While I guess areas may be different, the high school I went to, and also the area I now live in, have varsity and JV teams. You had to be good enough to make varsity, but no one got cut from JV. Just belonging on a team is enough for some kids to make it all bearable. Everyone mentions scholarships, but how often is this honestly actually an issue?
What do you need to know? It’s a high school team, not the Olympics. Why wouldn’t the default always be inclusion? High school is a tough time for a lot of kids, and I’d imagine it’s more difficult for most trans kids. If participating in sports makes it 5% easier, then so be it.
Buried lead:
It’s LEDE, not lead.
It took me 40+ years to learn this, just passing it along.
The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don’t want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.
That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.
So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
Sorry for having other things going on, it won’t happen again.
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?
They both need to step aside, it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.
Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous. The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest. You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.
They responded
You’re saying “they”, but it’s you. And no you didn’t, repeating what you said before isn’t addressing the issues.
Adressed twice.
Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry. You didn’t address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.
America will not subsidize to that level, if they could, and no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization or the unfair trade practices.
According to a Bloomberg article, China will sell EVs at under $10,000, undercutting the price of the average American EV by $50,000. Are you seriously arguing that “investment to lower cost” will reduce the cost by 85-90%? That’s simply a ludicrous assertion.
You think US products won’t have spyware?
I don’t think that collecting anonymized usage data, is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government. So no, absolutely nothing comparable.
You’re literally just talking to yourself, ignoring any mention of selling below cost, which is the biggest issue, with spyware being a close 2nd.
Americans get cheaper EVs…
For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.
…and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.
What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.
Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.
China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?
They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!
How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who’s harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients’ interests, period.
The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn’t nearly the longest case I’ve had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we’ve been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.
Have they found a way to make the remote more slippery?
He’ll stand trial, so we’ll certainly see if he’s criminally negligent or not.
You see, it’s just a coincidence that he is running against someone who is black and Indian and he just happened to pick the two most racist and stereotypical dishes associated with each.