vote for him anyway? Seems like an incredible waste of time, and I am old. Why should you be told reasons not to vote for [Trump?deleted][✘]
You find it 'ignorant' to not vote for Trump if one holds that " Trumps 2025 Plan is reason far enough, to keep this 'man' out of office"?
It is "ignorant" to not vote for Trump because one dislikes what he plans to do as PotUS?
Policy differences is one of the primary reasons people pick one candidate over another.
If THAT'S the reason for not voting for Trump, then yes. I thought I stated it quite clearly. there are other reasons not to vote for him without having to imagine what may or may not happen.
If someone won't vote for Trump because of some future plan, then I have but one question for them:
Where in hell have you been for the last 7 years?
Your comments are all over the place ... apparently attempting to be disagreeable at every turn. It is comical at this point.
Do you assume that someone who will not vote for Trump due to his plans has voted for him in the past?
No, they simply are not "all over the place".
What I find comical is someone to pretend I didn't write the words still there for all to read.
No, I assume people in general are intelligent enough to keep abreast of events over the last 7 years and come to the conclusion that Trump isn't a good candidate and is undeserving of their vote. I would hope some future "plan" wouldn't be the deciding factor for intelligent people.
Your assumption then is too restrictive to be realistic. Apparently you have not noticed that people approach this decision from many different angles. Some of us (like me) recognize that Trump is entirely unfit for office and under no circumstances should he be considered. Trump is not an option. But clearly others have different views. Some completely ignore all the personal and behavioral negatives of Trump and simply vote because they think he will make policy decisions in accordance with their views. That is, they do not care about anything (literally) other than his SCotUS nominations, positions on the border, positions on energy, etc. He could be a flaming asshole, a convicted felon, a traitor who is the only PotUS to attempt to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement, a malignant narcissist, pathological lying scoundrel, etc. (and he is) and they will overlook all of that because of a perceived expectation of policy decisions.
And then there are those who will vote for whoever is the GOP nominee. Apparently, no matter what.
You need only observe comments in this forum to see clear examples of what I have described. So your operating assumption that people will "come to the conclusion that Trump isn't a good candidate and is undeserving of their vote" is wrong and the evidence has been in front of your nose for years — even right here in this forum.
Does that mean you think the average voter is blind and deaf?
As for much of the rest of your post, thank you for clearly illustrating my precise point--that there are myriad reasons to not vote for Trump without even considering some plan not even implemented.
Thanks!
No. Quite a stupid question since it does not follow at all from what I just wrote.
And there are reasons to not vote for Trump based on his future plans. Your assumption remains ill-conceived.
Wow, never saw that coming. /s
Once again, we disagree.
I don't suppose my point was made, even though you yourself and many others are constantly pointing out reasons to not vote for Trump and this is the very first time I have seen you talk about this "plan".
Of course, I probably give folks more credit for being intelligent enough to know why they won't vote Trump besides some plan that recently came about.
Maybe I am wrong for thinking others are intelligent.
Your point:
Is too restrictive. It ignores the fact that there are many people (and you can observe some of them right here in this forum) who will vote for Trump because of perceived policies and/or because he is (will be) the GOP nominee.
I had a discussion this Sunday with a 70+ Vietnam veteran, career soldier. He told me that the reason a soldier would vote for Trump in spite of all his negatives is because soldiers like fighters (and he apparently believes Trump is a fighter).
See, Texan, your assumption is far too narrow to be realistic. Your point is thus fundamentally flawed.
Thus, by implication, you hold that those (including members of this forum) who intend to vote for Trump are not intelligent.
Your opinion clearly differs from mine.
That would be your erroneous conclusion or assumption then.
I know many did not vote for Trump in 2016 and also in 2020.
Of course, I also think the majority of voters should recognize the folly in voting for Biden. I know they don't, but if one is going to vote for Biden, they probably decided long ago.
And my point stands, I believe those who aren't going to vote for Trump made up their minds long ago. it is extremely naive to think and highly unlikely that voters are undecided in big enough numbers to turn the election.
My logic is just fine.
Oh, you have a new claim! Good choice, since your prior 'point' fell on its face.
Well I think most people who are not going to vote have indeed made up their minds a long time ago. In particular, when Trump engaged in his infamous Big Lie campaign and proved to the world what a scoundrel he is.
So I would mostly agree with your new claim. But that is not true for everyone. There are people who were (hard to imagine) not convinced of Trump's unfitness for office even after the Big Lie campaign. But as more ugly shit arose about Trump, they hit their breaking point. I just hope I am talking about many people, not just a few.
Yeah, I am sure those on this forum who intend to vote for Trump think your logic is sterling. They surely will agree with you that by voting for Trump they are ipso facto not intelligent.
As did you!
I know you would like to believe that, but that isn't reality.
