Biden's presidency

[oblong]

31 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

In terms of being a Catholic, it sounds like I did have a rouge teacher. The thing is though, even if the Catholic Church doesn't believe it, the radical right evangelicals do and they are shaping public policy all across the country. In-fact, we are seeing a trend where fewer and fewer Republicans believe in Evolution.

There is Pew Research Poll from 2014 on Evolution. 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say they believe that humans have evolved. A majority of Republicans are either unsure and/or believe we were created by the hand of God and have been the same way forever and ever. The data below breaks it down by religion too, where you see a majority of bible thumping Evangelicals don't believe in Evolution. The core point to all of this is that it amazes me how independent-leaning voters overall can even remotely trust Republican politicians more or equal to Democrats on matters of education when you have them out their denying basic scientific consensus, trying to teach Creationism, and ban books all at the same time.

 

You don't have to convince me.  I went to HS with these people and many are still my friends but on this they're nuts.  It's just so ingrained in their beliefs there's no getting through.  That Noah's Ark/Creation museum thing in Kentucky is a big draw.  

[buddha]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

So who gets to be the arbiter of exactly what is appropriate for K-3 students? And what happens when they begin to ask questions that are outside the guidelines set by the state?  These kids are a lot smarter than what so called conservatives give them credit for. Many of them know other kids from same parent families. That aside, hearing anecdotes from a niece who has taught K-3 in a rural, extremely poor county here in Virginia for the last 15 years,  she has to answer questions that weren't in her teaching curriculum.  She's also had to deal with first graders who decided it was a good idea to play doctor during recess. (Try keeping track of 20 kids at once on a playground)

All this law does is cause more confusion and political separation because parents are too lazy or not knowledgeable to do their job properly.  

two questions about that law:

1) why would they be talking to first and second graders about sex and sexual orientation?  theyre too young for that to be taught to then in school.

2) i imagine no one was really doing that, and this is simply a political overreaction designed to get attention for republicans (duh).

3) (one more thing...) the biggest problem with the law is the fuzzy language at the end of that paragraph that is open to interpretation.  and by, open to interpretation, i mean that it could be interpreted that teachers are not allowed to teach about sexual orientation in any capacity should it be deemed not "age appropriate."

as with most hastily written, poorly thought out laws (i.e.: "laws"), it will be used and abused by lawyers to make a ton of money for themselves and for politicians to bring a ton kf attention to themselves, to no benefit to the public.

[buddha]

40 minutes ago, oblong said:

You don't have to convince me.  I went to HS with these people and many are still my friends but on this they're nuts.  It's just so ingrained in their beliefs there's no getting through.  That Noah's Ark/Creation museum thing in Kentucky is a big draw.  

i must be hanging in the wrong circles, because i know a lot of religious people and none of them believe this stuff.  but most of the religious people i know are pretty well educated.

[oblong]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

i must be hanging in the wrong circles, because i know a lot of religious people and none of them believe this stuff.  but most of the religious people i know are pretty well educated.

These are evangelicals who feel Liberty University just might be a little too liberal.  Think Bob Jones University.  

[CMRivdogs]

27 minutes ago, buddha said:

two questions about that law:

1) why would they be talking to first and second graders about sex and sexual orientation?  theyre too young for that to be taught to then in school.

2) i imagine no one was really doing that, and this is simply a political overreaction designed to get attention for republicans (duh).

3) (one more thing...) the biggest problem with the law is the fuzzy language at the end of that paragraph that is open to interpretation.  and by, open to interpretation, i mean that it could be interpreted that teachers are not allowed to teach about sexual orientation in any capacity should it be deemed not "age appropriate."

as with most hastily written, poorly thought out laws (i.e.: "laws"), it will be used and abused by lawyers to make a ton of money for themselves and for politicians to bring a ton kf attention to themselves, to no benefit to the public.

As well as chase good teachers out of the business because they are tired of the legislative bullshit along with funds taken away from needy public schools to fund schools that used to be private back in the days where things were mostly great for us lower middle class white kids, supposedly.

[buddha]

12 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

As well as chase good teachers out of the business because they are tired of the legislative bullshit along with funds taken away from needy public schools to fund schools that used to be private back in the days where things were mostly great for us lower middle class white kids, supposedly.

there's a lot going on in that run on sentence.  😛

[oblong]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

two questions about that law:

1) why would they be talking to first and second graders about sex and sexual orientation?  theyre too young for that to be taught to then in school.

2) i imagine no one was really doing that, and this is simply a political overreaction designed to get attention for republicans (duh).

3) (one more thing...) the biggest problem with the law is the fuzzy language at the end of that paragraph that is open to interpretation.  and by, open to interpretation, i mean that it could be interpreted that teachers are not allowed to teach about sexual orientation in any capacity should it be deemed not "age appropriate."

as with most hastily written, poorly thought out laws (i.e.: "laws"), it will be used and abused by lawyers to make a ton of money for themselves and for politicians to bring a ton kf attention to themselves, to no benefit to the public.

Do teachers in those grades ever mention parents?  They can claim it’s lesson plans exclusive but when Susie comes home and tells mama Karen that Sandy in her class has two daddies…. 

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

there's a lot going on in that run on sentence.  😛

is it even a sentence?  

