Trump

[Townsend]

Ever wonder why you never see an article about Trump's mom?



Jesus'll get him...so sayeth the prophesy

[cannon_fodder]

and the only Bern I would feel would be in my pocket book.

I largely agree with you across the board.

The slate of Republican candidates is underwhelming:

- Carson is DOA. He is well versed in medicine, intelligent, and soft spoken. But knows nothing of politics, government, world affairs, or, oddly science.

- Cruze is an extreme conservative hawk. Carpet bombings, police state, and a caricature of the conservative platform. He considers his unwillingness to compromise or discuss other viewpoints as his greatest strength. I consider that the death knell of a Republic and the mark of a bad career politician. He also isn't very high on the truth-o-meter. Finally, I simply dislike almost all of his entire platform.

- I think Rubio is a straightforward person, I feel I could discuss issues with him in a constructive manner even if I disagree. He is too far right for me and wears his religion on his sleeve as a litmus test for the masses - but I don't know how much of that is an election act (which would be troubling too). If elected, I think he would have a pragmatic vein, but it certainly isn't a point he wants known. I also fear he is a politician first and foremost, governed by the polls. Wanted to get re-elected so badly I fear his pandering while in office.

- John Kasich has ideas that are too conservative for me, but has shown to be pragmatic in actually governing. I feel like I could have a discussion with him too, probably even reach some common ground and reach some compromise on other issues. If he had a different position than mine, I think he could at least explain it to me in a way I have to respect. He also has little chance of ever winning.


- Hillary I think would do a respectable job as she did a respectable job as Senator and I think a fine job as Secretary of State. She is a bit left on some of her positions and is a consummate politician. God knows what she really feels strongly about, but her positions are well known and we know what she would do in the White house. Also, she is heavily vetted. All the dirt there is to know has been thrown about for 30 years - if Benghazi and Email Gate are the worst there is, she's probably more above board than most politicians. That said, I can't fully trust her and I just don't really like her. Not too mention the favors she owes to donors and the Clinton followers for the last decades.

- The Bern. I really like the Bern on a personal level. Not necessarily his positions, which are too far left for me, but I feel like he means what he says in a very straightforward way. His positions are clear and he tries to bring out a positive message of what he stands for, and it isn't vindictive, hateful, or fear mongering. Considering that his policies would never be fully enacted, he might help balance the Tea Party and get some centrist compromises (recall he is really an independent, not a Democrat). I do think the middle class is getting screwed (bore out by statistics). I do think education should be a primary goal and that college is far, far more expensive than it was in the generation that led to our economic boom. And I do think we subsidies big business and wealth at the expense of most Americans, which is a problem because the economy works best when money sloshes around at all levels (not just the top). As wealth has become more concentrated, our economy has steadily slowed down which has led to more and more reliance on government. The Bern as a dictator would be terrifying, but as a President it would be interesting. Maybe I'm just saying that because I like him as a person, and everyone else sucks.

- The Donald. He lies far more often than not. He boasts of wealth it appears he doesn't really have. He makes blustering threats. He cowers before any criticism. He belittles people. He relies on fear, anger and hatred. He has no real policies. The ideas that he has spewed are all dead on arrival or utter nonsense (Mexico WILL build that wall! We will repeal Obamacare and replace it with socialized medicine). I truly fear he would cost America our world standing as no one would take us seriously, as well as starting wars, chasing away allies, and being so erratic the markets would tank (consistency and stability is all they ask for).  I'm hard pressed to think of someone I would less like to see in the White House.

Ham Sandwich, 2016

[Conan71]

- Hillary I think would do a respectable job as she did a respectable job as Senator and I think a fine job as Secretary of State. She is a bit left on some of her positions and is a consummate politician. God knows what she really feels strongly about, but her positions are well known and we know what she would do in the White house. Also, she is heavily vetted. All the dirt there is to know has been thrown about for 30 years - if Benghazi and Email Gate are the worst there is, she's probably more above board than most politicians. That said, I can't fully trust her and I just don't really like her. Not too mention the favors she owes to donors and the Clinton followers for the last decades.

