Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[PhaelixWW]

Slavery also does not automatically mean ownership.

He's the one who claimed "ownership".

[Edge-]

https://www.al.com/news/2022/04/alab...alization.html

Didn't expect this, but AL Democrats are making a push for legal weed in the upcoming election.

https://www.freeweedal.com/

Sure it's not a super slick, expensive looking site and all, but it's got the key information there and seems like it's at least appealing to the potheads in the state to mobilize them. Doubt it'll be super effective but it's nice to see them trying.

[Breccia]

AL Democrats are making a push for legal weed in the upcoming election.

Today, of all days? What is so...oh...right.

[Edge-]

Today, of all days? What is so...oh...right.

At least they understand the core voting block on the topic.

[Dontrike]

Remember that the argument against is that kindergarteners are too young and impressionable to be taught about sex and perhaps being born in the wrong body.

They are not being taught sex and no one is telling them their gender is wrong. Go take that bit of stupidity elsewhere.

I just finished saying what I think about corporations taking stands they sincerely feel strongly about, and how I saw this result from a pressure campaign of media and activists, so I'm not going to repeat myself at length here.

"Pressure." The biggest media corporation on the planet and you think they were pressured like a mafia grunt threatening a single mom.

The two sides don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, and that's precisely why trying to call it a black and white issue of treating gays like they are evil is like saying abortion is a black and white issue of whether babies deserve the right to live. It frames it in the way most conducive to one specific take on the controversy, and I hope you see that as an issue.

"Treating people with respect" is definitely a black or white issue. The only time there is is when said people/person are terrible, like Republicans. There is no gray area there and the very idea you think there's nuance to treating gays/trans with a modicum of respect shows you're part of the problem.

I don't see any real solution in where you're going here.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I was being tasked with coming up with a solution all the while you didn't have to. Here's one, people like you need to stop supporting people like Death Sentence, Donald "Can't say a bad thing about Putin" Trump, and more just because you're all afraid of change.

Maybe it goes without saying, but people disagree with you on the teacher's vs the parent's place in cultural issues impacting children, and they also plan trips to Disney World, and maybe they aren't just evil transphobes who are politically convenient to dismiss.

I'm not even sure what half of this was. Teaching children that gays/trans exist is not terrible and those parents are fucking stupid, it is not a cultural issue besides you and your ilk making it one, and I have no fucking idea why you brought up them going to Disney World as if that means anything. What makes them transphobes though are them supporting anti-gay/trans politicians and loving the bills that purposefully go against those people.

[NED funded]

"Treating people with respect" is definitely a black or white issue. The only time there is is when said people/person are terrible, like Republicans. There is no gray area there and the very idea you think there's nuance to treating gays/trans with a modicum of respect shows you're part of the problem.

You are literally proving @tehdang point by framing it like this. Obvi ppl deserve respect in general but supporting a very specific legislation is not denying others a "modicum of respect"

[Endus]

You are literally proving @tehdang point by framing it like this. Obvi ppl deserve respect in general but supporting a very specific legislation is not denying others a "modicum of respect"

The "Don't Say Gay" bill?

Yes, the sole purpose of that bill is to deny LGBT people a basic level of respect and recognition as people. That's the entire goal of the bill. There is nothing else to it.

It is this black and white, and denying that means you're trying to hide that fact.

[Dontrike]

You are literally proving @tehdang point by framing it like this. Obvi ppl deserve respect in general but supporting a very specific legislation is not denying others a "modicum of respect"

When that bill literally denies a group respect? Yeah, it is. If you think the "Don't Say Gay Bill" isn't disrespectful to gay/trans then I can only imagine how your life went to make you think that.

[Edge-]

but supporting a very specific legislation is not denying others a "modicum of respect"

This is not "a very specific legislation" in its writing, it's intentionally vague.

And the goal of this bill, which is obvious despite the cries from DeSantis and crew, is not positive and is directly harmful to LGBTQ+ youth.

