He honestly should be sacked. I'll give you that one. He's inept, maybe purposely so in a Ron Swanson manner.dejoy's incompetence STILL causing ballot issues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...&cvid=12d262f63d7f407df7da9cd9adb8450f&ei=106
Listing imaginary flaws of Vice President Harris in the same paragraph as the real flaws of Donald Trump is disingenuous. It implies a false equivalence that doesn’t exist.
That you think that these are imaginary flaws genuinely disturbs me, but suit yourself. For instance, she absolutely did threaten poor people, many of them minorities, with jail time over their children's truancy, instead of trying to solve the truancy problem in a way that didn't make their already difficult lives worse. She is on tape boasting about that.
Harris didn’t “threaten poor people with jail time over truancy”. The law provided for an escalating series of consequences if parents didn’t take truancy seriously, only culminating in jail time if all other efforts failed. You’re exaggerating to make it seem like your opposition to Harris is principled.
She bragged about what she did. It was on tape. She even laughed about it. Suit yourself. Whatever.
Yes, Kamala Harris did push for a law to that provided penalties for parents who were neglecting their children by allowing them to skip school. Some laws are good. This was a good law.
It was a horrible and misguided law. Impoverished families have enough to worry about without someone bringing in the threat of criminal penalties in the midst of absences that might even be caused by life-altering tragedies, emergencies, etc. Those tend to happen to impoverished families more than most. This is a woefully naïve position, to trust the authorities to known when or when not to pursue criminal prosecution in situations like this. She should not be applauded for this. She should be condemned for it.
What should be done if a child repeatedly skips school and their parents refuse to address the issue?
The first step should be to contact the families, inquire into the circumstances of the absences, make sure that they are aware of the absences (they might be working extremely long hours at multiple jobs, often both parents do), see if maybe a member of the extended family can step in and help ensure their attendance, etc. See if maybe a transfer of schools is best, too. Maybe there is bullying involved. Maybe there is abuse. If your first communication with the parents is to threaten the possibility of incarceration, though, that's a bit hasty, wouldn't you say? At some point, there might have to be some visits from Child Protection Services, simply a welfare check, to make sure that they have acceptable living conditions, too. In extreme cases, loss of custody might have to be considered. That's still far less draconian than incarceration, which would result in loss of custody, anyway.
You and Vice President Harris both support taking children away from parents who neglect them. Nevertheless, you find her position disqualifies her for the Presidency.
My position doesn't include incarceration as an option. Hers does. That is a crucial difference. I submit that you're woefully naïve in this and other matters, and that someday, you'll find out just how naïve, but probably too late. These days, you're either cynical or naïve. There is no alternative to these.
Are you opposed to jail time for parents who beat or starve their children?
No, but those are acts of violence and life-threatening neglect, not something that is less physically harmful or less of an imminent peril.
Neglecting a child's education stunts them for life. School is free. Not sending your child to school is as harmful as starving them or hitting them.
Harmful, yes. Imminent, physical jeopardy, no.
Absent a massive landslide the outcome is in the hands of the Deep State. Trump fills stadiums with cheering fans. Kamala can't fill a room and serves up bowls of ignorant word salad jibber jabber, and her media rushes to report her brilliance and predicts a dead heat or a Harris victory. All of our knowledge, instincts, and historical experience, all of a sudden have no value in predicting a political outcome. There's always some miracle designed to change logical outcomes. The left is already telling us to expect an "October surprise." What did Hillary mean by that? Lord only knows.So it would seem...
Yes, Vice President Harris is in the lead in the polls, and as I said in prior posting, I expect her to win. President Biden would have won, but he’s out due to coup.
Confession: I am not a fan of polls, but was drawn in by the topic, made a comment and then polls were introduced, so this is why I say something that counters current polling. That is all, but it did get me to thinking about the sub-topic (somewhat less than topic) and generated a response (not a rebuttal or disputation of the polls, they could be 100% spot on, Ouija Board or the Butcher’s Thumb).
