In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 12 2015 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The polls coming out of Ohio say that a lot of people like him, and he won re-election by a lot though.
That has more to do with the extreme impotence of the Ohio Democratic Party than Kasich's merits as a leader. Ohio has a lot of political problems, to put it plainly.
I'm not at all familiar with what Kasich has done for education in Ohio, but I'll certainly take your word for it being terrible. But do you actually have any republican candidate you are more positive towards? Because to me, when I watched their first debate, from the other candidates I had a hard time finding even individual statements that weren't either meaningless or absurd. But with him, nothing really rubbed me the wrong way, and at least twice he made me think that hey, this was a really good answer.
Also, I really can't wrap my head around people considering Trump less of a joke all of a sudden. How on earth does bragging about exploiting a broken system constitute anything remotely positive? I mean I get that it's funny as hell when he talks about how all the other politicians are easy to buy, showcased by how they all let him buy them, but it's not supposed to actually garner support for him..
I mean, I can get how his run so far makes everyone else look bad, but not how anything at all he has said so far has made him look remotely good. He's not even charismatic, guy is a complete buffoon.
On August 13 2015 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: Also, I really can't wrap my head around people considering Trump less of a joke all of a sudden. How on earth does bragging about exploiting a broken system constitute anything remotely positive? I mean I get that it's funny as hell when he talks about how all the other politicians are easy to buy, showcased by how they all let him buy them, but it's not supposed to actually garner support for him..
I mean, I can get how his run so far makes everyone else look bad, but not how anything at all he has said so far has made him look remotely good. He's not even charismatic, guy is a complete buffoon.
He is not less of a joke. The idea that he can win the nomination has become less of a joke. (which is bad for the other candidates because that means they need to actually address him which only drags themselves down).
His poll numbers for likely general election voters are terrible and people loath him. But no one is reporting on those because it gets more eyeballs if you report that he is doing well in the polls of people likely to vote in the republican primary. Those people are not the independent voters that decide elections. But everyone loves watching a car crash.
On August 13 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote: His poll numbers for likely general election voters are terrible and people loath him. But no one is reporting on those because it gets more eyeballs if you report that he is doing well in the polls of people likely to vote in the republican primary. Those people are not the independent voters that decide elections. But everyone loves watching a car crash.
Too bad those people might even deliver a Trump candidacy if they maintain these poll numbers into primary season!
On August 12 2015 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The polls coming out of Ohio say that a lot of people like him, and he won re-election by a lot though.
That has more to do with the extreme impotence of the Ohio Democratic Party than Kasich's merits as a leader. Ohio has a lot of political problems, to put it plainly.
I'm not at all familiar with what Kasich has done for education in Ohio, but I'll certainly take your word for it being terrible. But do you actually have any republican candidate you are more positive towards? Because to me, when I watched their first debate, from the other candidates I had a hard time finding even individual statements that weren't either meaningless or absurd. But with him, nothing really rubbed me the wrong way, and at least twice he made me think that hey, this was a really good answer.
Well, just for a little taste on what Kasich has done...
With two-term Ohio Gov. John Kasich joining the crowd of candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, it’s a good time to look at the public education mess that has developed in his state under his leadership.
Kasich has pushed key tenets of corporate school reform:
*expanding charter schools — even though the state’s charter sector is the most troubled in the country
*increasing the number of school vouchers that use public money to pay for tuition at private schools, the vast majority of them religious — even though state officials say that fewer than one-third of those available were used by families this past school year
*performance pay for teachers — even though such schemes have been shown over many years not to be useful in education
*evaluating educators by student standardized test scores in math and reading — even though assessment experts have warned that using test scores in this way is not reliable or valid.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Education Department in Kasich’s administration is in turmoil. David Hansen, his administration’s chief for school choice and charter schools resigned over this past weekend after admitting that he had unilaterally withheld failing scores of charter schools in state evaluations of the schools’ sponsor organizations so they wouldn’t look so bad. (Hansen’s wife, incidentally, is Kasich’s chief of staff, who is taking a leave from that post to work on his campaign.) There are growing calls now for the resignation of the Kasich-backed state superintendent of education, Richard Ross.
