I don't see how it contradicts . I wasn't searching for a specific example, I was more discussing how laws should be made. As far as I can tell the genesis of this law isn't from litigation.

Go ahead and find an example of a 2nd grade teacher teaching kids about anal sex and strap on dildos....you realize these are the things supports think are being taught?

dola- I do see how you could perceive it that way, I wasn't very clear, my head is a bit swollen today

For DeSantis, it's really for DeSantis to score political points for sure. There are likely other reasons but definitely primarily to score political points in anticipation of him being an alternative to Trump.

Yes, I can see its a toehold for more stuff to come especially if he is going to run for the GOP nomination.

For me and my stance, the word "protect" is too strong. It is more allowing the parents to have those initial discussions with 3rd graders vs public school teachers.

I know not all parents will want to have those discussions. And some will likely do more harm than good. But yeah, I think most caring parents will want to have first crack in setting the stage and letting the 3rd grader know what they believe.

You said.


I linked the definition to clarify what I meant because I was specifically talking about teachers and kids having those discussions in third grade without parents being informed. Also when you say "stop there", what does that even mean? Where is the instruction? Yes, we can take it the courts to figure out but that means that we are intentionally putting laws on the books to harass our citizens


Of course it is because by definition those are gender identifying terms, no?


No it is beyond that. Because of the neutral wording, it is about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity. The problem is no one has said what that actually means which places everyone involved in a vulnerable position.

What discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents? That members of the LGBTQ+ community exist in the world? That Mr. White has a husband? That Mrs. White has a wife?

Again, teachers are not discussing the finer details of sexual intercourse between people of the same gender with their third graders. No one is suggesting teachers should be having that discussion with third graders and I feel like you keep driving to the suggestion that this is what is happening and what the law is trying to prevent. I have given you numerous examples of age appropriate discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity that have been a part of teacher-student interactions forever and will continue to happen without some sudden need for parental consent. The fact those interactions involved LGBTQ+ people should not make them illegal. Why can't Mr. White can't tell his third graders what he and his husband did over the summer without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White say that he is married to his husband without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White have his husband come in and discuss the meaning of Father's Day or Veteran's Day to him without parental consent but Mrs. White can? How is it that when Mr. White does those things, it is grooming but when Mrs. White does the same things using the exact same words it is not? It was and is fine for Mrs White to go into great depth on all those things but Mr. White is supposed to have a stunted one sentence response and stop right there? And if he does not, he runs the risk of being brought up on disciplinary charges? Yeah no thanks.


And I am telling you and have given examples that you have already accepted that we are already providing instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity to third graders and below. You already said that your issue is with that instruction including the LGBTQ+ community. I see no reason or need to other that community in this way.

Okay, thanks. I thought I was having reading comprehension issues myself and thinking WTF. Appreciate you saying you can see how I read it that way.

I'll ignore the 2nd paragraph since I didn't understand it. I'll wait when you get back to "normal" :)

Bravo sir.....well stated.

This is a fair question and agree that I've not answered it well. I do believe it is a reaction of (real or not) wokeness that DeSantis wants to leverage.

Similar to Lathum who asked where are examples of where these "instructions" occurred and if there is no examples, then the legislation is not needed.

Let me find some examples (I'll try today but definitely by Sat) if they are out there and get back to you.

So one thing here that I have issue with: are we allowing parents to dictate their individual teaching standards to educators, or are we allowing educators (state included) to set baseline educational standards that parents need to accept?

Just like intolerance and (I really hate the term) cancel culture (on both the extreme right and left), you've got people who thing they are really too fucking special and should get their way all the time, and if they don't then you are a horrible, horrible person. I'll take this whole trans blowback on the left when very supportive people take stances like "you can't just have a surgery and call yourself a woman" and demand things like equity in sports. Those people are now (in some circles) persona non grata from those very same people. If gender reassignment surgery is that important to you, then you should understand that participating in sports might not be in your future. If it's the other way around, then you need to make decisions. You can't have everything your way all the time. We all have to give here and there, and no, 'living your best life' doesn't mean you get to do whatever, whenever you want, because there's 7 billion people on the planet. So I'll run this back around here. These parents that demand that they have the final say? They are basically those kids who grew up getting participation trophies, who were told they were really special and could do no wrong. There are plenty of very, very shitty parents out there. We've got a whole lot of people who bitch, and have never tried doing. All they do is complain and whine and demand 'something' be done. They don't really want to try and fix the problem, they just want you to know you are wrong and they are right, and you need to fix it right now.

