2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[jhu72]

And to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick like the protestant and secular schools.

Having sent my daughter to a Catholic junior high, and carefully investigated several Catholic high schools for her (before settling on a local public), the degree of choosiness is only slightly less. The key point is this: kids at Catholic schools all have involved parents. If they didn't, those kids wouldn't be there! (Even if they're on full scholarship, the parents had to know enough and care enough to apply for the scholarship.) This is a HUGE advantage for the private schools. Force any private school, I don't care how good it is or who runs it, to take EVERY KID in an across-all-incomes, across all levels of parent caring, slice of the population, and they will do no better than the publics.

… probably worse, the publics have millions of teacher years of experience with the associated problems.

[Typical Lax Dad]

And to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick like the protestant and secular schools.

Having sent my daughter to a Catholic junior high, and carefully investigated several Catholic high schools for her (before settling on a local public), the degree of choosiness is only slightly less. The key point is this: kids at Catholic schools all have involved parents. If they didn't, those kids wouldn't be there! (Even if they're on full scholarship, the parents had to know enough and care enough to apply for the scholarship.) This is a HUGE advantage for the private schools. Force any private school, I don't care how good it is or who runs it, to take EVERY KID in an across-all-incomes, across all levels of parent caring, slice of the population, and they will do no better than the publics.

Exactly. It starts with a parent with enough sense to want a better outcome for their kids. There are a myriad of reasons why some parents are more involved than others. Sometimes it’s simply just not knowing any better. I have a colleague who derives a portion of his household income from 50-60 charter schools and I have been in their buildings a ton of times. It’s skimming. We argue about it all the time. Let there be a random draw of city students and force them to take the kids and not be able to ship them out if it doesn’t work out.

[HooDat]

Good points all around about the "selective" nature of the parent having to care enough to actually apply. In my opinion, that is probably the leading indicator of future success (however you want to define it) of a kid - parents who care.

The second would be focused on the plural - parents. I was raised by just my mom, and i can tell you that it is a miracle I didn't screw things up - heaven knows I tried. It is a LOT for one parent to always be "on" and always be the only perspective when it comes time to make decisions.

I do not think it is a money thing. All the money does is give $H!t-heads a safety net. I have seen some really (really) rich kids waste their educational opportunities just as much as a kid who is one of six with a single mother and living in public housing. Extreme circumstances breed extreme outcomes....

[jhu72]

Good points all around about the "selective" nature of the parent having to care enough to actually apply. In my opinion, that is probably the leading indicator of future success (however you want to define it) of a kid - parents who care.

The second would be focused on the plural - parents. I was raised by just my mom, and i can tell you that it is a miracle I didn't bag things up - heaven knows I tried. It is a LOT for one parent to always be "on" and always be the only perspective when it comes time to make decisions.

I do not think it is a money thing. All the money does is give $H!t-heads a safety net. I have seen some really (really) rich kids waste their educational opportunities just as much as a kid who is one of six with a single mother and living in public housing. Extreme circumstances breed extreme outcomes....

If one is suboptimal, two is good, a village is better. In my opinion this is the real problem and solution. But lets try a multicultural village and I am willing to bet we solve a lot of the worlds problems. I have said this before and received a lot of pushback, but we need to stop being so "my child" centric and start caring (figuratively and literally) for the village's kids. Money of course gets in the way of this, but there is no better investment.

[foreverlax]

Of the lot last night, Delaney from MD was impressive...Castro, Klobuchar, and Gabbard looked "strong".

Will be glad when the Ds narrow the field to 4-5 real contenders.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Good points all around about the "selective" nature of the parent having to care enough to actually apply. In my opinion, that is probably the leading indicator of future success (however you want to define it) of a kid - parents who care.

The second would be focused on the plural - parents. I was raised by just my mom, and i can tell you that it is a miracle I didn't bag things up - heaven knows I tried. It is a LOT for one parent to always be "on" and always be the only perspective when it comes time to make decisions.