I can live without the cheap, petty insults, thanks anways!
I think very few people go along with this. I think many more do care and do not ignore your daily listing of Trump issues, just not enough to vote for Joe and whoever pulls his strings. If Joe was the moderate and uniter he promised the US he would be I think he would beat Trump by a landslide.
Sounds just right.
Joe reneged on the two biggest promises he made the American people. That makes him a traitor in the eyes of any American that believed his lies. It is sad to believe we are going to end up with a traitor as president no matter who is elected (colloquially speaking of course).
it is indeed a sad reality, one which some people are unaware of or unwilling to admit.
If someone cared about Trump's substantial traitorous wrongdoing, his abysmal character, his terrible demeanor, and his narcissistic drive which causes him to place his own concerns above those of the nation then the individual would consider the scoundrel unfit for office.
Imagine what Reagan would say if asked if Trump were fit to be PotUS.
Biden is clearly a weak candidate and people like you constantly exaggerate same while giving Trump a pass. But even with his age and other flaws, it is irrational to equate him with Trump. There is no rational argument for Biden being just as bad as Trump for the nation. It is a ridiculous comparison.
He didn't give Trump a pass at all.
Nor did he say they were equal.
A fine example of your R-centric hyperbole. Only Trump supporters would accept the crap you just posted. You are trying to downplay the legitimate labeling of Trump as a traitor (based on his attempt to steal the 2020 election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement) by deeming Biden a traitor for failing on campaign promises.
As with other factors, you seek to dilute the meaning (even the colloquial meaning) of the word 'traitor' down to the point where you could equate Biden and Trump as equally traitors. And in doing so, you have in effect deemed every president who broke a campaign promise to be a 'traitor'.
The Trump-defensive arguments started off bad and they are now beyond absurd.
So no one is allowed to use any of the same criteria used to label Trump a traitor because Biden .
Strange times we live in.
Some will always confuse a Biden criticism with a defense of Trump even though they are two different things.
Yet again a total misrepresentation of what I wrote.
No more a misrepresentation than you accusing him of giving a pass to Trump and telling him he equated Biden with Trump.
Your interpretation is the opposite of what TiG actually said!
Please read all the posts, thanks
Yes, and every single person reading this sees what he did!
They can also see very easily that no pass to Trump was given despite the claim. Nor were Biden and Trump said to be equal.
Not necessarily. As I stated all those things may bother them but not to the point they would put a very damaged Joe in the White House.
Maybe for you but not for everyone
Yep, but here we are.
Exactly, which is why I don't respond to lame accusations in an attempt to distract and make it about me
I guess that is why so many Dems are having buyers remorse.
Seems it is important to say who is a worse traitor.
Accusations, like name calling, often start when an argument is lost.
Nope
Please don't try and speak for every single person
“Exactly, which is why I don't respond to lame accusations in an attempt to distract and make it about me.:..”
“Yep, but here we are.”
Exactly
'believes #34 is a fighter,
What does that even mean? A fighter
Did the vet you spoke with tell you what that means?
Can anyone?
#34 is nothing but flaws
Actually, it's not Trump's plan. It is a plan developed by the Heritage foundation. Your comment got me curious so I tried to find the connection between that plan and Trump. Only spent half an hour on it but I could not find anything that suggests Trump even knows about it let alone spoken about it. I've seen a lot of articles that associate it with Trump, but none of them actually have any quotes from Trump mentioning it. In other words, so far it seems Trump's enemies are simply saying it is a plan he intends to implement without evidence (not that I've found so far) that he actually plans to.
So, if you know of something or have a link, I'd appreciate it if you posted it. I'll do some more searching, but so far I came up with nothing.
And just FYI, not a fan of the 2025 plan, myself. I don't know much about the Heritage foundation but having read a little about the plan it seems to me they just want to use God and Jesus the same way progressives do. A tool towards a goal of their own making, not God's.
Personally, I would take no joy or solace in deciding who is worse when both suck. What would be the fricking point?
"Trump is worse than Biden, so I am supporting Biden, even though I know he sucks, too"????
Can you envision someone saying that with any pride?
I think he is referring to Trump's junk-yard dog, vindictive nature. Trump is a fighter only in the sense of a bully — fighting in a safe environment. Trump, the soldier, would be cowering.
Maybe this is the replacement plan since the whole Russian collusion thingy didn't pan out for unscrupulous Democrats.
If someone gets to the point where they are not going to vote for either person I would consider it a waste of time
In 2016 I felt the same way about the choices. I didn't say who I would vote for with any pride, just holding my nose while voting.
Sad, isn't it?
Yes, Texan, making such decisions is common in life.
In many cases, a cancer patient must decide between chemotherapy to extend their life with risk and discomfort or simply manage their pain with certain death. Neither is a good choice but those are the options. They must choose the better of the two even though both cases suck.
