blank warning sign

You just assumed that I don't know the educational system; and in that you are totally wrong. I know a great many teachers and the system itself in a professional capacity. They are teaching Cultural Marxism as a matter of course inside most public school systems.

Funny but I also thought of your offerings as, "just some guy on the internet making allegations in a political comments section -which, by default, renders you a politician," to use your own words.

lol it’s a paid poster from a foreign country who will not be named.

Considering that a certain global mod just makes up interpretations of the TOS to suit himself, I wouldn't dare speculate . . . but yeah.

The cuts-both-ways nature of the venue was clearly illustrated, acknowledged in my comment but okay; if you feel it necessary to engage in redundancy, such is your prerogative.

Although... it does seem relevant to point out of the two of us, only one of us attempted in earnest laying claim to authority via unsubstantiated assertion.

That's when you introduce Marxism as a way of life to sculpt a culture. For example - if one tried to do this to adults 28 years old and up -- it would not take. Ergo - it has to be taught into the youths before they fully develope their brains. You portray it in society through entertainment and media & combine that with education of the youths & the result is a bunch of young adults who think Marxism is the way to go. To which now - 25 years later (started in 2000 as far as I can tell) -- we have a bunch of young adults thinking it's the right way to go, because they haven't been taught how horrifically Marxism fails in historical connotation.

That's cultural Marxism.

Well thank you for letting me what you mean this does give more context and helps me understand what you mean more specifically

Lol you should look into the origination of that statement. But also - the uneducated is a way of saying the un-indoctrinated. I'll take a less than college education farmer for my team over an Ivy League educated Democrat any day.

Yeah but in America it's the educated covering up stuff and wasting money

Join OkCupid then. That would be right up your alley.

Formal education has nothing to do with being smart. Life experience is an education that can't be taught in a classroom. Not to mention IQ has nothing to do with education either.

I love it when you barge in with questions that are easily answered if given half a thought to think about it.

1. To ensure girls have access to sports - the current items of women's/girls sports will continue. The money will come from the States - who will figure that out on a State by State basis. If you want an example of how a National Law became State Laws - see how Roe V Wade went. Nationally it was taken out & now you have tons of States that have Codified into State Laws.

1a. To address how the money will be spent thing, the States will figure that out. If they determine there doesn't need to be this sport or that sport - they will decide that and parents who want their kids to play various sports will be able to go and find those schools that participate.

2. Alabama isn't keeping up with the financials of things because there are too many wasteful bureaucrats with their hands on the money. If you take that money away - they will have to figure it out. If they can't figure it out - they will be replaced in the vote with people who aren't corrupt and aren't wasting the money.

4. Alabama will get its own funding however it can to get the money that gets turned off. If those people can't figure it out they will be replaced by the vote with people who can figure it out.

What the real question you should be asking is " why are we continuing to funnel money to an organization of the government that has had nothing but a negative result on the entire "education" aspect? ". Since it's inception, the quality of our education to our children has dropped significantly. We have children in grades 4 and Up that cannot READ... That's a bigger problem than how Tammy will get her Volleyball spikes.

And he can't imagine anything being successful without massive government oversight.

That's a stretch from "eliminate waste and fraud and let competent people figure it out"

You're forgetting it's waste fraud and bureaucracy at the top - that is then trickling down to State & local levels. DOE is a failed organization & it's failed ways of doing things now stretch into local Public Schools.

When you cut off the funding at the top- the people who cannot run the system now, will figure out how to do it - as it's their job ... So they might have to do their jobs now. If they can't do their jobs - they will be replaced by competent people who can.

I would rather have things fail a last time and have people revive them better... than continue to allow things to fail end over end to no end.

You're asserting it's waste, fraud at the top (leaving bureaucracy out of this for the moment because it's a buzz word deployed by politicians to obfuscate, distract, blame-shift) which is then allegedly trickling down to the state and local levels. So let's examine a hypothetical scenario of corruption in two houses:

Let's say Sam lives in House 1; Sam handles a buttload of money on a daily basis, is wasteful and corrupt.