It's hard to find substantive compilations of Hilarity's best accomplishments which seem to be very meaningful.

The only benefit I can see with another Clinton administration is memories of the Clinton economy.  Even though right wingers tried to paint the Clintons as leftists and collectivists, they were generally good to big business and Wall St. which helped with explosive job, real estate, and investment/retirement account growth.  It sucked when the bill was finally due on all that, but it was fun while it lasted.

Of course, they had the benefit of a tech boom which should have made any administration look great. 

There's a certain known factor with the Clintons which seems like less of a risk if her years in office were much like Bill's.  She knows the position and what it takes more-or-less firsthand.

The reason I cannot vote for her is she is a dishonest, corrupt, and conniving individual.  I have no idea who all she owes favors to but the list appears to be pretty long.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm not counting Bill's accomplishments among Hillary's, but I do count his liabilities. Warranted or not, they have a reputation of building strong alliances that seem to come with strong debts. That does show an ability to curry loyalty, but I'm just a bit dubious. I'm not a big Hillary supporter, but I do respect her.

As a Senator she did a lot with veterans benefits, the DREAM act, pragmatic stuff on healthcare (incentives for companies to produce/stockpile flu vaccine which was unprofitable, home healthcare stuff), and passed healthcare provisions for 911 first responders (she was the senator from NY after all).

As Secratary of State she negotiated a cease fire between Israel and Hamas that largely still holds. She pressured other governments on human rights. And managed the Arab spring fairly well (criticize Benghazi all you want. The Secretary of State does not micromanage either security details or military responses to attacks therein. The fact remains we had embassies in numerous countries that hate us that underwent revolts and we held it together fairly well. If anything, the Benghazi thing goes to misinformation early on, which goes to my trust issues with her - not ability).

Is she one of my all time greatest anything?  Nope. But she did OK as a parachuting senator in NY. I think she did as well as most as Secretary of State. The Clinton's aren't known for major accomplishments, they are known for doing good enough and staying out of the way. Let the ship meander a bit with the current, no sudden steering (arguably that bit us on the butt with the banking boom, housing boom, and terrorism thing). She certainly didn't embarass herself or the nation, which is more than I hold out hope for with some of the GOP front runners.

I can't agree that she is outright corrupt (to me that's a high bar, I suspect she stays on the correct side of the law...even if it were dishonest), but I do share your concerns about conniving and general trust issues. Also, I'd rather have a beer with Bill, George, or Barrack than Hillary... I just don't like her. I get the feeling she's fake.

But I also feel she has the inside track on the nomination. Even when the Bern wins, she gets more delegates. If it came down to Trump or Hillary, I'd absolutely have to vote Hillary. Again, not sure who I wouldn't vote for over Trump.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I am at a complete loss as to what is happening to the GOP. I have always identified as a Republican even though I do lean left on many social issues, I have always voted the party line. Well, I can't say always, I did vote against Pete Coors in Colorado years ago for good reason. Now I am at a complete cross roads and maybe that was the point of this election all together.

I look at the Democrat side and I see Clinton and Sanders, two people that I can't be more against. I do not trust Clinton as far as I could throw her and the only Bern I would feel would be in my pocket book.

The only Bern he would put in your pocket would be to raise the minimum raise - and that has been proven for decade after decade to do much good for everyone - even people higher than minimum.

I am not referring to just you personally when I say this - it is always interesting - horrifically so - to see how people seem to think that spending a few billion here or a few more there by a Democrat can possibly be worse than spending trillions in massively wasteful endeavors by Republicans.

Obamacare for next 10 years - said to cost almost $100 billion per year.  As opposed to Bush throwing $2.4 trillion at big banks in a two week period.   Yeah...$100 billion a year is so much worse.

Or free tuition - estimated to cost $62 billion (The Atlantic) - which must be just so much worse than Bush's Medicare D prescription plan which gave over $900 billion to big pharmaceuticals for about 4 years before ANY beneficiary got one prescription from the plan.

