The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So South Carolina has become an interesting contest all of a sudden-Democrat was ahead until just recently-now falling behind quickly. Georgia still too close to call at this point with Handel very slightly ahead.

Republican in SC ahead by 110 votes

[Thomkal]

Republican has won in SC-and it may be less of a margin than the Republicans win in Georgia.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Republican has won in SC-and it may be less of a margin than the Republicans win in Georgia.

fwiw, NYT current estimate has it ending 51-49 Handel (based on expected number of votes still to count, and the location of those)

[bhlloy]

Maybe now the Dems can finally realize they can't win elections based on the being the party of not-Trump? Or do we need to get through 2018 before we realize that?

[JPhillips]

One, Ossoff didn't spend much time going after Trump.

Two, a swing this big nation wide ends up with a lot of Dem victories.

But there's eighteen months and a lot of things will happen. Right now Trump is terribly unpopular and research shows that races all the way down to state legislature at least, swing largely based on the popularity of the president. If things look the same or worse for Trump next summer, they'll be a lot of GOP congressmen transitioning to lobbyists in 2019.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Maybe now the Dems can finally realize they can't win elections based on the being the party of not-Trump? Or do we need to get through 2018 before we realize that?

What does this even mean? The focus of Ossoff's campaign wasn't anti-Trump. Most of the negatives ads I heard from him focused on very specific Handel things like her wasteful office spending or her tenure at Susan G Komen.

Also, this race was only close because of the anti-Trump sentiment. Price won re-election in GA-6 by 23 pts, whereas Trump only beat Hillary there by 1 pt.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Maybe now the Dems can finally realize they can't win elections based on the being the party of not-Trump? Or do we need to get through 2018 before we realize that?

I think thats what people said about R's for the last 8 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

$30some million just don't buy what it used to.

It's almost enough to make me laugh my Oss off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Best line I've seen so far tonight about the outcome in Georgia

"The silver lining for Ossoff is that Handel won't be his representative"

[albionmoonlight]

These races are consistent with what we've seen in the others, which is a D+8 advantage over the generic ballot.

If the Dems could ever figure out how to run a political party, the GOP would be in serious trouble.

Of course, if I were a dog, I'd have a tail.

I'm not sure what's more likely, though. The Dems getting their shit together politically or me becoming a dog.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting statistical thing I noticed.
In April, Ossoff received 48.12% of the votes cast.
Last night, Ossoff received 48.13% of the votes cast.

6 weeks, all those ads ... one one-hundredth of a percent change in the people willing to vote for him.

[Easy Mac]

Even with about 65k extra voters, those voters still broke pretty much exactly the same as they did in the initial vote. They went R about 1% more than in the first round of voting.

I think the D's will make inroads in 2018 if they can keep the base fired up, simply because these special elections show the voters are there who will either cross party lines, or are just independents who voted R last time for whatever their reason.

[JPhillips]

BREAKING: FBI official says shooter acted alone in shooting of congressman at baseball field; no terrorism involved.

I guess we really have officially declared terrorism as a Muslim only thing.

[Drake]

You're being a pessimist. It's Muslims and/or brown people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Even with about 65k extra voters, those voters still broke pretty much exactly the same as they did in the initial vote. They went R about 1% more than in the first round of voting.

I think the D's will make inroads in 2018 if they can keep the base fired up, simply because these special elections show the voters are there who will either cross party lines, or are just independents who voted R last time for whatever their reason.

There's a great heat map on the NYT page results page that really shows the difference yesterday.

Basically, for those who don't follow closely/know the geography, the district includes parts of three counties. Heavily (D) DeKalb, heavily (R) Cobb, and somewhat purple Fulton.

The candidates did what you would expect pretty much EXCEPT look at the map that shows direction & rate of change vs round one six weeks ago. Handel gained in Fulton but she also didn't lose in DeKalb by as much.

Round one featured only one meaningful (D) (the other four Dems combined for less than one percent of the vote) with four (R) that got 8% or more. Clearly a better job has to be done in similar situations at making the point to (R) voters that they need to show up instead of waiting for the runoff to settle things ... next time if they cut it so close they might not get the chance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Plus, when considering yesterday's Georgia outcome, you have to look at a little more context.

