The incumbent president always runs.

Not always. Yes, usually, but definitely not always. See, for example, in the last 100 years:

• Johnson in 1968 (he knew he had no chance against RFK and had alienated a lot of the base with the escalation of the war in Vietnam)

• Truman in 1952 (low polling because of the war in Korea and other domestic issues)

• Coolidge in 1928 (“The Presidential office takes a heavy toll of those who occupy it and those who are dear to them. While we should not refuse to spend and be spent in the service of our country, it is hazardous to attempt what we feel is beyond our strength to accomplish.”)

Granted, all three of these men served more than one full term in office because they each had taken over after the previous president had died, but each had the ability to run for an additional term and chose not to. Anyway, it is no more true that the incumbent president always runs than it is true that the VP always runs for the presidency at the conclusion of that term.

I’m upvoting, not because I agree, but because this is probably the least popular opinion on this thread, and I commend you for taking such a stance.

I’ve used “Joe’s roadside cafe, you kill em, we grill em” before

I think they are both good examples. Cruz is the example I specifically think of, but that doesn’t make good bad!

I’m unsure what your point is. Are you talking about social media companies, or are you talking about the government? Because free speech is about censorship from the government, not private corporations

… that just looks like you’re spelling racist wrong lol

We all know they’re in Mississippi, but there are chapters in some good states, too.

That photo of Ted Cruz phonebanking for Trump after Trump straight up insulted Cruz’s wife? That one photo was all I needed to know about the direction things were headed in for the Republicans.

See now, words have meanings. Most words aren’t open to your feelings.

Lies

Vitriol

When you’re ready to actually discuss this like a normal person instead of a troll, please let me know.

bonus points for combining the two in one post

Two terrorists one cup?

Um… Orwell was talking about speaking truth to power, not spreading lies and vitriol.

So much for the free market, huh?

No, the law is against “distributing food without a permit” … which does essentially bar people from giving food to homeless people outside of a soup kitchen or something. But yeah, it’s still a shitty law.

You leave Brickler out of this!

Flair actually did consider running for governor of NC at one point, so it isn’t as unlikely as you might think.

Pizza and weed sounds like a good business model, tbh

Again, you’re picking and choosing what I wrote and ignoring the rest. When you’ve had a chance to work on your reading comprehension, please let me know.

I love how you truncated my quote so you ignored “other sources of inequality.” Because even if the other things had been fixed (“getting better” doesn’t mean fixed), there’s still nothing I can do to solve the social and economic inequality facing my students.

For starters, recognizing that most of the problems our students face cannot be solved by schools, no matter how much money we throw at them? We need our entire society to change. As a teacher, there is literally nothing I can do about the poverty, racism, access to Healthcare, or other sources of inequality outside the school. Society as a whole needs to change first.

Social studies teacher here. You know why we don’t teach the “classical” education model anymore? Because it relies on memorization and lacks any real critical thinking or analysis. It whitewashes history and devalues the contributions of anyone outside the white, European mainstream.

Just looking at the available sample questions for the grade 8 test, there is no real analysis beyond simple textual understanding (“what it says in the text”). There are no sample questions that actually require a student to write. The writing questions are almost entirely correcting grammatical mistakes. On a complexity scale, there are generally 4 “levels” of questions, with 4 being the most complex, which typically would require an essay response. None of the questions asked go above a complexity of level 2.

And don’t get me started on the inherent biases of the texts chosen. The “literature,” “historical/founding documents” and “philosophy/religion” texts chosen are all by dead white men: Kipling, Plato, Cicero, Jefferson, Kempis, Eisenhower. The only author who wasn’t a dead white man is a dead white woman: George Eliot.

Both science passages have to do with modern medicine, the contents of which are far from controversial: antivenom and cardiovascular health. That isn’t to say that there is anything wrong with this, but again, there is nothing that even allows for critical analysis here.

So… yeah… definitely glad I’m not in Florida