Have you seen Canadian house prices?

Assuming you’re from Canada based on the .CA and says provinces (vs oblasts, cantons, or some other regional division), I would point at the interprovincial trade barriers.

You realize that between the states the US has all of those?

Paragraph 1: 1) Use proper nouns more. 2) have you been to Hartford? 3) Teachers wouldn’t need to teach for a test that was so simple as to not graduate an illiterate high school senior. But I agree the standard NCLB imposed was very detrimental.

Paragraph 2: “people like you insist that local taxes should pay most of it.” Go back re read what I’ve written. I support a ban on any funding education from municipalities. It should be ideally all done on a state level to balance accountability with equality of outcome.

My stance is that in practice municipal property tax pays for most education. Not that that is a good thing.

Hartford’s funding is mostly subsidized by the state with the municipality paying little. That is an issue as they receive (under the current system) what is needed from the state but not what is needed from the municipality. Because Hartford is broke. This is the fault in an education system where each town pays for a part of the educational spend with municipal property taxes.

The idea that anyone would pay taxes to support a k-12 education that doesn’t even produce literacy is not manufactured outrage. It demeans the name of the state. CT doesn’t come up much and it is an embarrassment when it does because of such a failure.

Paragraph 3: Yeah I agree. The issue is that you can’t spend more on public schools when you don’t have more money to do so. Which creates a circular issue.

You somehow manage to willfully misread or miss the entire point. Yes of course Hartford can’t match the per student municipal funding of suburban Connecticut. That is why I said that the issue is the school funding is being done on the municipal level.

Municipal property taxes paying for schools reduces the equalizing effect that state funding should have.

Yes, New England Republicans do tend to be much different than other states. No educational spending is not solely tied to party platform that ignores that blue states on average have higher house hold incomes and GDP due to historical & socioeconomic factors.

This is just yelling at clouds rather than seeking meaningful solutions to resolve issue. You are complaining that senators are upset about the failure of the educational system. Btw one of those senators introduced legislation to prevent this from happening again. Link.

They’re certainly not going to admit to systemic failures.

Did you read the article? What do you think “State Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding and Sen. Eric Berthel said in their Dec. 19 letter. ‘We continue to seek accountability as to how this student was illiterate when she graduated and how the system failed her year after year’” they meant when they wrote this.

I was stating the CT Republicans had little to no impact on the outcome of this student’s education because they have little impact on local politics in such a blue area. And resulting should have no reason to presume that any policy stances of their have an impact on the people of Hartford.

If Trump stripped the Dept of Education on day one that still would be irrelevant here as this student is the victim of over a decade of the school system failing them.

On your BTW, my point wasn’t about Hartford’s education costs but more on broader educational costs. In suburban CT well funded schools get nearly 70% of their expenses paid for by local property taxes. The failure of the city of Hartford to raise funds on the municipal level vs other municipalities is relevant here. Which of course stems from the difference in economics status between their citizens. Hence my critique of local funding playing such a big role.

CT has some of the finest public schools in the nation. But they sure as hell are not the ones in Hartford.

“Republican play book” dude it’s Connecticut. And none the less Hartford. That city hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1971.

The issue is that educational funding is predominantly on the municipal level, rather than the state level.

The only mention in the article about Republicans is the CT Republicans being outraged about how the schools have failed this child. Which is entirely justifiable.

But rather than look at the underlying system issues lets resort to flinging mud at people who had zero impact in the current situation.

Because eggs are seen as a very reasonable weekly purchase that a consumer can see a price delta in over a short period of time.

It depends. Look at the usage license for the font you’d like to reproduce. It may be published with a very liberal license that allows reproduction. You can always ask for permission.

Realistically if we accept the idea of Canada joining the US they’d likely join as their current provinces (then states).

This would allow Canadians to have a voice in US elections which currently have large political implications for the nation.

I don’t see Quebec joining the US. Current Canadian law grants them protections the US wouldn’t be willing to match. They’d likely become independent.

Despite Canadian identity being based on not being Americans there are large cultural similarities (given English structural roots).

If it were to occur Canada would likely get some consideration like the preservation of their healthcare system (a point of national pride) and a period for other states to join in on it.

The US would be more blue politically but I would expect catering to northern provinces given they’d have disproportionately high representation.

A stateless society is one with a power vacuum. Some one will claim the title of leader and often it’ll be someone of little virtue.

The thing is that they’ve got teeth. E.g. redistricting, along with the plurality of powers granted to the countless offices across the nation that they hold.

Q: Should (insert political party here) disenfranchise voters for the benefit of (insert political party here)'s political ends?

A: No.

If you have no principles you have nothing.

10 minute mail

Late to the party, but if you’re in Europe I’d check out these they’re from a Finnish outdoors company and I’ve found them comfortable. They’re pretty complimentary on an average or fit build and the material feels good against the skin. (I can not unfortunately comment on if the underwear is gay or not).

https://www.varusteleka.com/en/product/sarma-viscose-boxers-4-pack/77810

https://www.varusteleka.com/en/product/sarma-merino-boxers/58889

Great question. In theory/practice you can just shut up from square one. But asserting your rights by doing so in clear unambiguous terms for is advisable. Judges understand someone saying “I wish to invoke my right against self incrimination as protected in the 5th amendment” better than the do pure silence.

Movies are works of fiction not law. In America if you choose to temporarily waive your right to silence and speak to police you may at any point reassert that right.

I couldn’t blame cinematographers for attempting to tell a story. But they are artists not lawyers.

You may talk to police that way in America but any good lawyer will tell you not to because the strength of the fact that your silence can’t be used against you often will offend out weigh any defense you might argue.

When guilt must be proven absence of evidence is the defendant’s friend.

As an American this is an interesting comment.

Traditional American understandings agree with the notion of innocent until proven guilty and that rights exist regardless of accusations. But here it is not a judge but a jury of your peers who decides the facts based on evidence shown to them. Here judges decide matters of law not fact.

(Unless you choose to have a judge rule on the facts (likely because you are probably unpopular in your community because of the nature of the accusations and you feel it’d be more fair for a judge to decide the fact in your eyes))…

This might not be the reason but in the US a lot of land is privately owned undeveloped land. If you taxed undeveloped land you may incentivize the destruction of habitats of a lot of wildlife.

Eugenics and prohibition were both progressive social movements.

Progressive doesn’t necessarily mean good.