Go back to the GOP Presidential Primary. Trump won 155 of 159 counties ... 3 of the 4 that Rubio won voted yesterday. (The 4th? The liberal bastion of Athens)

Go back to 2012. Gingrich carried 156 of 159 counties ... 2 of those that voted yesterday were the only ones that went Romney.

While cast as a "republican district" it's easily the softest & squishiest set of Rs in the state.

[JPhillips]

As I posted on Facebook:

In 2018, if Trump has a -20 net approval and the economy is perceived as doing worse, the Dems will do very well. If Trump has a net 0 or better approval rating and the economy is perceived as doing better, the Dems will not do well.

Everything else doesn't matter nearly as much as the political industry wants us to believe.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

These races are consistent with what we've seen in the others, which is a D+8 advantage over the generic ballot.

If the Dems could ever figure out how to run a political party, the GOP would be in serious trouble.

Of course, if I were a dog, I'd have a tail.

I'm not sure what's more likely, though. The Dems getting their shit together politically or me becoming a dog.

Hey guys, we got our asses kicked, let's run Pelosi out there again---Said no bright person ever.

[JPhillips]

I know her approval rating blows, but who would be better than Pelosi? Is it about her or about being the Dem leader. Hell, Daschle became the face of all that is evil and he was a moderate from middle America.

Maybe a change is helpful even if it only lasts for a year or two, but I fail to see anyone that won't fairly shortly be the new Pelosi.

[digamma]

I think the leaders in Congress matter very little in most cases for elections. Gingrich in 1994 may be a notable exception. The leaders matter for getting stuff done (or not getting stuff done in Congress). It's the Mitch McConnell example. He has a -23 favorable to unfavorable rating, but he's never going to lose his seat or except in the very rare case cause any other Republican to lose their Senate seat. Yet, he's a really talented majority leader. The only people who are not going to vote for a Democratic congressional candidate because of Pelosi or whoever the next in line is were never going to vote for the candidate to begin with.

IMHO, the more important position is the national committee chair. We'll see if Perez can turn the battleship.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know her approval rating blows, but who would be better than Pelosi? Is it about her or about being the Dem leader.

Well, she does draw more heat simply for her tenure as one of the shrillest voices. From that standpoint, it's "her".

But you're right in that a replacement avowing the same insanity that she's customarily associated with would end up the same way though.

[larrymcg421]

Ossoff wasn't liberal enough is the refrain from the Sanders/Stein morons on my Facebook feed, who don't want to listen to my explanation that an economic liberal would be a terrible fit for Ga-6 and Ossoff would've done much worse if he ran that platform. They stubbornly suggest that he lost, so his moderate platform was obviously the wrong call.

I'm pretty much done with what passes for the "progressive" movement these days. I just can't take that kind of willful stupidity. I'd much rather the party reach out to Trump voters and moderates in general, because many of them actually have real problems that arrogant, entitled hipster liberals could never comprehend.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Ossoff wasn't liberal enough is the refrain from the Sanders/Stein morons on my Facebook feed, who don't want to listen to my explanation that an economic liberal would be a terrible fit for Ga-6 and Ossoff would've done much worse if he ran that platform. They stubbornly suggest that he lost, so his moderate platform was obviously the wrong call.

Good God almighty. The Pelosi attacks worked not because it was tying Ossoff to neo-liberal establishment politics, but because it was tying Ossoff to the LEFT - to the ACA and LGBTQ rights.

[Kodos]

Both parties have troubles with extremists thinking they should own the party.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Both parties have troubles with extremists thinking they should own the party.

Yeah, and I generally agree with the policy views of, maybe not extremists, but definitely the left wing of the party. I'm just not arrogant enough to think my beliefs have 50.1% support in all 50 US states and all 435 congressional districts.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Both parties have troubles with extremists thinking they should own the party.

There are times when I'm like: ok, go ahead. And especially in a red district, run someone who is like Bernie Sanders and see them get blasted 70%-30%. Of course then it'd be "The DNC didn't support us enough". As if people with other opinions are duty bound to follow them into the breach.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm pretty much done with what passes for the "progressive" movement these days. I just can't take that kind of willful stupidity. I'd much rather the party reach out to Trump voters and moderates in general, because many of them actually have real problems that arrogant, entitled hipster liberals could never comprehend.

