Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[DarkTZeratul]

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.

One legislator tried to introduce an amendment to the bill that would adjust the (incredibly vague) wording to specifically ban teaching about sex and sexual activity in K-3, which was ostensibly what the bill was intended to do. The amendment failed, and the bill's author said that such a change would fundamentally undermine the intent of the bill. Said author also commented that he didn't want young kids to have word problems like "Billy has two mommies" or "Sally has two daddies."

So it's pretty fucking obvious what they were trying to do.

[Muzjhath]

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 - - -

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.

A question!
Should a kindergartent caretaker be able to ask "How is your mother and father?" to a child?

If you say "Yes", you are against that bill. Or a biggot.

[Elegiac]

One legislator tried to introduce an amendment to the bill that would adjust the (incredibly vague) wording to specifically ban teaching about sexual activity in K-3. The amendment failed, and the bill's author said that such a change would fundamentally undermine the intent of the bill.

So it's pretty fucking obvious what they were trying to do.

Since @tehdang is such a fan of leading questions, perhaps he can tell us why conservatives support enabling pedophilia by banning teaching kids the concept of "good touch/bad touch"?

[Edge-]

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

Conservatives are apparently the champions of gender-neutrality. Who woulda thunk.

[Elegiac]

Conservatives are apparently the champions of gender-neutrality. Who woulda thunk.

No one ever said horseshoe theory didn't work in reverse. Rofl.

And speaking of tomfoolery in the same vein as iTs aBoUt pArEnTaL rIgHtS iN eDuCaTiOn...

Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill that creates a separate, privileged class of marriage for heterosexual couples, acting as a loophole to the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage. The bill would also legalize child marriage by eliminating age requirements.

Starting to think all the grooming accusations are, as with 90% of shit Republicans complain about these days, nothing but projection.

[Endus]

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).

Again, literally the only people opposing such education are homophobic bigots who want to see children harmed and cishet normalization encultured in children to encourage future bigotry.

Literally it. There isn't any other explanation; all the other explanations are just flavors of why they think their bigotry is justified.

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.

No, the best way to attack the bill is to point out that its sole purpose is to foster bigotry and harm children, and that only a bigot would support said bill.

That it's also terribly written is icing on that cake.

[Edge-]

Starting to think all the grooming accusations are, as with 90% of shit Republicans complain about these days, nothing but projection.

We're starting to get off-topic, but you're not wrong. The lady that stole Pelosi's laptop just had her fellow Q-anon father picked up for...child porn. She's now staying under house arrest with her mother.

It's always projection. Same reason why many of the most vocal homophobic bigots get caught trying to pay for sex with a 17 year old boy. Or why Grindr is most busy when the Republican National Convention rolls into town.

- - - Updated - - -

That it's also terribly written is icing on that cake.

Who needs clarity when you can just write vague, ill-defined laws that can be weaponized against you?!

[Endus]

Who needs clarity when you can just write vague, ill-defined laws that can be weaponized against you?!

I'm just waiting for someone to bring up "but I don't want to use they/them because that's only for plurals, not singular people", which is just objectively wrong and demonstrates that the speaker is illiterate. Like, it's not true of basic English, even ignoring gender identity issues; if I say "I met someone with the coolest job today", you're gonna respond with "what do they do?" If I say "someone robbed me", you're gonna ask "did the police catch them?" If the gender's not known, you use they/them, already. Extending that to non-binary people is fuckin' trivial, but illiterate assholes gotta make up non-rules and pretend their illiteracy justifies their bigotry.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3259...-gop-majority/

More on why Democrats shouldn't listen to Republicans: McConnell says that if Jackson were more "centrist" that she'd receive Republican support.

Which we know is objectively false. This is why you don't listen to bad-faith Republicans and ignore their please for bi-partisanship which they expect from Democrats but never offer in return.

I genuinely hope Biden gets another pick while Democrats control the Senate and that he can ram through a very young, very, very, very progressive, activist judge.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just waiting for someone to bring up "but I don't want to use they/them because that's only for plurals, not singular people", which is just objectively wrong and demonstrates that the speaker is illiterate.