I don't know why there aren't other candidates promoting as simple of a message and slogan as Donald Trump and Obama used. Obama was elected on "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change". Trump could be at least nominated based on him giving a giant middle finger to the entire political and media system. Presidential campaigns should be run like every other PR or advertising campaign out there - keep it really simple. That would seem to me to be really effective.
If Trump hadn't said the extreme thing he has said, I'll bet he wouldn't be far off from being a viable Republican nominee. Someone needs to just come in being a complete outsider to politics and just say "Fuck you" to the entire system, without the ridiculous gaffes that Trump has had. That is what I want to see.
On August 13 2015 12:40 Doodsmack wrote: I don't know why there aren't other candidates promoting as simple of a message and slogan as Donald Trump and Obama used. Obama was elected on "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change". Trump could be at least nominated based on him giving a giant middle finger to the entire political and media system. Presidential campaigns should be run like every other PR or advertising campaign out there - keep it really simple. That would seem to me to be really effective.
If Trump hadn't said the extreme thing he has said, I'll bet he wouldn't be far off from being a viable Republican nominee. Someone needs to just come in being a complete outsider to politics and just say "Fuck you" to the entire system, without the ridiculous gaffes that Trump has had. That is what I want to see.
Trump has been manipulating the media way before some of the GOP candidates were born. He knows how to cultivate the news the way he wants them to, the others don't. Trump made those incendiary remarks on purpose to gain notoriety. If he secures the nomination, he will change his verbiage. In politics its better for someone to completely hate you than be indifferent about you.
On August 13 2015 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean, I can get how his run so far makes everyone else look bad, but not how anything at all he has said so far has made him look remotely good. He's not even charismatic, guy is a complete buffoon.
This is it though. The rest of the GOP field, besides maybe Kasich, looked impotent at the debate.
Can you imagine if Jeb Bush actually went off the cuff to call Trump on his shit? If he had followed up after Trump's dismissive "political correctness" line and called him on being a misogynist, and then took the line that "abortion isn't great but we have 1,500 other more important issues to deal with", he would've locked up the primary right there. Right fucking there. Every moderate conservative and independent would have their candidate, as well as the fiscal conservatives (of which there's many, thanks to the Paul's.)
Aside from Christie being a dick, the rest of the candidates were lifeless. It's insane how much they're being mismanaged. There was almost no differentiation between all of them; just different flavors of vanilla. Can you imagine if GWB were there? He would've cleaned up.
On August 13 2015 12:40 Doodsmack wrote: I don't know why there aren't other candidates promoting as simple of a message and slogan as Donald Trump and Obama used. Obama was elected on "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change". Trump could be at least nominated based on him giving a giant middle finger to the entire political and media system. Presidential campaigns should be run like every other PR or advertising campaign out there - keep it really simple. That would seem to me to be really effective.
If Trump hadn't said the extreme thing he has said, I'll bet he wouldn't be far off from being a viable Republican nominee. Someone needs to just come in being a complete outsider to politics and just say "Fuck you" to the entire system, without the ridiculous gaffes that Trump has had. That is what I want to see.
Trump has been manipulating the media way before some of the GOP candidates were born. He knows how to cultivate the news the way he wants them to, the others don't. Trump made those incendiary remarks on purpose to gain notoriety. If he secures the nomination, he will change his verbiage. In politics its better for someone to completely hate you than be indifferent about you.
Trump's self promotion only works in the short term. It wears out very quickly.
On August 13 2015 12:40 Doodsmack wrote: I don't know why there aren't other candidates promoting as simple of a message and slogan as Donald Trump and Obama used. Obama was elected on "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change". Trump could be at least nominated based on him giving a giant middle finger to the entire political and media system. Presidential campaigns should be run like every other PR or advertising campaign out there - keep it really simple. That would seem to me to be really effective.
If Trump hadn't said the extreme thing he has said, I'll bet he wouldn't be far off from being a viable Republican nominee. Someone needs to just come in being a complete outsider to politics and just say "Fuck you" to the entire system, without the ridiculous gaffes that Trump has had. That is what I want to see.