School choice is the issue that did it for me. I've got plenty of issues with the voucher concept (I live in Indiana; we've had it for awhile), but the argument around here is that private schools that discriminate against LGBT students shouldn't be allowed to accept federal dollars, and if they take federal dollars, should be required to serve any student who wants to attend. And they shouldn't be able to send a message that LGBT is sinful. (Which, admittedly, they would. Because where I live, "private school" means "christian school" like 99% of the time.)

But then I'm like...wait, you're not against school choice because it might be poor education policy. You're against it because of some theoretical LGBT kid who might be made to feel bad, so you want to shut down the source of the message. Starve them out economically -- though they've gotten along just fine on their own for years. But somehow, if they get education dollars, what you see is leverage to stop letting people say what they think that you disagree with?

When I was a kid, my parents sent me to a Baptist private school. We weren't Baptists. It was sort of controversial, because my parents had issues with Baptist doctrine. But it was also the best school in the area. My parents figured they could counter the doctrine they disagreed with at home. And I learned that you don't have to agree with someone's dumbass theology to study differential equations or play basketball with them (plus, I had Kevin Bacon on my side).

My parents didn't send me to Baptist school and then start sounding off at school board meetings about the forced inculcation of the Baptist agenda. They didn't try to change the school's philosophy. If it had really bothered them, they wouldn't have sent me there rather than trying to wreck somebody else's good thing until it suited them.

"I want to stop you from having a platform to say things I disagree with" is my biggest beef with modern progressives.

Look, this is not in any way to suggest that I don't sympathize with gay kids trying to learn how to navigate the world. We can be a pretty shitty society in that regard. But if the best solution you've got is shutting other people up and shouting them down -- or shutting them down -- you're not trying to win through a superior moral claim. You're winning through the exercise of force.

You don't get to reach for compulsion and call it a moral victory.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I guess we really have officially declared terrorism as a Muslim only thing.

And as if to confirm, the stabbing of a single police officer in Detroit is being investigated as terrorism. The suspect is a Muslim.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Drake

School choice is the issue that did it for me. I've got plenty of issues with the voucher concept (I live in Indiana; we've had it for awhile), but the argument around here is that private schools that discriminate against LGBT students shouldn't be allowed to accept federal dollars, and if they take federal dollars, should be required to serve any student who wants to attend. And they shouldn't be able to send a message that LGBT is sinful. (Which, admittedly, they would. Because where I live, "private school" means "christian school" like 99% of the time.)

But then I'm like...wait, you're not against school choice because it might be poor education policy. You're against it because of some theoretical LGBT kid who might be made to feel bad, so you want to shut down the source of the message. Starve them out economically -- though they've gotten along just fine on their own for years. But somehow, if they get education dollars, what you see is leverage to stop letting people say what they think that you disagree with?

When I was a kid, my parents sent me to a Baptist private school. We weren't Baptists. It was sort of controversial, because my parents had issues with Baptist doctrine. But it was also the best school in the area. My parents figured they could counter the doctrine they disagreed with at home. And I learned that you don't have to agree with someone's dumbass theology to study differential equations or play basketball with them (plus, I had Kevin Bacon on my side).

My parents didn't send me to Baptist school and then start sounding off at school board meetings about the forced inculcation of the Baptist agenda. They didn't try to change the school's philosophy. If it had really bothered them, they wouldn't have sent me there rather than trying to wreck somebody else's good thing until it suited them.

"I want to stop you from having a platform to say things I disagree with" is my biggest beef with modern progressives.

Look, this is not in any way to suggest that I don't sympathize with gay kids trying to learn how to navigate the world. We can be a pretty shitty society in that regard. But if the best solution you've got is shutting other people up and shouting them down -- or shutting them down -- you're not trying to win through a superior moral claim. You're winning through the exercise of force.

You don't get to reach for compulsion and call it a moral victory.

Isn't federal dollars the key here? I didn't know tax funded vouchers could be used at a private Christian school.

