Cruz drops out of the race, handing the nomination to Trump, and thus handing the presidency to Clinton! Good day!

Trumps wins again.

Bernie Sanders wins but it doesn't matter, obama, The DNC, Wall Street and the democratic party elites long ago decided Hillary Clinton will be their nominee... depending of course on the outcome of the two FBI criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s Tall Tabloid Tale

By Robert Farley
Posted on May 3, 2016

Trump used a thinly sourced story from the tabloid National Enquirer to make the baseless claim that Ted Cruz’s father “was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being — you know, shot.”

The National Enquirer story hangs largely on comments from a photo expert who said a photo of an unidentified man handing out pro-Fidel Castro leaflets with Oswald has “more similarity than dissimilarity” with a passport photo of Cruz’s father, Rafael.

But that same expert told us in a phone interview that he never claimed the man in the picture with Oswald was definitely Rafael Cruz, only that comparing the man in the photo with a photo of Cruz as a young man revealed “more similarities than dissimilarities.” In fact, he called Trump’s definitive proclamation “stupid.”

The National Enquirer story ran last month under the salacious, front-page headline “Ted Cruz Father Linked to JFK Assassination!” It included a picture of Oswald distributing pro-Castro literature in New Orleans in August 1963, a few months prior to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas. According to the Miami Herald, another man in the picture was never identified by the Warren Commission, whose investigation concluded Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald and that Oswald acted alone.

The tabloid story got legs on May 3 when Trump referenced it in an interview on “Fox and Friends.”

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being, you know, shot!” Trump said. “I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What – what is this right, prior to his being shot. And nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don’t even talk about that, that was reported and nobody talks about it. But I think it’s horrible, I think it’s absolutely horrible, that a man can go and do that, what he’s saying there.”

Trump later added, “I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death – before the shooting? It’s horrible.”

The Enquirer cited two photo experts to make the connection that the unidentified man ​”caught on camera in New Orleans — alongside Lee Harvey Oswald” — was Rafael Cruz.

Central to the story was the analysis of Mitch Goldstone, president and CEO of ScanMyPhotos, a California-based digitizing photo service. He is quoted as saying, “There’s more similarity than dissimilarity. … it looks to be the same person and I can say as much with a high degree of confidence.

Read that carefully. He’s not saying with a high degree of certainty that it’s Rafael Cruz. He’s saying with a high degree of certainty that it “looks to be the same person.” There’s a difference.

We reached out to Goldstone, and he told us by phone, “I stand behind those comments 100 percent.” But he explained that he did not employ facial recognition technology to reach his conclusions, because the photographs are too grainy. Rather, he said, he utilized a tool called FotoForensics to authenticate that the photos had not been digitally altered.

Then he compared, by eye, the photo of the unidentified man in the picture with Oswald with a passport photo of a young Rafael Cruz. Based on features like facial structure and skin texture, he concluded — using a phrase that he repeated numerous times — that there were “more similarities than dissimilarities” in the appearance of the two men.

“They look pretty close,” Goldstone said.

“I never said categorically that it is him,” Goldstone told us. “I said it looks to be more similar than dissimilar.”

Goldstone said that contrary to at least one report he saw, he was not paid by the National Enquirer for his opinion.

“I think anyone who would look at that would come to the same conclusion,” he said.

Goldstone is calling on the Cruz campaign to release all of the photos they have of Rafael Cruz from that period, because “it’d be really helpful” in reaching a conclusive determination.

The National Enquirer story also quotes Carole Lieberman, a University of California at Los Angeles forensic psychiatrist and expert witness based in Beverly Hills, California. She also compared the photos and told the Enquirer that “they seem to match.” We reached out to Lieberman as well, but did not hear back from her.

Regardless, Anil Jain, a computer scientist and expert on facial recognition and biometric identification at Michigan State University, told us not to put much stock in those assessments.

The images are of a poor quality, black and white. and grainy, he said. “It would be very difficult, even for a photo expert, to extract facial attributes,” he said. Any conclusion about similarities is subjective, he said.