When a company faces financial difficulty, executives must often decide whether to layoff employees or cut salaries across the board. Neither is a good option, but doing nothing could result in a loss of all jobs as the company goes bankrupt or is forced to sell.
State governments must often decide between raising taxes or cutting public services.
This is life. Adults deal with choices even when both choices suck. Some adults stand up and deal with reality, some do not. Those sitting on the sidelines have no grounds to criticize those who decide between the better of two bad choices.
That's how I see the former 'president' - a bully (most bullies are cowards underneath and have others to do their fighting for them) - in #34's case, most of the gqp and all those who assisted in 1/6 - the fake electors - any and everyone involved - do his fighting for him.
the former 'president' - the soldier - cowering POS
I was naive to think it was a one time thing and not the new trend. But here we are cycle 3 of the same thing. Hold your nose and vote or vote for neither of the main party candidates and breath free.
“Those sitting on the sidelines have no grounds to criticize those who decide between the better of two bad choices.”
The bottom line, TiG.
To expand it to political commentary is solely on the commentator and the sheer volume does nothing but diminish any credibility. It becomes a personal vendetta of sorts, void of reason and accountability, and a rather sad attempt to be relevant.
[deleted][✘]
... or merely to be disruptive.
Rabid junk yard dog - fitting (you didn't say rabid TiG, I added that, seems quite appropriate) same for his defenders of the indefensible.
I think you hit the nail on the head there TiG - I think that is all some are here for, their sole reason.
“... or merely to be disruptive.”
“Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.” ~ Albert Camus
Think I'll breathe free and not support either traitor.
But those choosing a shitty candidate are free to criticize those who won't settle?
right......
Not my quote, tex. Slow down, tex. Get a grip, tex.
Didn't claim it was, but you agreed with it.
Slow down? Did I type too fast for you?
No. And I have been quite clear (for many months now) that there is nothing wrong with someone voting third party in and of itself. Mostly my comments are rebutting your incessant whining about people who will decide between Biden and Trump in 2024. My responses criticize your reasoning, not your choice. Your reasoning has been that you will vote third party in order to encourage the growth of a third party. My argument has been that merely waiting until election day and then voting for one of several non-viable third parties has proved to be too little, too late for over 150 years. I have outlined an approach that I believe is necessary to form a viable third party and it is quite a bit more involved than simply sprinkling votes to non-viable third parties.
I have been clear to note that when certain people on this site state they cannot vote for either in good conscience (that is the reason) that I personally can appreciate that reason.
So get it straight. Your argument of voting third party in order to encourage third parties is demonstrably insufficient. If that is why you are not helping determine the better choice out of two poor choices in 2024 then your reasoning is flawed. If, however, you were voting third party simply out of conscience, that is substantially different reason.
Outlined @1.1.17 and several other places. You have yet to put forth even an attempt to rebut this:
Yes, as evidenced by the plethora of comments doing exactly that. It makes no sense to deny what is plainly seen.
[deleted][✘]
It appears obvious that you don't know what the topic is and it looks like you think it is me.
I am not, no matter how hard you try.
Remember?
Obviously you ignore commentary that demonstrates you are wrong and only cherry-pick for theatrics. I doubt anyone falls for that nonsense.
I read your whole long, often repeated post and replied to the part I found relevant.
I doubt anyone is fooled by silly claims of not doing exactly what is being denied
Yet another desperate attempt to make me the topic.
Sad.
"Very damaged, Joe." - Fake news.
Joe not being damaged: fake news
Yeah, well, that's a difference without distinction. It won't take Donald long to be co-opted into Project 2025 (first, he had to win the general election). It's all 'clerical' afterwards. The Heritage Foundation has a long history of influencing public policy discussions and groups in our country from a conservative worldview. It's mantra is the same as (all) conservatives everywhere, including this one: "Traditional family values." Surely, 'every' self-respecting conservative would know about and support that little gem in the foundation's bonnet.
Moreover, Biden will be a 'bridge' in this election to get past a repeat louse like Donald who effectively has promised to take this country to highs and lows extremes. And Donald has told the country's reasonable majority that he will wipe their liberties, privileges, and rights out with a stroke of the pen and the help of his "team" in Congressional houses.
It's called acting in bad faith. (And 99.9 of MAGAs are guilty of trying to do a snow job on libs with the third party vote strategy.) When someone shows us who they are: Believe them. MAGAs missing a vote or voting third-party, my. . .'cheeks.'
Not everyone who is not a liberal is MAGA.
And then of course since you did not vote for either candidate you have the right to voice your opinion about the winner and those that supported the candidate that does win (assuming they will behave as expected)
I look forward to the day when people proudly support the candidate of their choice!
Assuming they ARE proud, of course!
You may have more faith than I do that it will happen soon.