[Drake]

The rhetoric is that federal dollars is the key. The reality is that federal dollars are the excuse.

I live in Indiana. We've had school choice (i.e., vouchers) for awhile now, and you can use them in religious private schools. The county where I work, which is arguably the most liberal county in Indiana, has interested parties working hard to shut down a couple of private schools over vouchers. One vector is the LGBT discrimination argument, the other is a more arcane legal point with a religious school administered by a private religious college in such a way that (theoretically) voucher money for K-12 education is ending up in the college's general fund. (But the undercurrent in that case is that the school is growing like gangbusters and parents are objecting to dollars being pulled out of the public school system via vouchers and going elsewhere. The public schools can't afford to lose either the money or the sorts of involved parents/low maintenance kids who excel academically that the private school is draining away.)

I'll also say that as a foster (now adoptive) parent of high needs kids, I sympathize with the public schools. I really do. My kiddos require a massive investment of resources compared to the average kid. I'm also on good terms with the administrators and know that our local, rural elementary school now has something like 35% of the kids living in foster situations thanks to the meth epidemic. Keeping those kids at grade level is an immense task...which means that "normal" kids get less attention and fewer opportunities. Parents see that. That's why they want to take their voucher money and jump -- to give their kids the best opportunities they can. I sympathize with that, too. We had gifted kids during our first parenting stint (our bio kids), and it was a struggle to keep them challenged sometimes, but that's my obligation as a parent: to do whatever I can, through whatever means are available to me, to maximize my kids' opportunities and advantages. (And if I do that right, maybe they won't put me in the cheapest old folks home they can find one of these days. )

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Drake

The rhetoric is that federal dollars is the key. The reality is that federal dollars are the excuse.

I live in Indiana. We've had school choice (i.e., vouchers) for awhile now, and you can use them in religious private schools. The county where I work, which is arguably the most liberal county in Indiana, has interested parties working hard to shut down a couple of private schools over vouchers. One vector is the LGBT discrimination argument, the other is a more arcane legal point with a religious school administered by a private religious college in such a way that (theoretically) voucher money for K-12 education is ending up in the college's general fund. (But the undercurrent in that case is that the school is growing like gangbusters and parents are objecting to dollars being pulled out of the public school system via vouchers and going elsewhere. The public schools can't afford to lose either the money or the sorts of involved parents/low maintenance kids who excel academically that the private school is draining away.)

I'll also say that as a foster (now adoptive) parent of high needs kids, I sympathize with the public schools. I really do. My kiddos require a massive investment of resources compared to the average kid. I'm also on good terms with the administrators and know that our local, rural elementary school now has something like 35% of the kids living in foster situations thanks to the meth epidemic. Keeping those kids at grade level is an immense task...which means that "normal" kids get less attention and fewer opportunities. Parents see that. That's why they want to take their voucher money and jump -- to give their kids the best opportunities they can. I sympathize with that, too. We had gifted kids during our first parenting stint (our bio kids), and it was a struggle to keep them challenged sometimes, but that's my obligation as a parent: to do whatever I can, through whatever means are available to me, to maximize my kids' opportunities and advantages. (And if I do that right, maybe they won't put me in the cheapest old folks home they can find one of these days. )

Wow, thanks, really didn't think it was possible to use vouchers in religious schools.
I imagine the schools have prayer and could teach creationism, how do they get around that?


(Sorry to the thread jack)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

You're against it because of some theoretical LGBT kid who might be made to feel bad, so you want to shut down the source of the message.

I'd be concerned that real, live LGBT kids would theoretically be excluded from these schools (as might blacks, Muslims, etc) which would be an issue if the private schools become the de-facto "good" schools when enough kids jump from the public school system.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Wow, thanks, really didn't think it was possible to use vouchers in religious schools.
I imagine the schools have prayer and could teach creationism, how do they get around that?


(Sorry to the thread jack)

I'm not sure how the legalities work, honestly. I assume that the schools receive their funds technically from the state, which receives the federal dollars as some sort of block grant...so the money somehow "belongs" to the state in a way that it can distribute them according to its own formulas.

