Donald Trump

Clinton endorsed Obama after Hillary suspended the campaign.
Superdelegates can do whatever they like and this election it's likely they will go against Sanders needs a 20% win to win those Delegates.


What somehow strange is that Carson didn't drop out yet.
Kasich had a good result in NH, but Carson is a sleeping pill.


It's actually better for a party to decide for a candidate early. While the democrats already have a 2 person race(and neither of them has a major lead) the Republicans will likely turn into a Rubio, Cruz and Trump clownshow.

Which can turn out hilarious because maybe after insults there will be flying fists.

"

Hilbert wrote:

Trump is unlikely to get the superdelegates.


Same thing with Sanders.

GoP superdelegates are different than Dems, they're a lot fewer in number and have to vote reflecting the state's vote.

I can't wait to vote for Trumpenfurher and make America great again.

"

Tinklepee wrote:

I can't wait to vote for Trumpenfurher and make America great again.

high energy/10

"

Tinklepee wrote:

I can't wait to vote for Trumpenfurher and make America great again.

Didn't know about that, that makes Trump really likely.

If they had the same power as in Democrats they can easily swing it to Rubio/Cruz.

"

I can't wait to vote for Trumpenfurher and make America great again.

Watch the Simpson episode where Bart goes into an Indian casino. President Trump made 'merica to Greece^^

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Meh, the Oath Keepers seem like idiots with guns. The way they follow conspiracy theories makes me remember the NSF in Deus Ex, :P

Thing is, idiots with guns are like gunpowder barrels waiting for a reason to explode (so the Waco comparisons). The conspiracy theory mindset they have means they expect the government to attack them first, but thanks god it's not going to happen soon, else it would have been a bloodbath.

About the racism spin, from the info found, they have racist members for sure (I can't say how significant is that membership, though, the conspiracy theorist group has a lot of crossover with birthers and anti semites). But it's the conspiracy theory/zealotry part that makes them unnerving, not the racism. Gullible people do stupid shit. Look at this. Not sane.

TL;DR: idiots shouldn't have guns.

these guys remind me of larp'ing. They found a fantasy-fiction that particularly strikes them, and acting it out makes them more committed to it. If we could just get them to use foam props instead of real weapons, that would be great. (and anyways, currently it is the sectors not in control of government that really worry me, at least I can vote for government guys trying to fuck me over the least, the idea of schooling going to private sector is very scary to me, I can only imagine the 'oathkeeper' school and their students, funny that right wingers keep trying to push areas of American life out of the democratic process and into 'corporate board' control)

The comments on that oathkeeper thread, I mean some of these guys are really reaching with their 'interpretations' of 'words', much like the larper with their thees and thous.

"

LostForm wrote:

(and anyways, currently it is the sectors not in control of government that really worry me, at least I can vote for government guys trying to fuck me over the least, the idea of schooling going to private sector is very scary to me, I can only imagine the 'oathkeeper' school and their students, funny that right wingers keep trying to push areas of American life out of the democratic process and into 'corporate board' control)

About the voucher system...actually it could work (making public schools compete with private ones and desegregating poor and middle class people, in theory), but in practice you need rules to not give money to the crazy. I have heard about countries where the system worked, but it seems that in US private schools are used as a way to circumvent the separation of church and state, and to teach crap (Scientology, intelligent design, and more crackpot stuff). And there is a good part of the regulators (specially US congress) that would let that crap pass, so the status quo is still better.

About the "corporate board" thing, read this. The first theorem shows that under perfect competition (read the definition) the market achieves the best allocation of resources (so the corporate douchebaggery should be under control naturally, because competitors would destroy them). Thing is, real world tends to not be perfect (information assimetry, externalities, etc.) so you need governments to deal with that (and that opens another can of worms, some people argue that the government intervention brings more bad than good). But one can say that if you can introduce good competition, it would improve any system. The left and the right differ ideologically on how good are the markets at this task. I recommend you to be relatively centrist on this.

I understand the clear upsides of privatizing public services, like trash collection. Not requiring the government to upkeep and house all the special equipment brings all kinds of benefits. There is clear benefits to businesses geared toward a service being contracted out. But there is also very clear outcomes that can be measured and regulated, there is no 'gray area'. Is the trash still there on Tuesday when scheduled to be picked up Monday? Are they using the special trucks, or are they just saying they are using trucks but is it really just a guy with a wheel barrel? Very easy to monitor and regulate.

Education...there is literally whole fields devoted to trying to even define the outcomes to measure, never mind how to measure said outcomes that are, at best, 'loosely agreed upon'.

And it, I think, can be agreed that at the least, a primary education is a necessary service for the population, a demand by the people. Which drives the legislation that kids must attend primary schools. It is this legislated demand that really bothers me about privatized schooling. My kid (future) is not a cash crop, to be harvested with privately controlled curriculum in a field with almost no definite outcome requirements. Parents shopping around for the school that best fits their historical world view, meaning kids will most likely attend an echo chamber.

Clearly our primary schools in the US do have problems currently, I don't want to whitewash the need for change. But I am skeptical at best of whose interests corporations would serve, skeptical of the impact of competition in such a setting, skeptical of any oversight based on outcome assessment, skeptical of any level of control being presented to parents other than 'try somewhere else then'. And being a cynic, I would say I was certain that the revisionists and propagandists would thrive in such a setting, where job security is such a weapon against teachers, and the propensity for business minded people rising to the top in corporate settings.

^ the information asimmetry problem I talked about. There are no easy solutions, but I can't say that private or public is better in this setting, it's a hard question. Remember that in one situations there are crap schools chosen by clueless/ignorant/malicious relatives, while in the other one the government chooses. For some, it's not a trivial choice.

And the #1 problem in any schools is poverty and poor enviroments, nothing that any education system can solve just throwing money at it.