Betsy DeVos, Trump’s education pick, hints at sweeping changes ahead

[Endus]

How do you live with yourself just spewing deliberate misinformation all the time.

They mandated the lowest legally allowable standard of evidence, explicitly to make convictions easier.

That isn't what your source stated. It did require a standard of a preponderance of the evidence, but that's because that's an actual standard of evidence. The "reasonable person" standard the university had before failed to meet that bar. That was the entire point of the passage you keep citing and failing to read. The university was not criticised because their standard of evidence was too high, but because it was too low.

I'll cite it again, and put the important phrase in bold;

Additionally,the Sexual Harassment Policy inappropriately stated that “in assessing whether a particular act
constitutes sexual harassment forbidden under this policy, the rules of common sense and reason
shall prevail. The standard shall be the perspective of a reasonable person within the campus
community.” This standard falls short of the preponderance of the evidence standard required to
satisfy Title IX.

They're bringing the standard up to that mark, not dragging it down. Like I said; you have this completely backwards. And while it's the lowest standard used in courts of law, it's the standard used in all civil court, and the investigations we're talking about here are not courts of law to begin with. "Preponderance of the evidence" isn't the "lowest legally allowable standard of evidence"; that's nonsense you've made up. It's just the lowest used by the courts, which isn't relevant, since we're not talking about the courts.

[Belize]

She won't get the function, she's been exposed as a pretty stupid women in the hearings today.

Doesn't even know the appropriate education terms.

Never underestimate the GOP's desire for uneducated, easily emotionally swayed, high religious voters.

[Shadee]

Never underestimate the GOP's desire for uneducated, easily emotionally swayed, high religious voters.

Wrong

/10

infracted - minor spam

[Belize]

Wrong

/10

Fantastic argument! Please, tell me more.

[Xeones]

She won't get the function, she's been exposed as a pretty stupid women in the hearings today.

Doesn't even know the appropriate education terms.

Given his appointments it seems the goal is to destroy the government. I don't know that he has appointed anyone who will actually perform their roles in a way I consider acceptable on any level.

Her being stupid is irrelevant.

[Felya]

In that case, it wasn't intended. What I meant was (Title IX being removed | Education cost of entry lowered) rather than (Title IX being removed so education cost can be lowered).

It shouldn't mater, especially the cost. If federal government is empowered to standardize work in education, the outward federal cost would increase, but due to shift in responsibilities decreases state costs. In the end meaning a breaking even for populace in terms of cost. If you work in any field that remotely touches production or manufacture above line work, you should know what standard work is supposed to do:

http://www.lean.org/Workshops/Worksh...?WorkshopId=20

This should be the goal of education to allow for standard expected state product, the student capable of being competitive in a fluctuating market. The way we get outsourcing back and end the need for H1, is to empower our populace to go above the standards of competitors education.

The spending doesn't even have to increase, because the issue is largely about the how, not how much. We spend crazy amounts on education, but the solution is not to justify lowest common denominator as equal to actual standards. The goal should be John Dewey's pedagogical frame work, not tethering it from any standard, so quality of work force education is unstable.

There is a clear path between John Dewey education principles and six sigma's manufacturing and production. As inhuman as it may sound, but we need to treat students as a product, to attract foreign business.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

This is what needs to be discussed, not the red herring of title 9, while our education is flushed down the drain.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong

/10

Why would underestimating it be right?

[Surfd]

Given his appointments it seems the goal is to destroy the government. I don't know that he has appointed anyone who will actually perform their roles in a way I consider acceptable on any level.

Her being stupid is irrelevant.

Considering that he has something like 9 thousand odd government positions to fill in just under 2 days, since pretty much every single person ever installed in a position by the Obama administration will be vacating offices on inauguration day, and considering that every indication seems to point to the fact that his transition team is woefully under prepared to fill huge swaths of them (many of them rather important), I think that is an understatement.

Unless the Trump Transition team has a miracle patch ready to roll out in 2 days, expect the shitshow that will be the Trump Government to make the worst MMO launch you can imagine look like a fucking smooth ride.

[Masark]

Is there any way to block her appointment? I utterly fail to understand how she has gotten this position. (aside as a reward for the "donatons")

Sure, get some Republican senators to block her rather than fall in line.

[Kokolums]

Not sure why you think schools should be prevented from making administrative decisions regarding students and sexual improprieties, like literally any workplace is able to.

And the OCR letter you're referring to, so far as I know, just underscored that transgendered students aren't to be discriminated against. So I really don't see the issue, unless you're being explicitly transphobic.



You can make arguments about cuts to education, but really only if you've;

A> identified specific examples of wasteful spending that you're going to eliminate or amend for greater efficiency, and
B> you can't better use the savings to provide improved services in some other respect.

Otherwise, don't pretend you're doing it for the kids. Be clear that you're hosing their education to save a few bucks. Own it, because that's what you're arguing, every single goddamned time.

