Donald Trump running for president

libturdz
 

Attachments

  • libturdz.JPG
    libturdz.JPG
    60.8 KB · Views: 98
Romney is such an ass, trying to defend his decision as if it was anything other than hurt feels. Apparently he is a catchers mitt. LOL
 
Carnivorecon said:
Did you see the guy on twitter who said "it's not a witch hunt when theres a witch, it's justice" thinking he'd score some woke points, people went to town on his a$$ for witch shaming and hate speech haha. They est their own so often they don't what is safe anymore, it's so ridiculous it's beyond parody
Click to expand...
Do you remember the pastor and congressman who ended his prayer given during Congress by joking “amen and a woman” was slammed by people on the right?” Both sides have idiots who get offended by nothing. If you think it’s only the left that is beyond parody at this point, then you’re also beyond parody. Both sides have more nonsense than peak-SNL and the Onion together could ever have come up with.
 
dixonk said:
Romney wears socks with sandals and likes shoving stuff up his butt. Fruitcake libtard.
Click to expand...

Ill give him this, at least he doesnt wear Crocks, RRROOOFFFLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
ax1 said:
Ill give him this, at least he doesnt wear Crocks, RRROOOFFFLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
If we're talking fashion, no one is topping the horrendousness that is Ted Cruz' new haircut:
Invalid Link Removed

But it may actually be genius-level deception, as everyone is so focused on that train-wreck of a haircut that they don't eve notice he's not wearing a mask. Big brain time.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
If we're talking fashion, no one is topping the horrendousness that is Ted Cruz' new haircut:
Invalid Link Removed

But it may actually be genius-level deception, as everyone is so focused on that train-wreck of a haircut that they don't eve notice he's not wearing a mask. Big brain time.
Click to expand...

Business in the front party in the back!
 
Speaking of Supreme Court, I really hope one day they elaborate with a decision on the "natural born" claus in the Constitution. That was a real BS argument Cruz tried to make claiming he was "natural born" even in Canada because his mom didn't have a cesarean section birth. Haircut is fitting....
 
BamBam54 said:
Speaking of Supreme Court, I really hope one day they elaborate with a decision on the "natural born" claus in the Constitution. That was a real BS argument Cruz tried to make claiming he was "natural born" even in Canada because his mom didn't have a cesarean section birth. Haircut is fitting....
Click to expand...
It is pretty clear though. It's someone who was a US citizen at the time of birth. It's not unanimously agreed upon, what is these days, but there is a general consensus among legal and immigration experts:

There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time). Or he can immigrate here and then successfully apply for citizenship, a process called naturalization.
Click to expand...

So Cruz fits the second definition. He is a citizen of the US without need to be naturalized to become a citizen.

while there is no longer any law defining "natural born," there used to be one — way back in 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly said that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens."
Click to expand...

The most logical definition, which is in-line with what was the only law on the topic, although it is no longer in place, is that a natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen of the US at the time of birth, however that occurs. As opposed to a naturalized citizen, who isn't, and has to go through a naturalization process to become a US citizen. Like Arnold, who can't run for President since he was not a US citizen when he was born.

There is not universal consensus on the topic, but the majority of legal scholars and immigration experts do agree with this. Some do not, but most do, particularly when they're talking about the topic broadly, not during election time in reference to a particular potential candidate.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
It is pretty clear though. It's someone who was a US citizen at the time of birth. It's not unanimously agreed upon, what is these days, but there is a general consensus among legal and immigration experts:



So Cruz fits the second definition. He is a citizen of the US without need to be naturalized to become a citizen.



The most logical definition, which is in-line with what was the only law on the topic, although it is no longer in place, is that a natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen of the US at the time of birth, however that occurs. As opposed to a naturalized citizen, who isn't, and has to go through a naturalization process to become a US citizen. Like Arnold, who can't run for President since he was not a US citizen when he was born.

