Republican Assault on Public Education (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

This probably needs its own thread. It ties in with a lot of different R culture wars: Attacks on universities, attacks on CRT and “woke”. Classifying teachers and librarians as “groomers”. Pushing vouchers to send tax money to private, often religious, schools. Betsy DeVos was an advocate for all these policies that will weaken public education, and there are several billionaires who also want to dismantle public education. Public education may have its faults, but it is responsible for an amazing amount of upward mobility. Kids from poor areas can still get a college prep education in a public school.

Vouchers (sometimes disguised as “school choice”) are a particular peeve of mine. Public money is diverted from poor schools to wealthy private schools, which aren’t required to offer accommodations for special needs or challenged students. Families with special needs kids are left out. Rural areas often suffer disproportionately because there are no private schools to attend, but their public schools still see the reduction in funding. Often the families who take advantage of the voucher money are upper class and the private schools simply raise tuition knowing the families are getting taxpayer money now.

Greg Abbot is being particularly vile in this area. No surprise. Voters will have to make a statement about public education. If we want to halt the growing divide in this country between the “haves” and “have-nots”, we need to pay attention to public education.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I also didn’t say your were intelligent and well mannered. Does that mean Inthinknyou are or are not?

Unlike most of the things you say, you've been very clear in letting me know that you think I'm a stupid arsehole. On that, you've made yourself very clear. I don't take it personally though, so no worries.

What you keep intentionally being very unclear about is whether or not you support or approve of the policy of unidentified, masked gunmen abducting, imprisoning and abusing people without giving them due process.

You still have not said that you do not support or approve of the policy of unidentified, masked gunmen abducting, imprisoning and abusing people without giving them due process.

Why can't you be as clear about that as you are clear about thinking that I'm a stupid arsehole, my brother?

You obviously can be very clear when you want to be, so why do you keep choosing to be unclear about so many things?

 

[TampaJoe]

So which do you think it is?

Unlike most of the things you say, you've been very clear in letting me know that you think I'm a stupid arsehole. On that, you've made yourself very clear. I don't take it personally though, so no worries.

What you keep intentionally being very unclear about is whether or not you support or approve of the policy of unidentified, masked gunmen abducting, imprisoning and abusing people without giving them due process.

You still have not said that you do not support or approve of the policy of unidentified, masked gunmen abducting, imprisoning and abusing people without giving them due process.

Why can't you be as clear about that as you are clear about thinking that I'm a stupid arsehole, my brother?

You obviously can be very clear when you want to be, so why do you keep choosing to be unclear about so many things?

I have stated numerous times I expect LEO and the DOJ to protect and defend the Constitution and its amendments and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That includes due process. It also includes a great many other liberties. Is due process guaranteed in the Constitution and its amendments? Yes.

So I answered your question. That is what I expect. I am happy to write the congressional representatives who represent the districts and states where I live and work and inform them I expect them to do their duty and insure that migrants receive all the rights to which they are entitled.

Is that sufficiently clear for you? Should I bold anything to make it clearer?

 

[Optimus Prime]

I have stated numerous times I expect LEO and the DOJ to protect and defend the Constitution and its amendments and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That includes due process. It also includes a great many other liberties. Is due process guaranteed in the Constitution and its amendments? Yes.

So I answered your question. That is what I expect. I am happy to write the congressional representatives who represent the districts and states where I live and work and inform them I expect them to do their duty and insure that migrants receive all the rights to which they are entitled.

Is that sufficiently clear for you? Should I bold anything to make it clearer?

"Did you eat the leftover cake?"

@TampaJoe - "The rules about leftovers are clear. Everyone should follow the rules"

@TampaJoe "I hope my answers have been plain enough for you"

and what exactly do you think should be done with the people deported without due process?

What exactly do you think should be done to those LEO/DOJ who denied that due process?

 

[TampaJoe]

I came right out and said it more than once. I suggest you re-read my posts on the matter. You are flailing wildly at this point.


I have spelled it out in the simplest of terms possible.

Well okay then. As I said earlier, if you believe as you say, don’t vote for Republicans. I have no issue or complaints with that. It is your vote. Vote as you please.

I don’t share your broad brush view of the GOP. Nor do I find that I can support Democrats positions on a number of issues nor do I find that party to be more worthy of trust that the GOP. That’s my view. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree. But I don’t vote to please you.

That is democracy.

 

[TampaJoe]

and what exactly do you think should be done to the people deported without due process?

What exactly do you think should be done to those LEO/DOJ who denied due process

I would refer such matters to the DOJ and I would file civil suits on behalf of the victims.

That is the process.

 

[TampaJoe]

Tom Nichols is a principled conservative who answered your question far better than I ever could. He and many other principled conservatives have broken with the GOP years ago. You can easily find many essays from him and other conservatives on why the GOP is irretrievably broken.

You have to evaluate each candidate. Maybe some Democrats earn your vote, maybe some Libertarians, maybe an Independent candidate here and there.