As for the features of the people in the pictures being “more similar than dissimilar,” Jain said, “compared to what?” To do such a comparison, you’d need to compare the image with hundreds of others to determine if they are more similar or dissimilar.

“It doesn’t mean anything,” Jain said of Goldstone’s conclusion. “Anyone can make that statement.”

In fact, he said, Rafael Cruz’s flared out ears don’t seem to match those of the unidentified man in the Oswald photo. “There is no scientific basis to say the unidentified person in the Lee Harvey Oswald photo has any similarities with the Rafael Cruz picture. There is no way you can reliably extract any facial characteristics,” Jain said.

And, we would note, even if it were Rafael Cruz in the picture with Oswald, there is no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination, despite a headline that claimed “Ted Cruz Father Linked to JFK Assassination!”

The Cruz campaign has vigorously denied that the unidentified man in the photo with Oswald is Rafael Cruz. Cruz called Trump’s claim “kooky.”

“This is another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage,” Communications Director Alice Stewart told McClatchy. “The story is false; that is not Rafael in the picture.” The Miami Herald reported that while the elder Cruz was once a supporter of Fidel Castro, he turned away from the Cuban leader when Castro declared in 1961 that he was a Marxist.

The Herald’s April 22 story also noted a McClatchy report that quoted Gus Russo, an author and journalist who has written extensively about the JFK assassination and Oswald, as saying the Enquirer report is dubious. Russo told McClatchy in an interview that Oswald, “who was living in New Orleans in 1963, was not connected to the Cuban community there and would not have had a Cuban supporter helping him,” the Herald said.

The Trump campaign did not respond to our inquiries for backup for Trump’s claim.

This is not the first time the Enquirer has injected itself into the presidential campaign. A March Enquirer piece alleged multiple extramarital affairs for Cruz — an accusation that his campaign vehemently denied. Trump also landed a rare endorsement from the publication in March of this year, and has written several op-eds for the magazine. In addition to Cruz, the Enquirer has attacked many of Trump’s other campaign rivals, including Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Hillary Clinton.

David Pecker, the CEO of the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., has been said to have a close personal relationship with Trump. New York Magazine called them “friends for years,” and the New York Daily News reported that they are “very close.” Trump has voiced support for Pecker in the past, endorsing him to take over Time magazine in 2013. It is worth noting that the Enquirer has also run several less-than-flattering stories on Trump in the past, especially in the 1990s before Pecker came on as CEO.

David Pecker , the CEO of the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc

Rather unfortunate surname.

Is that supposed to be flattering?

__________________________________________________________________________

Patriotic.
Something that the liberals find repulsive.

It fails miserably.

At the starting gate: Clinton leads Trump by double-digits

(CNN) As Donald Trump captures the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee, a new poll finds he begins his general election campaign well behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

The new CNN/ORC Poll, completed ahead of Trump's victory last night, found Clinton leads 54% to 41%, a 13-point edge over the New York businessman, her largest lead since last July.

Clinton is also more trusted than Trump on many issues voters rank as critically important, with one big exception. By a 50% to 45% margin, voters say Trump would do a better job handling the economy than Clinton would.

Almost 9 out of 10 voters in the poll called the economy extremely or very important to their vote for president, outranking any other issue tested in the poll.

Clinton has the edge on a range of other issues. She is more trusted than Trump on terrorism (50% Clinton to 45% Trump), immigration (51% to 44%), health care (55% to 39%), the income gap (54% to 37%), foreign policy (61% to 36%), education (61% to 34%) and climate change (63% to 30%).

Overall, voters are evenly split on their opinion of Clinton -- 49% see her favorably and the same share unfavorably. But a decidedly larger group (56%) see Trump unfavorably than see him favorably (41%).

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-general-election/index.html

Is that supposed to be flattering?

__________________________________________________________________________

Patriotic.
Something that the liberals find repulsive.

It fails miserably.

