The Official US President Election Thread

[Insidious Rex]

Well that all depends on what your definition of "priority" is.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well that all depends on what your definition of "priority" is.

Whatever makes you look good politically?

Quote 1, from when they were sure they could find him. Quote 2, from when they realized they would probably never find him, and were regretting training him in the CIA [or whatever that whole thing was].

[Renille]

Help me, a poor, misguided, nearly eighteen year old.

I will turn 18 four days before the election. That's great, in that I can actually vote this time around. I've been keeping track of the candidates...it's kind of hard not to, as I'm in AP Government at the moment...but I still can't decide who to vote for! NOO!
My parents are strong,strong Republicans. Pro-Bush all the way. But the trouble is, I'm 17 and I don't always listen to my parents anymore...hm.

All right, here goes. I am pro-life, but very anti-death penalty. I'm a pacifist, and so of course oppose guns. I hate the No Child Left Behind Act with my entire being. I DON'T believe in the war in Iraq, and I'd probably be a draft dodger if there was ever a draft.
Okay, so maybe I'd be too chicken to actually dodge. Plus I'm a girl.
So basically, I don't believe in anything Bush or Kerry says. Maybe I'd believe in what Kerry believed in, if he actually kept to one set of beliefs.
I think I might vote Green Party...but then I'd feel like I was wasting a vote.
I do want to be better informed, and come Nov. 2, I want to KNOW what I want as I fill out my first ballot. That's really important to me.
I don't really know what I'm asking for in this post. I just wanted to get my ideas out there so I could sort them out in one place at a time. That, and I wanted everyone to share in the confusion that is my brain.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Renille

Help me, a poor, misguided, nearly eighteen year old.

Well, most undecideds use the impulse shopper's method. Simply wait until you get to the voting booth and pick the one that feels good that day.

Or spend hours researching positions, statements, voting records, sincerity of campaign lies, etc. and make an informed choice.

Really, unless you are in a "swing" state the presidential vote is almost meaningless. Learn more about local initiatives, county politics, state candidates. The closer to home the most impact they have., sometimes. At least it feels a bit more like real voting than the Suvivor-like video sound bite contest that is the presidential election.

My best advice... vote for Kerry and give the other dumbass a turn.

[The Gaffer]

It's difficult when you don't have one candidate who reflects your position on all the important issues. I'm morally opposed to the war, so I can't stomach the thought of voting for Bliar. Yet his Labour party are making real progress on domestic issues (reduction in poverty, increased investment in health and social services, sound economy, etc). It would be a disaster if the Tories (opposition) got in. If we had a general election tomorrow, I have no idea who I'd vote for.

I guess you have to weigh up what matters to you most and see how the respective candidates line up.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well that all depends on what your definition of "priority" is.

Let's not forget what the definition of "is" is

[Nurvingiel]

General voting - if you're faced with a good party with a leader you don't like, think, why dont I like this guy, and does the goodness of the party outweigh these faults? Then include what you think of the other part(y)ies in the equation and voila! Your vote.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Renille

I hate the No Child Left Behind Act with my entire being.

What about it?

I DON'T believe in the war in Iraq

Could I again ask what your reasons are:

Just neccessary? No actuall WMDs? Now is worse than under Hussein? Something completely different?


Merely curious

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Renille

I hate the No Child Left Behind Act with my entire being.

What is it? It sounds like a good idea.

Which candidate's idea was it, Bush or Kerry?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What is it? It sounds like a good idea.

Which candidate's idea was it, Bush or Kerry?

It was Bush's. and it's not an idea it's actually an act that Congress passed and Bush spearheaded. I'd like to know why people hate it so much. Mostly what I hear is whining from the teachers union because it makes teachers afraid because it finally makes them and schools accountable.

Here is information on "No Child Left Behind" from the standpoint of NJ.

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting. What exactly does it do? Protects children in some way maybe? I can see how such a thing would be important in an election.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Interesting. What exactly does it do? Protects children in some way maybe? I can see how such a thing would be important in an election.

Here is a summary thing off of the NJ page...

No Child Left Behind in New Jersey

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was signed into law on January 8, 2002, by President Bush. The Act represents the President’s education reform plan and contains the most sweeping changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. NCLB changes the federal government’s role in K-12 education by focusing on school success as measured by student achievement. The Act also contains the President’s four basic education reform principles: stronger accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work.

....

New Jersey is currently in Phase 4 which is to continue implementation of NCLB activities toward ensuring 100% proficiency of all students by 2014. During this phase, states are able to assess policies and procedures and make mid-course corrections to ensure the primary goals and objectives are achieved. On April 2004, changes were made to the NCLB Consolidated Application Accountability Workbook summary.

[Renille]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

What about it?

Just neccessary? No actuall WMDs? Now is worse than under Hussein? Something completely different?


