wmw999

It’s all part of the economy. Wendy P.

That way he maintains control of the narrative Wendy P.

No matter what happens, it'll be possible to find a problem with it, and if it's a topic/person/cause you disagree with, you'll work hard to find that problem, and if it's one that you agree with, the problem will be "unimportant" or "unavoidable." Just like people who favor the Democrats think about things like the completely chickenshit way in which the Republicans both denied a Supreme Court justiceship because "it was too close to the election," and then ramrodded one through seven months later in the next election cycle because they could. The difference is -- Biden really didn't want to drop out; he was proven wrong in that want, and the circumstances changed. The Republicans in the Senate were consistent in the "whatever it takes" philosophy, including lying and cheating. Wendy P.

Yeah, I heard a kid say it the other way and asked my mother about it, and she said that wasn't a word we used. Wendy P.

Something that someone else brought up is that selecting Kelly might then put his Senate seat at risk in 2026. Gain the Presidency, lose the Senate? Wendy P.

And I had a Super Swooper Tandem as a backup rig for awhile; it flew well. Blue Skies, John Wendy P.

Conservative Never Trumpers aren’t in her corner. She’s too progressive for them, and they’ll more likely sit out. Wendy P.

So why is that bad for Kamala (who was single at the time, as was Montel Williams at this charity affair), while this is OK for Trump, whose wife was pregnant at the time? Wendy P.

My grandmother's first husband left her in 1921 or so. She had to leave her kids (my aunt and uncle) with a lady while she went to work to support them as a newspaper reporter. They never heard from her first husband again, and when my cousins tried to contact their birth grandfather he refused contact. It's happened all along. It's become more acceptable, and it's not as often a stain on the woman (without being a stain on the man). And while some of the kids knew more than the teacher about some sexual things, they didn't all, and I'll bet she gave them context, and actual information, rather than 7th-grade BMOC posturing. I'd call that a win. Wendy P.

I'm completely with you. When I was in eighth grade (Ohio, 1960's), the girls' PE teacher was also the health teacher. during the sex education part, they taught facts (I don't remember how many, because my mother had covered the topic years before). But the most notable part was the day that she split the class into girls and boys, and we met in different rooms; the girls with her, and the boys with one of the male PE teachers. She said this was the day to ask all the questions that were too hard to ask with the boys/girls in the class. She also let us just write them down so that she could answer them anonymously. It was, frankly, brilliant. No, I don't know if she censored any of the questions; I, like nearly every other kid, was really only interested in the question that I had. Wendy P.

To me there's a big difference between controlling (which is what censoring is) and forbidding porn. I once did a project on porn in college (the professor was a real horndog, and I knew I was guaranteeing a reasonable grade with minimal effort). The two comic books I picked up were explicit enough that I, at 20, was OK, but I sure wouldn't have wanted my son to see something like that before he was at least late in high school without my being able to discuss it with him. So yeah, I, too, think there are books that don't belong in an elementary school library. Language (like being in Latin) is a good reason, and frank pornography is another. A reference to the existence of material that parents don't consider to be appropriate is fine -- that's exactly what does cause questions (hopefully of the parents). So a kid learning from Johnny that his older brother has magazines under the mattress, or learning in a "growing up in a bad family" book that parents sometimes do bad things, is OK. Just as learning that there are other kids out there who have some of the same feelings matters, whether it's feeling like something is wrong in their body, or just feeling like nobody understands them. Wendy P.

Yes, but Trump is one of them. Remember, any single error by an "other" is disqualifying. Any single right action by a "same" is qualifying. Wendy P.

And that "need for energizing" is exactly what makes a celebrity candidate more attractive across an entire country. Ergo, frankly, someone like Mark Kelly. Yes, it's pandering, but maybe it's also the future. Zelensky has done a pretty good job in Ukraine, after all. Wendy P.

I agree. She’s a progressive, and she’ll energize some people who might not have voted, but she won’t energize any moderates Wendy P.

Well, it’s a first amendment thread… Wendy P.