Comedians are the ones leading the war for free speech, not the extreme right, or the left. Which is funny, because when you've got comedians out there going "whoa, you're far too extreme for me, because you've shouted me down time and time again for speaking words that you don't feel 'serve' you' you know we've jumped the shark.

If those parents were on advisory boards, and worked with the district to come up with those policies and best use curriculums, then fine. But they aren't, they just show up and yell and cry about "sexualization" of kids. They can't even be bothered to get the term right. That's a completely different conversation and complaint I have with the right. They love to take these words and gaslight the shit out of people until that word becomes the thing they want it to. We don't have 3rd graders dressed in skimpy outfits, and paraded around grown older boys and men for their sexual gratification now do we? Fuck no. If there's a hot button word out there, 100% it's the right trying to make that word into the cultural buzzword of the day. Fuck that shit.

I mean, we have whatever that whole Toddlers & Tiaras stuff is...

Also, just generally, a reminder from https://medium.com/@_EthanGrey/the-m...u-936037958bce

Great link. Hits it right on the mark.

I can't figure out a way to say this without coming off like an asshole and I really don't me to impend on your patent on the board. It is not my intention but I understand why you may think that is the case.

Is this what you mean?

WOKENESS | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary


Since PM mentioned terms that he absolutely hates, that is mine

I'll go with the wiki definition. I find wiki provides a lot of more context and many can agree to its definition.

I didn't know about the bolded section in 2nd paragraph.

Absolutely no problems in asking for definitions. I really do believe its important to establish it up front.

Woke - Wikipedia

BINGO.

Hoorah. An executive order to provide access to abortion
And taxing the rich

Hold your cards please

Mortons....oof.

Would be something else to be an employee there today. Especially one who answers the phones.

The statement is from Morton's, but I would like Kavanaugh to point out to us where in the constitution it states he has a right to congregate and eat dinner.

RvW decision unintended consequences ftw

Best part is where one cop tells her if she fights it she'll probably get off. Hahaha

Pregnant Texas woman tells cop Roe repeal lets her fetus count for the carpool lane - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

The constitution does not mention anything about going out for dinner. It's not even a protected human right.

Yes it is. You will pull that piece of Mellow Mushroom pizza out of my cold dead hands. Give me liberty, and supersize the fries!!

... and definitely no pineapple

This reasoning is contradicted by the ninth amendment.

The 9th amendment mentions going out to dinner?

As others have pointed out, if you can harass and protest women walking into a clinic, you can harass and protest a man walking into a steakhouse.

Brett Kavanaugh can still eat at restaurants in other states, I don’t know why he’s so upset.

— Jennifer Wright (@JenAshleyWright) July 9, 2022

I wonder how much we'd still be hearing about the "Baby Formula Crisis" if the President hadn't taken successful action to solve it. As soon as it stopped being something to criticize him about, the media black holed it.

Maybe he should be forced to watch video of cows being raised and then slaughtered before he's allowed to eat his steak?

The 9th amendment (to my lay knowledge anyways) says that just because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention a right, you can't read it to say that someone denied that right, which is the reasoning you used in your prior post.


Correct me if I'm wrong.

I mean, that's how I would read it too, but it apparently doesn't apply to abortion, or gay rights to a certain judge. His reasoning being those rights weren't given in the constitution.

Yeah, it is a pretty strange amendment IMO as I have no idea what utility it really has. Not sure if life would be any different without it.

The Federalists needed enough Anti-Federalists on board to ratify the Constitution. Anti-Federalists didn't like the idea of a strong central government and wanted a Bill of Rights to limit that government. The Federalists were worried that if they spelled out some rights, then people in the future would assume those were the only rights we had. The 9th Amendment was added to clarify the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

This seems unnecessarily confrontational. He may really believe it but could have taken a more indirect tone.

I wonder if Bedingfield misspoke and if she'll try to walk it back some.

