Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Dontrike]

but some portion of their base believes that’s when instruction should start (and not doing it is itself oppression of LGBTQ2IIA identities).

They don't and I can only imagine how you'd believe such a dumb fucking thing.

[CostinR]

On the issue of sex ed, and just to be clear I am not American so I am shooting in the dark here about goes on, but I think it would be very helpful to an enormous number of children if there mandatory hours where they would be sitting down with psychologists to talk about their problems one on one, and no I don't think a school counselor would be enough. As a victim of both parental abuse and bullying having someone to talk to that was properly trained would have been of immeasurable help, not as an option ( since a lot of people end up skipping on that, since surprise kids tend to get ostracized if they need to go to therapy ) but as something you have to do as part of your school time.

[Muzjhath]

The actual discussion on the merits of when (and if) it’s appropriate to introduce kids to something suggesting they might’ve been born into the wrong body (etc) is embargoed by forum rules regarding “Sexuality, Gender, Gender identity.” Of course, the Biden administration should be asked on it, particularly if they have an official position on a state bill aimed directly at it.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you thought it was alright to refer to the guardians of a child who happen to be their parents and in a cis-het relationship as their "Mother and Father". Are you alright with that?
As it's easy to argue that the "Don't Say Gay" bill makes that illegal as it refers to gender identities and sexuality.

[Poopymonster]

On the issue of sex ed, and just to be clear I am not American so I am shooting in the dark here about goes on, but I think it would be very helpful to an enormous number of children if there mandatory hours where they would be sitting down with psychologists to talk about their problems one on one, and no I don't think a school counselor would be enough. As a victim of both parental abuse and bullying having someone to talk to that was properly trained would have been of immeasurable help, not as an option ( since a lot of people end up skipping on that, since surprise kids tend to get ostracized if they need to go to therapy ) but as something you have to do as part of your school time.

As someone in the US, mental health care in this country is abominable. It's still stigmatized as weakness or being defective. The current crop young adults is steadily changing it, but it's a long fucking way to go. A fucking long and fucking expensive way to go.

Being over 40 and spending my teen years in Bumblefuck, Michigan, the people I went to middle/high school with didn't have depression or anxiety. They were "fucking lazy, stupid, and a good smack will set ya right." They coped with alcohol. My parents did not subscribe to this system. They tried to help however they could when my sibling was diagnosed with depression. I hid mine better. Schools are already on a shoestring budget, they couldn't afford a psychologist much less the accompanying lawsuits. Anything with the kid would have to be the schools fault, since my little parasite is perfect.
Sex ed? We will show people being blown up, beheaded, skinned, and exsanguinated via throat slitting with no issues. But the Ukraine war footage ain't shit compared to OH MY GOD A TIDDY WAS SHOWN! DON'T YOU DARE DISCUSS SATAN'S DOORBELL!

[CostinR]

@Poopymonster As expected sadly, I think schools need more funding, a lot more funding, and hours with a properly trained phycologist need to be mandatory. Parents will disagree I am sure, but then again a lot of parents have proven to be fools over the years. The things you stated resonate deeply with me since it's very similar to what I experienced as an abused kid.

[Levelfive]

Of course, here's what Doocy, galaxy brain, actually asked: "So if you guys oppose this law...does the White House support that kind of classroom instruction before Kindergarten?" https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1511...Da0h5zcCEshOlw

GOTCHA, bill opposers! It's your standard Christopher Rufo ploy, where they propose and pass heinous, regressive legislation but deliberately and deceptively frame it as "transparency" or "anti-pedophilia" with the express intent of drawing opposition which they can then claim is anti-transparency and pro-pedophilia: https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/st...Da0h5zcCEshOlw

And however much tehdang and doocy may want to pretend otherwise, of course the bill isn't merely about banning sex ed from K-3 (as usual, a "solution" in search of problem, which seems to be Republicans' sole legislative interest): "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 in accordance with state standards" whatever that means (jk we know what that means). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil.../?Tab=BillText

The freakout over the teacher template Elegiac linked, which subjects heterosexuality to the same scrutiny and suppression, completely gives the game away.

[tehdang]

An adversarial relationship between press and the Government is not beneficial to anyone. That doesn't mean they need to be "chummy" either. In a perfect world The Press would be critical of the government without being antagonistic to the government.

I'll take the criticism, and it's my judgement that viewing the relationship as adversarial is the best way to get it in an imperfect world.

No, Doocy is a fucking moron, and so is anyone that fucking listens to him.

Thank you for your contribution.

There's a difference between "speaking truth to power" and asking loaded questions. You're conflating the two. One is healthy for democracy and good governance, the other only benefits dishonest swindlers.