Oh, just because I look forward to the day doesn't mean I think it will actually occur!
I wonder what the percentage of people who are proud if their vote will be.
I suspect the number to be very low, and with good reason. How can one be proud of a clown?
Thou doth protest too much, methinks!
Well, there you go: Donald is yours by process of elimination! Got it (again)!
Um, no
You could always opt to just read what I write.
Trump should be , and is, quite familiar with the Heritage Foundation, as more than twenty members that helped author the 2025 project 'Mandate for Leadership' were officials or advisors from the Trump Administration. Their views are damn far right, and would alarm most anyone not that far right.
Their agenda is in lock step with that of wanna be dick tater tot Trumps', as their mission is to give the next Conservative GOP 'actually for real Elected' potUS consolidated and increased power, and fire about N E 1 not on board with THEIR vision, and with many an incision, they plan on cutting many departments and governmental programs. They hate Climate Change Science and will be dismantling things green, as they are super pro America First Big Oil all the way, discarding environmental restrictions and repealing environmental laws and oversight, and unseen, for many a reason. Trump and his cronies do not wish for the complete association with the 2025 plan.........yet.
It calls for abolishing the FBI, The Department of Education ,, slashing funding for the DOJ, eliminating the department of Commerce and ending the independence of the FCC and FTC, along with scores of other changes
Project 2025 cannot by law promote a candidate, but Trump obviously has pushed many of the same changes and modifications as the group which has many similar goals.
And Yes, they wish to blur the line between separation of church and state.
Sorry, I have no specific reading recommendations, but They are out there.
About everything I have read or heard about this project, is worrisome, and I believe ALL should be aware of the most likely possible plan, that Trump would wish to push through, if Trump again, possibly becomes the President again.
Well, I just spent more time searching and, so far, what appears to be happening is that Trump's political enemies are simply linking where his policies and the Heritage Foundations 2025 project have some intersectionality. What I have been unable to find is any mention of the Heritage Foundation or the 2025 project by Trump at all.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Trump would sign onto the 2025 project as it doesn't have him as its center. Nor does he have any religious motivation to see such a project enacted, mostly because he is not religious. I don't see it serving his interests. There will be points where Trump and the 2025 Project coincide but, in my opinion, that will be more coincidence than not. Trump is a businessman and that, and what appeals to his base, is what will be the basis for his actions, not a desire for establishing religion in government.
As for the Project's aspirations, I think Trump is probably smart enough to understand that if he actually tried to implement it, his government would be so tied up in court he wouldn't be able to actually do anything. Pretty sure the President can't just simply wave his hand an eliminate the FBI, for instance. I don't think the Republicans would back him on something like that. And even Republicans and conservatives know we need things like the EPA. What is needed is the EPA and other three-letter-organizations reined in, not eliminated. They should not be making laws. That's the job of Congress, and if they stopped wasting time on promoting social issues and just did their jobs they'd have the time to make the laws.
And, while I'd really love to eliminate the Department of Education, I know we need that as well. But it needs to be completely rebuilt so that all it does is education, not social engineering.
Anyway, how I feel about all that is off the point. While I do not wish to see the Heritage Foundation succeed with their plan, I am not going to be herded by something that, at this point, seems more of a bogyman than something that is real. Like when certain segments of society tried to make us believe white nationalists were about to start attacking everything in sight after January 6th. In short, I think there is more propaganda at work here than actual truth.
not sure what your sources are, but we've witnessed Trump attempt to implement quite a few things listed on the 2025 plan, and as it was
co-authored by almost 2 dozen of Trumps' minions with opinions, i'd say there is much to be concerned, as Trump has significantly earned, this 'right', cause he actually, is not, and not needed caught on a mike hot, as he has blatantly called for the weaponizing of the DOJ, as he wishes to pursue any that attempted to get in the way of his way, cause he takes the low way, everyday, and in this administration, i'm pretty convinced all will bow to the mental midget, as Trump did learn a few things, and not just about chicken wings. Where he once had at least one adult in the room, there will now B nothin but, a dolts with loose bolts, as the GOPS' monster grew out of what they now no longer can control, because they have lost the remote, and also the remote possibility they could even remotely control one as sick and unstable, asz Trump, for now he wants Crocs in the moat, but they smell of defeat, and don't fit his mo, cause he wants to grab him some pussy and bang a ho ho ho, but for thee, gotta go N get high, so its hi hoe high ho, it is off to work i need go,
and me & B Leave you should and could perhaps take a closer look, B 4 we again allow elected,
this bass turd crook !
What I have been unable to find is any mention of the Heritage Foundation or the 2025 project by Trump at all.
They will have their boogeyman by any means necessary.
There have been volumes of posts detailing reasons (legitimate) to not vote for Trump over the years.
I see no point or logic in not voting for Trump because of some plan that may or not ever happen.