Trump has been manipulating the media way before some of the GOP candidates were born. He knows how to cultivate the news the way he wants them to, the others don't. Trump made those incendiary remarks on purpose to gain notoriety. If he secures the nomination, he will change his verbiage. In politics its better for someone to completely hate you than be indifferent about you.
Trump's self promotion only works in the short term. It wears out very quickly.
What evidence do you base that on? He has had the apprentice on for over an decade on prime time tv, bullied the president to show his birth certificate for a year until Obama gave up, etc. that isn't anything short term.
It's a tactic he's used over and over again in his career. It always wanes.
Holding a fake reality TV show isn't evidence of effective self-promotion (most of it is promotion by NBC) and Trump's birther campaign is a perfect example of his schtick wearing quickly over time. No one cared about it after a month.
On August 13 2015 12:40 Doodsmack wrote: I don't know why there aren't other candidates promoting as simple of a message and slogan as Donald Trump and Obama used. Obama was elected on "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change". Trump could be at least nominated based on him giving a giant middle finger to the entire political and media system. Presidential campaigns should be run like every other PR or advertising campaign out there - keep it really simple. That would seem to me to be really effective.
If Trump hadn't said the extreme thing he has said, I'll bet he wouldn't be far off from being a viable Republican nominee. Someone needs to just come in being a complete outsider to politics and just say "Fuck you" to the entire system, without the ridiculous gaffes that Trump has had. That is what I want to see.
Trump has been manipulating the media way before some of the GOP candidates were born. He knows how to cultivate the news the way he wants them to, the others don't. Trump made those incendiary remarks on purpose to gain notoriety. If he secures the nomination, he will change his verbiage. In politics its better for someone to completely hate you than be indifferent about you.
I was under the impression his gaffes were just him genuinely talking. I think it's more his ego showing and him being genuine than him masterminding the media. He's saying "fuck you" to the media for sure, which I think is a huge part of his appeal right now.
On August 12 2015 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The polls coming out of Ohio say that a lot of people like him, and he won re-election by a lot though.
That has more to do with the extreme impotence of the Ohio Democratic Party than Kasich's merits as a leader. Ohio has a lot of political problems, to put it plainly.
I'm not at all familiar with what Kasich has done for education in Ohio, but I'll certainly take your word for it being terrible. But do you actually have any republican candidate you are more positive towards? Because to me, when I watched their first debate, from the other candidates I had a hard time finding even individual statements that weren't either meaningless or absurd. But with him, nothing really rubbed me the wrong way, and at least twice he made me think that hey, this was a really good answer.
Well, just for a little taste on what Kasich has done...
With two-term Ohio Gov. John Kasich joining the crowd of candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, it’s a good time to look at the public education mess that has developed in his state under his leadership.
Kasich has pushed key tenets of corporate school reform:
*expanding charter schools — even though the state’s charter sector is the most troubled in the country
*increasing the number of school vouchers that use public money to pay for tuition at private schools, the vast majority of them religious — even though state officials say that fewer than one-third of those available were used by families this past school year
*performance pay for teachers — even though such schemes have been shown over many years not to be useful in education
*evaluating educators by student standardized test scores in math and reading — even though assessment experts have warned that using test scores in this way is not reliable or valid.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Education Department in Kasich’s administration is in turmoil. David Hansen, his administration’s chief for school choice and charter schools resigned over this past weekend after admitting that he had unilaterally withheld failing scores of charter schools in state evaluations of the schools’ sponsor organizations so they wouldn’t look so bad. (Hansen’s wife, incidentally, is Kasich’s chief of staff, who is taking a leave from that post to work on his campaign.) There are growing calls now for the resignation of the Kasich-backed state superintendent of education, Richard Ross.
On August 13 2015 12:40 Doodsmack wrote: I don't know why there aren't other candidates promoting as simple of a message and slogan as Donald Trump and Obama used. Obama was elected on "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change". Trump could be at least nominated based on him giving a giant middle finger to the entire political and media system. Presidential campaigns should be run like every other PR or advertising campaign out there - keep it really simple. That would seem to me to be really effective.