The difference is that journalists only use the "speaking truth to power" when someone disagreeing with their ideology is in the white house, and switch to "that's a loaded question!" when the situation is reversed. I judge the whole "Trump was different because he brought it on himself" to be a journalist-aligned pathetic pretext to abandon journalistic ethics and, frankly, their job.

They don't and I can only imagine how you'd believe such a dumb fucking thing.

It goes beyond the thread rules to talk specifics on when, how, and if as regards in-classroom instruction on trans and nonbinary identities. I'll note that Psaki herself couldn't answer "At what age does the White House think that students should be taught about sexual orientation and gender identity." She chose to dodge the question. You'll have to start thinking about why it wasn't so easy for her. I believe your opinion to be incredibly naive.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you thought it was alright to refer to the guardians of a child who happen to be their parents and in a cis-het relationship as their "Mother and Father". Are you alright with that?
As it's easy to argue that the "Don't Say Gay" bill makes that illegal as it refers to gender identities and sexuality.

Same response as before. I've read the rules and been on the wrong side of their (subjective) application. If you think discussion of gender identities and sexuality is appropriate here, then I'll just wait until you can change minds and the rules.

[Endus]

The freakout over the teacher template Elegiac linked, which subjects heterosexuality to the same scrutiny and suppression, completely gives the game away.

It's because Republicans literally cannot comprehend ideas like protected classes, because the core concept there is that said classes cover literally every single person that exists, whereas Republican policy approaches fundamentally need to identify some subgroup that is to either be protected above others, or subjugated and marginalized for being "wrong". They project their own bigotries onto said classes, and literally can't grasp how completely wrong they are.

The idea that "sexual orientation" includes any reference to heterosexuality, or expressions of such sexual/romantic interest. That "gender identity" includes literally everyone who thinks of themselves as any gender or non-gender-normative; barring references to gender identity means banning all reference to "man" and "woman", no matter the specifics; cisgender identities are gender identities, after all.

If you wouldn't have a problem with a cisgender kindergarten teacher telling her students she'll be away for the next month because she and her fiance are getting married and going on a honeymoon, then you can't support this bill. Or if you do, then you're only supporting it because you see the labelling as describing the bigoted attacks on the non-cishet people you want to see harmed.

The difference is that journalists only use the "speaking truth to power" when someone disagreeing with their ideology is in the white house, and switch to "that's a loaded question!" when the situation is reversed.

Nope. You're lying. They respond critically and antagonistically when the White House isn't playing fair with them. There's no need to "speak truth to power" when said power is already speaking truth to the press room in the first place. It has fuck-all to do with "ideology", and you're just projecting your own bad-faith hyperpartisanship.

It goes beyond the thread rules to talk specifics on when, how, and if as regards in-classroom instruction on trans and nonbinary identities. I'll note that Psaki herself couldn't answer "At what age does the White House think that students should be taught about sexual orientation and gender identity." She chose to dodge the question. You'll have to start thinking about why it wasn't so easy for her. I believe your opinion to be incredibly naive.

Like I called, your "reasons" boil down to hate speech you're smart enough to not openly post here.

Psaki had no reason to answer an intentionally loaded question. Why shouldn't you tell kindergarteners that people get married sometimes? That boys and girls exist? It's a stupid question, asked by bigoted people, and doesn't deserve an answer.

[Milchshake]

The WHCA as whole has deep problems. Trump broke them, and they desperately want him back.

Yesterday’s TheOnion is today’s reality...




Like the UN Security Council, the WHCA needs to disband and reform. It's barely journalism at this point. More like people building their Twitter brands to leverage a sweet book deal.

[Edge-]

Jesus christ, their editors yelling at them to get major headlines so they can push stories all over social media must be soul crushing. And they still seem in Trump mode, despite a year and a half.

My criticisms of for-profit media and how it inherently twists and corrupts journalism stand, even if many of the actual journalists (just very few in the WH press pool at this point) are dying to do good work again.

[Xyonai]

It's because Republicans literally cannot comprehend ideas like protected classes, because the core concept there is that said classes cover literally every single person that exists, whereas Republican policy approaches fundamentally need to identify some subgroup that is to either be protected above others, or subjugated and marginalized for being "wrong". They project their own bigotries onto said classes, and literally can't grasp how completely wrong they are.

The idea that "sexual orientation" includes any reference to heterosexuality, or expressions of such sexual/romantic interest. That "gender identity" includes literally everyone who thinks of themselves as any gender or non-gender-normative; barring references to gender identity means banning all reference to "man" and "woman", no matter the specifics; cisgender identities are gender identities, after all.

If you wouldn't have a problem with a cisgender kindergarten teacher telling her students she'll be away for the next month because she and her fiance are getting married and going on a honeymoon, then you can't support this bill. Or if you do, then you're only supporting it because you see the labelling as describing the bigoted attacks on the non-cishet people you want to see harmed.



