What's the Case for Hillary?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What's the Case for Hillary?

She's not Donald Trump.

/thread

[136or142]

Hmm, maybe the fact that she actually has a higher education plan?

When she embraces school choice, and merit pay on steroids combined with firing incompetent teachers, at least for those trapped in down market zip codes where the educational choices are all bad, get back to me.

If the only issue that mattered out there were secondary education policy, and competence and temperament and so forth was something one felt free to ignore (it obviously isn't), I would vote for Trump in a heart beat. This is a really good example of why it is most unwise to be a one issue voter, now isn't it?

I'm a big supporter of public or genuine non-profit charter schools but I don't agree with merit pay.  I agree that it should be much easier to fire incompetent teachers but I don't think they are a major reason for any problem in the education system.

However, as Republicans normally will tell you, non college education is a state and local matter, the U.S government should not be dictating to them any of these things.

I found it a little odd that Republicans seemed to embrace Trump's call (or actually one of his son's call) for the federal government to impose charter schools on the states.

[136or142]

What I particularly liked (agreed with), about Krauthammer's essay, was his pointing out the real dirty little secret. The standard of living of those less educated on the Fruited Plain is stagnating, tanking, disintegrating, not because of free trade or evil, rapacious and cunning foreigners, but rather because of the information age ... and those damn robots. But there is no easy fix for that (probably no fix at all), so thus the lash out against those outside our nation, and inside our nation who shouldn't be here in Trump's world. Just demonize the other, and demonize them some more. We have seen that done in the past, and the outcomes where such demagoguery has worked,  are almost invariably most unhappy ones.

I regard Krauthammer himself as a demagogue.  He used to be a psychiatrist before become a hack.  He is not an economist and he is simply wrong on this.

The basic concept of free trade is 'comparative advantage.'  By definition that means a greater concentration of industries in the countries engaging in free trade.  (It does not mean that an industry will completely disappear from one of the countries.)  Usually this benefits the most, at least in the short term of around 10-15 years, the companies that are already the most successful in the sector and they will see greater profits.

As has been correctly said, 95% of these gains from trade over the last 30 or so years have gone to the top 1%.

I do agree with him other than that.  There are no easy solutions to addressing the real problems of those who lost out due to the switch to the knowledge economy or the increasing use of technology.

[Torie]

Hmm, maybe the fact that she actually has a higher education plan?

When she embraces school choice, and merit pay on steroids combined with firing incompetent teachers, at least for those trapped in down market zip codes where the educational choices are all bad, get back to me.

If the only issue that mattered out there were secondary education policy, and competence and temperament and so forth was something one felt free to ignore (it obviously isn't), I would vote for Trump in a heart beat. This is a really good example of why it is most unwise to be a one issue voter, now isn't it?

I'm a big supporter of public or genuine non-profit charter schools but I don't agree with merit pay.  I agree that it should be much easier to fire incompetent teachers but I don't think they are a major reason for any problem in the education system.

However, as Republicans normally will tell you, non college education is a state and local matter, the U.S government should not be dictating to them any of these things.

I found it a little odd that Republicans seemed to embrace Trump's call (or actually one of his son's call) for the federal government to impose charter schools on the states.

As an ex Pub, I can tell you, that almost for the entirety of my Pub existence, I was left cold by the idea of federalism and states' rights, and indeed the whole doctrine of subsidiarity (yes, I know, unusual for a Pub). Sure localities are good to conduct experiments in, but after one finds out what works, our kids are just too important to be left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, because various localities just don't give a damn, and prefer the dysfunctional status quo, or whatever. What we have now just isn't working. Just like with cities and counties vis a vis the states (they exist solely at the pleasure of the states), so too, states should exist solely at the pleasure of the federal government. I disagree with that aspect of our Constitution that provides otherwise, for historical reasons known to us all. But then I also favor a parliamentary system of government. Our system, in a word, basically sucks. As you can see, I am not gearing up to run for state or federal office.

[136or142]

Hmm, maybe the fact that she actually has a higher education plan?

When she embraces school choice, and merit pay on steroids combined with firing incompetent teachers, at least for those trapped in down market zip codes where the educational choices are all bad, get back to me.

If the only issue that mattered out there were secondary education policy, and competence and temperament and so forth was something one felt free to ignore (it obviously isn't), I would vote for Trump in a heart beat. This is a really good example of why it is most unwise to be a one issue voter, now isn't it?

I'm a big supporter of public or genuine non-profit charter schools but I don't agree with merit pay.  I agree that it should be much easier to fire incompetent teachers but I don't think they are a major reason for any problem in the education system.

However, as Republicans normally will tell you, non college education is a state and local matter, the U.S government should not be dictating to them any of these things.

I found it a little odd that Republicans seemed to embrace Trump's call (or actually one of his son's call) for the federal government to impose charter schools on the states.