How could you possibly say that? It has:

Cash flying around
An Eagle with a machine gun
It says Big Gulp
It has a thumbs up
The Donald is wearing a WWE Belt
The treads of the tank are GOLD

I don't think I've ever seen anything more American than this, but if you want to try to find something, you should check out the artists entire catalog. Impressive stuff...

https://www.etsy.com/shop/sharpwriter

[Edited on 5/4/2016 by Brendan]

Oscar De La Hoya details how Donald Trump cheats on the golf course
He's not the first to call Trump a cheater on the links
By Cameron DaSilva
May 4, 2016 at 3:59p ET

Donald Trump owns golf courses around the world, from Florida to Dubai. He's never been shy about discussing his golf game. He claims to have won several club championships in his lifetime, boasting a 3.0 handicap index.

But how much of his bragging is true? According to boxer Oscar De La Hoya, not much. That's because Trump is supposedly a cheater on the golf course, which Samuel L. Jackson said back in January, as did Alice Cooper in 2012.

"Yes, I caught him," De La Hoya told the Los Angeles Times. "It was unbelievable. But I guess it was his course, so it was his rules."

Here's how Trump cheated, according to De La Hoya:

"First ball, Trump hits off to the water, gets another ball from his pocket," he said. "Hits it off to the left, out of bounds. Trump said, 'Oh, I got another one, just warming up.'

"Another one to the water. Then the fourth ball he hits I know it went to the bushes. But Donald, what he does, he tees off first so he can take off right away. I pipe mine down the middle. So we go off to our ball, and who do we see? Donald Trump, right in the middle of the fairway."

At that point, De La Hoya quoted Trump as saying, "By the way, I found my first ball, it's right here."

Obviously, it got there somehow after hitting four balls wayward. But that wasn't the last time Trump pulled a fast one on the group.

"Then we go on to a par-3. There's a big bush right between the tee and the green, so you can't really see the green -- you can see the flag, not the green," De La Hoya said. "Trump hits and we just know it went out of bounds. We know it. He takes off. We get up there and he's like, 'Oh, my ball's right here!' Three feet away. 'And by the way, I'm going to pick it up, it's a gimme.' "

Trump isn't the first golfer to use a couple breakfast balls on the first tee. In fact, he's not even the first golfer to drop a ball from his pocket after losing his first one. But this story told by De La Hoya is fantastic, particularly when Trump finds his ball three feet from the pin.

Maybe next time he'll be a bit more subtle when shaving strokes from his score.

http://www.foxsports.com/golf/story/golf-donald-trump-oscar-de-la-hoya-cheater-course-story-050416

Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.

Whether he is deliberately making stuff up and lying or he just doesn't know what he is talking about, there is no debate that the presumptive GOP nominee is flat out wrong on many things...why does he always get a free pass from his "followers" when it comes to blatantly misstating/misrepresenting easily verifiable factual information? Do they not think being truthful and knowing what is real and what isn't on these topics are important qualities for their nominee, or are they so taken with his shallow rhetoric that nothing else matters?

Trump’s Education Exaggeration
By Eugene Kiely
Posted on May 4, 2016

Donald Trump claimed in an Indiana speech that the U.S. ranks “last in education” and “first in terms of spending per pupil” among 30 countries. He’s wrong on both counts, as measured by federal and international organizations.

The National Center for Education Statistics referred us to three sets of data that measure the performance of U.S. students with their international counterparts in math, science and reading. The U.S. does not finish last in any of the assessments.

As for spending, the U.S. ranked fourth among 33 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in 2012 behind Switzerland, Norway and Austria in spending per pupil on primary and secondary education. Another way of measuring education spending is as a percentage of GDP, which “allows a comparison of countries’ expenditures relative to their ability to finance education,” as the NCES says in its most recent “Education Expenditures by Country” report. Measured as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. ranked 18th in spending on primary and secondary education in 2012, tied with Canada and Chile, according to OECD data.

U.S. Not ‘Last in Education’
In his speech in South Bend, Indiana, on the eve of that state’s primary, Trump discussed a host of areas in which he claimed “the country is doing terribly.” In several instances, he repeated false statements on subjects such as trade and unemployment, which we will address later. The education claims, however, were new to us.

Trump, May 2: Now, if you look at education. Thirty countries. We’re last. We’re like 30th. We’re last. So we’re last in education. If you look at cost per pupil we’re first. So we — and by the way, there is no second because we spent so much more per pupil that they don’t even talk about No. 2. It’s ridiculous.