Nope. You're lying. They respond critically and antagonistically when the White House isn't playing fair with them. There's no need to "speak truth to power" when said power is already speaking truth to the press room in the first place. It has fuck-all to do with "ideology", and you're just projecting your own bad-faith hyperpartisanship.



Like I called, your "reasons" boil down to hate speech you're smart enough to not openly post here.

Psaki had no reason to answer an intentionally loaded question. Why shouldn't you tell kindergarteners that people get married sometimes? That boys and girls exist? It's a stupid question, asked by bigoted people, and doesn't deserve an answer.

A part of how easily this outrage was fanned was helped, in part, by the fact that a not-insignificant number of these people think that LGBTQ stuff is just Fetish Material, so they assume that any topic involving it just boils down to talking about graphic sex acts. It's also how they justify their heteronormativity from being exempt from these rules because, to them, it's not just a weird sex thing and how quickly they were able to spin this as "THE LIBERALZ WANT TO EXPOSE YOUR CHILDREN TO RAW, GRAPHIC GAY SEX AND GROOM THEM!'.

It's as mind-breakingly dishonest as framing CRT as 'Anti-White history!', but it's been a consistent mind-set since the debate of LGBT issues began in this country.

[uuuhname]

On the issue of sex ed, and just to be clear I am not American so I am shooting in the dark here about goes on, but I think it would be very helpful to an enormous number of children if there mandatory hours where they would be sitting down with psychologists to talk about their problems one on one, and no I don't think a school counselor would be enough. As a victim of both parental abuse and bullying having someone to talk to that was properly trained would have been of immeasurable help, not as an option ( since a lot of people end up skipping on that, since surprise kids tend to get ostracized if they need to go to therapy ) but as something you have to do as part of your school time.

the problem in American society is we treat our kids like they are property. in so far as "I can do whatever I want I can impose any sort of values or "morals" on my child as I see fit, THEY don't get a say in the matter." unless of course their kid turns out to be gay or trans at which point they can kick them out like they're literal garbage and not be held to any account for basically abandoning their child. so just the idea of kids expressing themselves without their parents knowing about it is tantamount to kidnaping and torturing them. Americans have a very sick, and deeply ingrained sense of "ownership".

[tehdang]

The WHCA as whole has deep problems. Trump broke them, and they desperately want him back.

Yesterday’s TheOnion is today’s reality...




Like the UN Security Council, the WHCA needs to disband and reform. It's barely journalism at this point. More like people building their Twitter brands to leverage a sweet book deal.

Portnoy: Why shouldn’t the images of the atrocities from Bucha compel a worldwide, unified coalition kinetic response?
MS. PSAKI: You mean a military war? Tell me more about what you mean.
Portnoy: Sure. A military response led by the United States and the international partners.
MS. PSAKI: As in bringing military troops on the ground from the United States and NATO?
Portnoy: Well, the President has described “outrageous” things. You’ve called them atrocities. You’ve said, perhaps “we should brace ourselves” for worse. Why not?
MS. PSAKI: I think what the President’s objective is and his responsibility is to make decisions that are in the interest of the United States and the national security of the United States and the American people, and that is not to go to war with Russia. It is to do everything in our power to hold them accountable; to support efforts through international systems to do exactly that; and to provide military assistance, security assistance, and support to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government. That’s exactly what we’re doing. But it is not in our interest or in the interest of the American people for us to be in a war with Russia.

Uhh, asked and answered about whether the outrage over more egregious examples of war crimes compels a response.

This is in the context of Psaki being asked about Zelenskyy saying the UN Security Council should act after Bucha, or immediately dissolve.

Does Bucha war crimes change anything Biden feels about US military involvement? No? Ok.

[Endus]

Portnoy: Why shouldn’t the images of the atrocities from Bucha compel a worldwide, unified coalition kinetic response?
MS. PSAKI: You mean a military war? Tell me more about what you mean.
Portnoy: Sure. A military response led by the United States and the international partners.
MS. PSAKI: As in bringing military troops on the ground from the United States and NATO?
Portnoy: Well, the President has described “outrageous” things. You’ve called them atrocities. You’ve said, perhaps “we should brace ourselves” for worse. Why not?
MS. PSAKI: I think what the President’s objective is and his responsibility is to make decisions that are in the interest of the United States and the national security of the United States and the American people, and that is not to go to war with Russia. It is to do everything in our power to hold them accountable; to support efforts through international systems to do exactly that; and to provide military assistance, security assistance, and support to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government. That’s exactly what we’re doing. But it is not in our interest or in the interest of the American people for us to be in a war with Russia.