According to this website: https://www.edchoice.org/school-choi...rship-program/

On July 1, 2011, teachers’ union officials and others challenged Indiana’s voucher program in state court, alleging the Indiana Constitution prohibits funding of religious schools. A Marion County Superior Court judge denied a motion for preliminary injunction. The trial court issued a summary judgment January 13, 2012, in favor of the program. After an appeal was issued, the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the program on November 21, 2012. On March 26, 2013, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Choice Scholarship Program does not violate any provision of the state constitution. Meredith v. Pence, Indiana Supreme Court, No. 49S00-1203-PL-172

There are a bunch of eligibility provisions on there that I didn't know, so it doesn't look like any and all kids can leverage vouchers, but they seem to have (temporarily) resolved legal challenges with regards to Indiana's state constitution.

The Indianapolis Star listed these provisions:

Students' families must fall under certain income limits: A family of four, for example, must make less than $68,265 a year to qualify. Students who receive a voucher can remain eligible for the assistance in subsequent school years if their family income modestly improves. The income limit is higher, too, for families of students with special education needs.

Originally, students needed to attend public school for the two semesters prior to receiving a voucher, or they needed to already be attending a private school with a tax-credit scholarship.

Now students can also qualify for vouchers if they have special needs, if they are assigned to an F-rated public school or if they have a sibling in the voucher program. And there's no limit to the number of students who can take vouchers.

Source: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/e...imer/98688344/

So, low income students and students in failing schools are the demographic. According to that first website, that's 54% of Indiana students.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'd be concerned that real, live LGBT kids would theoretically be excluded from these schools (as might blacks, Muslims, etc) which would be an issue if the private schools become the de-facto "good" schools when enough kids jump from the public school system.

When I lived in Mississippi I did some theatre tech work for one of the private schools around Jackson. It was founded in the mid-sixties by a bunch of middle aged white guys. A different private school was on the news in 2001 for its first black graduate.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'd be concerned that real, live LGBT kids would theoretically be excluded from these schools (as might blacks, Muslims, etc) which would be an issue if the private schools become the de-facto "good" schools when enough kids jump from the public school system.

I agree with the sentiment, but don't find the proposed remedy sufficient. If you're the parent of an LGBT kid, is a Christian private school really going to be a good fit? (Should it be? Yes. Is it? Fuck, no. Don't get me started on the evils of Midwestern evangelicalism.)

You know what would be sufficient? If it bugs you that much, compete. Or home school. Or get involved to improve your local school.

In short, why should *my* preferences as a parent coming into a school trump the preferences of the other parents who chose that school and its culture/philosophy because that's what they wanted for their child? And on some level, if I chose to send my kid to a school where I knew the culture of that school would be hostile to my values...I'd have to ask myself why I was doing that. And I suspect my answer would look something like being so morally wrought about perceived injustice that I'm willing to sacrifice my kid on the altar of Being Right.

[RainMaker]

Washington Post got their hands on the secret health care bill in the Senate. Sounds similar to the House version. Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to Medicaid.

Senate Republicans set to release health-care bill, but divisions remain - The Washington Post

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

You know what would be sufficient? If it bugs you that much, compete. Or home school. Or get involved to improve your local school.

So what then, if the leading Christian school is no good go ahead and establish a Muslim or LGBT alternative? Congrats, we've just paid for their wish of segregation.

In short, why should *my* preferences as a parent coming into a school trump the preferences of the other parents who chose that school and its culture/philosophy because that's what they wanted for their child?

And again, ask this in the context of the 1960's South. Why should YOUR preference as a black parent trump those of all those white parents who don't want your kind there?

[RainMaker]

This is kind of funny.

Trump 2016: Down with Goldman power! (Crowd: WOOOO!)
Trump 2017: I gave power to a Goldman guy! (Crowd: WOOOO!)

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 22, 2017

[Drake]

I'd argue it's not a true cognate of the 1960s South because religious speech and religious space is constitutionally protected. I also hear the echoes of "separate but equal" in the argument, but don't think they resonate in the same way, since I'm not talking about it in the context of public education. The context we're in here is a disgruntled segment of the public wanting to exercise authority over private education. I think that makes a difference. We're talking more about clash of values and worldview rather than race.