Outrage Erupts as White House Calls Abortion Rights Activists ‘Out of Step’

The leftists I follow on Twitter have been jumping all over themselves trying to be the most outraged over this.

This is the classic thing that is smart for the administration to believe (he's trying to get re-elected as President of the United States. Not President of Left Wing social media), but silly for them to say out loud (the only people reading/sharing it are the left wing folks who are going to be pissed at it).

Hiw does opposing abortion help him get elected? Polls show a strong majority of the population wants it to be legal.

We will see how his approach plays out in November and 2024

Yup Joe. Solve the range anxiety issue (and allow for more tax credit quota) and I'll jump to an EV (from my hybrid).

Charging Logistics a Top Barrier to Electric-Car Adoption: Survey

Wow. That's an ow.

President Biden is hemorrhaging support, with only 26% of Democratic voters saying the party should renominate him in 2024, a New York Times/Siena College poll found. Voters nationwide gave him a meager 33% job approval rating.https://t.co/OMwNkcclrr

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 11, 2022

538 has him at 38.4 aggregate approval right now, lowest he's been.

It's too late for mid-terms but I'm still rooting for him to turn things around. I don't think he should run in 2024 but if Jul 2024 is same as Jul 2022, the Dems (and presumed new nominee) are in deep doo-doo.

Under no circumstances should he be renominated. He's far too fucking old.

If they got 51 Senators I’d be all about a retirement.

One Small Step for Democracy in a 'Live Free or Die' Town

I find this sort of thing to be terrifying in general after having served on an HOA board and see this sort of thing happen at that level (or try to during my tenure). But it also lays the ground work for others to do something else in small towns across the US for very different reasons. The Netflix Doc Wild, Wild Country was an example with the politicking that came into play in Oregon.

I'd say the most legitimate threat is a group of Sovereign Citizens and wacko preppers and Klansmen set up shot in Idaho, declare total independence and watch what the State or Feds do. For a long, long time, the US has supported separatist movements around the world. What happens when we need to put down our own?

Talking about Biden and 2024 ...

I'm guessing this is bottom quartile historically of all incumbent Presidents and lack of support within own party.

64 percent of Democrats want someone other than Biden to be 2024 nominee: poll | The Hill

In no way does that statement oppose abortion.

I really always thought he would only serve one term. I was quite upset when suggestions about a year ago suggested he had ever intention of running again. I hope that the number dissuade him, and he doesn't even involve himself in the process of the next presidential elections.

The biggest question has to be who then? I like Harris but I don't think she is popular enough to be a strong candidate. Bernie, Warren, Hillary are just too old. We need a new Obama. Could he grow a beard and just run as Barry?

Jon Steward? But read that he has said no.

Opinion | If Tucker Runs in 2024, Here’s Who the Democrats Need - POLITICO

I think Gavin Newsome has a chance to garner a bunch of hype marketing wise but I’m sure there’s some awful skeletons in the closet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

" . . . Most fans contend that the show really jumped the shark around the 20th season when the Obama character came back and ran for another two terms as President, successfully arguing that he had not properly presented his birth certificate during his first two terms, making them invalid and allowing him to run for two additional terms. While some fans enjoyed the creative twist of using Trump's 'birther' gambit against him, most concluded that the writers had simply run out of ideas and probably should have stuck with the original plan to end the series with the J6/Emperor Putin finale that was jettisoned at the last minute when the show got surprisingly renewed."

Pritzker, Kelly, or Newsom stand the best shot. Harris would be a disaster which means they'll pick Harris.

Agreed

I think Pritzker and Newsom would both be excellent choices to run against Trump or DeSantis

Even if Biden always planned to be President for one term, it would be dumb to make that clear and significantly weaken his position.

And the numbers from that poll have to be taken with a grain of salt as that 33% approval number is way out of line with other numbers. Even Rasmussen, which has consistently had the most R-leaning numbers on Biden's approval, has him 4 points higher at 37.

37% is still really bad too. Especially when you consider there haven't been any real major scandals, just a constant stream of incompetence.

And how old are those other polls? I do feel like things are going to shift more with the recent Supreme Court rulings and mass shootings.

If Harris gets the nomination, it's because she's the incumbent VP, not because "Dems are dumb."