Albert lives across town in House 2; at a lesser magnitude Albert is in the same business as Sam, has his own scams running but legally operates as one of Sam's ancillaries in a similarly wasteful and corrupt fashion.

Now, by virtue of your argument, it should follow that when Sam gets busted, all corrupt operations at Albert's house cease because Albert's corruption hinged on the now interupted trickle-down.

Except that's not how it works because synergistic corruption takes a minimum of two participants and the removal of one party doesn't undo the corruption of the other. To the contrary, because Albert is operating as Sam's legal fundee, the only thing which changes for Albert upon Sam being stung is number of available revenue streams.

Or, to put it more succinctly, both Sam and Albert are corrupt and, while Albert legitimately does business with Sam, what happens in Albert's house, under Albert's roof is on Albert -meaning that cutting off funding from the top will not stop "the people who cannot run the system now," force them to "figure out how to do it [acquire funds]" because they already know. Rather it would simply remove one revenue stream from their reach -the alleged corruption would continue and the response to the lost stream would simply be to raise/enact new taxes to cover the gap.

Raise new taxes... Who is going to vote for them?

You can't just enact new taxes at Local & State Levels without putting a target on your back for getting voted out & the politicians know this now. So your theory and statement, while long and thought out -- isn't reality anymore.

If fraud and waste is cut & folks try to tax the citizens to gain that revenue stream back, they will be voted out. That's what you're missing.

The American Public ain't putting up with that crap any longer.

Nope, still reality; there are other factors you're apparently not taking into account.

It breaks down to a question of whether there is, in fact, fraud (if so, is it enough to cover the shortfall at each level?), how each governing body defines waste (again, does it cover the shortfall at each level?) and what level of functionality the public -displeased or not- is willing to accept.

Yes, enacting new/raising existing taxes puts a ballot box shaped target on politicians' backs (they've known it all along -it's one of the reasons politicians spend so much time passing essentially meaningless, busy-work legislation rather than tackling the tough problems, effecting real-world change); by that same token, (another thing they've known all along) so does sacrificing quality of education (reads as "a favored public program") over raising taxes. And that's the catch; if a legislature wants to maintain its electability without raising taxes or sacrificing quality of education, it's obligated to re-allocate funds which means taking it from other programs. But that also earns a ballot box shaped target.

Which programs? Infrastructure? That results in unpatched potholes, broken sidewalks left unrepaired, underfunded municipal water systems, under- or unmaintained traffic control systems, etc. If from law enforcement, that's layoffs, mothballed/auctioned cruisers, reduced upkeep at stations, jails, reduced patrolling & police coverage, reduced municipal offices' & courts' security. Hazard and/or emergency services, ambulance, fire & rescue? Same issue only worse; it could literally mean the difference between having EMS, fire & rescue or not. If from administration, that's also layoffs, reduced public service availability, reduced court session hours which feeds back into the jails issue, creates more problems by guaranteeing higher housing costs due to longer pre-trial detention, risks violating the 6A, resultant lawsuits).

All of this effectively means that even if disfavored legislators are voted out -whether for increasing taxes or sending a municipality into entropic shock by vamping funds from other programs to close the gap- the next batch is going to come in, assess the situation and most likely do nothing because their job is to keep things running as smoothly as can be managed within available means. And the cycle repeats because government generally operates as a holding action comprised of a series of bandaids slapped over known-rate decay.

It sure did... those dems who voted for Trump wised up... lol

Yes...they did... Trump improved from 2020 in all demographics...

Yes that I can say is true as far as I know, no country went from voting for Trump to Kamala, and all the flips were to trump

It happened that's a fact

I personally believe it was not good
And also I think I was a bit rude in more recent comments I wanna apologize I made the foolish mistake of orbital striking the sleep schedule

State. You meant STATE, not “country, right?

Autocorrect got me
I meant county

County

If they voted Trump their IQ immediately jumped to at least 100.

Thank you for confirming my hypothesis!

I have but one account.

Same, but there are plenty of libs that have multiple…

:0)