It's just as easy to flip around, I suppose. What if the best school in my town is a madrassa, and they'll accept any kid who wants to come, but that kid has to convert to Islam. I want my kid to go there. Can I insist that the school has to make an exception in my case? Oh, and I want them to teach Creationism in the fundie evangelical way. And that Jesus is the second member of the Trinity rather than just another prophet.

I mean, I can't type that without thinking, "No. That would be stupid." If I want my kid to go there, I ought to be willing to accept their terms. If you're enrolling your kid in a religious school...well, it's not like they're hiding it from you (though I've seen parents object to schools who have a creedal requirement for admission. I've never understood that objection, but I've also been baffled that the school wouldn't just accept those kids, anyway. I mean, the parent is giving you their kid for 8 hours a day. Most parents don't have time to counteract 8 hours a day of religious indoctrination. You may not have a Bible-thumping fundamentalist by the time they graduate, but you're going to end up with a kid with a distinctly Christian-sympathetic worldview.)

I think it's more akin to a situation in which the factory where I work has a union and yours doesn't. I get involved with my union and we work for a ton of benefits and protections for our employees. I think unions are the bomb and everyone should have one, otherwise they're getting fucked. So I leave my factory and start agitating for a union because it's such a great idea. But you guys don't want a union because...fuck, I don't know. Who doesn't want a union?...okay, the union will bring better negotiating power, but 20% of the employees will be laid off to pay for it. Whatever. You guys don't want it.

Do I get to impose my values on your factory or do the values of the majority in your factory win?

And again, I'm going to reiterate that I have sympathy for the progressive principle here. I want schools to not discriminate against Muslim kids or LGBT kids or Goth kids or kids who see nutritional value in a booger-based diet. But I also want people with no skin in the game to mind their own fucking business instead of trying to exert control over things they don't like.

In my ideal world, if you want to change the established culture of the school your child attends, you should be legally obligated to 1) continue that attendance until your child receives a terminal degree from that school, and 2) serve on the board so you have to deal with all of the other parents who want to change shit up. And if that seems like too much of a hassle, then the differences really aren't that big of a deal to you. What I see out of the progressive movement is the burning desire to drop hand grenades into the room, run away, and make that the extent of their involvement. What I see locally is 800 parents who want to inveigh on social media about how a private school is LGBT unfriendly and that shouldn't be allowed, but they're not going to actually send their kid there, even if it *was* LGBT friendly. They'd have to drive all the way across town for pick up and drop off. They'd have to come up with another three or four grand a year on top of the voucher cash. That cost is waaaay to steep, and I don't want to have to deprogram my kid every night after a day full of Flying Spaghetti Monster mythology. I don't want to actually be part of a solution that takes work...I just want you to do what I want you to do.

That is the shit that I'm arguing against.

[cuervo72]

I'd argue that if the schools are accepting vouchers, they are no longer really private. They're being funded by tax dollars, albeit indirectly. And I'd hope that's the progressive argument there. They can protest any bigotry they want, but if the school's doing it completely on their own dime, oh well. I agree with you there. (And I also agree that there's a difference between race and religion in this argument, but I'm still not convinced that many aren't behind vouchers because of race-based reasons.)

To go up a level, would you be ok with state funds being directed from IU to Indiana Wesleyan? Or to South Bend?

[AENeuman]

Yeah, the tax dollars is what confuses me. I mean, do what you want, but to also say I want to take local and federal taxes to discriminate, seems massively unconstitutional. Wouldn't a discriminating religious school that uses tax money the definition of an established religion?

In other words, as a tax payer, can't I reasonably expect that my money does not go to a religious school?

[molson]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Yeah, the tax dollars is what confuses me. I mean, do what you want, but to also say I want to take local and federal taxes to discriminate, seems massively unconstitutional. Wouldn't a discriminating religious school that uses tax money the definition of an established religion?

In other words, as a tax payer, can't I reasonably expect that my money does not go to a religious school?

It was a divided decision, but:

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - Wikipedia

[Drake]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

To go up a level, would you be ok with state funds being directed from IU to Indiana Wesleyan? Or to South Bend?

