Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Endus]

You're misreading the text, not in the sense that, by your definitions the sentence doesn't make sense, but because your basic definitions are wrong. The aid and comfort section isn't about domestic insurgence. They're specifically about aid and comfort to "subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government." (page 3 in this link). None of the speech is tantamount to treason, and the donations would only qualify if they were solicited explicitly to overthrow the gov't; the bussing donations aren't problematic, but the donations for body armor could be.

I'm not misreading anything. Your link is pretty clearly referring to the laws on treason;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Which, yes, includes similar "giving them aid or comfort in the Unites States or elsewhere" language.

Also, your source is from 1918. That literally predates the law text as it stands today, which was written in the 1940s.

The insurrection on January 6 was trying to overthrow the authority of the government and prevent the legal process of the election. It definitively fits under the definition of "insurrection or rebellion".

[Kaleredar]

Yep, if you gave them a ride there, like Ginni Thomas did with sending some of them there on buses on that day.

The problem is that they can all claim vague notions of plausible deniability about all the illegal things that happened.

The protests happening outside the capitol building weren't illegal, just stupid. They can say "well see, we were just busing people we thought were going to go peacefully protest in front of the capitol. We didn't know that some of them were planning this illegal thing too!"

That's why I highly doubt they're going to move on Trump. Because even if he didn't stop the insurrection, even if his rhetroic said the election was false, even if other people said they thought he wanted them to do it, without the smoking gun of Trump saying, in his own direct words, "yes, invade the capitol building, yes, overthrow the election, yes, I did all of this" it's a tremendous uphill battle that he ordered such a thing to be done, rather than him just shunting blame off onto a web of underlings and y'allqaeda militia all acting in a sort of nebulous cooperation. Even if they were doing the exact thing he wanted to happen.

The more "steps in logic" you have to take to tie Trump, or any political figure, to all of this, the less likely it is they'll be brought to task on it. If you have to go "well first they did this, then they meant this, THEN we conclude it meant they wanted this, then Trump didn't do this which means he actually wanted this, THEN that it means we can conclude he intended seditious conspiracy" you're not going to make any headway.

[tehdang]

He doesn't care if Trump did it or not.

He only cares whether people can prove Trump did it or not, in a court of law. Anything beyond that, and he'll consider himself to have "won."


It's like being a criminal. They don't care if they commit crimes or not, they only care if they get busted for them.

When the question regards the attorney general, of course the question is whether they can prove it. Did people forget this was about Garland?

[Paranoid Android]

Next year, the woke Disney lobbyists will ask Congress to extend Micky Mouse’s trademark.

I think not.

https://twitter.com/RepBoebert/statu...upoFZP8v8nRgNA

Let's all sing it together.

"Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?
M-I-C-K-E-Y--M-O-U-S-E!"





Besides not knowing how to spell Mickey thru a popular Disney song. You can't take away trademarks. Jeez she is so effin stupid.

[Breccia]

I do like this exchange between Psaki and FOX News which I'll summarize.

FOX News: "What does Biden think about K-3 schoolchildren being taught sex ed?"
Psaki: "Name one school where that's happening."
FOX News: "...uh..."
Psaki: "I didn't think so. Stop wasting my time with hypotheticals, bitch, and bring a real question next time."

[tehdang]

I do like this exchange between Psaki and FOX News which I'll summarize.

FOX News: "What does Biden think about K-3 schoolchildren being taught sex ed?"
Psaki: "Name one school where that's happening."
FOX News: "...uh..."
Psaki: "I didn't think so. Stop wasting my time with hypotheticals, bitch, and bring a real question next time."

Doocy highlights the problem with the rhetoric over calling it “Don’t Say Gay,” and their stance that it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. Florida voters and national polling are opposed to K-3 teachers instructing on topics of gender identity and sexual orientation. If it’s Don’t Say Gay as an attack, then it clearly hurts something that liberals say should be a part of early childhood education. If it’s correcting a problem that doesn’t exist, then why make the argument about homophobia? Dems are starting to lose the messaging battle around the parental rights in education bill, so they’re trying a more nuanced argument.

[Endus]

Doocy highlights the problem with the rhetoric over calling it “Don’t Say Gay,” and their stance that it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. Florida voters and national polling are opposed to K-3 teachers instructing on topics of gender identity and sex. If it’s Don’t Say Gay as an attack, then it clearly hurts something that liberals say should be a part of early childhood education. If it’s correcting a problem that doesn’t exist, then why make the argument about homophobia? Dems are starting to lose the messaging battle around the parental rights in education bill, so they’re trying a more nuanced argument.