There is not universal consensus on the topic, but the majority of legal scholars and immigration experts do agree with this. Some do not, but most do, particularly when they're talking about the topic broadly, not during election time in reference to a particular potential candidate.
Click to expand...

How can you say the 'majority of legal scholars agree' without lining up all of them and counting?? Sounds like a personal opinion with false majority claimed.

Personally, I think "natural born" means born in America. Born on land where there is an American flag flying... thus the exception made for John McCain born on a US naval base in Panama.

By your definition, an American mom could run off with Osama Bin Laden and have his baby in an Afghanistan cave, and that baby could become US president. Which is nonsense, and exactly what the Founders meant to prevent.

Again - any time there is less than absolute certainty about the meaning of Constituional verbiage, only the Supreme Court can give that final answer. No matter how many immigration lawyers you'd like to quote...
 
Ricky10 said:
This is going to do wonders for our country. Great idea!

Invalid Link Removed

The first wave of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers with active cases in the Invalid Link Removedwill be allowed into the United States on Feb. 19, authorities said. They plan to start slowly, with two border crossings each processing up to 300 people a day and a third crossing taking fewer numbers.
Click to expand...
i am soo happy they are letting all those trained professionals into our country---we can always use more doctors/engineers/architects and rocket scientists!!!!!:rolleyes:;)o_O

too bad the people applying to migrate to our country LEGALLY don't have the skills that those asylum seekers have-eh?
 
"Legal scholars" usually means left-leaning college professors who have never really practiced law or done anything of consequence, except to espouse leftist crap. Those that can, do - those that can't - teach.
 
BamBam54 said:
How can you say the 'majority of legal scholars agree' without lining up all of them and counting?? Sounds like a personal opinion with false majority claimed.

Personally, I think "natural born" means born in America. Born on land where there is an American flag flying... thus the exception made for John McCain born on a US naval base in Panama.

By your definition, an American mom could run off with Osama Bin Laden and have his baby in an Afghanistan cave, and that baby could become US president. Which is nonsense, and exactly what the Founders meant to prevent.
Click to expand...

Its possible, it can be done.

One state had a loophole where they gave birth certificates away to anyone born outside of Hawaii as long as you can prove you are resident of Hawaii prior. So one can even be born in Indonesia and still pull off being president in a so called racist country. Most people will never know, except me of course and a few other's in my tinfoil circles that know WTC7 facts.

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]


Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
Its possible, it can be done.

One state had a loophole where they gave birth certificates away to anyone born outside of Hawaii as long as you can prove you are resident of Hawaii prior. So one can even be born in Indonesia and still pull off being president in a so called racist country. Most people will never know, except me of course and a few other's in my tinfoil circles that know WTC7 facts.

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]


Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
all these crazy rules/laws and yet kids are taught in our schools how racist we are as a country.....the best thing that happened because of covid was taking kids out of the hands of the teachers union, imo.
 
BamBam54 said:
How can you say the 'majority of legal scholars agree' without lining up all of them and counting?? Sounds like a personal opinion with false majority claimed.

Personally, I think "natural born" means born in America. Born on land where there is an American flag flying... thus the exception made for John McCain born on a US naval base in Panama.

By your definition, an American mom could run off with Osama Bin Laden and have his baby in an Afghanistan cave, and that baby could become US president. Which is nonsense, and exactly what the Founders meant to prevent.

Again - any time there is less than absolute certainty about the meaning of Constituional verbiage, only the Supreme Court can give that final answer. No matter how many immigration lawyers you'd like to quote...
Click to expand...
What do you mean it’s “exactly what the founders meant to prevent.” I cited a law from the founders era that said exactly that. One US citizen parent made you a natural born citizen. Regardless of where you were born. The law has since been removed and not replaced, but that was a founding father era law that said exactly that. So that’s a bad argument on your part.

By your logic, if two American citizens, both born in the US, and their parents were all born in the US too, went on vacation to Canada and the mother gave birth in Canada, then their kid can’t run for President? That’s dumb as s**t. Unless you’re suggesting making an exception to the “American flag flying” part for when BOTH parents are US citizens, not just one?
 
