Raider5678

But school buildings and events cost money. Even if it's on a per student basis, they don't spend every last penny on the student. Maybe more like 70% of it(total guess here. Don't quote me.). That leaves 30% of the money received for each student to fund things like maintenance, foot ball games, etc. Resulting in larger schools having more money then smaller schools, leading to better facilities, and better resources. Even if the schools receive funds to pay for maintenance and things like that, I still doubt every dollar goes towards the student.

Except, we still are discussing how to improve the education system. But that still leaves cities with better schools then small towns.

You'll find the majority of the modern movies(mind you, directed by those successful nerdy kids) paint the jocks as dumb. Which seems about right to me.

Please, by all means, start posting those pictures and blueprints.

https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians There are a fair amount of other studies and sources that have found the same thing, but this one sums it up pretty well. I agree. It's easier to get Americans to support "Make the smartest students in the world!" then "Make our kids average grade above average!"

This kind of thinking makes it harder for me to get into college. Because Asian parents typically spend a lot of time with their kids working hard to make them smarter and to learn, we get 140 point penalty on our SAT scores when colleges consider us. Because "it's unfair" to black kids and hispanics because their parents don't spend as much time with them. So it usually equals out in the end on the number of Asians and Hispanics and Latinos who get into college. But does that really seem that fair? I mean, I know it makes the numbers even, but it makes us have to work harder to get into college, or have an edge on the competition. Additionally, Blacks get an an additional 310 points to their SAT scores because they're black when colleges consider them. So if a Latino male scored 1200, I'd have to score 1650(which I can't) on the SAT to be on equal footing with him. So this type of thinking results in more equal numbers in college so that the appearance of fairness is there. Yet I'm Asian, so maybe I'm extremely biased, but I think this is unfair. So I think if parents wish to work with their child it shouldn't penalize them for being good parents. Because that's the counter effect of what you are saying. Well I can see the wrongness in that.

I honestly have no problem with privately funded schools. The wealthy still have to pay a school tax, and then they don't send their kid there. So effectively they're donating money to that school without the school having to spend it on a child. If two parents spend time to work hard and gain money so that they can send their child to a good public school so that he may have the best life possible, why do you paint that as an evil? I thought people attempted to succeed so they could give their families the best life possible. That's what I would do if that private school helped a child I had(I don't have any.). It is, and I get that. But I'm not sure how one would go about fixing that.

Some basic math really quickly. Americans made $12.95 trillion in 2011. 10%(actually less then what would be brought in because there isn't the 20% of the richer people) would make $1,295,000,000,000. The amount of taxes paid every year. So crunching some basic numbers, I immediately realize a flaw in that plan as the U.S. currently makes 7 trillion ever year. My bad.