Don't vote for Trump because of one of the other myriad of reasons not to.
Well, yeah, but that correlation was there already, before the 2025 Project was even published. And, as we all know, correlation is not causation. That is, just because some of what Trump did during his presidency aligned with what was in the Project doesn't mean he did them for the sake of the project. Or, just because something appears on the Project's agenda doesn't mean any conservative in government trying to accomplish something that appears on their list is for the sake of the project. Of course some of their interests are going to coincide.
As for "sources" I'm simply trying to find something, anything that quotes Trump on the subject. Anything that even shows he talked about it. Says anything about it at all. There isn't even a story about Trump meeting with the Project's leaders. There's nothing. Just lots of articles after articles claiming that the Project is Trump's goal and he's going to carry it out but the only connection between the Project and Trump is that some on the Project used to work for Trump.
I have been. There's just nothing there.
So it seems.
Without a doubt.
I see no reason to freak out over what MAY happen.
I liken this to the idiots who proclaimed Trump would take us into WWIII and kill the economy before he ever took office.
But then you're taking away 90% of the ammo from politics. All they have been doing for the November election (and for several cycles past) is push fear about what the other guy wants to do. You take away the fear mongering and what do they have left to campaign on? Their policy? What they want to do to make life better for Americans? Fuck, can't win an election that way. Lie, cheat, steal... it's the political way!
The only one who uses fear and hate and lying and cheating is convicted felon #34
I take it then you've not seen any campaign commercials from the Biden side. Either you've not seen them or you are ignoring the fear mongering due to bias.
MAGAs and their fear of "social engineering." Even as they strive to put 10 commandments posters in Louisiana classrooms as if a public school is an add-on building of the Church. Here is an idea: Put the 10 commandments in schools. . . and shut down churches that spout hatred and division amongst the citizenry.
It's disgusting when so-called, "Christians" fear instead of love or even trying to love their neighbors as they would themselves. I am UTTERLY DISGUSTED with anybody who associates themselves with Christian Nationalists!
Apparently, it is possible to leave some MAGAs out of the planning loop/discussion. Dog gone it!
/s
I am sure you have heard Donald talk about his hatred (and distrust (laughable considering his untrustworthiness) of the so-called, "Deep state' and ending the Department of Education by giving its control back to the states. These attempts at willful ignorance and/or hoodwinking readers are unChristlike. And, Jesus would chastise such 'performers' with a call to remember that 'salt that has lost its flavor is worthless! WORTHLESS!
Snuffy, these MAGAs come here daily and vainly tell us to just let "MAGA" happen to us. We won't participate in our own loss and downfall! As for those who think it proper to let Donald, the liar, wretched, convict that supports hurting the masses with his schemes of RETRIBUTION and twisting our government systems into corrupt conservative platforms of deception and perversions of law and logic. . .I am shocked that you would wish to see us become that.
After all, you informed me that you are neutral player politically. . . MAGAs are cultish and so are their politicking and policies cultish. You can not with a straight face be a neutral party to this discussion and support political corruption and retribution that has been called for by Donald and his MAGAs.
oh, no. not the infamous, dreaded MAGAs again.
Yes! Yes! Yes! You get it now. Good job!
I voted you up!
For a relatively small group, they garner a whole lot of attention from people seemingly scared to death of them.
And?
What "hoodwinking"? What "willful ignorance"? What, exactly, is wrong with states having control over their own education systems?
Or are you just going to declare, once again, you don't answer questions from those you deem conservative?
One need only look at test scores over the last 50 years to see increasing federal involvement has backfired.
That may be code for "Wah, some conservatives won't do what I want".
Since I am not MAGA, I can't say what they believe about social engineering, although I feel confident that they probably don't appreciate what passes for "liberals" these days (an oxymoron if there was one) forcing their elitist ideas and relative moralism on the public school system. I imagine they are now to the point that since these "liberals" can't understand that doing so is anything but liberal, they may as well try to force their moral values as well.
My opinion is that, concerning public schools, the only thing that should be taught there are actual scholastic concerns, like math, reading, history and the rest. Social studies should not press students into one view over another but, rather, teach children to think critically about social issues and history, not use critical thinking jargon to promote one particular view as critically proper over another. Convincing children of the proper value system is the job of the parent, not the state. Therefore, not only should the Decalogue not be put in schools but neither LGTBQ, Feminism, Critical Theory of any kind should be as well. If parents want their children to go to schools that promote such, then they should be able to send their children to private schools that promote those values while, at the same time, being able to take advantage of the taxes they pay for education to send them there.