Newsom would be a ridiculously bad candidate. Pritzker has no national profile and is a billionaire. I love Kelly, but he's ideologically the same as Joe, so not sure why some of the anti-Biden faction loves him.

The party does have a history of putting its thumbs on the scale during primaries. As well as making it difficult for newcomers to rise through the ranks.

Don't know too much about Newsom's skeletons, but imagine they can't possibly be worse than Trump's. He's also been one of the few Democrats with a spine over the past year. Has good political instincts and isn't 80 years old.

I think Pritzker's lack of a national profile in the party is a big positive. That party has so much stink on it that it desperately needs an outsider. The billionaire thing doesn't matter much when running against another billionaire. He also has great political instincts, has really smart people helping him, and is pretty likable. Also been one of the few Democrats with a spine over the past couple years.

Kelly would be a narrative candidate. Pretty tough not to like him or attack him in any way. I don't think he wants to run and the party doesn't seem interested in elevating him because they are incredibly dumb.

Mark Cuban?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Who I would really, really love to see: Katie Porter

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

She has said several times she won’t, but Michelle Obama would be fascinating and I would love to see the heads explode if she won. Which I think she would.

Needs a few years to build a national profile but she's a potential rising star

SI

Is he even a Democrat? Kind of seems like a libertarian who sides with Democrats of late because of Trump.

I still like Cory Booker

Yep, me too. I love out Pete handles himself in the media. Dude is smart and just on it every day.

Same, but he doesn't seem to know how to make it work on a national stage. Also, he wouldn't run against Harris.

I think she would win the Dem nomination. Not sure she would win the Presidency though.

If she was serious, position herself as VP in 2024 or maybe ask Joe for a visible cabinet position (HHS, HUD?) in 2022 where she has time to do something.

Mayor Pete is definitely a good speaker. But only if we see good results from the Infrastructure/Transportation $ he is managing and so far, I've not read much.

I do really like Pete. Dems can't worry about trying to find the perfect candidate. No one they run will have more red flags and issues than Trump. For 2020 I thought having someone that would punch back at Trump was overrated, but I think most dem voters are tired of seeing their representatives roll over.

Pete is currently bombing spectacularly as the head of DoT. Although in his defense, he was woefully unqualified for it and should have never been nominated.

I get that he is good in interviews and raising money from big corporations. There's a pretty good role in the party for that which doesn't require being President or being competent at running the country.

:rolleyes:

How is he "bombing spectacularly?"

Dola:

And I'll admit I rolled my eyes when Pete took a month long parental leave quite soon after taking the job and that he only got the job in the first place as a political hand-out.

But how do you rate a Secretary of Transportation?

They mostly oversee distribution of funds to projects that take years to complete so during their term you really can't. Outside that he's continued some of the goals from the Obama administration.

Perhaps some of you who have traveled have heard of the numerous flight delays and cancellations taking place. Not to mention the massive increase in costs that have gone with it.

Now none of this is new to the DoT. Consumer groups met with him at the beginning and laid out the issues with the airlines. He has done just about nothing in regards to their complaints. You can read a pretty scathing letter from Consumer Reports.

Then there are supply chains. The Port of Oakland and Port of Los Angeles are still both unmitigated disasters. Although some of their issues are the massive rail delays. Heavy restrictions and antiquated regulations on marijuana testing have contributed to the trucker shortage.

Chao was a complete disaster and it sucks that the new DoT would have to clean up some of the mess. But they aren't. At least Obama put people with vast transportation experience in the role. Pete was woefully unqualified to be a transportation secretary. I don't know how anyone can look at his resume and think otherwise.

You've consistently blamed the supply chain issues on businesses making a decision. As recently as April you said:


Now it's because of Pete?

It is on businesses who made short-sighted decisions. It's also the responsibility of certain government officials to protect citizens from those short-sighted decisions by punishing the culprits.

If your car is stolen, that's on the person who stole it. But if the cop says "nothing we can do about it", they aren't helping or doing their job.

Does Kelloggs have an obligation to make sure pop tarts are on shelves? If it's your product and there's a shortage because you wanted cheaper supply chains that turned out to be unreliable I don't see where it's the government's business to punish the company. Unlike a stolen car, a crime hasn't been committed.

