I direct you to the sixth word in the headline of your own cite.
LOL. Headlines are not what someone actually said. Context. This has been an issue- read what was actually said, not the clickbait headline. Have you never seen a clickbait title before? The California post is not a reliable cite, often using clickbait, etc. Same with the Mew York Post, both are the only two "news’ agencies that reported on this i could find.
The actual words used-
and here is what Newsom actually did-
So “a responsibility to serve for 6 months minimum” isn’t mandatory. Gotcha.
This ongoing game of “What Newsom REALLY meant to say is” has become quite silly. If you have to keep jumping through hoops to explain how what someone said isn’t what they said, then either they’re not an effective communicator or they just plain don’t even know what they stand for themselves.
Both are disqualifying for a president.
If we based public school curriculums on polling parents, we’d be teaching our kids that the universe is 6,000 years old, gender and sex are the same thing, and that marrying outside your race is immoral. The point of public education is to teach people what they NEED to know, not what their parents WANT them to know.
And what question was he answering when he said that? Yes, he was absolutely talking about military service.
During a taped interview at John’s Grill in San Francisco, Politico’s Jonathan Martin asked Newsom whether the US should adopt compulsory military service or some form of volunteer obligations.
No. Nor is our responsibility to vote.
No game, I quoted what he actually said. And what he has actually DONE.
Only if you ignore the context and the question that he was asked and take only one possible interpretation of his words in a vacuum. This is the game Newsom plays - give vague noncommital answers so that if the clear meaning of what he said is unpopular he can claim that wasn’t what he meant, because he stands for nothing and is trying to be a human Rorschach test that the voter can read any possible agenda into. His platform is “whatever you think it is that I support, you’re right”.
OK, right, so you see how he was talking about military service, then.
Oh, and back to the cursive:
I find this genuinely hard to believe. Parents of school children are mostly younger than me, and I’m already young enough that I’ve never really needed cursive. Who are all of these people who are telling pollsters that they support teaching cursive, and what do they think it’s useful for?
Following those links, it looks like both are just slap-dash polls attached to news stories, which already mean very little, and it looks like the second one might have actually asked the poll question itself in cursive.
Latin was forced on early public high schools by a smallish elite who set college admissions standards.
But calligraphy is a good one. It seems to be a similar issue in Taiwanese schools.
We could have a thread on whether teaching cursive – first, second, or never – is good in the abstract. But for this thread, the issue is just whether teaching cursive second is important enough to stand up against public opinion when every presidential election lately – certainly including 2028 – is the most important in our lifetimes. This means willingness to reside in a tent big enough to include some ideas that we might be at least a little uncomfortable with. If we won’t even cheer Shapiro on when it comes to a nothingburger man-of-the-people issue like this, I despair our being able to keep MAGA out of long-term power.
In the abstract, I would love to see an English language spelling reform. But when MAGA is at our heels, and knowing how unpopular a big change to spelling would be, I’d be crazy to advocate it at this time – especially if I was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
I’d absolutely support tying military action to a draft - it might stop the sort of catastrophically stupid military adventure we started with Iran. If politicians knew that starting a war automatically triggered something as unpopular as a draft, then maybe they’d reserve war as an actual last resort instead of a distraction or political Hail Mary.
Someone in Congress periodically proposes a bill for the draft or mandatory military service; I remember Chuck Rangel used to do it. It’s a clear way to highlight the disparity of who actually serves (and this dies). It’s an important point.
From context this isn’t what Newsom was getting at. He was agreeing that mandatory national service (military or civilian) is a good idea. Obama said something similar. He probably thought it was a safe way to make his “shared experiences” point.
A better, bolder answer would have been “No, we need to focus on initiatives that have a bigger impact and will actually work.”
Similarly for cursive, a better position is “We’re going to highlight the benefits of learning modern cursive and provide the teaching materials, then let the individual school districts decide.”
How big an issue is AI for voters? Is this something a candidate should dedicate a plank to their platform? I know there’s a lot of trepidation about AI in my circles, but I’m not sure it’s a broad concern.
It seems like this could be an issue a candidate could use to (a) reduce fear and (b) provide optimism if handled well.
I absolutely do not believe that 90% of Americans favor teaching cursive. Kittens and apple pie aren’t that popular. I have literally never in my life heard anyone say that they thought learning cursive was at all important, and I would remember if I had because I would have mocked them mercilessly. I thought it was a stupid waste of time when I was in fourth grade, and have never seen any reason to change that opinion.
This is a very big issue that could use its own thread, but I agree that Dems in general are doing very poorly at connecting with the public’s bipartisan concerns about unregulated AI.
How are Republicans (I know that’s a broad category) doing on this (also a broad category), both in actuality and as perceived by voters?
I’m not being snarky; genuinely curious.
(This fits in this thread, because the answer could help determine what kind of “daylight” a Democratic candidate could push on this issue).
Those look to be online polls, which aren’t really statistically significant. The results reflect whoever decided to respond to the poll rather than being an accurate reflection of the overall population. I also doubt that there is anywhere near that level of support of teaching cursive. I would think that the poll got it backwards in that 90% don’t think cursive should be taught in schools.
I’m not sure the Pubs have a clear position yet either which is the perfect time for the Dems to define themselves and draw the battle lines to their advantage.
I could be our of the loop, but I don’t hear enough about bringing chip manufacturing to the US. It has a very long lead time, but you could craft a powerful message around AI and chip fab. JB did focus on this for Illinois a bit.
Make the US a clear leader in AI SW and HW, bring high-margin manufacturing to the US. Worried about AI stealing your kid’s future? Worried there’s no path for you to economic success anymore? We will create an educational path for your kids to have a career creating AI instead of being displaced by it. You’ll work in the chip fab factories that your kids will be engineers in.
Another ‘out-there’ plank is to shore-up the gig workers / economy so that they can earn more of the profit margin.
Some ideas:
- Fund or encourage non-profit gig worker dispatch with federal background checks. A Craigslist of ride-share / deliveries, but safe.
- Or create a framework that states can choose to implement.
- Or define a new, lighter corporation type for the self-employed gig worker that can also be leveraged for small trade workers, etc.
- The G type corporation is easy to set up, comes with extensive background checks, and an option to buy into Medicare.
Tie this messaging and AI messaging into a positive plan: “This is what success looks like in the 21st century. We need to stop bickering about 20th century issues and target the future for all Americans.”
I still hold that issues really don’t matter much at all. It’s personality and presentation. We need someone with very good TV skills who comes across as a fighter, authentically believes what they say, and passionately opposes the MAGA nonsense. The first and third parts will win the primary, and the first and second parts will win the general.
I doubt it too. But the other issue is whether the State should mandate it, rather than leave it up to local school boards. There is no reason for any state to require it in every school district. Shapiro getting behind such an idea (if he did, I’m still not sure) is pandering to stupidity similar to what Hillary did when she supported a no flag burning amendment. It’s not disqualifying, or even “concerning,” but it’s not a good idea.
1700 comments, no consensus on what a good Democratic candidate would look like. The reality is that there are few options available.
I think Newsom stands the best chance unless someone better steps up. He’s from CA and has experience with politics. He might have baggage, but any career politician isn’t going to be perfect.
What the Democrats lack isn’t a candidate, but a unified goal. The party seems deaf to the woes of inflation, AI, lack of jobs, healthcare costs, and any of the other economic problems that plague the lower and middle class. The DNC is, sadly, in bed with the oligarchy, same as the GOP. It might look like they have one foot out of the bed on the floor, and maybe they do, but it’s obvious that the Dems as a whole are not seriously invested in making a better country.