Voting for the GOP is signaling approval for every law being broken, every Constitutional violation, every piece of corruption happening, every human rights violation being perpetrated. Free speech being targeted by the DOJ, medical research being scuttled due to petty pique, law firms being targeted. And now the GOP is complicit in hiding the Epstein files after promising to release them for years.

What they are doing in their prison camps to immigrants is arguably worse than the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII, which is a stain on our history.

I agree. I should evaluate individually EACH candidate and then vote for the individual I believe will do the best job.

I look to the policies that are my hot button issues and vote for the person who I believe best represents my view on those policies.

That is not to say I agree with them in every position. That is an unrealistic expectation.

So I would suggest that if you want people to consider Dem candidates as an alternative choices to GOP, you choose candidates that have some appeal to voters outside of the left side of the Dem base. And maybe choose issues and policies that have broad support. Because I wouldn’t vote for someone who would return border policy to the shirt show it was in the Biden administration. I find that neither intelligent policy or humane. I won’t vote for someone who puts political ideology ahead of public safety. I have other issues that I find difficult to reconcile with Dem policy. But we are primarily discussing immigration here.

 

[SFIDC3]

I would refer such matters to the DOJ and I would file civil suits on behalf of the victims.

But, but, but......what if the DOJ is now corrupt and routinely ignores the Constitution and is in lock step with an equally corrupt POTUS who thinks he can violate the Constitution whenever it suits him? To the extent that they are ignoring court orders at least 30% of the time (this is documented)?

What then?

 

[MT15]

That is not to say I agree with them in every position. That is an unrealistic expectation.

This is what I was getting at. Everyone has their choices to make. You’ve made your choices - it’s pretty clear what those choices are even though you try not to specify them.

When you ignore what this admin is actually doing (with the full blessing of what’s left of the GOP) because you think deporting cooks, busboys and roofers is more important, you’ve made your choices clear. (In fact, they are not necessarily deporting them in most cases - just throwing them in camps that are inhumane to the point of human rights issues). You have made it clear that is what you value over freedom of the press, freedom of speech, bodily autonomy for women, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of corporations to decide their own policies in their own businesses without government recrimination. Not to mention rampant corruption at various levels of the Executive.

Everything you say cannot change what is actually happening and that you are turning a blind eye to all of it so that you get your pound of flesh from people who are just trying to make a living wage.

I honestly don’t mean to single you out, Joe. Millions of others have made this Faustian choice. It’s a huge, enormous moral failure of our time. A complete lack of moral clarity that is just confounding to me.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I have stated numerous times I expect LEO and the DOJ to protect and defend the Constitution and its amendments and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That includes due process. It also includes a great many other liberties. Is due process guaranteed in the Constitution and its amendments? Yes.

So I answered your question. That is what I expect. I am happy to write the congressional representatives who represent the districts and states where I live and work and inform them I expect them to do their duty and insure that migrants receive all the rights to which they are entitled.

Is that sufficiently clear for you? Should I bold anything to make it clearer?

You didn't answer the question he asked. If the question had been:

"Do you expect LEO and the DOJ to protect and defend the Constitution and its amendments and faithfully execute the laws of the United States?"

Then you would have answered his question. But that was clearly not the question he asked. The question was, "whether or not you support or approve of the policy of unidentified, masked gunmen abducting, imprisoning and abusing people without giving them due process."

It's a simple question. Do you approve, yes or no?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I have stated numerous times I expect LEO and the DOJ to protect and defend the Constitution and its amendments and faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That includes due process. It also includes a great many other liberties. Is due process guaranteed in the Constitution and its amendments? Yes.

You still aren't saying whether you want or like what ICE is doing or not. You refuse to say if you think what they are doing is legal or not? You still refuse to say if you think what they are doing is moral or not?

If you're cool with looking someone who is either too afraid or too dishonest to answer a simple question, then keep on doing what you're doing.

Before you reach for your "why should I care" card, not caring about what ICE is doing is just as immoral as wanting or liking what ICE is doing. "Why should I care," is not the flex you seem to think it is. Decent human beings care and no one has to explain to them why they should care.

So I answered your question.

You technically gave an answer, but you carefully worded your answer in a way that completely avoids actually answering the question that's actually being asked.

You clearly want and like what ICE is doing, but you are either too afraid or too dishonest to admit it, maybe even both.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Well okay then. As I said earlier, if you believe as you say, don’t vote for Republicans

Me not voting for Republicans didn't do a damn thing to prevent what ICE is doing, because too many people just like you voted for Republicans so they could do all of the unconstitutional and vile stuff they are doing, like what ICE is doing.

Please keep showing us who you really are. By you, I mean every last single one of you who voted for Trump and Republicans to allow them to do all of the unconstitutional and vile stuff they told you they were going to do before you voted for them.

Nor do I find that I can support Democrats positions...

Thanks for confirming you voted straight Republican, including Trump, and that you voted that way, because you support the policies and things they told you they would do, which is everything they are doing right now.

Such an uncanny knack for confessing without realizing they are confessing. They just can't help themselves.

 

[TampaJoe]

But, but, but......what if the DOJ is now corrupt and routinely ignores the Constitution and is in lock step with an equally corrupt POTUS who thinks he can violate the Constitution whenever it suits him? To the extent that they are ignoring court orders at least 30% of the time (this is documented)?