Beau said:
"Legal scholars" usually means left-leaning college professors who have never really practiced law or done anything of consequence, except to espouse leftist crap. Those that can, do - those that can't - teach.
Click to expand...
Those that can’t... get appointed by Trump to high ranking positions. ;)
 
thebigt said:
all these crazy rules/laws and yet kids are taught in our schools how racist we are as a country.....the best thing that happened because of covid was taking kids out of the hands of the teachers union, imo.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with schools isn’t even political ideology, it’s the over reliance on standardized testing that results in teachers focusing on preparing students for a test or two and not teaching any critical thinking, or anything actually relevant to daily life. How to do taxes? Nope. How to manage a budget based on income etc? Nope. How to cook and the basics of nutrition (not that the government even knows anything about that lol)? Nope. But we damn sure learn that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
What do you mean it’s “exactly what the founders meant to prevent.” I cited a law from the founders era that said exactly that. One US citizen parent made you a natural born citizen. Regardless of where you were born. The law has since been removed and not replaced, but that was a founding father era law that said exactly that. So that’s a bad argument on your part.

By your logic, if two American citizens, both born in the US, and their parents were all born in the US too, went on vacation to Canada and the mother gave birth in Canada, then their kid can’t run for President? That’s dumb as s**t. Unless you’re suggesting making an exception to the “American flag flying” part for when BOTH parents are US citizens, not just one?
Click to expand...
interesting fact---chuck schumer has dual israeli-american citizenship.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
The biggest problem with schools isn’t even political ideology, it’s the over reliance on standardized testing that results in teachers focusing on preparing students for a test or two and not teaching any critical thinking, or anything actually relevant to daily life. How to do taxes? Nope. How to manage a budget based on income etc? Nope. How to cook and the basics of nutrition (not that the government even knows anything about that lol)? Nope. But we damn sure learn that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
Click to expand...
the things you just listed ARE political based, imo. it fits with people being reliant on government for their needs.
 
thebigt said:
interesting fact---chuck schumer has dual israeli-american citizenship.
Click to expand...
He sucks for unrelated reasons. Let’s focus on those:

-Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

-Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)

-2001: PATRIOT Act is balanced and reasonable. (Nov 2010)

-Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)

-Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006). I thought that was a no-no?
 
thebigt said:
the things you just listed ARE political based, imo. it fits with people being reliant on government for their needs.
Click to expand...
As long as you admit it’s not just a left thing, then sure, I can understand what you’re saying. NEITHER side is small government anymore, just big in different ways.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
As long as you admit it’s not just a left thing, then sure, I can understand what you’re saying. NEITHER side is small government anymore, just big in different ways.
Click to expand...

As I’ve been saying for years here, both Republicrats and Demicans all mostly work for the same people and support most of the same major policies.
 
ax1 said:
As I’ve been saying for years here, both Republicrats and Demicans all mostly work for the same people and support most of the same major policies.
Click to expand...
This. A lot of the same end-results, with different justifications to the public. Some of it almost seems like wrestling lol.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Do you remember the pastor and congressman who ended his prayer given during Congress by joking “amen and a woman” was slammed by people on the right?” Both sides have idiots who get offended by nothing. If you think it’s only the left that is beyond parody at this point, then you’re also beyond parody. Both sides have more nonsense than peak-SNL and the Onion together could ever have come up with.
Click to expand...
I agree there is nonsense on both sides and yh they have nothing useful to offer society, dont think i am some hardcore conservative that will toe the party line at all times, i just point out idiocy where i see it. I must say though the professionally offended seem to ne 70% from the left and they attack their own for the most ridiculous of reasons, what right minded person would get triggered by the term witch hunt? Of course you have people like Michael knowles on the right who look for anything to complain about too
 
