American politics is so polarized....

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

I couldn't post the graph from the results Stanford study (which I'm sure you've heard about) which show that while brighter children tend to do better at charter schools, average children tend to struggle. On the whole, students are charter schools perform worse on test scores. If you want a link, I'll post it.

You've shown no evidence that they perform better though. I don't care about the opinions of a fake Democrat, a centrist Democrat and a politician I don't care about.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

I couldn't post the graph from the results Stanford study (which I'm sure you've heard about) which show that while brighter children tend to do better at charter schools, average children tend to struggle. On the whole, students are charter schools perform worse on test scores. If you want a link, I'll post it.

You've shown no evidence that they perform better though. I don't care about the opinions of a fake Democrat, a centrist Democrat and a politician I don't care about.

I've seen the Stanford study. But look the highest performing inner city schools are charter schools. Its pretty much across the board true and they are minority in quantity in comparison of district run schools. And they operate with smaller budgets.

Your party is in the process of turning on this issue. You can be whatever side you want, but you will be in a very small minority of the population within a short period of time.

Evidence? Because the Stanford study shows that across the board, that isn't the case.

Nope, false. Adrian Fenty was defeated in DC based on the issue (I still would have voted for him Gray though), charter schools don't work. I went to one. There is a total lack of accountability at charter schools and they're a dumping ground for right-wing dogma.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The best Democrat you guys had was Feingold in my opinion - I had a heck of a lot of respect for him because he voted how he thought - he was principled.

I actually had respect for Feingold. I mean at least the guy set a results based priority as his primary priority and that was the national debt. Practically every other major Democrat just sets their primary priority at more government which isn't even results based its an ideological goal.


I also have respect for Lieberman, but I doubt many Dems on here do.

I could say the same about Republicans and "less government."

But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Many, many GOP politicians are very results oriented and will back any proposal that looks like it will produce better results. I wouldn't call advocating for Charter Schools(which are public) or for example Universal Health Records as officially "less government" positions.

Charter Schools are very much an ideological construct because they tend to subvert unionization (95% of charter schools aren't unionized) and promote uniforms/"christian conservative" values.

They also don't perform well:

Actually they do perform well hence why Democrats Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton, and Michelle Rhee support them. Its a purely results based pick...conservatives have more "ideological" picks at their disposal.

I couldn't post the graph from the results Stanford study (which I'm sure you've heard about) which show that while brighter children tend to do better at charter schools, average children tend to struggle. On the whole, students are charter schools perform worse on test scores. If you want a link, I'll post it.

You've shown no evidence that they perform better though. I don't care about the opinions of a fake Democrat, a centrist Democrat and a politician I don't care about.

I've seen the Stanford study. But look the highest performing inner city schools are charter schools. Its pretty much across the board true and they are minority in quantity in comparison of district run schools. And they operate with smaller budgets.

Your party is in the process of turning on this issue. You can be whatever side you want, but you will be in a very small minority of the population within a short period of time.

Evidence? Because the Stanford study shows that across the board, that isn't the case.

Nope, false. Adrian Fenty was defeated in DC based on the issue (I still would have voted for him Gray though), charter schools don't work. I went to one. There is a total lack of accountability at charter schools and they're a dumping ground for right-wing dogma.

If you look at the list of the best innercity public schools the top of the list is dominated by charter schools. That is what I'm pointing out.

Not all charter schools are created equal, but the reason why they get better over time is because if a charter school isn't doing well they either get replaced by new control and a new model or another one comes in and takes away its base of students. At least charter schools allow for different models to occur and the better one to win out. In district run public schools they are allowed to just stay $hit holes forever.

There will always be exceptions to the general rule that charter schools are an awful idea.

Where is your evidence that they get better over time? Is there quantifiable data out there that proves this?