Gary's got my support for sure, he's socially liberal without being economically horrible, which is the main problem with Sanders-like liberalism, and is fiscally responsible without any Tea Party nonsense. Not perfect, but a good choice in my book.
4 ups, 5y
Mine too. After weighing the choices he's the only one with common sense. Too bad the majority of voters follow only media hype, biased friends and relatives and don't learn about others.
Uh, yeah it's absolutely true, lol. "School choice" means "whatever the parents can pay for". You should really check out the LP platform if you don't know this-- this and other reasons are why the LP is stagnant, as once people who like the social freedoms ideas realize that the economics is far far right they bail from the party. The LP got really sneaky in the mid2000s and watered down what they say but behind it is the same idea-- no taxpayer funded public schools. They know the issue is their downfall so they even hide it on their "issues " page-- it's not under"education", it's under "poverty and welfare", lol:
"Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty." Not ethat "free market"... that is the watered down version of the earlier platforms:
From the 2000 platform:
"We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000 "
So yeah, they can try to hide it behind terms like "school choice" and "free market", but in the end it's " Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education..."
You're forced to pay taxes for one public school district. Just say it's the shittiest public school district in your state. You don't want your kid to go there and want them to go to another school district 20 miles away that's one of the top public schools in the state. They should have every right to do so without being forced by that other school district to pay "out-of-district tuition" which is equally as much theft as income, Social Security and Medicare taxes.
If they can afford private school, so be it. Good for them. Given the condition of public school education, schools will continue to decline in attendance because parents will prefer a homeschooling environment without any form of political brainwashing that public schools utilize nowadays.
If I ever had a child, I would want them to have a better education than I did. Public education has gone downhill since the 1970s and has gotten even shittier since I graduated from high school 11 years ago. At one time, America used to be the powerhouse of education, then the Federal government's joke of education reform via No Child Left Behind and Common Core makes our public education system the laughingstock of the world, when China, Japan and India are the educational powerhouses today. If it means working two jobs for 16 hours a day, I'll make sure my child is educated in a much better learning environment than a public school funded by theft from the American people.