This is big, "Well, they haven't come for me yet!" energy.

[tehdang]

Well, parents do not own their kids. No human being owns another.

Filter this through the post I was responding to. It accused the bill's supporters of needing "to get over this stupid notion that parents somehow own their kids." What kind of political backlash should you expect if someone tries to suggest you feel ownership over your kids? Like, when they discuss parental rights in education, they're actually treating the parent-child relationship like ownership? I've given my view of what I think the likely response would be, said or unsaid, and maybe only showing up at the ballot box next election.

You are literally proving @tehdang point by framing it like this. Obvi ppl deserve respect in general but supporting a very specific legislation is not denying others a "modicum of respect"

'terrible,' no 'nuance' just not 'treating gays/trans with a modicum of respect,' 'part of the problem'
'Not wanting to treat the gays like they are evil.'
'DeathSentence,' 'his first step to ridding Florida of gays'

I'd say "swinging for the fences" in terms of making my point.

[Endus]

Filter this through the post I was responding to. It accused the bill's supporters of needing "to get over this stupid notion that parents somehow own their kids." What kind of political backlash should you expect if someone tries to suggest you feel ownership over your kids? Like, when they discuss parental rights in education, they're actually treating the parent-child relationship like ownership? I've given my view of what I think the likely response would be, said or unsaid, and maybe only showing up at the ballot box next election.

If parents don't like that, they should stop pretending that "parental rights" are comparable to ownership of property.

The entire argument that parents should be able to pick and choose the curriculum their children are taught in public schools is fully based in that root falsehood.

Public education, again, largely exists because parents fail to provide adequately for their children, or push directly harmful views or such upon them. Not to mention direct forms of harm. Teachers do not work for parents of their students, and in many ways, act as a form of oversight to identify child abuse and see that it's prosecuted appropriately.

Children have rights, too.

'terrible,' no 'nuance' just not 'treating gays/trans with a modicum of respect,' 'part of the problem'
'Not wanting to treat the gays like they are evil.'
'DeathSentence,' 'his first step to ridding Florida of gays'

I'd say "swinging for the fences" in terms of making my point.

Your only "point" here is empty tone policing. You don't have a material, reasoned defense against any of those points, which is why you're engaging in tone policing.

[Milchshake]

‘Sometimes we will speak softly and carry a large javelin’ is certainly a memorable Presidential quote.

Biden announces new $800M aid package to Ukraine as Russia presses offensive

“To modernize Teddy Roosevelt’s famous advice, ‘Sometimes we will speak softly and carry a large javelin.’ Because we’re sending a lot of those in as well.”

[Endus]

Seems the right wing take is that it's communism for LGBTQ+ people to have rights. Or so Rep. Andy Biggs believed, at least. Explains a few posts I've seen, I suppose.

Quick post, since it's being talked about here

Imagine being such a sandwich of bigoted stupidity you actually publicly express the idea that one of the most powerful megacorporations of capitalist economics is communist.

This is what capitalism looks like, you homophobic asspimple.

Directed at the Rep, not UnifiedDivide, obviously. But stated so there's no confusion.

[uuuhname]

'terrible,' no 'nuance' just not 'treating gays/trans with a modicum of respect,' 'part of the problem'
'Not wanting to treat the gays like they are evil.'
'DeathSentence,' 'his first step to ridding Florida of gays'

I'd say "swinging for the fences" in terms of making my point.

cope, seethe, no one besides the other virulently anti LGBTQ+ poster in this thread even cares what you have to say on the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

if not for the fact that only bigots think this legislation had any sort of "nuance" wasn't a clue, it should be an even bigger red flag when the white nationalist is gaslighting the entire rest of the forum over it.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire argument that parents should be able to pick and choose the curriculum their children are taught in public schools is fully based in that root falsehood.

I mean, this culture war garbage and the right's disdain for public education goes hand in hand.