Literally the only reason anyone would support this bill is if they're homophobic fascists whose intent is to harm innocent children.

Do you think K-3 teachers should be incapable of telling their students if they're married or not? That they should remove all books from classrooms that use any gender-referential terms, like "boy", "girl", "man", "woman", or any references to marriage or romance of any kind, between anyone?

If "yes", you're needs-a-rubber-room crazy, and that's as far as this discussion goes. If "no", then you're admitting it isn't about gender identity or sex education, it's about eliminating non-heterosexual and non-cisgender-normative information from schools, which is harmful to any kids who come from families who include anyone on the LGBT spectrum or have such identities themselves.

The argument is entirely about homophobia and other related bigotries, because those bigotries are the only reason this bill exists, the only motives behind its function, and the only reason anyone supports it.

There is no deeper "nuance". It's literally all bigotry.

[Xyonai]

https://twitter.com/RepBoebert/statu...upoFZP8v8nRgNA

Let's all sing it together.

"Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?
M-I-C-K-E-Y--M-O-U-S-E!"





Besides not knowing how to spell Mickey thru a popular Disney song. You can't take away trademarks. Jeez she is so effin stupid.

The only fairness I'll give is that Disney's been lobbying and abusing Copyright extensions for decades to keep their stranglehold on their brand, but leave it to these people to reach a halfway sound policy decision for absolutely deranged reasons.

[Poopymonster]

Literally the only reason anyone would support this bill is if they're homophobic fascists whose intent is to harm innocent children.

Do you think K-3 teachers should be incapable of telling their students if they're married or not? That they should remove all books from classrooms that use any gender-referential terms, like "boy", "girl", "man", "woman", or any references to marriage or romance of any kind, between anyone?

If "yes", you're needs-a-rubber-room crazy, and that's as far as this discussion goes. If "no", then you're admitting it isn't about gender identity or sex education, it's about eliminating non-heterosexual and non-cisgender-normative information from schools, which is harmful to any kids who come from families who include anyone on the LGBT spectrum or have such identities themselves.

The argument is entirely about homophobia and other related bigotries, because those bigotries are the only reason this bill exists, the only motives behind its function, and the only reason anyone supports it.

There is no deeper "nuance". It's literally all bigotry.

Elegiac linked a nice piece about this bullshit.

[Edge-]

Doocy highlights the problem with the rhetoric over calling it “Don’t Say Gay,” and their stance that it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist.

In which you unironically believe this fantasy, seemingly oblivious to Doocy's long history of attempted bad faith "gotcha" questions like this.

[Endus]

Elegiac linked a nice piece about this bullshit.

I'm just fuckin' tired of the obvious homophobic fascist hand-wringing about how it's so unfair they can't hurt the children they've deemed as "undesirables". It's a clear and unequivocal step along a path that leads to death camps for said children and their parents. If you're not okay with shutting these abusive and violent assholes down at this early stage, you're complicit in the crimes against basic human empathy and decency that they represent.

And they can fuck off on appealing to religious beliefs. If your religion mandates that you abuse children, your religion is psychotic and should not be tolerated by a decent, developed society. You may as well be talking about how you want to marry children to church elders, to legally permit their sexual abuse by said elders.

Oh wait, those same "christians" also push those kinds of laws. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...law-union.html

These people don't have a legitimate argument. They're child abusers and violence-seeking fascists, and their entire rhetoric is about identifying minority groups they can legally subjugate and abuse, to get their sadistic jollies off. It isn't any more complicated than that, and once you rip off the bullshit masks they wear, that's all that lies behind them.

[Ripster42]

When the question regards the attorney general, of course the question is whether they can prove it. Did people forget this was about Garland?

TIL the AG has to be able to prove the case before an investigation can even start. Did people forget this was about garland starting an investigation?

The Jan 6th committee has been signaling they have the goods. They're the ones with all the honored subpoenas disclosing texts and call logs. Maybe Garland isn't a dummy and doesn't have a chargeable crime to pursue in an investigation. He has the Meadows referral on his desk right now, and Bannon's trial is in July.

I'm not misreading anything. Your link is pretty clearly referring to the laws on treason;

Yup, my bad.

[Elegiac]

In which you unironically believe this fantasy, seemingly oblivious to Doocy's long history of attempted bad faith "gotcha" questions like this.

