***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[John Wick]

wish I still lived in the DMV. Saw there is a group of people who will be lighting up during his speech

 

[rolaholic]

This is a legit sketch comedy show

 

[Based Jesus]

This is a legit sketch comedy show

What a ******* idiot

 

[gry60]

This is a legit sketch comedy show

This is his college transcript:



From this article

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...ranscript-a-warning-to-all-future-politicians

Lots of Cs and Ds in scientific courses, including an F in Organic Chemistry.

An insult to the position, really.

 

[gil23]

"America's finest "

 

[jus3]

You can't make this stuff up [emoji]128514[/emoji][emoji]128514[/emoji]

 

[moe fab]

 

[rillo561]

Has any of his appointees ever "researched" anything that have to do with their job?

That's like interviewing 101 in the real world.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This is a legit sketch comedy show

OMG, like wtf :x

 

[Belgium]

 
Is Belgium like Germany, where the kids tracks are determined at a fairly young age?

I'm not too sure on how exactly Germany's education system works but from what I understand it's quite similar. Currently our government is making a strong push to completely revise our system in terms of 7th to 12th grade education "categories". Not sure how to describe it 

Our current system is pretty complicated but I'll try to frame it in simple terms:

Starting from the 7th grade, students must pick a "subject". A subject, for lack of a better translation, is basically a fixed set of classes tied around a particular subject. There are also 3 main categories of education in which those subjects are placed.

For simplicity I will refer to them as A, B and C levels.

A levels are 99% theoretical and specifically prepare you for college. Graduating in a subject in A levels will grant you a fairly useless highschool degree with almost no practical experience because it is assumed that graduates will go to college.

C levels are the opposite. The difficulty of the theoretical aspect is decreased significantly and focuses on manual labor with lots of practice and internships. College is strongly advised against because the theoretical material is regarded as insufficient preparation for college. The goal here is to train students in their field of choice so they can go straight to work in their field after graduation or start their own business. A degree in C levels is technically more valuable than an A levels degree, as you're already certified to work in a specific field and are granted a business license upon graduation.

B levels is a combination of both. You get a mix of theory and practice, with internship opportunities. Like C levels, its goal is also that graduates can go straight to work in their field but to also prepare the student sufficiently for college should they wish to pursue a higher degree.

In the 7th grade there's not much subjects to pick from. The A, B and C levels also don't really come into play until the 9th grade.

The 7th and the 8th grade serve primarily as a way of testing your capability. In the 9th grade you get a much wider variety of subjects to choose from, and based on your results in the 7th and 8th grade you will be given a recommendation. The subject you choose in the 9th grade is what you'll be placed in until graduation, so it is a choice that requires thorough consideration.

I'll provide some examples of the subjects my highschool offered and what I chose. Some of the translations might be a little off.

7th grade:

A levels:

Modern sciences

Latin (I chose Latin in the 7th grade)

Greek-Latin

B levels:

Trade/Retail

Technical sciences

Social and technical studies

C levels:

Hairdressing

Agriculture- and biotechnology

8th grade:

The subjects remain the same. Based on your performance in the 7th grade, you will be given a recommendation to continue the same subject, or suggest a different one. In cases where the student falls too far behind during the 7th grade, they can be forcibly demoted to a different subject, usually in a lower category. In severe cases this can happen in the middle of the study year but most of the time it comes in the form of a strong recommendation to a different subject at the start of the 8th grade.

I performed well in Latin, but I became a very lazy student because I hardly required studying to get average/slightly above average grades. And while I might have done good with very little effort I wasn't confident I'd be able to continue that trend in the next year. So I then switched to modern sciences.

9th grade:

This is where a lot more options become available. As mentioned earlier, the choice you make here is final and you will automatically be placed in the same subject until graduation. Switching subjects beyond that point generally only goes downwards; from an A levels subject to a B levels subject etc. That is because the subjects become more specialized in the 9th grade and onwards and switching beyond that point means you'll be pretty far behind if you switch to a different subject.

Exceptions would be switching to a subject in the same category that is very similar to the one the student is currently in. The most common example of this is students changing from 8h math/week in A levels to 6h math/week, also in A levels.

Here are examples of subjects my school offered in the 9th to 12th grade:

A levels:

Economy-modern languages

Economy-math

Latin-modern languages

Latin-math

Greek-Latin

Modern languages & sciences

Modern languages-math

Human sciences (this is what I chose and graduated in, which focused around behavioral sciences and cultural sciences)

It's also where I picked up my interest for the US and politics.