It adheres to AP Style and all English language standards, and remains the go-to for when you're talking about a person whose name you know but whose gender is unclear based purely off that name.

But it's really important if we know someone has a tallywhacker or not, or so Madison Cawthorn told me on the House Floor.

[downnola]

No one ever said horseshoe theory didn't work in reverse. Rofl.

And speaking of tomfoolery in the same vein as iTs aBoUt pArEnTaL rIgHtS iN eDuCaTiOn...



Starting to think all the grooming accusations are, as with 90% of shit Republicans complain about these days, nothing but projection.

Radio silence on this from the qanon weirdos. You'd think they would be up in arms after all of the virtue signaling I've seen over the past year about wanting to violently murder pedos. Apparently, it's ok to shag kids as long as you marry them. Kinda sounds like creeping sha.. nope, not gonna say it.

100% projection.

[Paranoid Android]

In other news


ElonMusk is now the largest shareholder of Twitter.

Time to get this platform back to its former glory.

Step one - bring back President Trump!

Step two - give everyone who has been banned a second chance.

Step three - end all forms of political and other censorship.

Why post some dude with only 1,500 Likes and 300 retweets? If you look at the news cycle the Right Wing is embracing Musk buying up Twitter. Musk has trended for the past few years to the right. Funny enough when I get any type of algorithm for Musk it has a pretty right wing bias.

To each it's own but Musk is a piece of bleep onto himself. Him personally trying for controlling interest in a platform to drive his narrative, might be dangerous. If you want to give Musk benefit of the doubt, that's fine. I still stand by that the right wing is loving this and Musk is a favorite of theirs.

[Draco-Onis]

In other news


ElonMusk is now the largest shareholder of Twitter.

Time to get this platform back to its former glory.

Step one - bring back President Trump!

Step two - give everyone who has been banned a second chance.

Step three - end all forms of political and other censorship.

Why post some dude with only 1,500 Likes and 300 retweets? If you look at the news cycle the Right Wing is embracing Musk buying up Twitter. Musk has trended for the past few years to the right. Funny enough when I get any type of algorithm for Musk it has a pretty right wing bias.

To each it's own but Musk is a piece of bleep onto himself. Him personally trying for controlling interest in a platform to drive his narrative, might be dangerous. If you want to give Musk benefit of the doubt, that's fine. I still stand by that the right wing is loving this and Musk is a favorite of theirs.

Once Trump announces his candidacy after the midterms, I have a feeling they were planning on having Trump back anyways now they can just Elon as scapegoat. Trump is bad for the world but good for business.

[Edge-]

In other news

Why here though? Seems like more of a fit for its own thread or for the Trump thread given that it seems that conservatives are bigly excited about this.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

In other news


ElonMusk is now the largest shareholder of Twitter.

Time to get this platform back to its former glory.

Step one - bring back President Trump!

Step two - give everyone who has been banned a second chance.

Step three - end all forms of political and other censorship.

Why post some dude with only 1,500 Likes and 300 retweets? If you look at the news cycle the Right Wing is embracing Musk buying up Twitter. Musk has trended for the past few years to the right. Funny enough when I get any type of algorithm for Musk it has a pretty right wing bias.

To each it's own but Musk is a piece of bleep onto himself. Him personally trying for controlling interest in a platform to drive his narrative, might be dangerous. If you want to give Musk benefit of the doubt, that's fine. I still stand by that the right wing is loving this and Musk is a favorite of theirs.

Once Trump announces his candidacy after the midterms, I have a feeling they were planning on having Trump back anyways now they can just Elon as scapegoat. Trump is bad for the world but good for business.

To be clear, Musk is the largest stakeholder...but he only owns 9.2% and, while he's on the board, can't own more than 14.9%. It gives him a lot to swing around...but he can't unilaterally do anything.

[tehdang]

A question!
Should a kindergartent caretaker be able to ask "How is your mother and father?" to a child?

If you say "Yes", you are against that bill. Or a biggot.

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.

