Democrats want Biden to drop out because they don’t believe he can beat Trump.

To this point: for those who think that, do they think anyone else realistically could, at this point, other than Biden?

While I’m not thrilled with his chances, I will say that if he wasn’t to be the nominee, that decision needed to happen in 2021. At this point, I do believe that statistically, he’s got better odds than anyone else, so regardless of his debate or mental state, he’s our guy.

Just have one officially killed.

Then signal to the rest that you’d like them to review this latest decision while you’re deciding on your nominee to fill the vacancy.

And literally hours after McConnell says it’s too close to an election to have a confirmation, have him killed too.

Then ask his replacement (Cornyn? Graham? Hawley?) to pretty please hold a confirmation vote before your special ops team has a chance to get a few hours of sleep and a hot meal and they’re ready to roll again.

I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

I’m guessing their position is very much “oh they still need to work and pay taxes…and they shouldn’t expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so…but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well”.

There’s more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.

We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.

Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.

If you’re not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they’re 25 you’d better provide free transportation as well.

Since that’s not about to happen, leave it as it is.

While I personally agree with most of what you said, I disagree with your assertion as to the reaction you’ll get from peers.

We’ve made admitting mistakes worse than the mistake itself these days, and it’s slowly unraveling accountability.

I associate this with boomers more than kids, but that’s subjective since an old former friend I know always used to do it.

They also used “seen” instead of “saw”, as in, “I seen dark clouds so I closed the windows.” which is like nails on a chalkboard to me.

You’re getting downvoted because Lemmy, but that’s more or less how I read the ruling as well. They ruled very specifically in a way that let them punt on all the other questions these trials have created.

I’d hoped for better, but not realistically.

Wouldn’t the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?

Right.

Honestly for as much “woe is me” that they crammed into this piece, my takeaway was mostly just, “Hmmm…good.”

Like…I love rural PA, I’m just not wild about a lot of the people who live there. They vote against my own interests (and theirs), disproportionately influence state government, and welcome corporations that proudly destroy the environment while taking a hostile stance toward anyone not like them.

This isn’t down to every last person, of course, but broadly speaking, the ones who aren’t fitting that template are also not the ones doing most of the dying.

So the piece is reading, to me, more as, “the people most responsible for keeping the shitty aspects of Pennsylvania shitty are dying faster than they’re breeding”…which is good news for the more reasonable residents of the state.

Are you from rural PA?

So you just don’t work at all?

Knocked it out of the park with this comment.

Sincerely,

Someone originally from the same town as you, basically.

I’ll assume that I’m just missing a reference or three because the alternative is that I’m having a stroke.

Hell, in the inter-war period, mainstream America was even generally pretty comfortable with…uh…if not actual fascism, at least things that looked and sounded a lot like fascism.

Because they’ve also got the lie-a-beetus.

I hate making something like that mandatory, but another benefit would be to reduce the stigma of guns in general.

It always surprises me how frequently I hear from otherwise pretty open minded people some version of, “I don’t own guns and I’ve never needed a gun. Therefore nobody anywhere needs one or should have one for any reason and I’d fully support completely banning them, and if that violates the constitution, so what, it’s what I want.”

Further, gun education would reduce the ideas and legislation to restrict guns based on nonsense. There’s a lot of fear of “scary guns” based on little more than superficial appearance, and I even see a lot of ideas from people claiming to want compromise, but it usually comes down to one of a few things: some arbitrary delineation between guns they’re okay with because they don’t look scary, something that would do little more than make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people, or depriving law abiding citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process.

Oh now don’t start that again!

They call it McConnelling.

Sitting here at 5 months out from election day…when will we finally get some good quality pandering?