Or maybe any or all of his other spending - even if it amounted to another $100 billion - could possibly approach throwing $4 trillion dollars into fighting the wrong war!  And by the way, killing 4,000+ of our kids, and wounding tens of thousands of others.

Or leaving the Bush tax cuts in place for year after year - which took us from a $300 billion surplus in Billy Bob's last fiscal year to a $300 billion deficit in Baby Bush's first fiscal year.  That's over half a trillion swing in 1 year of tax cuts that still hasn't been addressed, while the same Clown Show that decries the Federal Debt continues to advocate dramatic increases to it every year.

Bush's LAST fiscal year added $1.9 trillion to the debt.  Obama's first fiscal year cut that to about $1.5 trillion, while giving all the rest of us - the NOT 1%'ers - a small tax break as part of the stimulus plan in 2009.  Totaled about $300 billion for the other 350 million of us....not even close to the $500 billion per year break the 1%'ers had been enjoying for 8 years by that time, but hey, we take what crumbs we can get.

Bonus - Bernie says he won't get us into another wrong war, either!!  Yay for team Bernie!!


Big picture - took over 200 years to get to $900 billion in Federal debt at end of Carter's administration.  End of Reagan's first term we were at $1.8 trillion - over double.  By his second term, $2.85 billion.  Tax and spend is NOT a Democrat thing - the reality is it's a Republican thing.


Here are the real numbers for your viewing enjoyment;

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

[heironymouspasparagus]

The reason I cannot vote for her is she is a dishonest, corrupt, and conniving individual.  I have no idea who all she owes favors to but the list appears to be pretty long.

As opposed to all the upstanding, truthful people that are in the top 4 of the other side....

[heironymouspasparagus]

As Secretary of State she negotiated a cease fire between Israel and Hamas that largely still holds. She pressured other governments on human rights. And managed the Arab spring fairly well (criticize Benghazi all you want. The Secretary of State does not micromanage either security details or military responses to attacks therein. The fact remains we had embassies in numerous countries that hate us that underwent revolts and we held it together fairly well. If anything, the Benghazi thing goes to misinformation early on, which goes to my trust issues with her - not ability).

Good post!




Not trying to add much, just wondering for the audience at large, how if 4 killed in Benghazi is worth all the commotion about Clinton, Obama, etc....where is the commotion for the 80 or so killed in embassy and consular station attacks during Bush's regime?   Not to mention the hundreds wounded during those attacks??  Seems like there should be about 20 movies - to be fair and balanced - like the "13 Hours" movie that came out a while back.  And since the 4 rated 7 or 8 failed Congressional investigations, that would mean there should have been 20 times that or about 140 investigations of the Bush State Dept.  With that many extra calls for criminal prosecution and impeachment, et. al.

[Conan71]

The whole Benghazi investigation is embarrassing as hell and a complete waste of time.  Had that happened under any other SOS, it would have vanished like a fart in the wind within days.  It's like the Oklahoma Legislature trying to repeal daylight savings time or get the Ten Commandments monument put back on state property when they really need to be thoughtfully addressing the $1.3 billion (and sure to grow) budget hole.  

It's time people hold Republican's feet to the fire for lack of action and abdication of duty on the issues which really matter.  That's what Trump is all about:  He's a boor and a blowhard, but he's tapped into the frustration people feel about Republicans in in Congress, the Senate, and the GOP leadership in general.

As a fiscal conservative, I've always thought a free college or advanced technical education for those who meet certain financial and academic or vocational criteria was worth more to the economy than tax breaks for large corporations.  I consider that a far better investment than welfare programs  or huge expenditures in the penal system.

Bernie has introduced some dialogue that is sensible.  Comparatively, he's definitely a saner alternative to the Democratic establishment which Hilarity embodies than Trump is to being the the alternative to the GOP establishment.  

[TulsaMoon]

The only difference, and to me it is a huge difference is the lies she told. The lies she continues to tell. She out right lied to the families and now she is lying about those lies. That is the difference. The lady peddeled a video even when she knew it had nothing to do with a video.