That is very well put. Honestly, I think they should just teach secular views of everything. This would probably only conflict with sex ed, some history, and a little bit of science. When the kid get's home, let the parents teach them otherwise if they don't agree. Sexual education does teach about sex but kids morals taught by their parents seem to prevail over the schools policy "have as much sex as you like, but use protection" because I don't see everyone sleeping around with everyone. Then again, I come from a pretty conservative neighborhood. History, is history. My mom doesn't believe that a volcano erupting caused a global winter(1816) because apparently that's ungodly. Which is dumb. I don't particularly believe the big bang caused it self, but that God caused it, but that's a personal choice. When in class, I answer with what the class wants me to answer. I separate what I believe to what I should know. Even if I don't believe in aliens, or the big bang theory, or evolution, I still engage in conversations about them and interesting concepts simply because I should know, and it's something to talk about. I think parents should just do the same, so that the kid can get a good education with out the parent's trying to change what he's learning. But, I do know that my school has a lot of policies the parents absolutely detest. From accepting gays and lesbians to transgender kids to forcing christian kids to pretend to be muslims for a day(Actually, I agree on this. This is bull shit. If we took muslim kids and forced them to pretend to be Christians and have them pray to god rather then Allah, there would be national disagrement. But making christian kids and Catholics to say prayers through out the day to Allah is perfectly acceptable because we have to "accept others" is total bull crap.) So the parental control isn't total and complete. I think it's more with funding that parents have more control. Not forcing kids to go. Their choice. And I'm more along the lines of kids who belong in college rather then high school type of smart. I know a kid who was doing trigonometry on his own in 6th grade. He taught me the law of cosines. He was very smart, and wasn't extremely rich. Maybe he had the internet as a resource, and maybe that put him above other kids, but I also know he was constantly at the library and places like that teaching himself things. He was also incredibly logical, and seemed to make better decisions then most adults, and I picked up a lot of flaws in most people's thinking from things he said. Like that we're way too closed-minded, we believe things too easily without knowing for sure, and we always seem to believe we can't be wrong. Although I don't think I ever managed to point out he was wrong. But anyways, back on track. I know that kid didn't have anywhere near the ability to go to his full potential because our school had no gifted and talented program.(I'm in a different school now.) I would also focus the tests more on the ability aspect rather then how good they are at math or something. Take for example long multiplication. Some kids may only be able to do two or three digit numbers because that's all they taught. This kid was able to expand the concept on his own and multiply much long numbers. Now I know rich kids might be smarter and maybe will have an advantage, but it doesn't mean poor kids can't get in. As for the idea of not helping those who are doing well, I don't fully agree. I do agree we should help those not doing well, but just because someone is working hard and getting things done doesn't mean they shouldn't deserve anything. As for financial hurdles for secondary education, that's what I was thinking more years to high school that allowed you to specialize in a certain area that jobs say you require would help a lot with that. Because they wouldn't have to pay for an education that they needed, they just needed to choose it.

For once, I agree. Still going to be difficult. Would my idea of a party type of thing, which I posted above, count as a "new party" that isn't a re-branding? Or is it actually a re-branding that I don't see?

What would be the best way to give people a better education? Like extending school through the summer, extending the number of years you go to school(focusing on the United States.)? And I was curious. What if schools tested children every year from kindergarten - 6th grade, and if children tested high enough(I'm talking very high.) they would have the choice of going to a special school run by the government where they would start learning in a chosen field as well as getting an advanced general education. Like say a school had a kid one year who tested high enough. He would be able to decide, without parental approval, to go to the government run school. In the government run school he has a food and board, as well as the option to choose from the finest classes in things like Engineering, Mathematics, Physics, etc. And kids that graduated from that school would be guaranteed to have the choice to be employed by the government. So kids graduating from here could start off working as an assistant rocket engineer or something like that. Would this be a good program to have? Kids could go without paying anything. Rich or poor, black or white, Muslim or christian. And money couldn't get you in there. Failing kids get kicked out.

I hate to say it, but he's right.

Doesn't make sense to me.

Veteran's would get revamped and easier to get aid. The current one I've heard is a pain in the ass to get money from. What about simply increasing high school by two years, and mostly allowing them to choose what ever they want to major in? Like a post high school, and making sure everyone has the same options (so small towns don't get like 3 options while the cities don't get 50) Most minor parties don't have anyone elected. Then, most don't know they exist. I agree with your premise, most don't think minor parties can win. Trying to convince them otherwise is like trying to convince them that a Mexican invasion of the United States would succeed. Possible, but highly unlikely.

