EPThttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/betsy-devos/education-nominee-betsy-devos-says-wyoming-school-/
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6592
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/betsy-devos/education-nominee-betsy-devos-says-wyoming-school-/ | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46234 Posts
On January 19 2017 09:58 Nevuk wrote: Rick Perry isn't an awful pick. He has administrative experience at a high level in a state that has a lot of energy related commerce. Not sure what it is with Texas electing terrible public speakers as governors, but outside of that field there's been no clear signs that he's a complete moron (and even if he were, it's not strictly disqualifying). He'll likely do an average or somewhat below average job at the Senate hearing, but certainly well enough to pass muster. I'm not saying he's the best pick possible, but there's actually an argument to be made for picking him at the position. Betsy DeVos' performance on the other hand was so embarassing that I won't be entirely surprised if she withdraws her name from consideration. That's a fair assessment of Rick Perry, I think. As far as politicians or businesspeople go, I guess there could be worse (why not have DeVos be secretary of energy too, while we're at it? lol). Perry is certainly a downgrade from the theoretical physicist who "served as the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President of the United States from 1995 to 1997 and was Under Secretary of Energy from 1997 to 2001 during the Clinton Administration" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz). I wonder if conservatives purposely wouldn't put in a science/ energy expert, to cling on to coal and dismiss climate change for as long as possible? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 19 2017 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's a fair assessment of Rick Perry, I think. As far as politicians or businesspeople go, I guess there could be worse (why not have DeVos be secretary of energy too, while we're at it? lol). Perry is certainly a downgrade from the theoretical physicist who "served as the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President of the United States from 1995 to 1997 and was Under Secretary of Energy from 1997 to 2001 during the Clinton Administration" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz). I wonder if conservatives purposely wouldn't put in a science/ energy expert, to cling on to coal and dismiss climate change for as long as possible? I want to say George w had an actual scientist running it. not sure though update apparently he was a lawyer but appears to have had some background int terms of heading the energy transition team when he was elected and is now president of an energy company so I assume maybe he had some background in it. wikipedia has like no info | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On January 19 2017 10:39 zlefin wrote: I wonder why they do'nt just more often promote people from under/deputy secretary positions. It seems like a fairly obvious prospect, to simply promote people who're right below in the org chart. They're usually positions rewarded for political gain. There's no actual political gain to be had from making a scientist (or former under/deputy secretary) one unless the scientist is a politician in the first place. Plus, aren't they more administrative positions that don't strictly need a scientist's skillset? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11586 Posts
On January 19 2017 08:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: the GOP pretty much hates most people in the education industry because they tend to be pro teacher which means pro union. they want change and Trump through out somebody on a platform of change that republicans like (school choice and vouchers for private school.) unfortunately it seems nobody bothered to see if she understand what the the secretary of education does and its responsibilities. I could have answered the growth versus proficiency question. (admittedly both my teachers are educational administrators but it's pretty straightforward.) will be interesting if she gets through or not. If they hate the union so much, tt can't be THAT hard to find some former teachers or administrators from the independent school system... Actually, I bothered to look at who the Republicans had appointed as Secretary of Education, going back to Nixon and rather unsurprisingly, most were involved in the school system- some former teachers, most deans or superintendents or had education portfolios at the State level. Which makes sense as they would tend to have a bigger picture view than your average classroom teacher. So this might just be Trump appointing people 'you've never heard about.' | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46234 Posts
On January 19 2017 10:40 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I want to say George w had an actual scientist running it. not sure though update apparently he was a lawyer but appears to have had some background int terms of heading the energy transition team when he was elected and is now president of an energy company so I assume maybe he had some background in it. wikipedia has like no info GWB had Spencer Abraham (lawyer) and Samuel Bodman (chemical engineer); I'd definitely tip my hat to the latter. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46234 Posts
On January 19 2017 10:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: qualifications are usually not the highest priority. see Carson as head of HUD. (although apparently HUD is treated like a secondary department by everybody). Yeah but look what happened in Designated Survivor! + Show Spoiler + If you don't watch the show: the Secretary of HUD ended up becoming the President because everyone else was killed in an explosion. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 19 2017 10:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: GWB had Spencer Abraham (lawyer) and Samuel Bodman (chemical engineer); I'd definitely tip my hat to the latter. somehow I accidentally clicked on the deputy secretary instead of the actual secretary lol. my bad On January 19 2017 10:50 Falling wrote: If they hate the union so much, tt can't be THAT hard to find some former teachers or administrators from the independent school system... Actually, I bothered to look at who the Republicans had appointed as Secretary of Education, going back to Nixon and rather unsurprisingly, most were involved in the school system- some former teachers, most deans or superintendents or had education portfolios at the State level. Which makes sense as they would tend to have a bigger picture view than your average classroom teacher. So this might just be Trump appointing people 'you've never heard about.' good point. Obviously there are quite a few republicans even though it tends to be mostly liberal. There are also plenty of nonunion schools. What I was trying to say I guess was that the GOP is more likely to not have a problem with someone from the outside because they want radical change of the system and generally a move to more private schools. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46234 Posts
I want to update my response to One: She agreed that what Trump bragged about doing on video to women is, indeed, sexual assault: But that's it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46234 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
but it would indeed be consistent with their selection process. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
On January 19 2017 09:58 Nevuk wrote: He has administrative experience at a high level in a state that has a lot of energy related commerce. Not sure what it is with Texas electing terrible public speakers as governors, but outside of that field there's been no clear signs that he's a complete moron Texan here and...not so much. First, the Governor of Texas is shockingly powerless. Lots of power spread throughout the state government. Second, he is definitely a complete moron. Let's check out his college grades: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6vG5ZeJ149E/Tj99DF69jzI/AAAAAAAAMUY/LZh27HUHzWg/s1600/PERRY.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://peskytruth.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/rick-perrys-transcript-2.jpg) On the second one you can see his D in "Meats." I'll admit I went to his rival school, but that's awful. He's not a smart man. He may do some other things well, but not so much with the thinking. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
so only a moron relative to us here on teamliquid, not compared to the general populace  I'd prefer to have fewer people at the presidential/cabinet level with worse grades than I did. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/5or3qg/the_abortion_rate_is_at_an_alltime_low_and_better/ idk how credible it is or what, just throwing it out there for those of you who were discussing it earlier. | ||
| ||