[Paranoid Android]

Why here though? Seems like more of a fit for its own thread or for the Trump thread given that it seems that conservatives are bigly excited about this.

I'm honestly tired of all the multi threads going on at once. I posted here and try to use the Biden Thread as a "Current Events/News" thread. If someone wants to make a thread and clog up the forums, that's fine.

- - - Updated - - -

To be clear, Musk is the largest stakeholder...but he only owns 9.2% and, while he's on the board, can't own more than 14.9%. It gives him a lot to swing around...but he can't unilaterally do anything.

Musk was just appointed to the Board of Directors for Twitter. If you don't think being on the Board doesn't give you influence, idk what to tell you. The point of my tweet and comments is the Right Wing loves Musk. There is a reason, Musk is in favor with these people and them thinking and wanting him to push their agenda on Twitter now.

Funny my 2 replies so far seem to be Musk apologists. Sorta says it right there.

[Draco-Onis]

Musk was just appointed to the Board of Directors for Twitter. If you don't think being on the Board doesn't give you influence, idk what to tell you. The point of my tweet and comments is the Right Wing loves Musk. There is a reason, Musk is in favor with these people and them thinking and wanting him to push their agenda on Twitter now.

Funny my 2 replies so far seem to be Musk apologists. Sorta says it right there.

Quite the contrary I cannot stand the man however it's undeniably that Trump being on twitter was good for their bottom line especially during election times. For four years every single day you twitter was in the front page that's the reason they waited until he was out to kick him.

- - - Updated - - -

To be clear, Musk is the largest stakeholder...but he only owns 9.2% and, while he's on the board, can't own more than 14.9%. It gives him a lot to swing around...but he can't unilaterally do anything.

My comment was pointing out that it would be more profitable for twitter if Trump were forgiven and back on twitter after announcing because he brings a lot of attention.

[tehdang]

In other news


ElonMusk is now the largest shareholder of Twitter.

Time to get this platform back to its former glory.

Step one - bring back President Trump!

Step two - give everyone who has been banned a second chance.

Step three - end all forms of political and other censorship.

Why post some dude with only 1,500 Likes and 300 retweets? If you look at the news cycle the Right Wing is embracing Musk buying up Twitter. Musk has trended for the past few years to the right. Funny enough when I get any type of algorithm for Musk it has a pretty right wing bias.

To each it's own but Musk is a piece of bleep onto himself. Him personally trying for controlling interest in a platform to drive his narrative, might be dangerous. If you want to give Musk benefit of the doubt, that's fine. I still stand by that the right wing is loving this and Musk is a favorite of theirs.

This has good potential. Musk’s just so odd that it’s hard to predict his actual investment into changing the platform.

“If you don’t like Twitters censorship/bans, start your own Twitter” was a popular, and fairly true, refrain. Now, if you don’t like Elon Musk, start your own haha

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Musk was just appointed to the Board of Directors for Twitter. If you don't think being on the Board doesn't give you influence, idk what to tell you. The point of my tweet and comments is the Right Wing loves Musk. There is a reason, Musk is in favor with these people and them thinking and wanting him to push their agenda on Twitter now.

Funny my 2 replies so far seem to be Musk apologists. Sorta says it right there.

I didn't say "he doesn't have influence"...in fact I specifically said

"It gives him a lot to swing around...but he can't unilaterally do anything.

I was pointing out that he does not and cannot have a "Controlling Interest" because you stated:

Him personally trying for controlling interest in a platform to drive his narrative, might be dangerous.

[tehdang]

Leading question? Sure. "Tough"? You'll have to point that one out lol I told you to fuck off because.. well, you're not really worth much more in my estimation. Telling you to fuck off is about the only reply the horseshit you post warrants. Now, again, kindly just fuck off. Thanks

I prefer journalists to treat Biden’s press secretaries like they treated Trump’s press secretaries. Antagonistic, hectoring/badgering, asking intrusive and leading questions, never assuming the administrations lines. Too many people here want that only to apply to Republicans, and say “fuck off” if anyone dares apply it to a Democrat.