Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Kathandira]

Good news everyone, new computers are banned in new homes. Now, don't be angry or anything, you can still use your old computer and literally nobody is taking away your computer.

Keep up, or get left behind.

If someone chooses to be left behind, they should realize that no one cares about their tears. The rest are busy moving forward.

[Ivanstone]

You do, of course, realize that a federal official discussing a potential ban, means they can live in a different country that permits gas stoves, and nobody is taking their stove away from them.

I'm trying to get you to a place where they take away something you want. I'm thinking that a ban on new computers in new homes would be a decent guess. Would you say, if that was the regulation instead, that 1) "no one is taking their [computer] away from them" so they have no right to be mad, or 2) "they can live in an area that allows new computers in new homes"

I'm wagering that you know your answers on these, but are refusing to state them.

If your definition of "understanding" is "Why get mad at potential bans if you can just live in an area where they're not banned, because nobody is taking away your currently owned items," then I have an easy time comprehending why you think it's other people that lack understanding. Is there anything in your life that you'd get angry about if new ones were banned?

Again nothing is being taken away from you. There's a lot of things you can't get anymore. Doesn't mean some jackbooted thug is taking it away from you.

You're failing. Your analogy is fucking stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. If you want to get me to your point of view, try harder.

You've never shown an ounce of sympathy for anyone except on this one subject. Which is baffling. I'm far more likely to believe that your Cali's last remaining gas stove salesman.

[Elegiac]

Again nothing is being taken away from you. There's a lot of things you can't get anymore. Doesn't mean some jackbooted thug is taking it away from you.

You're failing. Your analogy is fucking stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. If you want to get me to your point of view, try harder.

You've never shown an ounce of sympathy for anyone except on this one subject. Which is baffling. I'm far more likely to believe that your Cali's last remaining gas stove salesman.

It is pretty funny that Mr “I don’t hate women I’m pro life because I care about kids” suddenly doesn’t care about kids getting lifelong respiratory damage.

[Edge-]

A federal agency chief, CPSC's Trumka Jr., said "Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned."

Can you tell me what's so outrageous about this statement? Why would Republicans object so strongly to a neutral, generic, non-specific statement like that, do you think?

Because I mean, I'd think if Boeing sold a plane that was discovered to have a fatal defect, one would hope the FAA would keep its options on the table including decertifying (banning) that model of plane from purchase/flight until the fatal defect has been sufficiently proven to have been addressed.

For another example.

[tehdang]

Can you tell me what's so outrageous about this statement? Why would Republicans object so strongly to a neutral, generic, non-specific statement like that, do you think?

Because I mean, I'd think if Boeing sold a plane that was discovered to have a fatal defect, one would hope the FAA would keep its options on the table including decertifying (banning) that model of plane from purchase/flight until the fatal defect has been sufficiently proven to have been addressed.

For another example.

Any citizen of either political party can object to a virtually unknown official declaring that something might be banned that they use everyday and like. They might, strangely enough, hold the opinion that common household items might eventually have a vote regarding their future use, but not that a bureaucrat would consider a ban from their office.

It's about as neutral as saying, "I don't like you doing that, and all options are on the table. Including killing you." Outlawing something is a specific, considered action. Compare it with something truly neutral and generic, like "My office is considering the issue of a health advisory and tips to lower your risk."

Again nothing is being taken away from you. There's a lot of things you can't get anymore. Doesn't mean some jackbooted thug is taking it away from you.

You're failing. Your analogy is fucking stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. If you want to get me to your point of view, try harder.

You've never shown an ounce of sympathy for anyone except on this one subject. Which is baffling. I'm far more likely to believe that your Cali's last remaining gas stove salesman.

Sorry, but this really sounds like you'd have no objection to someone banning you from purchasing new computers in a new home, because every specific thing you've cited holds.

1. Nobody is taking away your old computer
2. You can just choose not to buy a new home
2. You can just move to somewhere without that law, including another country

The following, however, is true and I think you know it:

1. You know darn well that their condescension to let you keep your old computer isn't the point
2. You would obviously want to consider a new home without simultaneously being forced to give up new computer ownership for the rest of your tenure there
3. You would obviously weigh in on laws (or regs) that would impact you where you live, instead of deciding to hold your tongue until there is nowhere to move to where you could continue buying new computers

I conclude that your problem with the gas stove issue is that you aren't personally desirous of ever owning one, and you can't empathize with other peoples' wants that differ from yours. This gives rise to your absolute refusal to consider something that you might want to own a new one of in a new home (to aid your empathy by substituting the item in question to something you might care more about). I think you're better off yielding that 1) people have a rational and factual basis to oppose such statements by a federal official 2) keeping your old one does not work in ordinary human activity like moving to a new home and 3) the people trying to make this a "right-wing" outrage article should admit that they're only saying that because this doesn't really affect them personally.