Trump did not cite a source for his claim, and his campaign did not respond to our request for one. However, we went to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the U.S. Department of Education, which is the primary source for education data in the U.S. We were told that there are three international assessments that measure U.S. student performance compared to those in other countries.

The first is the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which the NCES conducts in coordination with the OECD every three years in reading, math, and science for 15 year old students.

Out of 34 OECD countries, U.S. students in 2012 ranked 17th in reading literacy with an average score of 498, which was slightly above the OECD average of 496. The country with the highest average reading score was Japan with 538 and the lowest was Mexico at 424.

The U.S. was below average in math and science on the PISA, but it wasn’t last. The U.S. ranked 27th out of 34 countries in math with an average score of 481. The Republic of Korea ranked first (554 ) and Mexico was last (413). In science, the U.S. ranked 20th with an average score of 497. As with reading, Japan was tops (547) and Mexico was last (415).

The PISA 2012 test results are the most current. The 2015 test results will be released in December.

A second assessment of students is known as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which is given every four years to fourth- and eighth-grade students. U.S. 4th graders ranked 11th in math and seventh in science out of 50 countries in 2011, which is the most recent test results available. The U.S. eighth graders also scored above average in TIMSS, ranking 10th in science and 9th in math out of 42 countries. (The data can be found here.)

The executive summary of a report by the TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center in Massachusetts noted that the U.S. has improved between 1995 and 2011 in both fourth- and eighth-grade TIMSS tests (pages 7-8).

The third and final assessment we reviewed is known as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which is administered every five years to fourth-grade students. The U.S. had an average score of 556, and ranked sixth out of 45 countries that participated in the test. Hong Kong had the highest score at 571, and Morocco was last with 310.

By any measure, the U.S. was not “last in education.”

Not First in Spending, Either
Trump also was wrong about U.S. spending on education. It is true that on a per-pupil basis the U.S. spends far more than the OECD average, but Trump is wrong to say the U.S. spends “so much more per pupil” that “there is no second” place. The United States, in fact, spends the fourth highest on primary and secondary education.

The most recent NCES report on “education expenditures by country” relies on 2011 data from the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2014 report (table b1.2). The most recent OECD report – Education at a Glance 2015 – contains 2012 data, so we used that report to get the most up-to-date figures. The latest OECD report shows the U.S. spent $11,732 per full-time student in 2012 – behind Switzerland ($15,512), Norway ($13,611) and Austria ($12,164). (Technical note: Although Luxembourg ranked highest in spending, we excluded that country from our rankings because the NCES says that there are “anomalies in that country’s GDP per capita data.”)

OECD also measures education spending as a percentage of GDP. By that measure (table b2.1) the U.S. spent 3.6 percent of its GDP on primary and secondary education. That was 18th highest, tied with Chile and Canada, among 33 OECD member countries. New Zealand spent the most at 5 percent of GDP and Hungary the least at 2.6 percent.

Still Wrong
Trump also repeated other false claims that we have vetted before:

Trade deficit: Trump claimed that “we have a trade deficit with everybody.” After rattling off China, Mexico, Japan and Vietnam, Trump said, “If you name any country they’re beating us.” We wrote about this last month, when he said it in a debate, and what we said still holds: “The U.S. does run a deficit with all but three of its top 15 trading partners. But the fact is, contrary to Trump’s sweeping claim, the U.S. had positive trade balances last year with Brazil ($4 billion), Netherlands ($24 billion) and Belgium (nearly $15 billion). The U.S. also made money on trade last year with Singapore ($10 billion), Australia ($14 billion) and Argentina ($5 billion), just to cite a few more.”

Campaign funding: Trump once again claimed that he is beholden to no one because he is “self-funding” his campaign. That’s not accurate. We have written about this before when he made the same claim in the 9th, 10th and 12th debates. As of March 31, Trump has reported $49.3 million in total campaign receipts. Of that, 25 percent — or $12.2 million — has come from individual donors. Now, Trump has loaned his campaign $35.9 million, but by law his campaign can repay that loan if Trump decides to increase his fundraising. We’ll have to wait and see what he will do. To date, he has donated only $317,471 to his campaign.