Yes, we all know how you view it. In my opinion, you are a humanist who tries to stuff what Christ actually taught into a humanist system for the purpose of achieving humanist goals. Anyone who objects is a Christian Nationalist, apparently. In my opinion, the Jesus you worship is subservient to the human heart and his function is to support the heart's desires, even though Jesus repeatedly told us those desires are corrupted. You appear to have forgotten, if indeed you ever knew, that Jesus called us to put off our old self, with its corrupted desires, pick up our cross and follow him, not our heart.
In my opinion, what you call fear is simply Christians believing and doing what Jesus actually commands his followers to do.
To be expected and why the states should have control. It prevents a single point of failure situation, as we have now. That is, if the Feds have control and they get it wrong, everyone fails. With the states being in control we have more than 50 different "markets" of ideas, some of which will be superior to others that the less successful ones can learn from, provided they aren't more concerned with ideology than objective results. Some states won't be concerned with education but, rather, indoctrination so it won't matter to those anyway.
You got that right. I wonder what would happen if a candidate decided not to say one bad word about his or her opponent? Just spoke about their own platform, what they want to accomplish and actual details about how they'd go about it and why they think it would work. Leave all the nastiness out.
I think there are so many people sick to death of all the filth in politics they'd love it.
Progressives are also cultish in their politicking and policies. I reject ALL political corruption and retribution from all.
As for being a neutral player politically, I am a registered Independent. Like most people, I'm a mix of conservative, liberal and Libertarian.
Like religion, I try not to push my politics on to other people. Just wish that all people did the same but there seem to be too many zealots in politics as well as religion.
So you have heard and consequently you know that Donald will participate in Project 2025; it is a given as he is aligned with the Heritage Foundation in spirit. So just cut the bull. It's a waste of time and vainly attempts to play on other people's intelligence.
The reason this nation essentially needs a national education system is due to the OUTRIGHT HATRED, ABUSE, AND WRONG-DOING by bigoted so-called, "Christians" and secularists bigots (greedy bastards who do not want competition from minorities) and so the federal government had to step in to quiet the BIGOTS or at least make them less effective in giving less than a quality education to minorities and instead give more quality education. Something the bigots in this country to this very damn day are still attempting to do and return to doing.
I don't answer MAGA questions because it turned into mocking and childish bull not fit for caliber of "Forum" this place should be! I addressed you first, and since I have not heard from you for a very long time. . . wisdom says I could check to see if you hold a sincere discussion or retreat to condescension and. . .other 'means' lacking in substance.
Only time will tell if we can move forward or just keep spinning around in tired, little, circles on the forum.
Wow. It's the government's fault that dummies are dumb. What kind of. . . person. . .would suggest that their own government "exceptional' we are told in its essence and providing for its educational systems needs financially would be the cause of dummy students and dummy teachers. . . I will tell you what kind of person. . . a person who is at war with their governmental system. Persons and groups that hate portions of the citizenry enough to often interfere and block what could make the system improve itself. . .through their legislative interference with education. But, of course, they can't see their own shitty hands dripping from f-ing up the youth of tomorrow because of their bullshit education "cultural wars" and even worse they would not brag on anything good that comes out of the governmental system because it would go against their lying narrative.
MAGAs and since you do not bother to say what your political disposition is, I will just go with 'White, Rightwing, Evangelical, Males," - lots of writers are writing books using that as a label anyway. And if you are not MAGA you can't be CONFIDENT about a damn thing regarding them-unless you are MAGAs (in hiding). Let's get your . . . untruth straight first!
That's bullshit. It's a damn slogan promoted by Right-wing evangelicals who want students to grown up apart and in conclaves separated from other kids. It has nothing at all to do with what kids want for themselves or even need socially from other kids. It's bigoted adults set in their ancient and dumbass beliefs trying to manage and control the lives of youths from going "Astray" and leaving their bigoted asses behind. BTW, the kids usually grow up and leave their bigoted parents/family members anyway. As they can't be what they are not (bigoted jerks) just to please and be beholden to some one else's so-called, "needs."
What?..... The closer it gets to November, the more disjointed some posts here seem to become....
That's bullshit. Telling kids that they are 'going to hell,' and mocking them because they are different, failing to treat them with respect for their 'state' -which they did not provide for themselves, and then demonizing, and blocking their success at every term to better understand who they are—making them outcasts for cause is inhumane. Inhumane treatment of others, "the least of these," should not be voice by a member of the body of Christ. But, we have bigoted Christians hurting people for what they say is done in the name of Christ. . . actually, it is bigoted, petty, 'a body of believers about 'somethng' or other who are misaligning the name of Christ. And, they wander why their numbers are slowly leaking out! The church as a sickness and its hurting people once again. . . maybe the Church is too undisciplined to help its own ill-self! Best let the government in good faith help all the children sitting in its classroom seats. . . and not just the PREFERRED heterosexual/white/Christians loved and supported by bigots and bigoted school policies.