I do not think it is a money thing. All the money does is give $H!t-heads a safety net. I have seen some really (really) rich kids waste their educational opportunities just as much as a kid who is one of six with a single mother and living in public housing. Extreme circumstances breed extreme outcomes....

If one is suboptimal, two is good, a village is better. In my opinion this is the real problem and solution. But lets try a multicultural village and I am willing to bet we solve a lot of the worlds problems. I have said this before and received a lot of pushback, but we need to stop being so "my child" centric and start caring (figuratively and literally) for the village's kids. Money of course gets in the way of this, but there is no better investment.

Yep.

[HooDat]

If one is suboptimal, two is good, a village is better. In my opinion this is the real problem and solution. But lets try a multicultural village and I am willing to bet we solve a lot of the worlds problems. I have said this before and received a lot of pushback, but we need to stop being so "my child" centric and start caring (figuratively and literally) for the village's kids. Money of course gets in the way of this, but there is no better investment.

How do you define the "village"? Is it a neighborhood? A school district? A city/county? A state/country/the world?

This is the problem - the left has great hearts but unworkable ideas. Everyone is "my" child sounds wonderful - but it is not human nature, and where does it stop? The truth of the matter is, in many areas it is proving hard to even get one parent to give a crap about a kid.

Why the multicultural adjective? It serves no purpose other than virtue signalling. What does multiculturalism add to this discussion? The only relevance of adding a "multicultural" modifier to that idea is the implication that some cultures are bad at raising kids and need another culture to do it for them - and there sits the the monster that swims beneath the waves of the dem policies. The unshakable belief that they know better, and should be telling other people how to live.

Now that I have that rant out of the way, and presuming that anyone is still paying attention - I am a very big believer in villages. Not cities, not counties, not states, but VILLAGES. Villages where local customs, family ties and shared values allow for a sense of community - which leads to the fantastic outcome of accountability and adults knowing not only their neighbors, but their neighbor's children.

[foreverlax]

If one is suboptimal, two is good, a village is better. In my opinion this is the real problem and solution. But lets try a multicultural village and I am willing to bet we solve a lot of the worlds problems. I have said this before and received a lot of pushback, but we need to stop being so "my child" centric and start caring (figuratively and literally) for the village's kids. Money of course gets in the way of this, but there is no better investment.

How do you define the "village"? Is it a neighborhood? A school district? A city/county? A state/country/the world?

This is the problem - the left has great hearts but unworkable ideas. Everyone is "my" child sounds wonderful - but it is not human nature, and where does it stop? The truth of the matter is, in many areas it is proving hard to even get one parent to give a dump about a kid.

Why the multicultural adjective? It serves no purpose other than virtue signalling. What does multiculturalism add to this discussion? The only relevance of adding a "multicultural" modifier to that idea is the implication that some cultures are bad at raising kids and need another culture to do it for them - and there sits the the monster that swims beneath the waves of the dem policies. The unshakable belief that they know better, and should be telling other people how to live.

Now that I have that rant out of the way, and presuming that anyone is still paying attention - I am a very big believer in villages. Not cities, not counties, not states, but VILLAGES. Villages where local customs, family ties and shared values allow for a sense of community - which leads to the fantastic outcome of accountability and adults knowing not only their neighbors, but their neighbor's children.

+1

[HooDat]

How about that debate lasts night?

The Dems better hope the media doesn't get to pick their nominee because it will be a bloodbath - Trump will wipe the floor with these folks.

Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night.

The mob rush to attempt to place their stake further to the left that anyone else is not good politics.

I particularly "liked" Castro's tough stance in favor of abortion rights for transgender "women"

[seacoaster]

"Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night."

Electable in her district in Hawaii. You should get into comedy. Seriously.

[runrussellrun]

"Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night."

Electable in her district in Hawaii. You should get into comedy. Seriously.

Then who?

[a fan]

How about that debate lasts night?

The Dems better hope the media doesn't get to pick their nominee because it will be a bloodbath - Trump will wipe the floor with these folks.

Yep. Get ready for more Trump.