As an ex Pub, I can tell you, that almost for the entirety of my Pub existence, I was left cold by the idea of federalism and states' rights, and indeed the whole doctrine of subsidiarity (yes, I know, unusual for a Pub). Sure localities are good to conduct experiments in, but after one finds out what works, our kids are just too important to be left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, because various localities just don't give a damn, and prefer the dysfunctional status quo, or whatever. What we have now just isn't working. Just like with cities and counties vis a vis the states (they exist solely at the pleasure of the states), so too, states should exist solely at the pleasure of the federal government. I disagree with that aspect of our Constitution that provides otherwise, for historical reasons known to us all. But then I also favor a parliamentary system of government. Our system, in a word, basically sucks. As you can see, I am not gearing up to run for state or federal office.

Yes, but if you are consistent with your beliefs, you shouldn't want education to be a federal responsibility, because a Democratic Administration might ban all charter schools.

[Torie]

Hmm, maybe the fact that she actually has a higher education plan?

When she embraces school choice, and merit pay on steroids combined with firing incompetent teachers, at least for those trapped in down market zip codes where the educational choices are all bad, get back to me.

If the only issue that mattered out there were secondary education policy, and competence and temperament and so forth was something one felt free to ignore (it obviously isn't), I would vote for Trump in a heart beat. This is a really good example of why it is most unwise to be a one issue voter, now isn't it?

I'm a big supporter of public or genuine non-profit charter schools but I don't agree with merit pay.  I agree that it should be much easier to fire incompetent teachers but I don't think they are a major reason for any problem in the education system.

However, as Republicans normally will tell you, non college education is a state and local matter, the U.S government should not be dictating to them any of these things.

I found it a little odd that Republicans seemed to embrace Trump's call (or actually one of his son's call) for the federal government to impose charter schools on the states.

As an ex Pub, I can tell you, that almost for the entirety of my Pub existence, I was left cold by the idea of federalism and states' rights, and indeed the whole doctrine of subsidiarity (yes, I know, unusual for a Pub). Sure localities are good to conduct experiments in, but after one finds out what works, our kids are just too important to be left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, because various localities just don't give a damn, and prefer the dysfunctional status quo, or whatever. What we have now just isn't working. Just like with cities and counties vis a vis the states (they exist solely at the pleasure of the states), so too, states should exist solely at the pleasure of the federal government. I disagree with that aspect of our Constitution that provides otherwise, for historical reasons known to us all. But then I also favor a parliamentary system of government. Our system, in a word, basically sucks. As you can see, I am not gearing up to run for state or federal office.

Yes, but if you are consistent with your beliefs, you shouldn't want education to be a federal responsibility, because a Democratic Administration might ban all charter schools.

Then you toss them out in the next election. And the beauty with a parliamentary system, is then the other side really has the power to change course, as opposed to well, having to get 60 votes in the senate (did I ever tell anyone how much I hate the filibuster?), navigate through the House with its districts gerrymandered to death, and so forth.

[136or142]

Hmm, maybe the fact that she actually has a higher education plan?

When she embraces school choice, and merit pay on steroids combined with firing incompetent teachers, at least for those trapped in down market zip codes where the educational choices are all bad, get back to me.

If the only issue that mattered out there were secondary education policy, and competence and temperament and so forth was something one felt free to ignore (it obviously isn't), I would vote for Trump in a heart beat. This is a really good example of why it is most unwise to be a one issue voter, now isn't it?

I'm a big supporter of public or genuine non-profit charter schools but I don't agree with merit pay.  I agree that it should be much easier to fire incompetent teachers but I don't think they are a major reason for any problem in the education system.

However, as Republicans normally will tell you, non college education is a state and local matter, the U.S government should not be dictating to them any of these things.

I found it a little odd that Republicans seemed to embrace Trump's call (or actually one of his son's call) for the federal government to impose charter schools on the states.

As an ex Pub, I can tell you, that almost for the entirety of my Pub existence, I was left cold by the idea of federalism and states' rights, and indeed the whole doctrine of subsidiarity (yes, I know, unusual for a Pub). Sure localities are good to conduct experiments in, but after one finds out what works, our kids are just too important to be left twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, because various localities just don't give a damn, and prefer the dysfunctional status quo, or whatever. What we have now just isn't working. Just like with cities and counties vis a vis the states (they exist solely at the pleasure of the states), so too, states should exist solely at the pleasure of the federal government. I disagree with that aspect of our Constitution that provides otherwise, for historical reasons known to us all. But then I also favor a parliamentary system of government. Our system, in a word, basically sucks. As you can see, I am not gearing up to run for state or federal office.

Yes, but if you are consistent with your beliefs, you shouldn't want education to be a federal responsibility, because a Democratic Administration might ban all charter schools.

Then you toss them out in the next election. And the beauty with a parliamentary system, is then the other side really has the power to change course, as opposed to well, having to get 60 votes in the senate (did I ever tell anyone how much I hate the filibuster?), navigate through the House with its districts gerrymandered to death, and so forth.

If somebody wanted to start up a charter school, but was afraid every time a Democratic Administration came to power that it would be shut down, that would be a major dicincentive to starting up that school.

[RaphaelDLG]

What's the Case for Hillary?

She's not Donald Trump.

/thread

Basically this.  If you're somewhat more hawkish or right-wing than me, you can make a good positive case, but the best arguments I can think of for HRC are all negative.  All extremely strong, no-brainer, slam-dunk arguments for Hillary nonetheless, but all very negative.