I no longer care what you think I am in my beliefs. It carries zero interest with me. Incidentally, the Church has brought shame on itself running around with liars, cheaters, and unprincipled men/women who are grifting left and right inside the church ("moneychangers" - Jesus condemned them for their first love) and supporting complex and unjust warfare against the lives of innocent people. . . for the sake of might, power, and influence.
That kind of Jesus ain't the Jesus the Bible impressed upon the new-founded Church either. Furthermore, the church is split: Catholic and Protestant. Rather than interfering in the lives of people who do not profess to know its god or 'gods" - the sick church goes into politics to spread its divisiveness-which is its calling card.
Jesus did not tell the Church to be "denominational" - that is, one side got its doctrine, another its teachings, yet another its 'sayings' and customs, but neither one can profess to be a, the, ONENESS of the spirit that Jesus prayed for the body itself!
Instead, here you are thinking to look down your 'nose' at me and the 'human heart" while your choice is to attempt to make unbelievers, nonconfessors of Jesus, conservative like yourself. That is not in the Bible. If so, you should remark on it and link it for all to see.
I won't even dare ask how you have "perfected" your walk such that you can love the unbeliever-but not let him or her find, discover, your God on his or her own-without being compelled by conservative politics deliberately and with all the malice it can muster making them miserable in their everyday existence. Something Jesus never instructed the church to do either.
Go fix the broken (Church), figure out if Catholicism is sound and let's all agree to do it in oneness or let's determine the rightness of Protestantism and end the 'vicious' of every man/pastor/teacher developing his or her own church. Because as it stands right now - it all seems to appear 'anybody' with a sales pitch and a bible (Donald is being said to sale them now) can open the door to church, preach, and make "public" policy.
Jesus did not do or involve himself in the politics of his day. The Church is sick in the head and in need of loving care from its attendees.
(Indeed, that there are two 'universal' Churches where there should be one unified Church teaching the 'oneness' of the Gospel shows a fundamental weakness/flaw in the making of the organization as a whole.)
And as is the case in life. . .some institutions, some tribes, some citizen groups banded together are worst than their counterparts. I reject corruption in politics too. Though, sometimes the nature of the 'beast' of politics itself is its own worse 'publicist' and image-maker! But less not kid ourselves there are people working to make life better for all of the citizenry and their are people fighting in contrast to make sure that specially minorities don't get ahead. It's been going on for centuries, and I am sure you have seen it in action and heard about it having lived a 'long' life.
I'm sorry, I see words, but not meaning in them to address. . .
No apologies necessary. Not surprising at all.
I have no doubt that you typed all this out without the least embarrassment tugging at your conscience or your irony meter. In reality, you don't answer MAGA questions, which constitutes in your mind anyone who's conservative regardless of their politics, because then you'd actually have to defend the crap you say. You see that as a waste of your time, since you are here to bring enlightenment to all the ignorant, not debate. What's so funny about it all is that you think not answering questions is a virtue, as if you would not lower yourself so far as to defend what you say, since what you say is so self-evidently right and proper that defense is not necessary. Man! I'm basking in the radiance of your virtue all the way from here!
Just as well, though, since anyone who tries to debate you finds that whatever they say gets run through some special program you apparently have that turns everything said into what you want them to have said, so you can talk about completely unrelated generalizations. I submit the following as evidence:
The first sentence is the complete opposite conclusion I arrived at in my search concerning Trump and the 2025 Project. Then, having had me say what I did not say, you go on to conclude that I'm being deceptive. Well done!
You're too enlightened for me, so, back to ignoring you.
Good.
That basking may be in something to check, because 'radiance' probably ain't it. If MAGAs have something to say-just say it. It's not 'hard' to understand the foolishness that occurred around here unchecked (Heaven! You used to say, 'You could not understand my comments too" (paraphrase), but somehow its not a problem now). The bull gets stacked up high around here. Specifically, on the 'warrior class' side of some conservatives who wish to 'own' a lib. . . if the lib lets him or her.
Have something to say, screw the question and just make a statement. I will do my best to answer. If not, oh. . . well that will be the 'one' that gets away.
If you can't handle the heat. . . stay out of the kitchen, somebody said. Christianity looks weak and it has 'everything' to do with the Christians who can't fix themselves and certainly not the world.
Isn't it really rather silly for people to get so worked up over nothing? To be reduced to making shit up because their hatred for one person is so great that it seemingly takes aways reason and logic?
We have heard for at least 7 years why we shouldn't vote for Trump and what a horrible human being he is , and NOW they have to get all worked up over something that may or may not even happen?
Seems like they wasted those 7 years if THIS is why anyone won't vote for Trump.
Of course, most of us realize that most people already know who they will vote for, and probably have for a while. To pretend otherwise is self-delusional.
Sheesh!
No it isn't.
Some folks still believe that the government isn't responsible for raising kids, parents are.
What a novel idea, huh?