Infracted.

[Ivanstone]

snip

That's a lot of words defending a really dumb analogy. Do better.

One way you can do better is to actually demonstrate why someone would want something. Me and the other libtards actually presented reasons why someone would want a gas stove. You haven't.

Now take a hike and go drunkenly piss into an airplane aisle until you you can think of an actually intelligent argument.

[DarkTZeratul]

It's about as neutral as saying, "I don't like you doing that, and all options are on the table. Including killing you." Outlawing something is a specific, considered action. Compare it with something truly neutral and generic, like "My office is considering the issue of a health advisory and tips to lower your risk."

Wow, you're really comparing "if we can't make it safe we have to ban it" with "I don't like you, so murder is on the table"?

[Edge-]

Any citizen of either political party can object to a virtually unknown official declaring that something might be banned that they use everyday and like.

Sure, but is that reaction reasonable? That's what I was pointing out my dude. Stick to the topic, stop zooming out.

They might, strangely enough, hold the opinion that common household items might eventually have a vote regarding their future use, but not that a bureaucrat would consider a ban from their office.

I'd inform the panicked, apparently ignorant American that Congressional authority supersedes regulatory authority, which is itself derived from laws on the books. If Congress felt that a Department was overstepping its regulatory bounds then it could rectify the situation by passing legislation to that effect.

There's always a vote. The only reason there wouldn't practically be a vote on this now is because of how the Republican party has evolved into an opposition party rather than a governing party.

The gross ignorance of most Americans about how the government works and general civics is not a compelling argument.

It's about as neutral as saying, "I don't like you doing that, and all options are on the table. Including killing you."

Murder is illegal already, though. Very explicitly, in a variety of forms. So this is a poor comparison seemingly intended to elicit shock or something and it's not very effective. We're all grounded types here.

I provided a similar example with the FAA and Boeing, which I thought was fairly practical given Boeings safety woes and grounding of planes as a result.

Outlawing something is a specific, considered action.

It is! And we have a wide range of substances and other things that are outlawed through regulatory actions through the powers granted those agencies. That's part of "regulation". You're de-facto arguing that agencies shouldn't be allowed to regulate because regulation involves potential banning and banning should be a Congressional power.

As noted, that's not how the government operates and Americans ignorance of the operations of government and civics are a poor argument.

Compare it with something truly neutral and generic, like "My office is considering the issue of a health advisory and tips to lower your risk."

But what if the risk comes from radioactive material a company is releasing into public waterways? Would you want an agency to say, "We're going to investigate every avenue to address this, including banning them from releasing the harmful substance in the river behind you."? Or do you think, "We're concerned about the health impacts and will look into ways to limit your risk to the radioactive waste flowing in the river behind you. Have you considered not going in the water? Moving?"

I dunno about you, but the latter just sounds like you're asking someone on the street corner for advice.

[Flarelaine]

Frankly, if you're not cooking at a professional chef level, you're not getting any benefit out of a gas stove over electric. The difference basically boils down to two things; electric stoves take a few seconds to heat up where gas is instantly at full heat, and you can turn gas off to stop the heat instantly, where electrics will retain some heat as they cool down.

If you've got literally any counter space, you can just move a pot/pan off the stove to get it off the heat. And the instantaneity of the heat doesn't matter outside of very fringe recipes or the high-pressure situation of a professional kitchen.

It matters somewhat if one is a lousy cook like yours truly and has to adjust heat constantly to course correct. Not enough to cry murder over it, though.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hunte...b05c8779f768ad

This may be a bit of a repeat but -

All the witnesses Republicans called in for depositions as part of their impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden in January said that they knew of no corruption on Biden’s part.

Eric Schwerin, a Biden family friend who partnered with the president’s son Hunter Biden in business and also did bookkeeping for the father, told lawmakers on Tuesday that he was not aware of Joe Biden benefiting financially from his son’s work.