What then?

File civil suits.

Look I had the same frustration in previous administrations and wondered how to get Congress and the DOJ to investigate or exercise oversight over the executive branch. I am just repeating back to you what I was told by Democrats.

If you can come up with a better system that prevents this kind of stonewalling then I am open to suggestions. This isn’t a new problem.

 

[TampaJoe]

You still aren't saying whether you want or like what ICE to do what they're doing or not? You refuse to say if you think what they are doing is legal or not? You still refuse to say if you thing what they are doing is moral or not?

If you're cool with looking someone who is either too afraid or too dishonest to answer a simple question, then keep on doing what you're doing.

Before you reach for your "why should I care" card, not caring about what ICE is doing is just as immoral as wanting or liking what ICE is doing. "Why should I care," is not the flex you seem to think it is. Decent human beings care and no one has to explain to them why they should care.


You technically gave an answer, but you carefully worded your answer in a way that completely avoids actually answering the question that's actually being asked.

You clearly want and like what ICE is doing, but you are either too afraid or too dishonest to admit it, maybe even both.

I doesn’t matter what I like or don’t like. LEO sb following the law. We don’t pay them to do what you or I “like”. Justice is supposed to be blind is it not. If we are only to enforce or comply with the laws we “like” it leads to anarchy.

For the record, I “like” it when LEO complies with the law and the Comstitution. I “prefer” that they obey the law versus ignore the law.

That’s clearly how I feel.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

You didn't answer the question he asked. If the question had been:

"Do you expect LEO and the DOJ to protect and defend the Constitution and its amendments and faithfully execute the laws of the United States?"

Then you would have answered his question. But that was clearly not the question he asked. The question was, "whether or not you support or approve of the policy of unidentified, masked gunmen abducting, imprisoning and abusing people without giving them due process."

It's a simple question. Do you approve, yes or no?

@TampaJoe absolutely supports and approves of what ICE is doing. He's just too afraid or too dishonest to admit it.

Of course, he could put this whole issue to rest and easily prove me wrong by simply saying, "I do not support or approve of what ICE is doing." He'll never say that though, because he does support and approve of what they are doing. It's one of the reasons he voted for Trump and the Republicans.

 

[TampaJoe]

Me not voting for Republicans didn't do a damn thing to prevent what ICE is doing, because too many people just like you voted for Republicans so they could do all of the unconstitutional and vile stuff they are doing, like what ICE is doing.

Please keep showing us who you really are. By you, I mean every last single one of you who voted for Trump and Republicans to allow them to do all of the unconstitutional and vile stuff they told you they were going to do before you voted for them.


Thanks for confirming you voted straight Republican, including Trump, and that you voted that way, because you support the policies and things they told you they would do, which is everything they are doing right now.

Such an uncanny knack for confessing without realizing they are confessing. They just can't help themselves.

I have said numerous times that I didn’t cast a vote for either Trump or Harris. So don’t lie and claim I confirmed otherwise.

I expect ICE and any LEO to follow due process laws in the Constitution and its amendments and the immigration laws of the United States.

If I have to choose between which border policy is more effective and humane and works best in the national security interest of the US, I wouldn’t choose to vote to return to the shirt show of the last administration. I get you don’t like what ICE is doing. I don’t agree with all of it myself. However, they are dealing with a problem that existed for several administrations but which was exponentially worse under the previous administration which recklessly and foolishly allowed millions of undocumented and unvetted migrants to enter this country. So in my view you are complaining about how the firefighters are fighting a fire the previous administration allowed to grow out of control.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I doesn’t matter what I like or don’t like.

It absolutely matters when it comes to personal character and morality. It's all that matters in regards to that.

My question is about whether you personally want and like what ICE is doing.

You want and like what ICE is doing. If you didn't, you would just simply say, "I don't want or like what ICE is doing." That would be plain speak. Anything else is just cowardly avoidance or "snake in the grass" dishonesty.

 

[TampaJoe]

It absolutely matters when it comes to personal character and morality. It's all that matters in regards to that.

My question is about whether you personally want and like what ICE is doing.

You want and like what ICE is doing. If you didn't, you would just simply say, "I don't want or like what ICE is doing." That would be plain speak. Anything else is just cowardly avoidance or "snake in the grass" dishonesty.

I want Ice to follow the law. That is what I like. That’s what I approve of. I do not have a problem with them wearing masks as long as the are badged. I do not have a problem with unmarked vehicles as long as they identify themselves at the time of arrest. I do believe and have said repeatedly that I expect them to follow the legal requirements for due process.

Do I have a problem with them arresting undocumented or illegal aliens? No. That is their job. That’s the law. If you don’t like the law the get your happy arse together with your buddies and call and write your Congress critters and encourage them to work with Republicans on an immigration bill that works for both parties.

I will happily do the same. Personally that is what I like. Personally that is what I want. What I do not want is the shirt show of a border policy like the last administration.

 

[SFIDC3]

File civil suits.

Great non answer.....because the ability to do so is unrealistic for most of them.....