I don't think its transphobic. Its liberalphobic. People are looking at the total package of liberal policies, and then the results, and drawing their own conclusions. There are plenty of people who look at the United States and see:

1. A country that was conservative in the 19th century and thrived.
2. A country that adopted more liberal policies in the 20th and 21st century and begun to go downhill in terms of power and wealth.

Parents are afraid their kids won't have it as good as they did and they blame the overall liberal package of policies for this. They will adopt the entire conservative platform, warts and all, in an attempt to turn things around. If someone wants to pick part of that package as transphobic, that's completely missing the point of what voters are saying.

If you try to make the argument that their choices are transphobic, they will see you as tone-deaf, a liar, and not caring about what alarms them. I think the democrat party is having a huge struggle with this.

You've got to get off identity politics dude. Its killing the left.

[minteK917]

Defunding public school. Good idea, that way even more black people commit crimes and Trump gets to call it some kind of uprising and get a second term out of it.

[Garnier Fructis]

But the US rose to global dominance in the 20th century...

This can be explained wit the observation that what people see and what's actually there aren't always the same thing.

[Kokolums]

But the US rose to global dominance in the 20th century...

Yes but they'd argue there is some lag time. The country didn't go downhill the moment FDR was elected. He was still riding the wave of conservative culture that preceded him. FDR's tax hikes and regulation hikes wouldn't catch up with the nation for a while. They'd say all of the labor laws and such hurt business, but they couldn't just pick up and immediately move to Asia in 1932. It took a few decades for them to establish factories abroad and suddenly you have foreign imported cars, textiles etc.

[Belize]

Defunding public school. Good idea, that way even more black people commit crimes and Trump gets to call it some kind of uprising and get a second term out of it.

As I said, it's the perfect opportunity for the GOP to really perpetuate and capture that uneducated white vote.

[Garnier Fructis]

Yes but they'd argue there is some lag time.

You keep describing people who are ruled by emotion, and claim that the left is dying for pushing back against rash decision making based on emotion.

This is all sorts of ironic given the usual associations of emotion and rationality that the right prescribes to the political spectrum.

[Endus]

I don't think its transphobic. Its liberalphobic. People are looking at the total package of liberal policies, and then the results, and drawing their own conclusions. There are plenty of people who look at the United States and see:

1. A country that was conservative in the 19th century and thrived.
2. A country that adopted more liberal policies in the 20th and 21st century and begun to go downhill in terms of power and wealth.

Well, then they need their hindsight checked, because that's just wrong on pretty basic facts.

While the USA did do fairly well in the 19th Century, that was overwhelmingly due to the value of the slave trade for most of that century. The US lagged behind the great powers of Europe, economically, even so. It only truly overcame that in the 20th Century, largely because those European nations were devastated by the infrastructural damage of two World Wars, while the USA was largely untouched on its own soil and thus was able to use that as a tool to boost their own manufacturing, to support those war efforts.

And American power peaked in the last 40 years, and really hasn't declined significantly since the end of the Cold War. If there's any relative shift, it's that other nations have grown somewhat in economic strength in the last half-century, so the peak of American wealth is less of an outlier, but it's still a huge outlier.

The idea that the USA was "thriving" in the 19th Century and then went downhill in the 20th is just flat-out wrong on the facts, unless you're defining "thriving" by the amount the USA oppresses black people, because that's pretty much the only thing that was thriving in the 19th Century and has slowly decayed throughout the 20th.

You've got to get off identity politics dude. Its killing the left.

By serving as a straw man that you'll use to avoid dealing with the facts? Because the facts are against you, here. You're using identity politics as a distraction so you don't have to admit how wrong you are on the facts.

[Orange Joe]

I mean one can hope right. Its also possible this is the best they could come up with. Maybe they thought they werent gonna win and packed it in until they did win and oh shit we need people.

I think donations had a part to play in this. it's no secret she is only where she is because of her families donations.

[Vizardlorde]

So um our education plan is to cut public school funding and give it to private and charter schools... Brilliant, while we are at it the other appointees should scrap medicare and Medicare and give that money to health insurance companies and scrap foodstamps and give tax credits to walmart with that money.

[alexw]

I don't think its transphobic. Its liberalphobic. People are looking at the total package of liberal policies, and then the results, and drawing their own conclusions. There are plenty of people who look at the United States and see:

1. A country that was conservative in the 19th century and thrived.
2. A country that adopted more liberal policies in the 20th and 21st century and begun to go downhill in terms of power and wealth.

Parents are afraid their kids won't have it as good as they did and they blame the overall liberal package of policies for this. They will adopt the entire conservative platform, warts and all, in an attempt to turn things around. If someone wants to pick part of that package as transphobic, that's completely missing the point of what voters are saying.

If you try to make the argument that their choices are transphobic, they will see you as tone-deaf, a liar, and not caring about what alarms them. I think the democrat party is having a huge struggle with this.