If Trump hadn't said the extreme thing he has said, I'll bet he wouldn't be far off from being a viable Republican nominee. Someone needs to just come in being a complete outsider to politics and just say "Fuck you" to the entire system, without the ridiculous gaffes that Trump has had. That is what I want to see.
Trump has been manipulating the media way before some of the GOP candidates were born. He knows how to cultivate the news the way he wants them to, the others don't. Trump made those incendiary remarks on purpose to gain notoriety. If he secures the nomination, he will change his verbiage. In politics its better for someone to completely hate you than be indifferent about you.
Trump's self promotion only works in the short term. It wears out very quickly.
What evidence do you base that on? He has had the apprentice on for over an decade on prime time tv, bullied the president to show his birth certificate for a year until Obama gave up, etc. that isn't anything short term.
If you think Trump is the reason Obama released his birth certificate, I don't really know what to tell you. And long term Trump has problems. Like winning the general election where he has to win over women, Hispanic and black voters. Winning over republicans that will vote in a primary is a different game, especially when it is filled with Tea Party nutjobs the republican courted in the last election cycle. Also if he looks like he has not change of winning the general election, the primary voters will become more pragmatic.
On August 13 2015 12:40 Doodsmack wrote: I don't know why there aren't other candidates promoting as simple of a message and slogan as Donald Trump and Obama used. Obama was elected on "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change". Trump could be at least nominated based on him giving a giant middle finger to the entire political and media system. Presidential campaigns should be run like every other PR or advertising campaign out there - keep it really simple. That would seem to me to be really effective.
If Trump hadn't said the extreme thing he has said, I'll bet he wouldn't be far off from being a viable Republican nominee. Someone needs to just come in being a complete outsider to politics and just say "Fuck you" to the entire system, without the ridiculous gaffes that Trump has had. That is what I want to see.
Trump has been manipulating the media way before some of the GOP candidates were born. He knows how to cultivate the news the way he wants them to, the others don't. Trump made those incendiary remarks on purpose to gain notoriety. If he secures the nomination, he will change his verbiage. In politics its better for someone to completely hate you than be indifferent about you.
I was under the impression his gaffes were just him genuinely talking. I think it's more his ego showing and him being genuine than him masterminding the media. He's saying "fuck you" to the media for sure, which I think is a huge part of his appeal right now.
Also the only people super invested in politics right now are diehards. We are almost a full year to the primary.
MINNEAPOLIS -- Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura is no stranger to shaking up the political world. Now, the one-time professional wrestler says he'd seriously consider being Donald Trump's 2016 running mate.
"If Donald Trump were to ask me to be his running mate, I would give it very serious consideration because anything to break up the status quo of this country," Ventura told CBS affiliate WCCO. "This country needs to be shaken up. It needs to be shaken to its very core, and Donald Trump is doing that."
The billionaire businessman is leading the polls in the Republican race for president. He was center stage at the first candidates debate, making headlines for being outspoken and controversial.
"My advice to him at this point would be, 'Don't you dare back down, cause if you back down now, you're finished,'" Ventura said. "They tell you defense wins Super Bowls, but that's not presidential. Offense can win the presidency."
Ventura thinks having his name on the ticket would help bring in votes.
"We've been friends for about 25 years, so I don't know if it's in the cards or not, but it just went through my head, 'Boy would that ever get the Republicans angry,'" Ventura said.
Ventura raised the idea when former Trump adviser Roger Stone appeared on his online show "Off the Grid" on Tuesday. Stone responded that Ventura, an Independent, would have to register as a Republican.
Trump made a stop in the Twin Cities in 2000, where he attended a fundraiser for Ventura. At that time, the governor announced his support for a Trump run at the White House.
"He hasn't announced himself as a candidate for president yet, but I will say this: I certainly hope that he does," Ventura said on Jan. 7, 2000.
Fifteen years later: "I see Donald Trump very much, and Bernie Sanders, too, campaigning like I did when I won the governorship of the state of Minnesota. Speaking from the heart, speaking with no notes and just telling people what you feel and the truth, and if you do that, you have a damn good chance to win."
Ventura thinks what's attracting voters to Trump is that, like him, Trump is not a career politician and he speaks freely.
