It's Walz
-
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
@Doctor-Phibes said in It's Walz:
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
In 2019 the state ranked 10th in the nation in public education. Today it's ranked 15th. That's called a trend https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state
Do you really want to use public school rankings as a basis for determining which party is doing a better job with education?
I mean, it seems like an obvious thing to do, but still....
Why limit it to public schools? Why not include private and homeschooling?
You're the one who brought up the state rankings for public schools, not me, and surely the point of the discussion is to make a direct comparison between similarly managed schools with different political affiliations. Comparing public schools in Massachusetts with private schools in Oklahoma wouldn't make much sense, since you're then comparing apples with rocky mountain oysters. You need one variable, which in this case is political party.
@Doctor-Phibes said in It's Walz:
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
@Doctor-Phibes said in It's Walz:
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
In 2019 the state ranked 10th in the nation in public education. Today it's ranked 15th. That's called a trend https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state
Do you really want to use public school rankings as a basis for determining which party is doing a better job with education?
I mean, it seems like an obvious thing to do, but still....
Why limit it to public schools? Why not include private and homeschooling?
You're the one who brought up the state rankings for public schools, not me, and surely the point of the discussion is to make a direct comparison between similarly managed schools with different political affiliations. Comparing public schools in Massachusetts with private schools in Oklahoma wouldn't make much sense, since you're then comparing apples with rocky mountain oysters. You need one variable, which in this case is political party.
My point is not about the actual rankings, but the slippage during his term. If they were 48 when he took office and were 44 when he left, he’s doing better than going from 12-15. It’s about the direction, not the actual ranking.
The Brad
-
But let’s start with public schools…
Oh look, Florida’s 1, Utah’s 2. I think those are safely on the Republican/Conservative Side. Mass and NJ are 3 & 4, solid blue. Colorado and Wisconsin are 5 & 6. They are purplish. I’ll give you Colorado and take Wisconsin. Wyoming (R) is 7 and Connecticut (B) is 8. NH and VA are 9 & 10. Purplish…
So red gets the Gold and Silver, blue gets the Bronze and Runner Up. The rest is a mishmash.
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
But let’s start with public schools…
Oh look, Florida’s 1, Utah’s 2. I think those are safely on the Republican/Conservative Side. Mass and NJ are 3 & 4, solid blue. Colorado and Wisconsin are 5 & 6. They are purplish. I’ll give you Colorado and take Wisconsin. Wyoming (R) is 7 and Connecticut (B) is 8. NH and VA are 9 & 10. Purplish…
So red gets the Gold and Silver, blue gets the Bronze and Runner Up. The rest is a mishmash.
I think there may be some controversy regarding those numbers. If you look at the original map you posted, Florida didn't score nearly so well.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in It's Walz:
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
@Doctor-Phibes said in It's Walz:
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
In 2019 the state ranked 10th in the nation in public education. Today it's ranked 15th. That's called a trend https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state
Do you really want to use public school rankings as a basis for determining which party is doing a better job with education?
I mean, it seems like an obvious thing to do, but still....
Why limit it to public schools? Why not include private and homeschooling?
You're the one who brought up the state rankings for public schools, not me, and surely the point of the discussion is to make a direct comparison between similarly managed schools with different political affiliations. Comparing public schools in Massachusetts with private schools in Oklahoma wouldn't make much sense, since you're then comparing apples with rocky mountain oysters. You need one variable, which in this case is political party.
My point is not about the actual rankings, but the slippage during his term. If they were 48 when he took office and were 44 when he left, he’s doing better than going from 12-15. It’s about the direction, not the actual ranking.
@LuFins-Dad said in It's Walz:
My point is not about the actual rankings, but the slippage during his term. If they were 48 when he took office and were 44 when he left, he’s doing better than going from 12-15. It’s about the direction, not the actual ranking.
I know, it's election year. We're all looking for data to support our beliefs.
Still, I'd rather send my kids to school in bluest of the blue Massachusetts, and what's more I put my money where my mouth is. We didn't move into considerably more affordable (although admittedly equally Democrat dominated) Rhode Island until after they both graduated from High School.
All this being said, I don't actually think it's got much to do with politics if I'm honest. It's mostly about affluence.
-
My high school was number 1 in the state, so all the others were losers.
It was the first Nixon administration, he defeated Hubert Humphrey.
My high school was number 1 in the state, so all the others were losers.
It was the first Nixon administration, he defeated Hubert Humphrey.
...and that State was the only one to vote against him in the next election, which could be used to suggest that a good education does add some value.
-
"I'm proud of that work because, look, I was the football coach," he said.
No, Gov Walz. You were not THE coach. You were AN assistant coach.
"I'm proud of that work because, look, I was the football coach," he said.
No, Gov Walz. You were not THE coach. You were AN assistant coach.
Maybe she picked him because he reminds her of Joe.
-
Update on the lies that Tim Walz has told:
- Being an Afghan veteran
- Being a command sgt major
- Conceiving his children through IVF
- Knowing his unit was being deployed
- Carrying weapons into war
- Being a head football coach
- Lying about being deaf to get out of a DUI
-
I'm just picking one and looking into it, where did Walz say he was a head football coach? He was a coach of a football team. Does this mean the rest of your list is made up? BTW don't forget Trump had over 30,000 documented lies between 2017-2021. That's a lot of bullet points.
-
I can imagine saying IVF is personal to you because you had fertility challenges so you relate to others that do too. Did he ever claim his kids were the result of IVF?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I can imagine saying IVF is personal to you because you had fertility challenges so you relate to others that do too. Did he ever claim his kids were the result of IVF?
Did he ever claim his kids were the result of IVF?
No, but he and his wife did undergo fertility treatments and he brought it up in the context of IVF. It's sorta like saying you carried a weapon of war (when you didn't go to war). The words aren't there, but the implication is. That's the definition of weasely.
And the DNC still introduced him as Command Sgt Major the other day.