Carnivorecon said:
I agree there is nonsense on both sides and yh they have nothing useful to offer society, dont think i am some hardcore conservative that will toe the party line at all times, i just point out idiocy where i see it. I must say though the professionally offended seem to ne 70% from the left and they attack their own for the most ridiculous of reasons, what right minded person would get triggered by the term witch hunt? Of course you have people like Michael knowles on the right who look for anything to complain about too
Click to expand...
Cool, understood. Sometimes it’s hard to tell who is where on the spectrum here. I feel like most people are more in the middle here than way to either end, but since the prominent politicians and groups today are so far on either end, it leads to a ton of polarization. And nobody wins. Except politicians and big business.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
As long as you admit it’s not just a left thing, then sure, I can understand what you’re saying. NEITHER side is small government anymore, just big in different ways.
Click to expand...


the teachers union is 'almost' exclusively controlled by leftists.
 
thebigt said:
the teachers union is 'almost' exclusively controlled by leftists.
Click to expand...
And the right pushing for creationism to be taught in science class as an equal theory to evolution is great I’m sure. And teaching abstinence only sex-Ed. You can still tell kids not to go around having orgies, and the inherent risks of any sex, particularly at such a young age, while still teaching about protection.

Again, both sides on the extremes are total idiots.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
And the right pushing for creationism to be taught in science class as an equal theory to evolution is great I’m sure. And teaching abstinence only sex-Ed. You can still tell kids not to go around having orgies, and the inherent risks of any sex, particularly at such a young age, while still teaching about protection.

Again, both sides on the extremes are total idiots.
Click to expand...
man, are you out of touch...the scotus has ruled that it is unconstitional to teach creationism in public schools. and if you don't think sex-ed is taught in public schools you are living under a rock....geez!!!!
 
thebigt said:
man, are you out of touch...the scotus has ruled that it is unconstitional to teach creationism in public schools. and if you don't think sex-ed is taught in public schools you are living under a rock....geez!!!!
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s not like private schools exist and the right pushes for vouchers to allocate funds that would go to public schools to be used to fund private schools that the above mentioned ruling do not apply to. Are you being ignorant or disingenuous here? Not all states have these vouchers, but I think over a dozen right-leaning states do.

Edit: if a private school receives a PENNY of government funding, including vouchers, then they should have to follow the same rules as public schools. If they want to do their own thing, then they should fund themselves entirely.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
What do you mean it’s “exactly what the founders meant to prevent.” I cited a law from the founders era that said exactly that. One US citizen parent made you a natural born citizen. Regardless of where you were born. The law has since been removed and not replaced, but that was a founding father era law that said exactly that. So that’s a bad argument on your part.

By your logic, if two American citizens, both born in the US, and their parents were all born in the US too, went on vacation to Canada and the mother gave birth in Canada, then their kid can’t run for President? That’s dumb as s**t. Unless you’re suggesting making an exception to the “American flag flying” part for when BOTH parents are US citizens, not just one?
Click to expand...

You are free to opine your version of the truth on an internet forum, as am I. The interpretation that prevents Bin Laden's child from being American president reads best to me...

But the fact remains that there is no definitive constituonal answer and thus needs the Supreme Court to settle this with certainty. Who could possibly argue otherwise, except for the point of senseless...?!?!

Good back and forth research on the subject here, and properly with no definite answer or claimed majority opinion...

Invalid Link Removed
 
BamBam54 said:
You are free to opine your version of the truth on an internet forum, as am I. The interpretation that prevents Bin Laden's child from being American president reads best to me...

But the fact remains that there is no definitive constituonal answer and thus needs the Supreme Court to settle this with certainty. Who could possibly argue otherwise, except for the point of senseless...?!?!

Good back and forth research on the subject here, and properly with no definite answer or claimed majority opinion...

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
So then if BOTH parents are US citizens, then the child should be allowed to run if they’re born in a foreign country. That still prevents your Osama example, as Osama was not a US citizen himself. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me...
 