If kids are going to be taught to mock, hate, abuse, and/or worse their peers by ignorant, bigoted, in plenty cases racist parents who dismiss science and life circumstances placed upon the youth of tomorrow: To hell with them and their stupid "responsibility."
That's an interesting perspective, especially in light of the demographics of Chicago's public schools.
So, basically what you are saying is that black and Hispanic parents (Blacks and Hispanics total 82.3% of pupils) are teaching that stuff to their own kids. Or they are "ignorant and bigoted" in your own words.
And here all along the claim is that blacks and Hispanics aren't racists.
Need to stick to facts instead of imagining things.
What I am saying is parents are not trained educators, and worse, most parents are not inherently qualified to teach their own children- and damn sure are not qualified to teach a classroom-sized group of varying aged youths and young adults. You can talk shit until the sun goes down and comes up again. . .it won't change the fact that our public schools are screwed up because of the "schizo" behavior coming up out of the communities they reside in by some conservatives who think they can control all student activities through yelling, intimidation, and right-wing self-serving policies. This 'mess' is the never-ending saga in the U.S. and its really sad too, because our nation deserves better than this shit we are constantly and willfully being served by tired, wretched, meddlesome, loud, smart-yet stupid people in power.
So basically you are now walking back your comment about this:
The bold is YOURS.
You weren't saying a damn thing about parents teaching their kids in place of teachers.
Whoop, there it is! Yet another ignorant dig at conservatives, even though I have provided the demographics of Chicago public schools to you.
Teachers Union:
We need more money.
Don't look at the results of the money already spent, we need more to improve anything.
It must be white conservatives who are to blame in liberal Chicago.
yeah, events from over 150 years ago are the reasons the Chicago teachers are struggling to educate the students in their charge TODAY.
A broke city whose teachers are demanding a contract increase that exceeds the state budget also wants to give money to residents based on their race.
It's like they are trying to demonstrate the worst possible scenario for a democracy, a kleptocracy pillaging the public coffers until the city is destroyed.
it is a self-perpetuating madness.
Teacher unions donate overwhelmingly to Democrats, then get Democrats 5o give in to their demands for more to keep the cycle and money flowing freely without much if any oversight.
AND of course, social justice issues are bad just because of. . . minorities. Why? Because getting help where and when it is needed in their lives just might get those minorities out of the poorhouse and more and more of them becoming wealthy citizens without a conservative 'bent.' Mustn't support that! /s
Didn't see where anyone said anything even remotely close to that.
Of course, some folks may just want teachers to be teaching.
You don't have to explicitly say it: I have covered it for you. I have introduced it into the 'mix,' because it is true. Of course, truth speaks for itself!
I don't need you to "cover" anything.
She has this right. It's the same struggle that has been going on from the beginning. Some Conservatives don't want advancement/progress/inclusion/diversity/equality or equity. . . because to them it would mean COMPETITION with a minority race. Instead of them thinking of it as a nation wishing all its citizens (outcasts-religious and otherwise) to be well, prosperous, and ahead of the game. The 'old' status quo is keep ahead of the others by keeping 'em' down.
For a person with a higher education she is one spectacularly ignorant woman.
It could be (I don't know much about this woman's views) she is not fooled by some conservatives' speak (because that is all that it is) about believing in societal colorblindness, —a lie straight out of hell. All some conservatives have done in the past and continuing into the present is try, with some success, to tie whiteness to rightness to conservatism with parlance and a big ass 'Americana' flag ideology stuck in the top of it!
it could be it's just she is an ignorant though educated woman.
It seems many things are merely imagined but hey, as long as conservatives can take the brunt of the hatred, it's all good!
Of course, it never hurst to throw in some good old jabs about (gasp!) racism.
I don't know about her one way or the other. She is correct about the obstacles some conservatives throw, leave, and plant in the path of minority success—at nearly every turn.
Yes, some MAGAs are ignorant enough to think that they will change the whole of the U.S system to lock themselves in power over the rest of us (again). It's dumb. MAGAs will and must not be allowed to succeed.
And I do not care if MAGAs play dumb or stay silent about their true intentions, I, we, see you even in the 'stupe' and quiet that portends nothing to see or hear. Actually, some MAGAs are full of guile.
MAGAS, MAGAS, MAGAS everywhere!
It is silly to list everything ill in the world and directly attribute it to conservatives and MAGAs.
That seems to be the overiding go-to comment no matter the subject--MAGAs and conservatives.
Unproductive and useless
There are a great many things in the world. . . that have nothing to do with some conservatives or some MAGAs. . . so, you might wish to dial it down a bit. Just saying! But when it does, I will happily, fastly, and attentively do my best to drive that point home! Along with any other point or points needing to be made. You get the last word. Go!
Oh, I certainly know that--which is why my posts reflect that.