I believe I came up with a good idea that for me would seem like a good political party. While I don't plan to start it, to me it's interesting to think about. I'm thinking of a political party that opposes getting involved in foreign affairs, unless it affects an ally, or concerns our nations safety. The taxes would be a 10% income tax flat rate across the country, and if you made $500,000 or more a year, 20%. Investments into renewable energy would be made, as well as trying to get rid of the reliance on fossil fuels. Massive amounts of money would be put into science, researching diseases, creating new technology, and attempting to make this nation the most technologically advanced nation on earth. The U.S. military uses 660 billion dollars. I would drastically cut that amount as much as I could, and over the course of years, lower the size of the military. A lot of money would be put into researching mechanical ways of defending a country, so ground troops would be limited. To help fix poverty, jobs would be given to the poor working on large government contracts, such as building renewable energy sources, and other changes. The focus on science and advancement would be huge. With the attempt to have a space program 100 times larger then every other country(Not unlike the cold war, except not focusing on nukes.) People would not be excluded because of race or religion on entering the country, but the number of people allowed to enter would be severely lowered until these changes finished taking place. What if it were to start online, and get support from a few well known people? Those parties tend to die out pretty quick, but you could attempt to make it actually seem appealing. People seem to be dug in with either being Democrat or Republican, and then renounce most other parties. You have to create one that is taking a whole new perspective, or everyone will just ignore you. Like most minor parties. So what would be your first step? Run for local office?

Very interesting.

It would then be a planetary collision. That, would basically destroy both planets for a long time(years, hundreds of years, thousands of years. Not sure.), sending fragments or gas into a massive area. The gravity though, would slowly pull them back together and merge into an even bigger planet. Since it's a gas planet, I think that gas would smash out in a massive plume all around where Neptune hit it, and eventually fall back to Juipiter, simply adding to the mass. But then, I'm not sure. I suggest asking strange or swansnot.

Kinda vauge explanation. Just saying it can't. The reason it can't is mainly do to air density and gravity. A large enough asteroid would require enough speed to get all the way through Juipiter without gravity pulling it back. While theoretically, if it were simply gravity, the asteroid could start at 1/1,000,000,000 MPH and start falling toward the center of gravity. Once it reached the center of gravity, it would be going considerably faster. Once it passed the center of gravity it would start to decelerate, until it got just out of the gravitational reach of the planet and be traveling again at 1/1,000,000,000 MPH. So basically a speed boost on it's path. Except this wouldn't happen. The air pressure on Jupiter would simply stop and absorb all the energy from an asteroid. The air pressure at the first layer of Jupiter's atmosphere is 0.5 atmospheres. A little farther down, and you reach 1 atmospheres. 30% of the way towards Jupiter's center you're suddenly at 2 MILLION atmospheres of pressure. The atmosphere is so hot that it glows white hot. Most materials would simply melt at this point, because it's estimated to probably be around 18,000 degree's Fahrenheit. It's like passing through solid material with the air pressure so high. At some point, you would hit the center of Jupiter. Here, at 25 Million atmospheres, you would be basically on a solid collection of exotic ices and rock that could only exist at the pressure of 25 Million atmospheres. It's extremely hot, and since this is so dense, due to the sheer weight of all the gas on Jupiter, nothing except something denser could smash it's way through. So a neutron star, or a black hole, could probably "pass" through Jupiter. But if one of those passed through, you might not be able to call it a planet anymore. Theoretically, a small black hole could zip right through and pretty much nothing would happen. But a neutron star would have to deal with the laws of physics and actually slow down a little. But an asteroid? First it would smash into tiny little rocks in the first part of the atmosphere, like on earth. If it survived that, they would have to somehow power their way through an ever increasing density of air that it would be like pushing it's way through water. If it did this for a very long time, it would have to somehow avoid not melting in the extreme temperatures. If it somehow smashed into the core and powered it's way through it, it'd have to deal with gravity. Gravity would constantly be pulling it back, and it would have to power it's way back out. This time with gravity against it. Once it did all of this, it would "smash" through Jupiter. So as you can see, it's very unlikely.

Right. The United States thrived under a religious government when it first began. Perhaps you think it didn't?

Random slightly off topic question, if the taxes stayed like that and had never been changed, would Space-X ever managed to get off the ground? Or Elon Musk at all?

I'm ignoring ones that open with "Black power" or "White Supremacy!", as well as communist, socialist, Christian, and Muslim.

Alright. I'm looking at current political parties. If I see one that says "A party for the White-American" Can I automatically rule that out as one I would not like to help/work for? Or should I actually read their platform?

So, just out of curiosity, how would one go about starting a new political party in the United States?