Merely curious

Okay...what I hate about the act is the fact that it assumes learning can be sufficiently measured by tests. Since the act, I have noticed a dramatic difference in my own high school. Instead of focusing on AP classes (which now have 36 or more students in them,) the school has embraced the average or less than average. We now have a grade 8.5 so that people who failed 8th grade can come to high school a year early. That, and they can start feeding them test practices from that much earlier. It's all about the money that can be gained from the good scores. When I was a sophomore, they had a pep assembly before the WKCE (Wisconsin standardized test.) Last year, they gave out $50 to the student who was most excited about the test. They're feeding us propaganda to get government money. This is a
selfish reason, I know. I'm sure this has worked for other schools. But I can't accept the fact that schools should be based on trying to meet the standards. They should be about education.I probably used no valid logic there. Sorry...in a hurry.
As for Iraq? Combo of no actual WMDs, it's stretching out to ridiculously long periods of time, draft whispers...that, and I don't believe in wars in general. But that's just me!

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks guys, it's great to hear both sides! (Renille, of course your opinion isn't illogical. You are experience an effect of the act - even if it was indirect it still counts.)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Renille

Okay...what I hate about the act is the fact that it assumes learning can be sufficiently measured by tests. Since the act, I have noticed a dramatic difference in my own high school. Instead of focusing on AP classes (which now have 36 or more students in them,) the school has embraced the average or less than average. We now have a grade 8.5 so that people who failed 8th grade can come to high school a year early. That, and they can start feeding them test practices from that much earlier. It's all about the money that can be gained from the good scores. When I was a sophomore, they had a pep assembly before the WKCE (Wisconsin standardized test.) Last year, they gave out $50 to the student who was most excited about the test. They're feeding us propaganda to get government money. This is a selfish reason, I know. I'm sure this has worked for other schools. But I can't accept the fact that schools should be based on trying to meet the standards. They should be about education.I probably used no valid logic there. Sorry...in a hurry.

Well that is a problem with your local school system. That has nothign to do with the act itself. School systems are locally controlled. You should be pissed at your local government and the way they are managing the NO Child left Behind Act.

As for Iraq? Combo of no actual WMDs, it's stretching out to ridiculously long periods of time, draft whispers...that, and I don't believe in wars in general. But that's just me!

WMD was only one part of Iraq. Ridiculously long time???? Hmm - yeah - a year and a half. Is it hard? - yeah. Is it harder than was thought? - yeah. Were there possible problems? - yeah. Did the worse case scenarios occur? - NO. Do you really think, we can just rebuild a country in a year? It's going to take time and it's going to take sacrifices.

As for not believing in wars - you may not believe in them - but the terrorist do. Some things take war to solve, some things take diplomacy - many things take both though. The war on terrorism will take both - as has been the case. As an example - we have Pakistan as an ally, Libya has abandoned it's WMD programs. Whether France supports Iraq or not is not the issue - France has hardly supported anything the US has ever done (except from liberating them during WWII and even then 1/3 sided with the Germans and 1/3 didn't even care). Allies change and the important thing is do we have the allies that make a difference. In some ways an ally such as Pakistan is far more important than an ally like France (although the money of France would come in handy in terms of Iraq).

This is a world war, I said that many times in the past. People can accept that or not. Iraq in my opinion, and it has been for a long time, is only one piece of that war. Look at where Al Qaeda or associates have perpitrated terrorist attacks - Africa, US, Europe, Asia, the Middle East. Aside from South America - that pretty much defines the world. This war started way before 9/11, way before Iraq. Afganistan was only the beginning of when WE decided to take action.

Getting bin Ladin will hardly have any affect on overall terrorism if the conditions in the Middle East don't change. France, who was against the war, have two journalists being held hostage in Iraq. The terrorists are demanding that France abolish their headscarf ban (note I was and am against the headscarf ban, but france is a democraticly elected government and has a right to determine their own internal affairs). If France is threatened by the terrorists in this way - do you really think that anything the US does would have an overwhelming affect. In bin Ladin's speeches - he often mentions how the US has turned tail, Somalia, Lebanon, etc. Now people are saying we should turn tail now. That just plays right into bin Ladin's and the other terrorist's hands and reinforces the perception that if you kill a few Americans - they'll get what they want.

People can say that the war in Iraq is causing more terrorism - but that isn't necessarily the case. Whenever a country fights back - the other side usually escalates. We fought back after 9/11 - which bin Ladin had stated we wouldn't do, now they have to escalate the violence to try making us back down. It is the terrorists goal to take control of Iraq and that is one thing the US can NOT allow to happen. The 9/11 commission states that during the communication between Al Qaeda and Hussein - the only reason why bin Ladin did not go to Iraq was because he had safe haven in Afganistan. We took away that safe haven. So how long do you think it would have taken for bin Ladin to set up in Iraq? Again according to statments in the 9/11 commision - it most likely would not have been long, because contact was attempted during the US build-up to the Iraq Invasion.