Unemployment rate: Trump said, “The real job number is 20 percent or more. It’s not 5 percent. That [the official unemployment rate] was put in to make politicians look good. If you stop looking for a job. You’re looking, looking, looking — you stop looking they consider you statistically employed. OK?” We have written about this before, too. The official unemployment rate was 5 percent for March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But BLS does have an alternative measure that it calls the “U-6″ measurement of labor underutilization, which would also include the people Trump said have stopped looking for work — the “marginally attached” (those who have given up looking for a job but had looked for one in the past year) and “discouraged workers” (a subset of the marginally attached who are not currently looking for work, citing market reasons). It also includes the underemployed (part-time workers wanting full-time work). That rate is currently 9.8 percent, not “20 percent or more.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-education-exaggeration/

Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.

Do you think it speaks well of the electorate?

Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find anything admirable about the Trump campaign.

I'm sure someone will disagree, but from where I sit The Economist is about as non-partisan as they come.

Trump’s triumph
Donald Trump’s victory is a disaster for Republicans and for America
May 7th 2016

DURING its 160-year history, the Republican Party has abolished slavery, provided the votes in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act and helped bring the cold war to a close. The next six months will not be so glorious. After Indiana’s primary, it is now clear that Republicans will be led into the presidential election by a candidate who said he would kill the families of terrorists, has encouraged violence by his supporters, has a weakness for wild conspiracy theories and subscribes to a set of protectionist and economically illiterate policies that are by turns fantastical and self-harming.

The result could be disastrous for the Republican Party and, more important, for America. Even if this is as far as he goes, Mr Trump has already done real damage and will do more in the coming months. Worse, in a two-horse race his chances of winning the presidency are well above zero.

It is possible that, with the nomination secured, Mr Trump will now change his tone. The crassness of his insults may well be muted as he tries to win over at least some of the voters, particularly women, who now abhor him. His demeanour may become more presidential (though there was little sign of that in this week’s bizarre and baseless pronouncements that the father of Ted Cruz, his erstwhile rival, had been around Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot John F. Kennedy). What he will almost certainly not do is change political course. For it is increasingly clear that Mr Trump has elements of a world view from which he does not waver (see article). These beliefs lack coherence or much attachment to reality. They are woven together by a peculiarly 21st-century mastery of political communication, with a delight in conflict and disregard for facts, which his career in reality television has honed. But they are firm beliefs and long-held.

Full article: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21698251-donald-trumps-victory-disaster-republicans-and-america-trumps-triumph

Love him, hate him.

Support his policies/positions or not.

I simply admire the fact he made it this far, in this day and age of politics and "the process."

Very few thought he would have made it this far.

I'm not surprised at all, haven't been since day one. The power of populism is stronger than ever before.

I'd like to see if any other candidate has ever received that kind of blanket wall-to-wall daily media coverage for free.

If the view is that Trump overcame some against-all-odds mountain, it didn't really shake out that way.

It is possible that, with the nomination secured, Mr Trump will now change his tone. The crassness of his insults may well be muted as he tries to win over at least some of the voters, particularly women, who now abhor him.

Translation: He's going to have to change his tune if he wants to get normal people to vote for him.

It is possible that, with the nomination secured, Mr Trump will now change his tone. The crassness of his insults may well be muted as he tries to win over at least some of the voters, particularly women, who now abhor him.

Translation: He's going to have to change his tune if he wants to get normal people to vote for him.

Prediction: He won't because he doesn't really have to change it that much.

So now both Bush presidents, Romney and McCain have all said that they will not endorse Trump or even attend the GOP convention. I wonder if they will leave their ballot blank or if they will be voting for Hillary.

[Edited on 5/5/2016 by 2112]

So now both Bush presidents, Romney and McCain have all said that they will not endorse Trump or even attend the GOP convention. I wonder if they will leave their ballot blank or if they will be voting for Hillary.

I don't know, but I hear the keynote speaker slot at the convention is open if anyone is interested.