What else can we expect from the originator of such scintillating takes as "there's no white version of the NAACP"?

[tehdang]

In which you unironically believe this fantasy, seemingly oblivious to Doocy's long history of attempted bad faith "gotcha" questions like this.

Biden opposes the bill. I don’t really care how Doocy tries to provoke a response. Biden and Psaki know that it’s politically toxic to say K-3 teachers should introduce instruction on gender non-conforming identities etc, but some portion of their base believes that’s when instruction should start (and not doing it is itself oppression of LGBTQ2IIA identities).

Psaki did well to deflect to concrete examples and her preferred talking points. It’s her job. The better way to attack the bill is it’s too broad and vague and risks speech violations through overzealous compliance administration.

- - - Updated - - -

TIL the AG has to be able to prove the case before an investigation can even start. Did people forget this was about garland starting an investigation?





Yup, my bad.

The Jan 6th commission is a fine vehicle to delve into it and release a criminal referral to the justice department. The question is why to handicap the DOJ by starting a criminal case against a person without really believing there to be enough proof to convict. Reading into this, it looks like the real motivation is that the meaning of justice is investigating people in hopes of discovering crimes they committed, rather than seeing actual proof of crime that would hold up in court and going into that. But you do you. The people that detailed the alleged crimes thus far showed, by the hilarious strings of connection, that they desire more the investigation of the person.

[Edge-]

Biden opposes the bill.

Yes, which has no relevance on the strawman question Doocy asked.

I don’t really care how Doocy tries to provoke a response.

We know you don't care, but we do. He's, ostensibly, a journalist, and should stick with facts. Not making up some hypothetically partisan, bad faith question.

Biden and Psaki know that it’s politically toxic to say K-3 teachers should introduce instruction on gender non-conforming identities etc, but some portion of their base believes that’s when instruction should start (and not doing it is itself oppression of LGBTQ2IIA identities).

This is not being taught to children, hence why Doocy was unable to provide an example to support his question. It's just rank dishonesty, which we know you support.

[tehdang]

Oh, do kindly just fuck off.

Tough questions, even leading questions, should’ve died at Trump’s press secretaries, apparently.

[Edge-]

Tough questions

This is not a tough question any more than, "When did you stop beating your children?" is a tough question.

[tehdang]

Yes, which has no relevance on the strawman question Doocy asked.

The text of the bill is a strawman, apparently.

We know you don't care, but we do. He's, ostensibly, a journalist, and should stick with facts. Not making up some hypothetically partisan, bad faith question.

Demanding how journalists should ask questions of Democratic presidents’ press secretaries is a topic I know you have deep feelings about. Agreed.

This is not being taught to children, hence why Doocy was unable to provide an example to support his question. It's just rank dishonesty, which we know you support.

Not in Florida, that I’ve seen. Maybe Biden could say it’s appropriate to teach to children, and that’s what’s wrong with the bill. Journalists might ask him about that. Think of that. Psaki’s under no compulsion to answer the question as it’s asked, for her part.

[Edge-]

The text of the bill is a strawman, apparently.

No, Doocy's question based on a non-existent example is the strawman. Didn't think I needed to explicitly spell this out for you, but here we are.

Demanding how journalists should ask questions of Democratic presidents’ press secretaries is a topic I know you have deep feelings about. Agreed.

Bad faith questions get called out, this is what should happen. You're trying to make this partisan, stop driving partisan divisions. It's unamerican.

Not in Florida, that I’ve seen.

Sweet, so that's the beginning and end of this, then. Doocy asked about a non-existent "problem" and got an appropriate response, yet here you remain, waxing partisan about how unfair it is his stupid question was called out.

[Elegiac]

Elegiac linked a nice piece about this bullshit.

Gonna post the text again simply because it's so fucking funny:

Dear Florida parent/caretaker:

The Florida house of Representatives has recently ruled that “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.”

To be in accordance with this policy, I will no longer be referring to your student with gendered pronouns. All students will be referred to as “The” or “them.” I will no longer use a gendered title such as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” or make any references to my husband/wife in the classroom. From now on I will be using the non-gendered title “Mx.”

Furthermore, I will be removing all books or instruction which refer to a person being a “mother,” “Father,” “husband” or “wife” as these are gender identities that also may allude to sexual orientation. Needless to say, all books which refer to a character as “he” or “She” will also be removed from the classroom. If you have any concerns about this policy, please feel free to contact your local congressperson.

Thank you, Mx. XXXXXXXXXX