All lives lost in all of our embassy attacks are extremely important, non are above the other. Each one should have the light of the media shown brightly upon them. But the media gets to decide on what gives them the best ratings.

Bern is honest, or so it seems at this point. Education is very important and I agree with him along that line. How do we pay for it? Oklahoma alone is about to completely tank the education system here because they can't pay for it. How do we pay for higher education as Bern proposes? Yes I would love for that to happen, we lag behind everyone in education and if free higher is the answer then fine, but how can we pay for that when we can't even pay for K-12 now?

My only hope is Trump tanks soon.

[cannon_fodder]

This is amazing. A serious political discussion where people disagree, have points and counter points, and move the discussion forward.

Re the education issue:

The problem is two fold:

1) The hardcore anti-government types consider all government spending bad. 

They fail to realize that the government is capable of investment. The return on investment will not be immediate dollars and cents - but roads, bridges, dams, water infrastructure, airports, shipping ports, and other forms of infrastructure no-doubt have a significant return on investment. And once built, they MUST be maintained to preserve that return. Not only is the construction and maintenance economic activity in and of itself, but the real payoff is the economic utilization of the asset.

They struggle even more with intangible investment. Healthcare, research, and education are investments. A healthy workforce is more productive, prosperous, and capable of taking care of themselves. Preventative care costs 10% of what it costs if we let it fester and provide emergency care. You want more people off government rolls? Healthcare is part of it.

Research should be a no-brainier.  From velcro, to commercial rockets. GPS, the internet, microchips, bar codes, aerodynamics, medical and health research galore, composite materials, most significant aviation advancements, and on and on and on.  You list it out and it kind of sounds like the basis of our modern economy. Commercial research is a key component, but government funded research allows teams to go after angles that don't have immediate returns on investment (as are demanded by the market). Intel sure as heck wasn't going invest big and then wait 20 years for the microprocessor to become commercial viable.

And it is all worthless without education (warning a mini history of education follows). Immediately after the revolution many states set out to establish public schools, particularly in the north where making a living on the farm wasn't a given.  By 1821 Boston had public elementary, middle, and high school. It is no accident that Boston is the seat of some of the greatest colleges in the world - it has long viewed education as a key.  By 1870 all states had public elementary schools and part of reconstruction was building public universities throughout the South (U Arkansas, Auburn, etc.) and land grant Universities in the North (name a major State school, great chance you named one...). By 1900, all 30 northern states and 4 southern states required school attendance through elementary school.

By 1918 every state required elementary education. By the 1930s and 1940s most communities had their own high schools and took pride in their level of education. By WWII, 50% of Americans had high school diplomas - far exceeding anywhere else in the world. And it paid off - essentially every enlistee could read, write, and think. Battlefield communication, promotions, and the ability to follow instructions to repair the machines of war was a huge advantage.  After the war education was seen as the way to prevent the boom and manufacturing/agricultural bust that we saw after WWI, and Uncle Sam agreed to pay for hundreds of thousands of GIs to go to college. When the Baby Boom came, college was heavily subsidized by government - the average student could pay for tuition and fees working 200 hours at minimum wage.

That gave the United States among the highest levels of education in the world nearly from our founding through the post-war baby boom. It gave us the leg up in the Space Race, in banking and commerce, in manufacturing technology and productivity, in agricultural efficiency, and in technology. From the rifles and ironclads in the Civil War, to nuclear weapons and the Stealth Bomber. From the steel plow to the G7 Intel Processor. From Wallstreet to Hollywood. There are a number of reasons America dominated the 20th Century, but a corner stone is education. Take away education, and our natural resources, population, and ability to work might be meaningless. There are plenty of people willing to work hard in plenty of other places.

But starting in 1980 we (by "we" I mean the generation that benefited most from free or heavily subsidized colleges, from massive government outlays on interstates, water projects, and government research programs) decided that government subsidies led to free loaders. We cut back on everything except military research. Education funding started a free-fall - the cost of college went from 225 hours at minimum wage in 1980, to 700 hours in 1995 (for public universities fees and tuition, not counting room and board).  It stands over 1,000 hours today.