I'd have to check, but I think state funds already to go Indiana Weslyan and South Bend. And lots of those kids get Pell Grants, which they apply to their tuition and fees (which is probably Pence's best cognate for the voucher program). Or use GI Bill money.

Understand that I'm giving less attention to the constitutional question because, as I linked above, in Indiana, it appears that the constitutional question (at least with regards to the state constitution) has been settled.

I'm not endorsing that settlement, by the way, just living with the fact that it has been settled.

It's likely that as DeVos proceeds with implementing school choice nationwide, we'll get a higher legal opinion on it, but for my state as it stands now, this is the policy and the reality.

ETA: Or I could have just followed molson's link first and saved all of that typing.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't want to actually be part of a solution that takes work...I just want you to do what I want you to do.

Welcome to America 2017. There is no compromise. There is only shouting. And "I just want you to do what I want you to do."

[JPhillips]

I teach at a Catholic school, so I know a little about how these types of colleges work. We do get federal and state money while still being allowed to present a religious message, but there are clear lines that we can't go beyond and still receive the funding. For example, prayers at events are fine, but a no LGBT student rule would not be acceptable.

We mostly deal with federal law, so I'm not sure how primary and secondary ed would work as that's mostly under state law.

[AENeuman]

Thank you.

In Indiana it seems to come down to: The program must be neutral with respect to religion. AND There must be adequate nonreligious option.

It then seems denying admittance based on personal beliefs or sexual identity would be a violation. (And something a tax payer would every right to hold them accountable)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Thank you.

In Indiana it seems to come down to: The program must be neutral with respect to religion. AND There must be adequate nonreligious option.

It then seems denying admittance based on personal beliefs or sexual identity would be a violation. (And something a tax payer would every right to hold them accountable)

A lot of voucher systems that pass scrutiny do tend to put those requirements on their programs.

[larrymcg421]

Key point in the Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris case is that the participating schools, even if they were religious, could not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background.

[HerRealName]

Segregationists used religion to support their bigoted beliefs as well. The most common argument was some curse placed on all dark skinned people. Bizarrely, it was all due to a son of Noah failing to avert his eyes from a drunken, naked Noah in a timely manner.

[Drake]

Here's an article about the actual school at issue that started this whole discussion:

Indiana Christian school says it can deny admission to LGBT students - Chicago Tribune

The missing element in a real story from a real newspaper is the stuff that leaks onto my FB feed, which is what I consider to be a bridge too far. In essence, I agree that if you want to take federal dollars, you should have to follow discrimination policies and laws attached to those dollars.

What I disagree with is the idea that you get to shift the curriculum or the core values as a result of that inclusion. So, yes, if you take the federal money (legally...and even if you don't, morally), you are obligated not to discriminate in admissions based on the standard set of factors. But you can't be further obligated to make statements or remain silent on religious questions that those students might find discomfiting or hostile to their worldview.

That is, you can't convert access into leverage to coerce the school into gay friendliness. You can't make them stop teaching Creationism just because the "science" is bullshit. Or whatever other religious thing you might have an issue with. (Literally went to a private school where the parents requested that their kid be exempt from Friday chapel. Why the fuck would you send your kid to a private religious school if don't want them religiously indoctrinated? Anyway, wasn't an issue because the kid was dismissed before the next Friday.)

But that's what I see on my FB feed. It's not just the question of federal dollars, but how the school can be forced/infiltrated/whatever to come more into line with community standards, even if they decide to stop taking federal dollars. My argument is that if you want your kid to go there, what you're saying you *want* is the product that the school is selling. If you want a different product, pick a different school. A private school isn't public. It's not an arena that has to weigh all ideas equally.

I mean, it might not be good economics in the long term to ignore the culture and its values...but that's really their experiment to conduct. Once upon a time, waiting for people with bad ideas to fail so you could mock them seemed to be how we handled this sort of shit. Now we're all about actively shutting them down. Maybe because we'd rather teach people a lesson than let them learn a lesson...and that's why the progressives are failing.

(Edit: Because I used "discomforting" when I meant "discomfiting". Ye Gods, the shame.)