Only history will be able to judge if we were right or not. 20/20 hindsight shows that we should have taken out Hitler long before he built up, killed millions of Jews, invaded Poland and set his sights on the rest of Europe. But we didn't. Maybe history will show we should have waited, but my bet is that history will show that we had to take the actions we have taken - even if not everything has gone perfectly right. No war is perfect, but we have a habit when we win to look at them in terms of perfection, when we lose they are called "quagmires". I'm sure during the bombing of Britain, many britons believed that the end was near and all was lost, but they and we persevered. We overcame TWO enemies.

[Mercutio]

I have an article I wrote for our school paper about one of our recent (01) high school graduates who was in a Civil Affairs specialist in the Army Reserves in Iraq & Kuwait. I'll post it once it's finalized. He had some real interesting points, experiences, and thoughts about the current situation.

[Renille]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well that is a problem with your local school system. That has nothign to do with the act itself. School systems are locally controlled. You should be pissed at your local government and the way they are managing the NO Child left Behind Act.
.

Oh, I am...trust me. I guess I just didn't word this correctly. It isn't so much the effects and practice of the Act...it's the philosophy behind it. I don't know. I'm not making any sense now, and I think I'll just shut up before I get even more stupid. I just hate when the government tries but fails in knowing what is good for the individual or community. I know it isn't the government's fault...how could they know, after all? But this doesn't seem to be the answer, at least not to me. But I could be wrong. If Bush is right, and if by the chosen year, he is well on the way to having 100% of the youth of even one state learning successfully, I will definitely eat crow and go with the act. Until then, I'm a skeptic. It's personal experience speaking...I know that's not always accurate. But it's all I have to go on at the moment.
But the Iraq situation...I realize I was exagerrating with the ridiculously long amount of time. I actually do agree with the rest of your post which I am too lazy to quote right now. Historic hindsight and repeating patterns have always interested me...maybe this will turn out to be successful. Again, for now, I suppose we'll all just have to sit back and wait to see what happens.
Ah I'm so bad at this. Ignore me, this is why I usually stay out of politics...

[The Gaffer]

I know nothing about "No Child Left Behind", although I do wonder why acts of government have to be named by marketing people.

Here in the UK, we're about ten years into a "test-driven" reform programme for schools. The government uses additional funding to reward schools that do well in the tests. Schools that don't do well get a yellow card and, if they don't improve, get taken over by a government-appointed management team.

The programme has been successful, in that it has resulted in improved test performances. The question is whether these tests actually measure something meaningful. From my own experience:
- lots of people with good English A-levels (those are the benchmark "Graduation" type exams) can't spell (and it costs me money to correct them).
- schools are teaching pupils how to pass the tests, not educating them
- my own son getting exam stress at the age of SIX

Interestingly, the UK is now reducing the emphasis on testing, and allowing schools to opt out of certain aspects of the regime.

So, I think it's a complex picture. The "test and target" culture can certainly work, but it means that teachers are not teaching what they think is best, but what the government thinks is best. It has been successful in highlighting some failing schools, and it's also shown where people need to improve.

However, the biggest impact on education here has been because it's been backed up with better funding, particularly in recruiting more teachers and paying them better. Teachers now get paid more than university lecturers.

You might be able to improve standards by changing the way teachers teach, but at the end of the day, if you don't give them the resources they need, they won't be able to do their job properly.

[jerseydevil]

Like most things, education is a state issue and even more a local issue (school district). NJ takes over schools that are failing. We disband the board and the state puts in people that turn the school around. A famous movie was made about this in one of New Jersey's school - Eastside High in Paterson NJ. The movie was called - "Stand by Me". The movie revolved around the fight to PREVENT the state from taking over the school. They succeeded in improving their school in many ways, including the test scores.

The federal government basically has very limited responsibility for schools in the US. The federal government does not directly fund anything. Money that the federal government gives in support of things, goes to the states and the states determine how to use it. The "No Child Left Behind" act was to set national standards that schools must meet. Educational requirements in a school system in Indiana is VERY different thant the school system in New Jersey.

It has upset me for a while that students in the US are just categorized as under the US banner when comparing them in international statistics - because there is NO national education system here. It would be like just grouping all of Europe together and comparing them. I have felt that the states should each be compared seperately in international stats, since states are the ones that determine the education system. The states that put less emphasis on education drag down the states, such as NJ, which put a huge importance on education.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, the biggest impact on education here has been because it's been backed up with better funding, particularly in recruiting more teachers and paying them better. Teachers now get paid more than university lecturers.

You might be able to improve standards by changing the way teachers teach, but at the end of the day, if you don't give them the resources they need, they won't be able to do their job properly.

exactly, many americans fail to realize how important preschool and grammer school are to developing minds... arguably more important than higher education... it seems strange that in a capitalist economy such as our own that so few seem to realize that you get what you pay for