We subsidize mortgages, horizontal drilling operations, and NBA franchises - but student loan rates are often above 8%. The average college kid graduates with $35k in debt ($25-35k depending on the study). AVERAGE - we are not just talking about the high on the hog idiots or the "my parents paid for it all" kids. The average payment is between $280 and $400 a month, for 10 to 20 years. A new car, savings for a house, money to start a family. Whatever it is, its gone to the bank. A burden their parents very likely didn't have to face. We also stopped meeting the demand for public education. PRIVATE is a great buzzword. Private schools jumped in to fill the shortfall and make a profit. Generally, these private schools are substandard.

As a result, the number of Oklahoma kids going to a University has actually dropped off in recent years. This isn't a unique trend.

It is easy to look at some drunk at an OU tailgate staggering towards the dorms and mock them. Its easy to see Black Lives Matter protesters and write them off as whiners. But most will turn out to be productive members of the economy. The investment will pay off. Look at Animal House, a caricature of college life in the 1960s from the 1970s... but that generation went on to win the Cold War and develop the internet.

Education is NOT essential for everyone to succeed. But if we want welders to have jobs, we need people to design pipelines. If we want factory workers to make whatever it is we need tomorrow, someone better invent it and figure out how to build that factory. It worked for the first 200 years...



and #2)  The "support" for education is often support to co-opt it.

Education is not controversial. It teaches the best facts we have available as designated by the experts in that field. It isn't religious or anti religious, it isn't liberal or conservative. If your religious or political views differ from the available facts, your preacher or political leader can tell your kid what you want them to believe. That's different than teaching to reality.

Teaching the Bible as a history text. Teaching "Creation Science" as a scientific theory. Teaching abstinence only as the only form of "sex education."  None of this is actually education anymore than Chinese kids being forced to read Mao's Little Red Book was a legitimate education on economics.  "Does life begin at conception" is a question for bioethicists,  philosophers and priests - not a high school science teacher. "I am the Lord Thy God, Though Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" is a great lecture for a preacher or a Deity. We spend so much time creating controversy because some people don't like what a particular field of study has learned.

It is further co-opted by people trying to get the latest and greatest technology or tool into the classroom. By that, I mean sell crap to school districts.  Some tools are important, clearly kids need to learn how to do internet based research and word processing. Art on computer is as important of a skill as art with a paint brush. I get that... but a digital screen in every classroom is not nearly as important as a teacher in every classroom.

At 15:1 a student has to actively try not to learn. At 30:1 a teacher is just a babysitter and only certain kids will learn anything.

And while I'm at it... teachers should never be rich. They are never going to get paid Baseball Allstar money. But we used to have a good understanding worked out - you will never be rich, but you will make a decent living, you will have good benefits, you will have a stable job, community support, summers and holidays off, and a retirement package. That attracted a good group of people (we don't want the guy going "I hate kids, but the job pays so well) who stayed with the profession. Sure, there were lazy teachers - but there are bad employees in any field. But now we have created a market with low pay (Tulsa starts at $32k), dwindling benefits, and job security stopped being a thing 15 years ago. Remember what I said about $400 a month in student loan payments... how bad does that suck when your take home pay is $2000 a month and you aren't getting the other parts of that agreement? And we expect them to pay for their own supplies?  But gee... for some reason we just can't find enough teachers in this State.

The OK House pays $38,400, plus ~$9500 per diem, plus ~$6600 mileage ($54,500) for a 4 month a year, part time job. And we don't seem to have a shortage of people looking for that job.


/venting ; rant

[heironymouspasparagus]

The only difference, and to me it is a huge difference is the lies she told. The lies she continues to tell. She out right lied to the families and now she is lying about those lies. That is the difference. The lady peddeled a video even when she knew it had nothing to do with a video.

All lives lost in all of our embassy attacks are extremely important, non are above the other. Each one should have the light of the media shown brightly upon them. But the media gets to decide on what gives them the best ratings.

