scrubbedexpat099

People so soon forget, we need to remember what the option was, my feeling is often people vote for the least worst.

All the Dems need to do to win is nominate somebody half decent without the baggage of progressive policies. Not rocket science.

Giantaxe

An interesting dissection of the likely reasons why Harris has dropped in the polls. My feeling is echoed in the last paragraph of it: she just isn't a great candidate and comes across poorly compared to Warren etc. I expected her to do much better post the first debate, but I can't see she'll get near the nomination now:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rris-campaign/

johnwoo

And the child that did nothing because of a disability or just plain lazy, I presume you would kick out of the house or refuse to clothe and feed feed him/her?

johnwoo

I had high hopes for Harris, but I'd vote for my dog or anybody else's dog before Trump.

" Bosco Ramos was a dog elected honorary mayor of the unincorporated community of Sunol, California, United States. He was a black Labrador retriever and Rottweiler mix, usually known simply as "Bosco". Bosco defeated two humans to win the honorary mayoral election in 1981, and served until his death in 1994".

BenK91

SpoogleDrummer

Personally I don't see how a third party hasn't thrived as I think both sides are absolutely nuts.

robin1234

Steerpike

I put that article in the 'sad but true' category!

I'm reluctantly trying to convince myself Warren is worthy at the moment. I'm actually thinking Klobuchar needs a second look. Biden worries me but - oh well, if he can win, let's do it. Only Sanders really scares me - too many controversial positions combined with an awful delivery method (which needs to be better in order to 'sell' his positions to swing voters). I just can't stand watching him wag his finger all the time! Maybe Warren can pull off the 'sale' of her policies. I still have that sinking feeling that Trump could do it.

Steerpike

It's a shame you didn't just stick with 'disability'. Why introduce 'just plain lazy'? I will happily see my taxes go to anyone with a disability ... but not to someone who is 'just plain lazy'. There's an interesting debate, I guess, to be had regarding what 'should' happen to lazy people, but I don't think they deserve the same treatment as disabled.

johnwoo

So typical of a Trump supporter.
Do I get to choose my Island of preference? I can think of quite a few Islands that I would like to share with more saner people.

johnwoo

Sticking with the child analogy of BenK91, would one abandon a child that was lazy or perhaps give them a good thrashing.
I suppose under a Benk91 Victorian philosophy, reintroducing the Victorian workhouse would be a solution.

kimilseung

Not a rhetorical question, but how does one decide if one person has a disability (cognitive) and another is lazy? Given that both are the result of a combination of brain chemistry and experience? The extremes might be intuitive, but I have no idea how Is go about creating a rubric to decide one over the other.

Steerpike

Certainly an interesting question. I can see how there's crossover in the 'middle' between the extremes. I'm assuming your encounters with this situation relate to children not completing assignments - solving a math puzzle, for example? The question is, are they failing to complete because they are lazy or because they are struggling mentally to do the task?

For simplicity, can we make an assumption that we are talking about a basic 'manual' task, such as 'clearing the snow' or 'cleaning a room'? That would eliminate some elements of cognitive struggles. I would think 'reward' is a key element of this. So if, for example, I say to someone, "I'll give you $10 to clear the snow", then the first question may be, is the reward sufficient motivation? If they turn down $10 but accept $20, I think we've established (or got closer to establishing) they are lacking motivation and/or, are 'lazy'. Also, if they completed the task 'last week' but don't want to do it this week, that may suggest this is not a mental issue.

Am I correctly understanding where you are going with this?

robtuck

Interestingly, to me, family is pretty much a small version of Socialism - we care for children, not expect them to go off and earn their own way, because we know for a period they need to be educated and probably can't compete very effectively when they can only crawl around and fail to use a common language with anyone else in the workplace.

In some cases, adults within the family unit may well stay at home to enable another to earn the crust - people accept the need to do something for the greater good of the "family".

Generally speaking, while the children in a family unit eventually have the chance to shine on their own, there still remains a support network in place, right up to an including inheriting everything, which may have been through no input they gave personally.

Healthcare is provided free at the point of need - children are not charged for the application of a plaster, or for needing a bed for a couple of days when they have the flu or a cold.

Given that (and yes, it's a stupid equivalence) it's not odd that some forms of Socialist policy may be appealing to the masses. Equally, each family is more than happy to compete with others for the available resources, and in any Communist State you can see Elites form and corruption become rampant. Therefore, Free Market Policies also have many supporters. Both are in our instinct - fight to survive, care for those around us.

It's my personal conclusion that Extremes of Right and Left are always doomed to fail, thanks to Human Nature. The trick is building a compelling case of a mix - that doesn't mean being in the middle, it means testing out policies to see what real impact they have, and judging them by how Society changes for the better or worse.

Leslie

My God you are a piece of work.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...res-friendship