[CMRivdogs]

Ramblings of an old man ,,,,,,

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

is it even a sentence?  

ah - memories of Eric C.

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, oblong said:

You don't have to convince me.  I went to HS with these people and many are still my friends but on this they're nuts.  It's just so ingrained in their beliefs there's no getting through.  That Noah's Ark/Creation museum thing in Kentucky is a big draw.  

Lemme ask you this: what are the chances those folks think that those of us who buy the evolution theory are going to hell for buying it?

[oblong]

24 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Lemme ask you this: what are the chances those folks think that those of us who buy the evolution theory are going to hell for buying it?

Very high. By doing that you are going against the word of god. Their version of course. 

[1776]

President Biden enters this year’s midterm elections with roughly half of Americans doubting he will seek re-election in 2024, with some citing the toll of the office on the country’s oldest president as the nation is facing a pandemic, high inflation and Russia’s war with Ukraine.

A new Wall Street Journal poll found that 52% of Americans don’t think Mr. Biden will run for re-election in two years, while 29% do expect him to pursue a second term. Nineteen percent are undecided about his future. Among Democrats, 41% said they think Mr. Biden will run again, while 32% said they didn’t think he would. The poll found 26% of those Democrats unsure.

Mr. Biden and the White House have said he intends to run for re-election. People close to the president have suggested he will make a final decision after November’s midterm elections.
 

WSJ

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

President Biden enters this year’s midterm elections with roughly half of Americans doubting he will seek re-election in 2024, with some citing the toll of the office on the country’s oldest president as the nation is facing a pandemic, high inflation and Russia’s war with Ukraine.

A new Wall Street Journal poll found that 52% of Americans don’t think Mr. Biden will run for re-election in two years, while 29% do expect him to pursue a second term. Nineteen percent are undecided about his future. Among Democrats, 41% said they think Mr. Biden will run again, while 32% said they didn’t think he would. The poll found 26% of those Democrats unsure.

Mr. Biden and the White House have said he intends to run for re-election. People close to the president have suggested he will make a final decision after November’s midterm elections.
 

WSJ

Biden has wanted this job his entire life.  If he's healthy, he'll run.  

[Archie]

27 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Biden has wanted this job his entire life.  If he's healthy, he'll run.  

I don't see Biden running again. He already has a lot of issues.   I feel we as Americans deserve better choices than Biden and Trump.  

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, Archie said:

I don't see Biden running again. He already has a lot of issues.   I feel we as Americans deserve better choices than Biden and Trump.  

What health issues does he have which would prevent him from running?

Americans don't dserve better than Biden and Trump.  We are the ones who chose them.  

[mtutiger]

I'll believe that Biden isn't running when I see signs that Biden isn't running.

[oblong]

So oil is down over 30% per barrel.... when will the price at the pump go down?   I kid.....

 

[Archie]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

What health issues does he have which would prevent him from running?

Americans don't dserve better than Biden and Trump.  We are the ones who chose them.  

Trump looked like a better candidate before he was elected.  He did some good things but we put up with a lot of things that are best described as not presidential.

I've always wondered who selected Biden for the dem nomination. The race was still close when everyone stepped aside.  Doesn't really matter though because his challengers were bad and worse. 

Biden doesn't have the cognitive skills now and he refuses to take to take a cognitive test for good reason.  Seems like he would since more than half the country does think he's fit for the office.  I don't think he's calling many of the shots now, if any at all.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Archie

[Tiger337]

7 minutes ago, Archie said:

Trump looked like a better candidate before he was elected.  He did some good things but we put up with a lot of things that are best described as not presidential.

I've always wondered who selected Biden for the dem nomination. The race was still close when everyone stepped aside.  Doesn't really matter though because his challengers were bad and worse. 

Biden doesn't have the cognitive skills now and he refuses to take to take a cognitive test for good reason.  Seems like he would since more than half the country does think he's fit for the office.  I don't think he's calling many of the shots now, if any at all.

Trump has been a disgrace for over 40 years.  How so many people can't see through his life long con is beyond me.  

[gehringer_2]

27 minutes ago, Archie said:

Trump looked like a better candidate before he was elected. 

the unreality of 'reality TV' at work. People thought he was person on their TeeVee, but the person on the TV was the producers' version of Trump playing a scripted character with his face, rather than the real character behind that face.

[Archie]

Trump provided a lot of what he promised in his campaign.  People support him because they like what he campaigned on and that he was able to follow through on much of it. Trump as a person and leader leaves much to be desired.

I still think if the Republicans run a good candidate that has same platform as Trump and are endorsed by him they will be hard to beat.  The Trump voters will support them and non Trump repubs will come back.

[oblong]

racists supported him because he talked bad about mexicans and sexists loved him because he talked bad about women and the religious nuts will vote for Satan if he promises to nominate "pro life" judges or deliver a tax cut.

[Archie]

Securing our border has nothing to do with racism. It is the first line of defense by Democrats though.

[Tiger337]

17 minutes ago, Archie said:

Securing our border has nothing to do with racism. It is the first line of defense by Democrats though.

Not everybody who wants to secure the border more is racist, but the motivation to campaign so heavily on it was racist.  It is also a matter of staying in power.  They don't want a bunch of Mexicans coming up here, eventually becoming citizens and then voting for Democrats.