While I guess areas may be different, the high school I went to, and also the area I now live in, have varsity and JV teams. You had to be good enough to make varsity, but no one got cut from JV. Just belonging on a team is enough for some kids to make it all bearable. Everyone mentions scholarships, but how often is this honestly actually an issue?
What do you need to know? It’s a high school team, not the Olympics. Why wouldn’t the default always be inclusion? High school is a tough time for a lot of kids, and I’d imagine it’s more difficult for most trans kids. If participating in sports makes it 5% easier, then so be it.
Buried lead:
It’s LEDE, not lead.
It took me 40+ years to learn this, just passing it along.
The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don’t want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.
That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.
So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
Sorry for having other things going on, it won’t happen again.
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?
They both need to step aside, it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.
People need to stop with ridiculous conspiracy theories. You’ve become what you hate
Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?
Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.
What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.
When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post
How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who’s harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients’ interests, period.
The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn’t nearly the longest case I’ve had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we’ve been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.
He’ll stand trial, so we’ll certainly see if he’s criminally negligent or not.
I don’t think it’s a patsy when the person who was criminally negligent is held accountable.
They could have “convinced” Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means.
No, they couldn’t.
All I’m saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible.
Yes, because Democrats want to help people, and Republicans only care about ultra wealthy people and corporations. Corporate America is the overlap in this particular Venn diagram.
When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they’re in charge of making and enforcing.
Republicans do that and block help. See Republicans with the recent bridge collapse all the way back to super storm Sandy.
I’m sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.
So they should have violated the rules of the Senate? They have a razor thin majority, 48 Dems and 3 independents. You would need all of them to be willing to violate the Senate rules to pass immigration as a reconciliation bill.
We could also talk about the recent immigration bill
So you go from being upset that they didn’t try to pass an immigration bill to upset that they did. The Democrats negotiated with Republicans to achieve one of two outcomes, either the Republicans go along with it and it removes the issue from the election or the Republicans torpedo it and they go into the election season having been given everything they wanted and refused it. It’s gamesmanship.
There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes.
And what court exactly would have allowed the destruction of presidential immunity for official presidential acts? The correct answer is none.
Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.
Who has claimed this? The Republicans have become a party of obstructionism. They do not care if the government functions. That means they aren’t willing to compromise and they will use every lever of government to sabotage any work done.
If the Republicans control either chamber of the legislature, nothing can get done. If there is a republican president, nothing will get done. Your solutions are ill conceived and don’t address reality. If you just want to be angry, go ahead. Throw in a “both sides are the same” while you’re at it. I prefer pragmatism and reality.
So you are completely ignorant as to how Congress functions, but you’re also somehow positive they could have done something? That’s such confused thinking. Perhaps figure out what could have been done before complaining that it wasn’t done.
When they didn’t avoid the situation that allowed turtleman to obstruct Obama’s nomination for almost a year by not beinging it before the Senate in a blatant abuse of power.
Avoid it how? What specifically would you have liked them to do?
You see, it’s just a coincidence that he is running against someone who is black and Indian and he just happened to pick the two most racist and stereotypical dishes associated with each.