Maybe they can get the chair that debated Clint Eastwood? 😛

The republican party is reshaping and Bush, Romney, McCain, Lindsey Graham and many other RINOs are gasping their last breath as they will become marginalized if Trump defeats Hillary.

The republican party is reshaping and Bush, Romney, McCain, Lindsey Graham and many other RINOs are gasping their last breath as they will become marginalized if Trump defeats Hillary.

Trump isn't a RINO??? That's would be an odd assessment.

The republican party is reshaping and Bush, Romney, McCain, Lindsey Graham and many other RINOs are gasping their last breath as they will become marginalized if Trump defeats Hillary.

Trump isn't a RINO??? That's would be an odd assessment.

Seems like Trump is as RINO as it gets. He made his fortune on the backs of taxpayer supported redevelopment dollars, gave is $hitload of $ to liberal politicians, and is as far from the values voter ideal as possible.

Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years so i am confident he will use similar fiscal restraint when elected. He may be a lot of things including democratic leaning talking points on social issues but he is the most conservative on :

1) Immigration
2) Military
3) Economy
4) Foreign intervention

Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years so i am confident he will use similar fiscal restraint when elected. He may be a lot of things including democratic leaning talking points on social issues but he is the most conservative on :

1) Immigration
2) Military
3) Economy
4) Foreign intervention

Wow, that's an interesting take. Seems to help make my earlier point that his supporters will latch on to whatever rhetoric that he puts out there that they find appealing and turn a blind eye to all the false narratives and inconsistent words/actions between candidate Trump and businessman Trump.

Basically he is saying what it takes to get republicans (at least some of them) to support him even when the words are not supported by his actions over the past 30 or 40 years, like the leopard has suddenly changed his spots...to me that is textbook RINO (especially since he has no voting record to judge him on).

Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years

Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.

He may be a lot of things including democratic leaning talking points on social issues but he is the most conservative on :

1) Immigration
2) Military
3) Economy
4) Foreign intervention

Split response on purpose. Isn't a re-spun campaign promise still just a campaign promise?

Lets see, he managed to secure the nomination spending most likely the least amount of any candidate in the last 20 years

Why was that? It's a valid question.

Republicans have been whining for years about the liberal media, but the free mass media coverage that Trump just received over the last several months is unprecedented.

Exactly. Being "confident he will use similar fiscal restraint when elected" because of his campaign spend is about as naive a statement as I have ever seen here. Trump has consistently received more media coverage than any other candidate in this election and maybe ever, and he spent less on advertising because of it. It has nothing to do with needing or wanting to be frugal.

[Edited on 5/6/2016 by gondicar]

I recently got a job transfer to a different department w/in my company, and it involved intense training on a new program. They estimated that it should take about 6 months to learn with the training they provided. The staffers that were assigned to train me were experts in their field, but they were the worst teachers on the planet. I excelled in school. I learn very well in a classroom setting, where I can focus, take notes, and receive quality explanations. But teaching is a science, and being an expert on something does not mean you can teach it. They could not teach it, period. It was a mess, with random info being scattered about, speaking to us in a technical language that we didn't yet know. They ended up digging a hole for us, and we had to learn it ourselves and dig ourselves out of it. It got to the point where several of us almost quit or got fired. What's the point?

It has occurred to me, while observing our entire political landscape, left and right, that education truly is the single most important issue in our country. We have a below average education system. Our schools are filled w/ "teachers" like my co-workers. I sympathize with the children who have to suffer trying to learn from a horrible teacher. It's a major problem. I believe troubled children stem from both poor parenting and a poor educational program. A good teacher who can actually teach, will end up showing children that there is a clear path to a great life, and inspire them to chase it. Poor teachers end up frustrating their students, making them think they are dumb to the point where they say "F it", and they give up. Those frustrations at home and school lead to anger, hatred, and prejudices, and a Trump presidency.

Moving forward, I will vote for any politician who makes education their #1 priority.....not one of their priorities, but their #1.

Moving forward, I will vote for any politician who makes education their #1 priority.....not one of their priorities, but their #1.

Good luck finding one. Maybe at the local level, but not likely at the national level.