You've got to get off identity politics dude. Its killing the left.

This is sooo out of touch with reality. I mean where do you get this delusional nonsense from?

In the 19th century the average American lived in a hovel while a tiny fraction lived like Egyptian kings lording it over their slaves. If you were in the top 0.1% of the population you certainly thrived. Everyone else and the country did not.

For example from wikipedia -

"Historian Philip S. Foner has described company towns as "feudal domain[s], with the company acting as lord and master. ... The 'law' consisted of the company rules. Curfews were imposed. Company guards - brutal thugs armed with machine guns and rifles loaded with soft-point bullets - would not admit any 'suspicious' stranger into the camp and would not permit any miner to leave." Furthermore, miners who raised the ire of the company were liable to find themselves and their families summarily evicted from their homes."

The great thriving of America and its people wasn't in the 19th century but the mid 20th. That's when the middle class ballooned and when they managed to get a decent share of the economic pie. That is the time period which gave birth to the phrase "the American dream". And it was all under the control of democrats. It wasn't until the Reagan revolution onwards that everything turned to shit. Its then that the selfish narcissistic boomers gave away what prior generations had fought for and kept voting for right wing politicians. Its only in the last decade that the democrats have started to turn back left, while the republicans continue to steamroller 99% of us into serfdom and 1% into becoming our feudal overlords.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but they'd argue there is some lag time. The country didn't go downhill the moment FDR was elected. He was still riding the wave of conservative culture that preceded him. FDR's tax hikes and regulation hikes wouldn't catch up with the nation for a while. They'd say all of the labor laws and such hurt business, but they couldn't just pick up and immediately move to Asia in 1932. It took a few decades for them to establish factories abroad and suddenly you have foreign imported cars, textiles etc.

Seriously wtf?

What proceeded FDR was the great depression. The one brought about by the utter incompetence of the prior republican administration. There was no riding of a "republican wave". Just like Obama he was left an absolute disaster to clean up which he did. It was his policies that gave rise to the great middle class expansion of the 1950's and 60's. It wasn't until the 80's that the middle class centric post war system was dismantled by republicans, and that's when things started to turn to shit.

[Surfd]

Reminds me of something I posted a while back in one of the threads talking about Trumps tax plans.

It's like Republican Americans are the living embodiment of "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it":

I mean, this has been pretty much Republican modus-operandi for the last 50 to 60 years:

1. Tax cuts for the wealthy - makes the wealthy richer
2. Cut services to everyone else
3. Raise taxes that fall regressively on everyone not wealthy
4. Economy crashes
5. Wealthy buy a bunch of assets on the cheap, everyone else who was in the market sees a giant hole where their investments used to be (bonus points if you bought at the peak, then sold near the bottom)
6. Democrats fix it as best they can, until Americans get bored with peace and prosperity, and vote the Republicans back in again
7. Go back to 1

Every. Fucking. Time.

But hey, this time, they got it, right? This time, surely, the Republicans wont fuck everything up, right? Looks at Trump. Looks at the Trump Administration. You guys are soooo goddamned fucked.

You better just hope that there is a Democratic party left to pick up the pieces at the end of the shitshow you voted for.

[KrazyK923]

I know its been brought up already, but holy shit. Out of everything that has happened in this election, I think this is the one thing that's made me think "I MUST be living in the Twilight Zone"



I have no idea how Chris Murphy didn't just laugh right in her face for her absolutely fucking retarded comments here. How this person is involved in our government whatsoever is a travesty to just the Human race in general.

I think this is a case where being triggered is a legitimately valid response here. I am at a loss for words about how such an absolute dumb piece of shit could get this close to our actual government. I guess it is indeed true that you don't need any kind of expertise in ANYTHING (Comparatively at LEAST Ben Carson was a surgeon, even if it wasn't relevant to his position, it showed some kind of education), just a lot of money, and you can do or be anything.

I mean, this has been pretty much Republican modus-operandi for the last 50 to 60 years:

1. Tax cuts for the wealthy - makes the wealthy richer
2. Cut services to everyone else
3. Raise taxes that fall regressively on everyone not wealthy
4. Economy crashes
5. Wealthy buy a bunch of assets on the cheap, everyone else who was in the market sees a giant hole where their investments used to be (bonus points if you bought at the peak, then sold near the bottom)
6. Democrats fix it as best they can, until Americans get bored with peace and prosperity, and vote the Republicans back in again
7. Go back to 1

Exactly correct. And its why I can't wait for the baby boomers to die off. They're primarily the ones who do this. I swear they all suddenly became stupid in their elder years. Must have been all that lead in the water before it was outlawed.

At the very least, this time, the candidate is entering office at historically low numbers. Here's hoping that means we only have 2 years of retardation before the Senate (which seems pretty likely before Trump's even been inaugurated) and the House (Which would be nice) flip back to the not-currently-insane party.