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Ohio voters will decide this fall whether to legalize marijuana in the Buckeye State for recreational and medical use.
ResponsibleOhio's marijuana legalization constitutional amendment was certified Wednesday by the Ohio secretary of state. It will appear as Issue 3 on the statewide ballot for the general election on Nov. 3.
If approved by voters, Ohio would be the fifth state to legalize marijuana for recreational use and the first to do so without first having a medical marijuana program.
"It's time for marijuana legalization in Ohio, and voters will have the opportunity to make it happen this November -- we couldn't be more excited," ResponsibleOhio Executive Director Ian James said in a statement. "Drug dealers don't care about doing what's best for our state and its citizens. By reforming marijuana laws in November, we'll provide compassionate care to sick Ohioans, bring money back to our local communities and establish a new industry with limitless economic development opportunities."
ResponsibleOhio had to submit at least 305,591 valid signatures of registered Ohio voters, meeting a certain threshold in 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. The group initially fell short of that goal but was able to exceed it with a second batch of signatures.
Of the 91,541 supplemental signatures submitted by ResponsibleOhio, 44,185 were determined valid. That number was added to the 276,082 valid signatures submitted on June 30 for a total of 320,267 valid signatures. The group reported spending nearly $2.5 million through June to collect signatures.
The issue now heads to the Ohio Ballot Board, a bipartisan panel led by Secretary of State Jon Husted, which will write the amendment summary for the ballot.
On August 12 2015 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The polls coming out of Ohio say that a lot of people like him, and he won re-election by a lot though.
That has more to do with the extreme impotence of the Ohio Democratic Party than Kasich's merits as a leader. Ohio has a lot of political problems, to put it plainly.
I'm not at all familiar with what Kasich has done for education in Ohio, but I'll certainly take your word for it being terrible. But do you actually have any republican candidate you are more positive towards? Because to me, when I watched their first debate, from the other candidates I had a hard time finding even individual statements that weren't either meaningless or absurd. But with him, nothing really rubbed me the wrong way, and at least twice he made me think that hey, this was a really good answer.
Well, just for a little taste on what Kasich has done...
With two-term Ohio Gov. John Kasich joining the crowd of candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, it’s a good time to look at the public education mess that has developed in his state under his leadership.
Kasich has pushed key tenets of corporate school reform:
*expanding charter schools — even though the state’s charter sector is the most troubled in the country
*increasing the number of school vouchers that use public money to pay for tuition at private schools, the vast majority of them religious — even though state officials say that fewer than one-third of those available were used by families this past school year
*performance pay for teachers — even though such schemes have been shown over many years not to be useful in education
*evaluating educators by student standardized test scores in math and reading — even though assessment experts have warned that using test scores in this way is not reliable or valid.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Education Department in Kasich’s administration is in turmoil. David Hansen, his administration’s chief for school choice and charter schools resigned over this past weekend after admitting that he had unilaterally withheld failing scores of charter schools in state evaluations of the schools’ sponsor organizations so they wouldn’t look so bad. (Hansen’s wife, incidentally, is Kasich’s chief of staff, who is taking a leave from that post to work on his campaign.) There are growing calls now for the resignation of the Kasich-backed state superintendent of education, Richard Ross.
As for which Republican candidate I like better, I'll just go ahead and stump for Trump. Realistically, I guess George Patacki isn't so bad though
haha, that list is almost like a what's what over educational policies I've specifically argued against in this very thread.
I'm confused why you think these charges are so bad to try. We know that more money doesn't solve the problems because per pupil spending is only loosely correlated with achievement and totally disappears if you adjust for household income of the students ( why many big cities are big outliers with huge spending and bad results).
What we do know is there is a small set of teachers that actually influence kids long term, so why not experiment to try and retain them? More importantly we know there is a large subset 10% or so, that negatively affect long term outcomes, and they need to be fired. But because unions, you need objective proof to be rid of them, so you have to do standardized testing.
Lastly, on private and charters, I think it's a temporary fix because some schools are quite bad, and the option to escape is more plausible than the option of successful reform, short term. There may also be a psychology at play where a parent who makes an active choice actually becomes more invested because of the choice.
EPT