[Endus]

cope, seethe, no one besides the other virulently anti LGBTQ+ poster in this thread even cares what you have to say on the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

if not for the fact that only bigots think this legislation had any sort of "nuance" wasn't a clue, it should be an even bigger red flag when the white nationalist is gaslighting the entire rest of the forum over it.

I mean, the "nuance" could be "this bill was so poorly written that no teachers can now ever discuss whether they're married or not." If a woman teacher's husband comes to pick her up after school, can't kiss or hug him, have to tell the kids he's a "friend" if they ask.

Because not only are Floridian Republicans bigoted fuckbags who get off on harming children, they're also really fucking incompetent at basically the only actual part of their actual job.

[Edge-]

Seems the right wing take is that it's communism for LGBTQ+ people to have rights. Or so Rep. Andy Biggs believed, at least. Explains a few posts I've seen, I suppose.

Quick post, since it's being talked about here

Hilarious how much these capitalists and Free Speech Warriors hate capitalism and Free Speech.

[Endus]

Hilarious how much these capitalists and Free Speech Warriors hate capitalism and Free Speech.

Fair reminder that they aren't capitalists. They're fascists. Fascism, from its outset, was a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, only taking the bits that were useful to seize greater power in the moment.

They say they're capitalists, the same way the Nazis said they were socialists. Fascists lie. Kinda the brand.

This also goes for a lot of centrists, too, who like to promote "free markets" but seemingly can't grasp that the capitalism excesses they're bitching about are the result of free markets. Jon Stewart, sadly enough, seems to have gone pretty deep down that particular rabbit hole.

[DarkTZeratul]

The "Don't Say Gay" bill?

Yes, the sole purpose of that bill is to deny LGBT people a basic level of respect and recognition as people. That's the entire goal of the bill. There is nothing else to it.

It is this black and white, and denying that means you're trying to hide that fact.

And you only have to look at the amendments that were proposed, and subsequently rejected, to confirm this fact. Including:
*An amendment that would have altered the wording on state standards requiring schools to teach the benefits of heterosexual marriage, by changing "heterosexual" to "monogamous"
*An amendment clarifying that the language in the bill would not limit the obligation of school personnel to report suspected abuse or neglect
*An amendment defining sexual orientation and gender identity
*An amendment that would specifically only ban instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity that is non age-appropriate
*An amendment allowing discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity as it pertains to family structures, historical events, and prevention of bullying
*An amendment clarifying that students are allowed to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with each other
*An amendment requiring the Department of Education to create a pamphlet to help parents teach their children about sexual orientation and gender identity
*An amendment that would have changed prohibiting discussion of "sexual orientation or gender identity" to prohibiting discussion of "human sexuality or sexual activity"

[uuuhname]

I mean, the "nuance" could be "this bill was so poorly written that no teachers can now ever discuss whether they're married or not." If a woman teacher's husband comes to pick her up after school, can't kiss or hug him, have to tell the kids he's a "friend" if they ask.

Because not only are Floridian Republicans bigoted fuckbags who get off on harming children, they're also really fucking incompetent at basically the only actual part of their actual job.

yep, it's what happens when all the bigots in charge all hold law degrees and think average people are too dumb to use the purposefully vague language to point out the true intention of these bills. as soon as a case is brought up to sue a straight teacher for bragging about having a girl friend or wife and the court decides not to push it or take it up, will prove right then and there what the intention here really is.

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/covid-bus...2b12573ff27822

Applications for unemployment benefits inched down last week as the total number of Americans collecting aid fell to its lowest level in more than 50 years.

Jobless claims fell by 2,000 to 184,000 last week, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week average of claims, which levels out week-to-week volatility, rose by 4,500 to 177,250.

About 1.42 million Americans were collecting traditional unemployment benefits in the week of April 9, the fewest since February 21, 1970.

Let's go, Brandon! Making the Economy Great Again!