By your logic, George Bush and his wife, both citizens, could have had a kid born in Canada if they went on vacation, and now he can’t run for President? Even though both his parents are clearly citizens? Having BOTH parents needing to be citizens if the child is born in a different county is a CLEAR solution to your outlandish hypothetical Osama example. Sounds like an easy compromise that benefits everyone.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yeah, it’s not like private schools exist and the right pushes for vouchers to allocate funds that would go to public schools to be used to fund private schools that the above mentioned ruling do not apply to. Are you being ignorant or disingenuous here? Not all states have these vouchers, but I think over a dozen right-leaning states do.

Edit: if a private school receives a PENNY of government funding, including vouchers, then they should have to follow the same rules as public schools. If they want to do their own thing, then they should fund themselves entirely.
Click to expand...
totally out of context, the topic was teachers union which has totally nothing to do with private schools-eh?

you are off on a different topic altogether ;)
 
thebigt said:
totally out of context, the topic was teachers union which has totally nothing to do with private schools-eh?

you are off on a different topic altogether ;)
Click to expand...
I said the problems with the SCHOOL SYSTEM and the EDUCATION SYSTEM in the country. YOU are the one who switched it to the teacher’s union. Nice try though...

By the way, pretty much every teacher I’ve ever talked to, including ones in unions, HATE standardized tests. I think that a GOVERNMENT CONTROL thing, not a teacher’s union one.

Edit: teacher’s unions are AGAINST standardized testing:

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Public schools in California are a failure, embarrassment and disaster. Over 20 years ago I paid a lot of money to have my kids in a private school, not because I could afford it, but because California schools are horrible. The teacher's union here is appalling and support every cause that is unquestionably wrong. I could not have less regard for them. One of my two sons (they are both Attorneys) said "I honestly cannot think of a single person that I know who teaches in the California school system that I would want to teach my daughter. They are glorified baby sitters who teach everything other than life skills or basic math". BTW - that includes his mother.

How is this for a true and verified example: In the LA county school system a male "teacher" masturbated on the tops of cookies and fed the semen-covered treats to children in his class. When this was verified, her was immediately arrested and fired. Later, he was represented by his union, who argued that he was fired without due process. At that time he was in jail, and the union was able to get a temporary stay, and the teacher was - unbelievably re-instated. He immediately retired - with full benefits.

Yes, we need to coddle everything terrible and trust the California school system to ruin children and waste taxpayer's money like drunk sailors. What a joke.
 
Beau said:
Public schools in California are a failure, embarrassment and disaster. Over 20 years ago I paid a lot of money to have my kids in a private school, not because I could afford it, but because California schools are horrible. The teacher's union her is appalling and support every cause that is unquestionably wrong.

How is this for a true and verified example: In the LA county school system a male "teacher" masturbated on the tops of cookies and fed the semen-covered treats to children in his class. When this was verified, her was immediately arrested and fired. Later, he was represented by his union, who argued that he was fired without due process. At that time he was in jail, and the union was able to get a temporary stay, and the teacher was - unbelievably re-instated. He immediately retired - with full benefits.

Yes, we need to coddle everything terrible and trust the California school system to ruin children and waste taxpayer's money like drunk sailors. What a joke.
Click to expand...
Police unions do the same thing defending horrible pieces of human excrement too. Sometimes unions should learn not to defend the worst of the worst, since by defending them, they give a horrible name to the rest of the people they represent, who are good people. Teachers and police alike. Most of them are good people. Public servants. But when the union goes all in defending the lowest of the low, it gives them ALL a bad name as defending scum.

And it’s hardly like the public schools in many southern states are amazing either lol.

But can you actually provide me a link to that horrible story? To verify. Thanks.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Police unions do the same thing defending horrible pieces of human excrement too. Sometimes unions should learn not to defend the worst of the worst, since by defending them, they give a horrible name to the rest of the people they represent, who are good people. Teachers and police alike. Most of them are good people. Public servants. But when the union goes all in defending the lowest of the low, it gives them ALL a bad name as defending scum.