Bern is honest, or so it seems at this point. Education is very important and I agree with him along that line. How do we pay for it? Oklahoma alone is about to completely tank the education system here because they can't pay for it. How do we pay for higher education as Bern proposes? Yes I would love for that to happen, we lag behind everyone in education and if free higher is the answer then fine, but how can we pay for that when we can't even pay for K-12 now?

My only hope is Trump tanks soon.

I have talked about perspective quite a bit in the past...there are lies, then there are lies.... We have watched the Republicans go after both Clintons since his first run for President - 1991-1992.  They have had every single orifice probed, prodded, poked, opened, investigated, and lit by the harsh glare of public scrutiny.  Yep, they lie...Billy Bob lied about a bj in the Oval Office.  So what??  Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction that led us to spend $4 trillion and kill 4,000+ of our kids in the wrong war.  Can any sane mind on the planet somehow equate the two in degree of "badness" ??  Where are the investigations for Bush's actions?  Who got hurt and by what degree, by those lies?

Yep, Hillary probably lied about some of the Benghazi stuff - it is just as likely that she was fed multiple information streams and ran with the one that both seemed most likely and provided best 'cover'.  The bottom line - she did nothing illegal nor really very immoral there.

Emails - well, how much time has been wasted on that so far?  She said she didn't receive classified information.  True at the time.  Today, if received it probably would be a lie.  When all this was going on, the information was NOT classified.  It has only been classified in the last few months AS it is being released!!  It was not a crime to use the personal email server - it was only "not recommended".  One cannot with any intellectual honesty at all try to go back and apply today's law or morals for that matter on "yesterdays" events.  That is even enshrined in the Constitution the RWRE crows about so much, but ignores even more - and actually reads never!!  It is referred to as ex post facto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Perspective is when you look at the "weight" of one lie versus another....  1 lb of 'badness' versus 1 ton of 'badness'.  Intellectual honesty enters into the discussion when one weighs those with proper consideration for the relative seriousness of each event.  Example, 4 dead at Benghazi, versus 80+. 

Oval Office hanky panky - killing 4,000 of our kids.

Minimum wage going DOWN 30% + over the last 40+ years, C-suite pay going UP 700 times over the last 40+ years.  And we in the middle subsidizing the big paychecks of the 1%'ers.


nathanm has posted lists at least a couple of times in the past relating Progressive versus Conservative.  I have not been able to find them and since he hasn't been around for a while, he probably won't repost, but it pretty well covers the big picture differences.  One little quote I use summarizes very sparsely the big picture, but wish I could find his lists....   "To Democrats low wages are the problem.  To Republicans low wages are the solution."   I have been somewhat surprised by a fairly sizable number of women I know who have children...from older women of my Grandparents generation to younger ones the ages of my kids...who otherwise are pretty much 'Okie' conservative.  They have told me that they would mostly rather have a Democrat in office, because they know that when Republicans are in power, their kids are more likely to go hungry.  We see that in Oklahoma as the tens of thousands of kids who do go hungry way too often.

What is truly sad is the blind eye turned by so many of the RWRE towards balancing the equation - it is literally the "means justifies the ends".

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is amazing. A serious political discussion where people disagree, have points and counter points, and move the discussion forward.

Kind of amazing, isn't it?  Gotta love it!!   Once in a while when the planets align just right....we do get there from here!

[Conan71]

At 30:1 a teacher is just a babysitter and only certain kids will learn anything.

Out of your entire post, this is the only point I have to disagree with.  I have been suspect of the 15:1 ratio for a very long time and the drain it is on school budgets.

When I went to Jenks in the late 1970's-early 1980's typical class size was 25-30 students for basic curricula: science, math, english, history/social studies and there were no permanent teacher aides assigned to each teacher.  You might get an ORU teaching student as an aide for a few weeks at a time and there were floating aides, but one instructor was more than capable of handling a classroom.  With the exception of math, which I struggled with from algebra onward, I was generally a B student in core curricula.  Most of my peers at Jenks did about as well as I did, if not better.  Those few who struggled more generally were not from stable home environments, were doing drugs, or should have been in remedial reading or math programs.

