3 ms·

"If you really believe Tillerson has absolved all of his holdings and won't benefit, I have a hotel on Columbus Circle to sell you." Tillerson has also made a

"If you really believe Tillerson has absolved all of his holdings and won't benefit, I have a hotel on Columbus Circle to sell you." Tillerson has also made a deal whereby he can't work Oil and Gas for the next 10 years. The deal is with the State Department - are you saying the State Department is lying? There is also specific Congressional oversight for Tillerson (which does not apply to Trump, by the way). So enough conspiracy theories - either put up some evidence of your claim that somehow Tillerson will not sell his shares - or don't make the comment. "Is it really "bloat" if it's giving people livelihoods and jobs?" Wow ... Yes! The very fact that you'd leave aside government workers actual ability to be productive, and just assume that 'giving people money' is somehow a 'good thing' for governance, makes me question the premise of your rebuttal. ""School choice" is just the rhetorical term" Except it's not. When people can take their government vouchers to the schools of their choice, this is 'choice'. Not 'defunding public schools'. You're the one making the rhetorical leap here. "Yea they are so bent out of shape that a thin-skinned narcissist rapist wants to basically loot the country with his cronies" Take this kind of stuff to Huffpost, you'll find like minded people there. I don't really like Trump, but the list is not remotely unreasonable.

FireBeyond 10y ago
"Tillerson has also made a deal whereby he can't work Oil and Gas for the next 10 years." Well, he has a job for the next 4-8, so... either a vacation afterwards, or, I'm sure, he can work in a "consulting" role somewhere... "When people can take their government vouchers to the schools of their choice" Private and charter schools are not obligated to take any particular student, but still receive baseline and per-head funding. So if your child isn't as promising as others, oh well, they'll get to go to a "lesser" school.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  >So if your child isn't as promising as others, oh well, they'll get to go to a "lesser" school. Get rid of Common Core. Force schools to compete. Now, every schools will have to teach their students better.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "Force schools to compete" I don't think this is it. 'Competition' is definitely not the right word for education. The best education systems in the world: S. Korea, Finland - are not competitive in the least. If you have good students (re: good parents), decent teachers, a classroom, textbooks and a chalkboard - you're going to get a good education. The 'choice' issue I think is important when it comes to alternative and special interest schools - in particular those in hard-up places: they have Charter Schools with very special types of programs geared towards kids from rougher districts etc.. Or maybe an ethnic/religious slant i.e. 'Ukranian school' or 'Catholic School' - neither of which would be entirely different from a public school, other than at a 'Catholic' or 'Ukranian' school there would be a 'Christmas Concert' instead of a 'Winter Concert'. But still, culture is important. Forcing schools into heavy competition I think will just have them focus on the wrong things, marketing themselves, inflating numbers, managing perception - and that's wasteful. And as long as the 'common core' is not too onerous - I think it's probably ok as well. I mean, who'd be against basic reading, writing and arithmetic?
    - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
      >who'd be against basic reading, writing and arithmetic? No one's against it. In fact, we can do better than Common Core. We can do better than just the basics.

FireBeyond 10y ago

"Tillerson has also made a deal whereby he can't work Oil and Gas for the next 10 years." Well, he has a job for the next 4-8, so... either a vacation afterwards, or, I'm sure, he can work in a "consulting" role somewhere... "When people can take their government vouchers to the schools of their choice" Private and charter schools are not obligated to take any particular student, but still receive baseline and per-head funding. So if your child isn't as promising as others, oh well, they'll get to go to a "lesser" school.

DefaultUserHN 10y ago
>So if your child isn't as promising as others, oh well, they'll get to go to a "lesser" school. Get rid of Common Core. Force schools to compete. Now, every schools will have to teach their students better.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Force schools to compete" I don't think this is it. 'Competition' is definitely not the right word for education. The best education systems in the world: S. Korea, Finland - are not competitive in the least. If you have good students (re: good parents), decent teachers, a classroom, textbooks and a chalkboard - you're going to get a good education. The 'choice' issue I think is important when it comes to alternative and special interest schools - in particular those in hard-up places: they have Charter Schools with very special types of programs geared towards kids from rougher districts etc.. Or maybe an ethnic/religious slant i.e. 'Ukranian school' or 'Catholic School' - neither of which would be entirely different from a public school, other than at a 'Catholic' or 'Ukranian' school there would be a 'Christmas Concert' instead of a 'Winter Concert'. But still, culture is important. Forcing schools into heavy competition I think will just have them focus on the wrong things, marketing themselves, inflating numbers, managing perception - and that's wasteful. And as long as the 'common core' is not too onerous - I think it's probably ok as well. I mean, who'd be against basic reading, writing and arithmetic?
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    >who'd be against basic reading, writing and arithmetic? No one's against it. In fact, we can do better than Common Core. We can do better than just the basics.