“Given my awareness of his finances and the explicit directions he gave to his financial advisers, the allegation that he would engage in any improper conduct to benefit himself or his family is preposterous to me,” Schwerin said in an opening statement obtained by HuffPost.

Four other Hunter Biden associates also told lawmakers this month that they’d never witnessed improper behavior by the president, nor efforts by his son to entangle him in a foreign business deal.

It’s a continuation of the pattern set in motion last year by House oversight committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who has struggled to prove his accusations that the president enriched himself by participating in his son’s alleged “influence peddling” schemes.

“We have a consistent pattern of witnesses coming in and telling us that Joe Biden just was not involved in any of the business affairs that the Republicans are talking about,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the oversight committee, told HuffPost.

Comer said Tuesday that Schwerin’s testimony actually did reveal something bad: that Schwerin, while he was in business with Hunter Biden, provided bookkeeping services to the elder Biden when he was vice president — for free. (Schwerin’s involvement in the family finances has long been known.)

FREE FUCKING BOOKKEEPING FROM A FAMILY FRIEND?

They really got Brandon by the Balls now!

“This guy was doing Joe Biden’s books, paying his electric bills and depositing his paycheck and his income tax refund, and he never charged Joe Biden — that is a gift, that is a clear ethics violation by Joe Biden,” Comer said on Fox News. “There was not a wall between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and his schemes like the president has always said.”

ETHICS VIOLATION! Surely impeachment worthy...right?

Ethics rules generally forbid gifts (including discounted goods or services) to executive branch officials, though there are exceptions, including for gifts that are based on a personal or family relationship. It’s possible Schwerin’s bookkeeping would qualify for an exception.

“A gift of free bookkeeping assistance from a family friend would seem to fall within the scope of the personal relationship exception that applies to government employees under applicable ethics gift rules,” Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel with the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement to HuffPost.

Oh...so nevermind, it's just James Comer and his smoke machine trying to convince people there's a fire again because that's what he's banked his Chairmanship on.

Remember, all these people talking to the Oversight Committee are under oath and don't want to perjure themselves.

Maybe Dark Brandon is just such a master at the crime that he's hidden it all from Republicans, who knows!

[Spectral]

What are you talking about? the study is scientific fact the EPA considers a lot of things doesn't mean much. I am also asking as to why it is a big deal? most Americans do not cook. Microwaves are far more important than stoves, we are an Uber eats nation. How is this an important topic to get upset about? Do you even cook that often to care?

Yes, I cook on a gas stove or grill approximately five evenings of the week. I think it's weird that you think that's weird.

Of course, as political issue, it's small beans. What it does do well is serve as an illustration of the general point of how comically overreaching federal agencies are when we're discussing whether the EPA should determine whether people should have gas stoves or not. I suspect that this sort of overreach is going to be checked to some extent when SCOTUS ends the Chevron deference doctrine this term.

[Sunseeker]

Even "banning gas stoves" only means the sale of new ones, and it discourages new developments to be built with gas lines and gas appliances. That is literally it. The beginning and end of the discussion. Noone is going to come into someones home and take their fucking stove. Noone is going to send you a ticket for continuing to use one, and noone is going to force you to buy a new electric range.

They'll just be less available in the market, producers will scale back production, developers will have fewer gas-equipped homes and they'll slowly be phased out.

Christ these "conversations" are like watching D&D grognards bitch about WoTC coming into their homes and burning their books every time a new edition is released. Ya know, something that totally absolutely 100% really happened(/sarcasm, in case you didn't get that).

[Spectral]

Even "banning gas stoves" only means the sale of new ones, and it discourages new developments to be built with gas lines and gas appliances. That is literally it. The beginning and end of the discussion. Noone is going to come into someones home and take their fucking stove. Noone is going to send you a ticket for continuing to use one, and noone is going to force you to buy a new electric range.

They'll just be less available in the market, producers will scale back production, developers will have fewer gas-equipped homes and they'll slowly be phased out.

Christ these "conversations" are like watching D&D grognards bitch about WoTC coming into their homes and burning their books every time a new edition is released. Ya know, something that totally absolutely 100% really happened(/sarcasm, in case you didn't get that).

Genuinely baffling that you think this is a good counterargument. This may come as a surprise, but people do actually build new housing and have preferences for their new builds.

[Sunseeker]

Genuinely baffling that you think this is a good counterargument. This may come as a surprise, but people do actually build new housing and have preferences for their new builds.

