You know what? You’re right, I’m sorry. Taking out my frustrations with the current regime on the wrong target.

Hey you’re cool with the current regime and like genocide! What’s it like being a genocide apologist?

Edit: Taking potshots at people who I agree with and don’t deserve it is bad form.

Now with U.S.-approved ethnic cleansing.

Yeah, more accurate to say everyone is androgynous based on the order.

So I’m not sure where you’re from, but the feds don’t run local governments in the US, with some exceptions in DC.

Never mind that California probably has more conservatives than most conservative states…

Any coagulation of power is a structure for corruption to take place.

If that’s the case, why are you participating in this moderated forum controlled by other people? Surely you’re just feeding their inevitable corruption.

Yeah hilariously, cash is actually more untraceable. Anything digital can eventually be tracked. It’s not easy, but it’s doable.

Well, it’s just Jul, so we could all just go back to calling it Yule. Literally nothing changes and the Christians can still do whatever they want.

Didn’t Fetterman’s views change after a major medical incident? It really just seems like he had an actual personality change after having a stroke.

The RFK Stadium bill unanimously passed the Senate separately.

Right but if they don’t count primary votes that were cast, then there’s a cause of action because they’re breaking their own rules. It’s basically a breach of contract. There’s no cause of action for some votes being more valuable than others because those were always the rules. I don’t love that system, but it’s a private entity and those are their rules for picking a candidate to run in the general. It’s true that they’re not required to have a primary, but that’s irrelevant right now because the Dems do have a primary under their own rules.

They can’t legally ignore primary votes. It’s not necessarily a crime, but there is definitely a successful and very expensive lawsuit if someone wins a primary by the rules and the party just picks someone else instead.

That’s fair, sorry for misunderstanding. There’s a tradeoff between “interesting to the student” and the teacher’s time as well. My guess is most teachers would love to cater reading more towards every student’s interest along with some required reading just because there’s a canon you need to understand, even if you don’t like it. Maybe technology will make that easier, but getting it in the classroom is an uphill battle very much outside of teacher control.

It is possible there was a learning need that wasn’t being met for those people who swore off reading. We’re getting better at catching those but it’s difficult. Kids are people and can hide a learning disorder to seem normal. A good teacher knows how to make the student comfortable enough so the teacher can figure that out and plan an alternative learning strategy. Not all teachers are good, but most try very hard to do well in a very demanding and low-paying job that is increasingly disrespected, including by comments like yours.

The way your comments read seem like an indictment on every teacher and I frequently encounter similar attitudes online based on anecdotal evidence of a single incident. The reality is the world is hard and people are increasingly bragging online about how little work they did in school to prepare themselves for it. This is increasingly going to translate to anti-intellectualism and lower outcomes in society. We already see it.

Going back to your case, you disliked reading Madame Bovary, which I know is just one example. And maybe you had a shit experience with teachers, which I’m sorry you had to go through. But that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t read Madame Bovary in school, it just means you didn’t like it and maybe had other shit you had to deal with as well.

No general education system is going to be able to tailor curricula to every single child based on their individual interests. Besides that, children’s interests change constantly and they need to learn things beyond just what they’re interested in at any given moment. That includes reading things that aren’t interesting to them but might be interesting to their peers (or even to them later on).

Reading boring shit you don’t like is necessary in a lot of jobs. Training yourself to get through it is also a skill set and one you should develop early. And in some cases, it reveals a new interest.

Assuming you mean work-sponsored, they exist. My job usually does one (optional and workload permitting) like every six months. Outside of work…well if you’re an adult nothing is stopping you from going to a museum or an old mill yourself.

I don’t think he can. This is a former county judge who oversaw state cases. It would require the governor and/or state AG to pardon those kids. I actually think there was a commission set up specifically for that purposes, which led to hundreds of vacated convictions and a class action lawsuit that recovered millions in damages.

What is the point you want to make?

PSL are basically tankies now and the Greens are fully captured by Russian oligarchs. Both are small enough that you’re right, maybe it’ll be easier to change them. However, I doubt it because in some ways they’re more radical than the Dems so more set in their beliefs. Dems might be easier to change from within because there’s already so many camps, it’ll be easier to form a coalition.

Also, as much as I like Sanders, people need to let 2016 go. He knew the rules, he’d been in the Senate since 2007 and in politics since the 70s. Superdelegates were not some secret, Sanders knew he had to win them over too. Democrats didn’t like him because he ran as a Democrat for the funding and platform, but was an Independent before and an Independent afterwards.

Ultimately, he wanted to use the Dems but didn’t want to work for them. I have zero problem with him doing this, but I’m also not surprised the party leaders didn’t line up behind him as the nominee. Same deal as Clinton and Harris, they knew the rules and that the game was rigged in Trump’s favor through the electoral college (and sexism), and they lost. I don’t have to like the result, but I’m also not going to say any of them were robbed. The only person that can legitimately claim to have a modern presidential election stolen from them is Al Gore because he actually won the nomination and electoral college. The Supreme Court changing the results is not in the rules that anyone agreed to.