And it’s hardly like the public schools in many southern states are amazing either lol.

But can you actually provide me a link to that horrible story? To verify. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, because I know the story is true, so I have no reason to provide a link. It happened while my ex-wife was being indoctrinated onto the LA school system. I also knew one of the members of the DA team. Anyone else having a desire to look it up is more than free to do so, it is public record, but there is no need to waste my time to provide supporting information. It was circa 2011/2012, it involved over 80 children being blindfolded and playing "tasting games" and caused taxpayers to pay a settlement of something like $150M.

And, for extra style points - he "spoon-fed students an unknown cloudy-colored liquid substance”.

In a financial settlement reached in June of 2011, the Los Angeles Unified School District paid Mark Berndt $23,980.10 in back pay and $16,019.90 in legal fees, the union reinstated him to paid status and he is entitled to his full pension and retirement health benefits. He now collects approximately $4,000/Mo. in retirement benefits.

So, the teacher's union represented a person who made children eat his sperm, and agreed to pay his legal fees, provide back salary, pay him nearly $50K a year in retirement benefits (and they also pay for his medical), and California taxpayers had the privilege of incurring settlement fees of something approaching $150M.

There are exactly zero performance standards for California teachers; seriously. High student failure rates trigger MORE MONEY being allocated to the school. Great incentive system - when a school does a terrible job, they are rewarded with more money. It figures.
 
Last edited:
Beau said:
Actually, no, because I know the story is true, so I have no reason to provide a link. It happened while my ex-wife was being indoctrinated onto the LA school system. I also knew one of the members of the DA team. Anyone else having a desire to look it up is more than free to do so, it is public record, but there is no need to waste my time to provide supporting information. It was circa 2011/2012, it involved over 80 children being blindfolded and playing "tasting games" and caused taxpayers to pay a settlement of something like $150M.

And, for extra style points - he "spoon-fed students an unknown cloudy-colored liquid substance”.

In a financial settlement reached in June of 2011, the Los Angeles Unified School District paid Mark Berndt $23,980.10 in back pay and $16,019.90 in legal fees, the union reinstated him to paid status and he now collects approximately $4,000 in retirement benefits.
Click to expand...

Here it is:

Invalid Link Removed
 
Beau said:
Actually, no, because I know the story is true, so I have no reason to provide a link. It happened while my ex-wife was being indoctrinated onto the LA school system. I also knew one of the members of the DA team. Anyone else having a desire to look it up is more than free to do so, it is public record, but there is no need to waste my time to provide supporting information. It was circa 2011/2012, it involved over 80 children being blindfolded and playing "tasting games" and caused taxpayers to pay a settlement of something like $150M.

And, for extra style points - he "spoon-fed students an unknown cloudy-colored liquid substance”.

In a financial settlement reached in June of 2011, the Los Angeles Unified School District paid Mark Berndt $23,980.10 in back pay and $16,019.90 in legal fees, the union reinstated him to paid status and he is entitled to his full pension and retirement health benefits. He now collects approximately $4,000/Mo. in retirement benefits.

So, the teacher's union represented a person who made children eat his sperm, and agreed to pay his legal fees, provide back salary, pay him nearly $50K a year in retirements benefits (and they also pay for his medical), and California taxpayers had the privilege of incurring settlement fees of something approaching $150M.

There are exactly zero performance standards for California teachers; seriously. High student failure rates trigger MORE MONEY being allocated to the school. Great incentive system - when a school does a terrible job, they are rewarded with more money. It figures.
Click to expand...

Unions pulling dirty tricks is one thing, but how the fuq is he not in prison?
 
ax1 said:
Unions pulling dirty tricks is one thing, but how the fuq is he not in prison?
Click to expand...