As I said: they're stuck. Millenials don't vote in large enough numbers. The candidates further to the left scare the moderates. The candidates more to the center are viewed as corrupt Clinton Dems, and the lefty voters will stay home.

They're stuck.

[a fan]

"Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night."

Electable in her district in Hawaii. You should get into comedy. Seriously.

Then who?

None of them.

[jhu72]

If one is suboptimal, two is good, a village is better. In my opinion this is the real problem and solution. But lets try a multicultural village and I am willing to bet we solve a lot of the worlds problems. I have said this before and received a lot of pushback, but we need to stop being so "my child" centric and start caring (figuratively and literally) for the village's kids. Money of course gets in the way of this, but there is no better investment.

How do you define the "village"? Is it a neighborhood? A school district? A city/county? A state/country/the world?

This is the problem - the left has great hearts but unworkable ideas. Everyone is "my" child sounds wonderful - but it is not human nature, and where does it stop? The truth of the matter is, in many areas it is proving hard to even get one parent to give a dump about a kid.

Why the multicultural adjective? It serves no purpose other than virtue signalling. What does multiculturalism add to this discussion? The only relevance of adding a "multicultural" modifier to that idea is the implication that some cultures are bad at raising kids and need another culture to do it for them - and there sits the the monster that swims beneath the waves of the dem policies. The unshakable belief that they know better, and should be telling other people how to live.

Now that I have that rant out of the way, and presuming that anyone is still paying attention - I am a very big believer in villages. Not cities, not counties, not states, but VILLAGES. Villages where local customs, family ties and shared values allow for a sense of community - which leads to the fantastic outcome of accountability and adults knowing not only their neighbors, but their neighbor's children.

Try the concept of a Rouse Village, imperfectly implemented in Columbia MD. A village made up of a diverse group of people of different religions, economics, races, etc.

The origin of the phrase.

Funny, I have the same rant about conservative ideas.

[seacoaster]

"Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night."

Electable in her district in Hawaii. You should get into comedy. Seriously.

Then who?

None of them.

Sorry; I was just reacting to something I read in the morning "papers."

USA Today had Tulsi as one of the "winners."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 575569001/

The Washington Post had her as one of the "losers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 413364cef5

"Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault — she wasn’t asked many questions — but fellow cellar-dwellers Delaney and de Blasio were able to work their way in by piggybacking on others’ answers. Toward the end, Gabbard was asked a question: About her past opposition to gay rights, which she has apologized for. Her answer about personal evolution and coming from a socially conservative family was perfectly fine. But then Booker swooped in and argued she should have also talked about transgender rights, making her answer suddenly seem insufficient."

Eye (and ear) of the Beholder (behearer) much?

To answer RRR's question, I don't know.

To respond to a fan's comment, "no one," I guess I disagree; there is a candidate among these that can beat Trump. It'll have to sugar out a while longer.

The question for me watching the debate a while last night was: who can we shake to reduce the pack? Anyone want to take a crack at that one?

[jhu72]

How about that debate lasts night?

The Dems better hope the media doesn't get to pick their nominee because it will be a bloodbath - Trump will wipe the floor with these folks.

Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night.

The mob rush to attempt to place their stake further to the left that anyone else is not good politics.

I particularly "liked" Castro's tough stance in favor of abortion rights for transgender "women"

I doubt Tulsi can get the nomination. Last night she came off as a one trick pony -- anti-war. Important box to check, makes me happy, wife loved her for that reason. She presented well, did fine. You certainly didn't hear any of her other positions so how can you tell she is electable?? I guarantee there are other positions she takes that you won't like as a conservative - which are also generally fine with me.

Most of what you saw last night, with a few notable exceptions were folks who did not have enough time to present their positions.

I only saw one individual I think has zero chance of being nominated - Beta O'Roarke. He is too Pollyannaish for a base that wants war with Trump. He should run for Senate again. Others will fall by the way in the next couple months. I suspect Gabbard will be one of those. Gabbard should set her sites on SoD. If see makes the cut, great. Ryan should be looking for a VP slot IMO but I could see him as President, I just don't think he has a chance as long as Biden is in the race and doesn't implode. Sherrod Brown who is more mature Ryan made that calculation and didn't like his chances.