Uhh, asked and answered about whether the outrage over more egregious examples of war crimes compels a response.

This is in the context of Psaki being asked about Zelenskyy saying the UN Security Council should act after Bucha, or immediately dissolve.

Does Bucha war crimes change anything Biden feels about US military involvement? No? Ok.

What, exactly, is your point?

Escalating the situation and potentially pushing Russia into their threatened nuclear response is not a trivial decision. There are massive consequences, because such a decision will make everything significantly worse, for everyone, in the short term, guaranteed.

No, the Bucha atrocities don't actually represent anything particularly new in this conflict, it's just more of the same. These kinds of atrocities have been happening for weeks, and folks like yourself were calling the images "Ukrainian propaganda" up to the point where you realized you couldn't keep deflecting, and shifted to this tack instead.

[Edge-]

What, exactly, is your point?

Escalating the situation and potentially pushing Russia into their threatened nuclear response is not a trivial decision. There are massive consequences, because such a decision will make everything significantly worse, for everyone, in the short term, guaranteed.

Especially given that the Biden administration has been clear on their position since before the war even started, when they were warning the world about it repeatedly and Very Smart People (me included! but I'm not ostensibly some kinda expert) thought they were just blowing hot air. Supporting Ukraine with funds and equipment as they can directly or through allies, but not directly involving the US or Nato in the war given the lack of any treaties with Ukraine and the risk of nuclear war.

There are tons of valid questions to ask about the administrations response to these atrocities: Will it increase their financial support of Ukraine or push them to provide more hardware? Are there plans for extended sanctions against Russian oligarchs and/or the Russian economy? What is the US doing in regards to the UN and Russia's membership on key councils?

I did like the "kinetic response" bit. That's a really fancy way of saying, "When are we going to start dropping bombs and firing missiles at Russian soldiers in Ukraine?"

[Milchshake]

Especially given that the Biden administration has been clear on their position since before the war even started, when they were warning the world about it repeatedly and Very Smart People (me included! but I'm not ostensibly some kinda expert) thought they were just blowing hot air. Supporting Ukraine with funds and equipment as they can directly or through allies, but not directly involving the US or Nato in the war given the lack of any treaties with Ukraine and the risk of nuclear war.

There are tons of valid questions to ask about the administrations response to these atrocities: Will it increase their financial support of Ukraine or push them to provide more hardware? Are there plans for extended sanctions against Russian oligarchs and/or the Russian economy? What is the US doing in regards to the UN and Russia's membership on key councils?

I did like the "kinetic response" bit. That's a really fancy way of saying, "When are we going to start dropping bombs and firing missiles at Russian soldiers in Ukraine?"

We saw something similar in reporting on the Afghanistan withdrawal. WHCA and the Blob was pushing for a more "Kinetic Response". Likely consequences of the withdrawal, such as the Taliban's return to power, were elided from coverage. Reporting also seemed to treat staying as a better option, again w/ little discussion of the consequences...

This should be of course viewed in contrast to how the Bush administration was covered while they were launching the "endless wars" Obama & Biden inherited. Also largely context-free, which paved the way for foreign policy disaster...



Bush's salute was "gallant." "Johnny got his gravitas," according to Vanity Fair.
Dick Cheney was "The Rock."
Colin Powell was "The Conscience."
Tom Ridge was "The Protector"

Imagine if Biden & his diplomatic team got this kind of coverage.

[Edge-]

Imagine if Biden & his diplomatic team got this kind of coverage.

I'm still waiting for all the apologies from media who were criticizing the Biden administration for accurately predicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Lots of articles about backtracking and damage control for Biden and his administration in their predictions, not a lot of crow being eaten by the media who were wrong on this.

[Canpinter]

What I'm curious to know is how much American intelligence is making it's way into Ukrainian hands.

[Poopymonster]

What I'm curious to know is how much American intelligence is making it's way into Ukrainian hands.

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.
Actual answer: Officially we've probably shared images, locations, and all identifiable information and stats on anything that casts a fucking shadow in the Ukraine and Russia near the border. Probably included is almost any info and communications from within Russia involving the Ukraine, military, money, and how much Putin liked it when Trump tickled his taint with his tongue. Excluding "sensitive information" about the US of course.

[Canpinter]

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.
Actual answer: Officially we've probably shared images, locations, and all identifiable information and stats on anything that casts a fucking shadow in the Ukraine and Russia near the border. Probably included is almost any info and communications from within Russia involving the Ukraine, military, money, and how much Putin liked it when Trump tickled his taint with his tongue. Excluding "sensitive information" about the US of course.

Part of me is also wondering if someone in the CIA office is dusting off a big old binder labeled " plans to assassinate insert name here".