As an avid hobbyist and observer of chaotic systems, a programmer involved in modeling and a devotee of Hari Seldon, I’ll make some general comments about the nature of a group of people. I think we can all accept that, when it comes to ideas, one person is agreeable, two people can reach an understanding that is satisfactory to them (free market), and three people cannot agree on lunch (committee).
[Unless it’s a Democracy and two cannibals and Joe Biden’s uncle are deciding on lunch under a coconut tree.
Should I leave that in? I am the headliner…,]
First premise is then that we are a nation of disagreeable, but intelligent, people that have to agree to get things done, that is to compromise, accept the beneficial (or benign) and forgo the perfect, so we form groups, alliances, vehicles in which to enforce agreements and to resolve agreements gone bad, we are therefore compelled to form a government.
Second premise naturally follows: our government is the culmination of this system of alliances something all of us accept but rarely, if ever, are satisfied with.
Thirdly, our government evolved into a two-party system, one that used to represent a check and balance on one country united in it ideas so that voting for one party or the other didn’t really affect day-to-day life, so it was used to “throw the bum out.” In this, we were a little less passionate about government; not really part of day-to-day life or future planning.
Obviously and conclusively, we are no longer united by one vision. We are not throwing the bum out, we are fighting for power and largess and we are evenly divided between the individualists and the collectivists and the collectivists have been greatly helped by social media, the pop culture and BIG (from Pharma to Agri to the Military, Industrial and Educational Complexes, [not to mention all those Political Family Foundations and Trusts]) America giving lip service and paying protection money to the collectivists who are a very activist lot, have a lot of revolutionary ideas, and have been shifting the bifurcations of this chaotic system towards their cultural victory and feel it within immediate grasp (and even act like it at times). The unification and Califonication of the Nation.
But the other viewpoint doesn’t want the government there to guide them culturally (I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.) and certainly do not want revolution, I.e., fundamental transformation, With the Musk takeover of Twitter, the collectivists lost their monopoly on Social Media and their absolute control of hate speech, specifically, defining it, editing it, and censoring it, a parallel of the Lerner-ization of the government.
Along with this breaking of the information monopoly, we see the flight from the traditional mainstream media news cycle, centrist, one-party states and “woke” businesses. These businesses (and businesses are people on many levels) that paid their Dane’s Geld are now realizing that the social justice blackmail was never stop and it was bleeding them too dry to absorb the inflation of the government’s “free” money. People and the businesses they interact with on every level are reacting to their environment in ways that they see benefit them personally, their bottom line.
This is what prompted my earlier remarks, that when events, the million, billion events and interactions that go into the mob’s decision-making process, that the mind of the mob may be pulling back and swinging the other way in reaction, but that polling is not picking up on it.
However, given all of that, the pure emotion of the first black woman President overcomes any reasoning about borders, inflation, Ukraine, China or Gaza in the minds of most collectivist voters: Swifties for the Swift Boat Vote. This so handicaps Trump that it is pretty much insurmountable. The only emotion that might overcome that is their daughter being raped, pummeled in sports or passed over in the hierarchy of woke hiring by a man in drag.
And all of the other fucking nonsense like mostly peaceful riots and anti-semitism.
Trump could win.
Harris could win.
Flip a coin, just,
don’t take a poll.
Disclaimer (because the first reaction is always “You’re a [fill-in-the-blank]”): I have no horse in the race, just handicapping it out loud, so to speak. I vote third party and like the majority of you, I live in a predominantly one-party region and, like most of you, our elections are civilized, peaceful, respectful of everyone involved and and efficiently and honestly conducted, so I’m not politicking. This is the political junkie’s super “cup” (nobody uses the “B” word) and I realize the passion that goes into a fan, so I’m not trying to take personal shots or be an influencer. I’m wearing neutral colors.
Royal Purple Reign