I saw a lot of folks I could imagine as President - they were more Presidential than what we have. Whoever wins the nomination will have an excellent set of possibilities for cabinet positions.

2020 is not 2016.

[jhu72]

"Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night."

Electable in her district in Hawaii. You should get into comedy. Seriously.

Then who?

None of them.

Sorry; I was just reacting to something I read in the morning "papers."

USA Today had Tulsi as one of the "winners."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 575569001/

The Washington Post had her as one of the "losers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 413364cef5

"Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault — she wasn’t asked many questions — but fellow cellar-dwellers Delaney and de Blasio were able to work their way in by piggybacking on others’ answers. Toward the end, Gabbard was asked a question: About her past opposition to gay rights, which she has apologized for. Her answer about personal evolution and coming from a socially conservative family was perfectly fine. But then Booker swooped in and argued she should have also talked about transgender rights, making her answer suddenly seem insufficient."

Eye (and ear) of the Beholder (behearer) much?

To answer RRR's question, I don't know.

To respond to a fan's comment, "no one," I guess I disagree; there is a candidate among these that can beat Trump. It'll have to sugar out a while longer.

The question for me watching the debate a while last night was: who can we shake to reduce the pack? Anyone want to take a crack at that one?

It is way too early. Most of these people had near zero national name recognition before last night. That will change.

[jhu72]

.

"Tulsi is the only electable person I saw on that stage last night."

Electable in her district in Hawaii. You should get into comedy. Seriously.

Then who?

None of them.

Sorry; I was just reacting to something I read in the morning "papers."

USA Today had Tulsi as one of the "winners."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 575569001/

The Washington Post had her as one of the "losers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 413364cef5

"Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault — she wasn’t asked many questions — but fellow cellar-dwellers Delaney and de Blasio were able to work their way in by piggybacking on others’ answers. Toward the end, Gabbard was asked a question: About her past opposition to gay rights, which she has apologized for. Her answer about personal evolution and coming from a socially conservative family was perfectly fine. But then Booker swooped in and argued she should have also talked about transgender rights, making her answer suddenly seem insufficient."

Eye (and ear) of the Beholder (behearer) much?

To answer RRR's question, I don't know.

To respond to a fan's comment, "no one," I guess I disagree; there is a candidate among these that can beat Trump. It'll have to sugar out a while longer.

The question for me watching the debate a while last night was: who can we shake to reduce the pack? Anyone want to take a crack at that one?

It is way too early. Most of these people had near zero national name recognition before last night. That will change.

… or play the Bill Maher game -- Oprah Winfrey.

[a fan]

To respond to a fan's comment, "no one," I guess I disagree; there is a candidate among these that can beat Trump. It'll have to sugar out a while longer.

The entire election hinges on turnout. We'll see, I guess.

[jhu72]

To respond to a fan's comment, "no one," I guess I disagree; there is a candidate among these that can beat Trump. It'll have to sugar out a while longer.

The entire election hinges on turnout. We'll see, I guess.

Yup.

- If AAs had turned out like for half way between Obama and HRC turnout, HRC wins. - they are supporting Biden strongly at present
- I believe if Bernie fans had turned out better I believe HRC wins even without AA increased turnout - this was I believe the most likely way Putin effected the election. They were blaming HRC for everything and most of it was untrue. - I don't see this same effect this time, these kids are paying attention. This started before the primaries even started it.
- You also have republican woman much more likely to vote for a dem this cycle - the lesson of 2018. Socialism lite may effect this or it may not. I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that it will.
- The dems are better organized and are not ignoring any districts - the lesson of 2016 and 2018 turn around.
- No matter how you slice it, there are more democrats than republicans - so work to pull some of these wayward voters back. I don't think socialism lite hurts this effort.

The dems may lose, but it will not be a landslide. Trump isn't going to get more popular, he can only hope to make the dems less popular.

We will see how it turns out.