I was far more interested in what went on outside the classroom than what went on inside it.  I was the kid that got progress reports saying: "Conan is such a bright student...if he would only apply himself more diligently to his work..."

That did not change when I finished my last three years of high school at Cascia Hall where class size was 10-20 students in any subject.  I was still a B student in history and english.  Amongst my peers, lazy kids did poorly and motivated kids did really well.  Same as it was at Jenks.  Advanced science and math still kicked my donkey.  No matter the class size, I was always going to suffer through those subjects.  I figured out much later in life, I'm a kinetic learner when it comes to more complex subjects.  Learning physics, chemistry, and trig from a book was too abstract for me to follow.  Seeing it in real life made light bulbs go off.

The interaction can be more personal with 15 students in a classroom, but there are several generations of highly successful Americans who came up in 25-30 student classrooms.

[AquaMan]

Somewhere, cats are snuggling with dogs, tree huggers are buying coffee for loggers, and my brother-in-law is praising my work ethic. The last few posts of Conan and Heiro mean we have travelled from our extremes and met in the middle. I find little to criticize in them. Because they are based on fact and experience.

The propaganda foisted on us this past few decades has nearly ruined a generation of young people. Yes, lawyers lie, ergo politicians lie. They don't call it that, they call it spin or perspective or whatever, but they lie. Rubio lied three times in the few minutes I watched him while visiting Tulsa. I'm sure he justified it by protecting America from the evil Trump, but they were lies. Trump did disavow the Klan (just after he did the calculation in his mind that their votes and their money weren't worth the negative pr).

All of this blustering, e-mail scandals, embassy scandals, etc. go back for decades. You know she murdered her lawyer, right? It all is cover for the fact that Congress is adept at acquiring power for themselves but totally devoid of the personalities necessary to govern! Easier to attack opponents to your platform than face losing your phoney baloney jobs.

My favorite "this must be peak of the crazies" moment this week was the Congressman from South Dakota who blatantly displayed this sickness by exclaiming that "even if Trump does support the Klan he's better than any Democrat!" Really? Really? Hillary and Bernie are that bad? I have never heard any Democrat sitting in office spew like that against an entire party.

This is great drama, but the Republicans will survive this mess, the country is not at the brink of catastrophe if Cruz or some republican doesn't win and no Mr. Rubio, take it from someone who was an adult at the time, we are not at the dawn of a new morning, you are not the leader of the rebirth of the Reagan revolution and the country was not mired in failed presidencies in 1980. It was however another challenging decade. So is this one.

BTW, I feel the Bern. I can not be prouder of the fact that Bernie took Oklahoma, Colorado, Minnesota and Vermont. Four states I can move to when this state folds. In my mind he has already succeeded by changing the discussion. What was a year ago considered liberal drivel I've now heard all four serious candidates use his rhetoric in their speeches.

[cannon_fodder]

Out of your entire post, this is the only point I have to disagree with.  I have been suspect of the 15:1 ratio for a very long time and the drain it is on school budgets.

. . .

The interaction can be more personal with 15 students in a classroom, but there are several generations of highly successful Americans who came up in 25-30 student classrooms.

I did not intend to advocate for a 15:1 ratio as a standard. I do believe it is better, but it is probably cost prohibitive. I was trying to establish boundaries - that at 30 and above the teacher begins being a babysitter or lecturer as opposed to a teacher. At some point kids that choose to learn can, but most will not. At some other point, essentially no one can learn. I am not the proper person to decide where that point is - nor is the teachers union as they have agenda on the matter.

This article appears to be a decent unbiased review of the subject:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/does-class-size-matter-research-reveals-surprises/

It has a rational discussion and cites studies if you want additional information...It concludes that, generally, lower class sizes are better. But fails to reach a conclusion as to if a larger initiative would work, or if it would be worth the cost. It appears to be an open ended question.

But I did not intend to suggest we need 15:1 ratios as a standard.