GG

He was part of the official campaign at the time

His support base won't care because they'll be listening to President Pence.

You can put that one in the broken promises thread. Of course anyone with a rudimentary understanding of math thought that those promises were anything but fantasy.

So you're proposing a system where good performers are paid market rate and the under-performers are tossed when they can't contribute?

And in the same breath that you insist that there's no correlation between teacher pay and student performance, you introduce an argument that more parental involvement predisposes kids to do better in school. Keep arguing.

Please tell me more about this "predisposed" term

Please tell me if I understand your position properly. You say above that there's no correlation between teacher pay and student performance. Yet your solution to fixing education is to pay teachers more. Does that cover it? And then you wonder why you're called an idiot?

You made a declarative statement that the biggest problem with public education is funding, specifically that teachers are underpaid. Yet data shows that teacher pay is lower in better performing schools than in worse performing schools. We can wait.

Then by your standards, teachers in suburban DC are compensated at twice the level that DC teachers are since the results are double that of DC schools. We'll wait.

Which is standard OP for them. Where's the payoff?

Baloney. It was always and always will start and end with dedicated parents.

How many times does it need to be repeated that the biggest failures in public education have nothing to do with budgets?

The motivation is to screw with US elections, period. Frankly, out of all the candidates, they'd prefer Bernie. You think it's a coincidence that most of the incriminating leaks from DNC were all about Bernie?

Gee, it's so unlike you to pivot a discussion when your points are refuted

You're kidding, right? What choice does a parent of a kid in an underperforming public school district have?

My guess, much better. Enviros would still be holding US energy policy hostage and oil prices would continue their climb. She wouldn't roll-back any BO's policies and the US economy would slow down, asset prices sink much faster and we'd be facing a serious recession by the end of this year. But other than that, Vlad is winning with a trump White House

The economy at the end of 2016 was a mirage built on accommodative Fed policies. If GOP does nothing to healthcare. everyone who is now covered by ACHA will be priced out of the market in 2 years or will force another budget busting Medicaid expansion. But I can see why you're fixated on shiny objects. No wonder you hate trump. You and him are competing for that glimmer. How has that worked out for Vlad?

The first wise thing you've said on this board

All of those are likely, and doesn't lead to any sort of collusion between trump's campaign & Russian operatives. Of course not one of the self-proclaimed defenders of truth cared when Russians' meddling actually influenced US foreign & domestic policy positions.

But your explanation is more in line with the Deep State discussion rather than Russia's motivation to get trump elected

For the love of G-d, stop responding or at least quoting the idiot's posts.

How's the embarrassing Trump administration work out for Vlad so far? Has the USA's global position strengthened or weakened since January 2017?

If there's heat, there should be a fire. So where is it? Or more specifically, what's Russia's motivation and end-game in helping Trump getting elected?

I would have said the same thing before the contest

What's this guy's name again?