B levels:

Accounting & IT

Animal and agricultural sciences

Health sciences

Marketing & entrepreneurship

Office management & communication

Physical education & sports

Technical sciences

Social & technical sciences

C levels:

Kitchen/restaurant worker (chef, ...)

Hairdressing

Agriculture

Office & logistics

Landscaping

Nursing assistant

I think that's about as simple as I can put it. You can think of subjects kind of like a "major" in the US I believe. Each subject has a couple specific classes tied to that specific subject and a fixed set of generalized classes. Those general classes are generally the same for most subjects but in varying amounts of hours/week. I had only 2 hours of German a week in Human Sciences for example, whereas others in A levels had 3 or 4 hours of German a week.

In order to pass a year, you must simply achieve a general year total of over 50% on all classes. If you score below 50% on one or more classes, you will either be demoted to a lower subject the next year or given an extra exam for that class during the summer break. The score of that exam gets added to your total and if the added sum is above 50%, you've passed and get to go on to the next year. An average year total % is considered to be between 70 and 75%.

I believe this is a little different from the US, where scores seem to be a lot higher.

For reference, my school had a few very gifted students in the Latin-math and Greek-Latin subjects. One of them placed 3rd in a national math competition and his year total averaged about 80%. Another gifted student who went on to pursue astro-physics after graduation also hovered around the 80-82% mark.

In the 7th and 8th grade you'll come across some students scoring year totals in the high 80s or even early 90s but beyond that point it's pretty much unheard of to score 90%.

Scores are handed out solely in numbers and percentages, we don't have A, B's, C's, ...

It is actually fairly common for students to double a year in highschool, even in A levels. That's quite a rare occurance in the US right?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Say one thing about President Bush, they people around him were terrible, but most of the at least had an understand of work stuff worked.

Their ideology was just out of wack.

Trump straight up hired dudes that are straight up incompetent.

 

[John Wick]

Say one thing about President Bush, they people around him were terrible, but most of the at least had an understand of work stuff worked.

Their ideology was just out of wack.

Trump straight up hired dudes that are straight up incompetent.

makes me think this was all his plan?

Isnt this draining the swamp?

 

[RustyShackleford]

The perks of low-cost higher education 
The study material costs a bit more than other degrees but the tuition stays roughly the same, whether you pick a masters in medicine or a more obscure degree like African languages and cultures.
The study material costs for a masters degree in medicine at the Ghent University (top 100 worldwide) is €311.
With scholarships awared based on financials, you can reduce that €890 tuition cap even further. Down to €470/year on a partial scholarship and a measly €105/year for full scholarships. If we're talking strictly tuition costs, a very poor student can get a masters degree in medicine for a grand total of €630 in tuition for 6 years.
On top of that, he/she would also be eligible for a student grant that can go up to €3000. These are generally not required to be paid back, provided you follow the terms of service and complete your education.

Of course, it goes without saying that our low-cost education is reflected in our taxes. But even the most far-right politicians in this country support our low-cost education as a basic human right. Rico would probably get a heart attack seeing our tax rate   

Many Right wingers in this country support low cost education and well funded schools.............until the Civil Rights Act was passed and they had to make sure black school were just as good.

And they have waged war against the entire public education system ever since.

 

[rillo561]

I seriously think he appointed these people based on how they "look" can they "look the part".

 

[RustyShackleford]

Say one thing about President Bush, they people around him were terrible, but most of the at least had an understand of work stuff worked.

Their ideology was just out of wack.

Trump straight up hired dudes that are straight up incompetent.

makes me think this was all his plan?

Isnt this draining the swamp?

It is to transfer America's infrastructure and social safety net to the private sector.

Drilling in our parks, vouchers for every kid, vouchers to rent apartments from large developers, vouchers to get Medicare.

Once you deregulate, it is a political struggle to re-regulate. You can paint any attempts by the government to restore a more equitable system as oppressive socialism.

 

[obeahmyal7]

It is to transfer America's infrastructure to the private sector.

Once you deregulate, it is a political struggle to re-regulate. You can paint any attempts by the government to restore a more equitable system as oppressive socialism.

 

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

[John Wick]

It is to transfer America's infrastructure and social safety net to the private sector.