Yes and? I have literally built houses. Having preferences is nice and all, but gas is objectively more dangerous and requires more infrastructure.
Something that I apparently need to remind you, is crumbling across the country. So if they're not going to fix it, the least they can do is not build more and expand an already failing system.

Your argument is literally "BUT I WANT A GAS STOVE!" I mean, that's it. Beyond pounding your fists on the ground you've got nothing. No argument for superior quality, no argument for superior construction, no argument for cheaper costs, no argument for easier infrastructure, you have nothing beyond "BUT I WANT IT!"

So when you decide to grow up and stop acting like a child and join the actual conversation, by all means do so. But there is a reason I keep you on ignore. This is exactly it.

[Edge-]

Genuinely baffling that you think this is a good counterargument. This may come as a surprise, but people do actually build new housing and have preferences for their new builds.

Note: Even under the hypothetical ban, there were exceptions for rooms with sufficient ventilation etc. It's just that most kitchens nowadays, especially in apartments and whatnot, don't meet those standards or have things like direct access to ventilation. My old apartment kitchen was pretty far from any windows so I doubt it would have counted.

If one was building a new house (like, actually having it built), it would be pretty easy to ensure that when the architect is drawing up the designs that the kitchen conforms to those standards without being otherwise inconvenient/burdensome and you can continue to enjoy your gas stove.

Again, every apparent problem already has a solution.

[Breccia]

Do you admit that people who must open themselves up to criminal and civil penalties if they try to purchase and install a gas stove in their new home have a rational basis for being angry?

People who want to run stop signs or murder people open themselves up to criminal and civil penalties, and are probably angry about that, too.

Laws are there to protect people, not to win popularity contests. Your argument, if I can call it that, is for the abolition of all laws because people might get angry That is a bad argument that would literally give me every right to find you and kill you.

EDIT:

Wow, you're really comparing "if we can't make it safe we have to ban it" with "I don't like you, so murder is on the table"?

This guy gets it.

[Spectral]

Yes and? I have literally built houses. Having preferences is nice and all, but gas is objectively more dangerous and requires more infrastructure.
Something that I apparently need to remind you, is crumbling across the country. So if they're not going to fix it, the least they can do is not build more and expand an already failing system.

Your argument is literally "BUT I WANT A GAS STOVE!" I mean, that's it. Beyond pounding your fists on the ground you've got nothing. No argument for superior quality, no argument for superior construction, no argument for cheaper costs, no argument for easier infrastructure, you have nothing beyond "BUT I WANT IT!"

So when you decide to grow up and stop acting like a child and join the actual conversation, by all means do so. But there is a reason I keep you on ignore. This is exactly it.

Ah, another reiteration that no one is trying to ban gas stoves, but it's good that they are, and that no one should care anyway. I sure keep being wrong about that.

[Ivanstone]

Genuinely baffling that you think this is a good counterargument. This may come as a surprise, but people do actually build new housing and have preferences for their new builds.

Baffling that you think new housing and new housing developments should require highly specific infrastructure that appeals to only a narrow segment of the population.

Wouldn’t it be just cheaper to not use gas lines? Less maintenance. Lower insurance requirements. Less pollution. I’m sure you can think of other reasons why eliminating gas is more beneficial.

[Spectral]

Baffling that you think new housing and new housing developments should require highly specific infrastructure that appeals to only a narrow segment of the population.

Wouldn’t it be just cheaper to not use gas lines? Less maintenance. Lower insurance requirements. Less pollution. I’m sure you can think of other reasons why eliminating gas is more beneficial.

I don't think I've suggested that they "require" anything. Builders can make their decisions about the relative costs and benefits of gas without any objection from me.

[Draco-Onis]

Yes, I cook on a gas stove or grill approximately five evenings of the week. I think it's weird that you think that's weird.

Of course, as political issue, it's small beans. What it does do well is serve as an illustration of the general point of how comically overreaching federal agencies are when we're discussing whether the EPA should determine whether people should have gas stoves or not. I suspect that this sort of overreach is going to be checked to some extent when SCOTUS ends the Chevron deference doctrine this term.

If you read the study it says that those flaws could be fixed if companies invested in technology to get rid of the leak. I think it's weird that you are so fanatical about inhaling toxic gas. I don't see it as an over reach it's the government job to protect the public for when greedy companies refuse to solve a problem. If this talk forces them to make gas stoves better feel free to convince me as to how that's a bad thing.