Apparently 25 years:

Invalid Link Removed

When we let leftists teach our kids don’t be shocked when they turn out to be pedos. The democrat party is the party of pedos. They love that ****.
 
ax1 said:
Unions pulling dirty tricks is one thing, but how the fuq is he not in prison?
Click to expand...
The last I heard, he was expected to do something like 25 years in jail, but I don't know what actually happened. Lets hope they do not allow him to serve food if he is in prison. I am surprised the LAUSD did not name him teacher of the year. They probably have a statue or school named after him.
 
Beau said:
The last I heard, he was expected to do something like 25 years in jail, but I don't know what actually happened. Lets hope they do not allow him to serve food if he is in prison. I am surprised the LAUSD did not name him teacher of the year. They probably have a statue or school named after him.
Click to expand...

Pedo joe will give him a pardon. They got to take care of their own.
 
dixonk said:
Here it is:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing the link. It looks like he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, so I don't understand the claims being made by Beau that he's still teaching? It even says "ex-teacher." And that's from 2013, so hardly new news.

Invalid Link Removed
Beau said:
Actually, no, because I know the story is true, so I have no reason to provide a link. It happened while my ex-wife was being indoctrinated onto the LA school system. I also knew one of the members of the DA team. Anyone else having a desire to look it up is more than free to do so, it is public record, but there is no need to waste my time to provide supporting information. It was circa 2011/2012, it involved over 80 children being blindfolded and playing "tasting games" and caused taxpayers to pay a settlement of something like $150M.

And, for extra style points - he "spoon-fed students an unknown cloudy-colored liquid substance”.

In a financial settlement reached in June of 2011, the Los Angeles Unified School District paid Mark Berndt $23,980.10 in back pay and $16,019.90 in legal fees, the union reinstated him to paid status and he is entitled to his full pension and retirement health benefits. He now collects approximately $4,000/Mo. in retirement benefits.

So, the teacher's union represented a person who made children eat his sperm, and agreed to pay his legal fees, provide back salary, pay him nearly $50K a year in retirements benefits (and they also pay for his medical), and California taxpayers had the privilege of incurring settlement fees of something approaching $150M.

There are exactly zero performance standards for California teachers; seriously. High student failure rates trigger MORE MONEY being allocated to the school. Great incentive system - when a school does a terrible job, they are rewarded with more money. It figures.
Click to expand...
Except as of 2013 he was sentenced to serve 25 years in prison, and is an "ex-teacher," not a teacher. So have things changed since that initial claim you're making, which was from 2011 to 2012?

I suppose that could still be the union being idiots and defending him, but the justice system coming in and fixing their BS, which it seems happened. I guess the only question is if he's still receiving his pension, since he was allowed to retire instead of being fired, and if the justice system stripped it from him.

EDIT: Union and/or school district accused of covering it up and/or knowing about it and doing nothing. F**k them. Unions need to learn when to not cover up for and defend the worst of the worst, as it gives them all a bad name, the many good public servants they claim to represent. This is applicable for teachers unions and police unions. They need reform.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Thank you for providing the link. It looks like he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, so I don't understand the claims being made by Beau that he's still teaching? It even says "ex-teacher." And that's from 2013, so hardly new news.

Invalid Link Removed

Except as of 2013 he was sentenced to serve 25 years in prison, and is an "ex-teacher," not a teacher. So have things changed since that initial claim you're making, which was from 2011 to 2012?

I suppose that could still be the union being idiots and defending him, but the justice system coming in and fixing their BS, which it seems happened. I guess the only question is if he's still receiving his pension, since he was allowed to retire instead of being fired, and if the justice system stripped it from him.
Click to expand...

Apparently reading comprehension is not a strength and may be an area requiring additional attention. I never said he was still teaching. He was reinstated and retired with full benefits, and is being paid $50K a year in retirement benefits. That is what I said. Retirement benefits are not (customarily) paid to people who are still employed.
 
thebigt said:
all these crazy rules/laws and yet kids are taught in our schools how racist we are as a country.....the best thing that happened because of covid was taking kids out of the hands of the teachers union, imo.
Click to expand...
just a reminder of how the teachers union conversation got started
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top