Drilling in our parks, vouchers for every kid, vouchers to rent apartments from large developers, vouchers to get Medicare.

Once you deregulate, it is a political struggle to re-regulate. You can paint any attempts by the government to restore a more equitable system as oppressive socialism.

so to strip power from the GOV?

 

[obeahmyal7]

Lol. you're tripping. 

I agree with you about the plan to privatize physical infrastructure.

Of course, historically, public infrastructure has long delivered tax-exempt interest income to wealthy individuals and institutional investors. So, in that sense, the roads, parks, and schools built in the 20th century are reflections of public-private partnerships.

But I suspect that if Trump and Co. get their way, all new infrastructural projects will operate like tolls: regressive revenue generation derived not just from bridges but everything (sidewalks, back alley roads, etc). And on top of that, investors will bank on taxpayers bailing them out through layers upon layers of government guarantees. 

 

[RustyShackleford]

It is to transfer America's infrastructure and social safety net to the private sector.

Drilling in our parks, vouchers for every kid, vouchers to rent apartments from large developers, vouchers to get Medicare.

Once you deregulate, it is a political struggle to re-regulate. You can paint any attempts by the government to restore a more equitable system as oppressive socialism.

so to strip power from the GOV?

From the Federal government, yes. But only in some areas.

The areas their crony capitalism friends want. The next iteration, if they hold power enough, is to pass federal laws stripping states (especially liberals ones) of the power to overly regulate certain industries.

State levels conservatives already like to do this to city level liberals. The North Carolina GOP is a perfect example of is. North Carolina has been pretty much controlled by a hostile minority for a while.

This is the GOP's end game.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Lol. you're tripping. 

I agree with you about the plan to privatize physical infrastructure.

Of course, historically, public infrastructure has long delivered tax-exempt interest income to wealthy individuals and institutional investors. So, in that sense, the roads, parks, and schools built in the 20th century are reflections of public-private partnerships.

But I suspect that if Trump and Co. get their way, all new infrastructural projects will operate like tolls: regressive revenue generation derived not just from bridges but everything (sidewalks, back alley roads, etc). And on top of that, investors will bank on taxpayers bailing them out through layers upon layers of government guarantees. 

Trump's infrastructure bill will give him away. Sad few will notice.

An infrastructure bill in the United States, will done wisely, could be great for the country especially the lower classes. It could be used as a jobs program for the demographics that need decent wages the most. Low educated males. I could gush for paragraphs about good it could be.

However all signs point to Trump using it as another way to give tax breaks to companies. Which will wash away nearly all the positive effects it will have.

-But I have a feeling and the rural counties in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin will be helped. That is how he could buy off voters to remain in power. And I'm sure someone has already pointed that out to him

 

[MVP]

...

 

[RustyShackleford]

Mark Zuckerburg will run for office as a Democrat in 2020.

This dude has just found religion, and beginning a tour of America. He is tipping his hand

Zuck gonna pay Cory Booker back for them funds he wasted

 

[gry60]

It is to transfer America's infrastructure and social safety net to the private sector.

Drilling in our parks, vouchers for every kid, vouchers to rent apartments from large developers, vouchers to get Medicare.

Once you deregulate, it is a political struggle to re-regulate. You can paint any attempts by the government to restore a more equitable system as oppressive socialism.

so to strip power from the GOV?

From the Federal government, yes. But only in some areas.

The areas their crony capitalism friends want. The next iteration, if they hold power enough, is to pass law stripping states (especially liberals ones) of the power to overly regulate certain industries.

State levels conservatives already like to do this to city level liberals. The North Carolina GOP is a perfect example of is. North Carolina has been pretty much controlled by a hostile minority for a while.

This is the GOP's end game.

And when all of this happens, there will no longer be a middle class to speak of.

You'll either be rich or poor.

Austerity economics will apply and you can be sure that anyone who can leave will, leaving the country with those who are too poor to move abroad and the wealthy who will openly control the government.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Liberals need to wake up and band together quickly.

The GOP's end game is to hold onto power not matter what. They don't care about fair districts, or voting rights, or equal representation.

They want to rule, they won't care if it by hostile rule. So what

A GOP presidential candidate might not win the popular vote for the foreseeable future. But unless the Dems can flip NC, GA and AZ before PA, MI, or WI all turned solidly red, it won't matter. The conservative candidate no matter how repulsive, will have a shot