I'm sure PilotMan can provide more insight than anyone else here, but my understanding of the flight issues is we had a wave retirements (forced and optional) and layoffs during the pandemic that's created a pilot and staff shortage with carriers. I guess we could fine carriers for failing to uphold their end of the flights, but that's unlikely to ease the issue any time soon. You can't simply can't create new pilots instantly.

Lets put aside the fact we fund the majority of their infrastructure. We just gave them $50 billion in taxpayer funds to pay those employees that there is now a shortage of. So I do think it is our business.

And what the airlines are doing does straddle what is and isn't a crime. Violating the CARES Act for one. Taking money for flights you know you don't have the staff to operate borders on fraud. Especially when you make it difficult to get a cash refund and try to placate with travel vouchers that expire.

Also since people are rushing to defend Mayor Pete of all people, can someone explain what made him qualified to run the Department of Transportation? What in his background do you like? Do you feel there was no one else more qualified for the role?

He likes trains.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Note to Jill Biden, do not compare latinos to tacos.

Because they aren't all tasty with hot sauce?

I wouldn't categorize it as insulting ... just weird.

Yup, do the mea culpa quickly.

I think First Ladies have their own speech writer(s)?

I obsessively miss San Antonio breakfast tacos

Based on the last two presidential elections, Democrats should look to nominate someone who can win, in November, a majority of the following states: New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida.

Absolutely this, but who is that person? It is one of the reasons I question Newsome. Will a California Governor really play in purple states?

No incumbent VP in the primary era has been denied their party's nomination and only Quaye has been denied it when they ran at a later date. It's going to be Harris if she runs.

I will march on Kellogg's HQ if Pop Tarts are not available! :)

Now fox News is complaining that gas prices are falling too fast.

They've so been silent on the fact that Biden added more jobs in the first 6 months of this year than Trump did in any full year of his presidency.

President Biden gets Mexico to agree on $1.5 billion dollars on smart border security. How much did Trump get Mexico to pay for his wall again?
https://twitter.com/AndrewJBates46/s...RR6RzigWQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

He didn't have to. He strong armed Mexico to stop many illegals before they crossed the wall. And with the Remain in Mexico policy, limiting asylums etc. Mexico knew if they didn't stop the illegals, they would remain in Mexico for a long time.

Trump’s Best Means for Stopping Migrants Is Mexico’s Government - WSJ

Anyone know if the Secret Service is planning to testify to rebut (?) Hutchinson's story?

I googled and didn't see anything out there. I'd be disappointed if the commission doesn't try to force the testimony.

I'm guessing there is some Executive Privilege that would shield the SS but I'd think there is someway to apply pressure.

Here is an interesting outlier name. Rapheal Warnock.

So, basically, Trump outsourced our own inhumanity towards brown migrants to a country that will treat them even worse, and did so with a threat that would not only have devastated the economy of an important ally, but also disrupted (further) critical supply chains feeding industry in his own country.

Yep, sounds like the kind of short-sighted, retributive, and pointlessly macho kind of policy we have grown to expect from the TrumpGOP.

I miss this earlier. In today's political climate, I wouldn't use history as a definitive determiner. I don't think Harris will have the support in the party that many other VP's would. She is not exactly fitting the adage that "the most poplar person on the team is the back-up quarterback." As bad as people have criticized Biden, no one is really clamoring for Harris to take over. And was really bad at running a campaign.

Yup, definitely ask (or threaten) for more heavy crude to be pumped.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/polit...rip/index.html

And nice first step I guess on the long road to normalization between Israel & SA.

So the 10 year abortion story is actually true? Looks like police in Columbus, Ohio made an arrest. The Indy Star also just published an article (behind pay walls of course.)

I understand the need for verification these days, but given we're talking about a 10 year old rape victim, I think we could have held off on the numerous statements and op-eds questioning whether this was true, or worse, outright stating it was fabricated as an abortion sob story in the wake of the Dobbs case, with no facts other than suspicion of a convenient narrative.

Ohio man charged in rape of 10-year-old that led to Indiana abortion

No paywalls on mobile I think

Why would we necessarily doubt it would happen sooner or later though? What are we doubting, that there are 10-year-olds who get raped or that there are 10-year-olds who have reached menarche and are ovulating?

The right is gonna have a field day with his last name. She would never need an abortion if the dirty brown illegal wasn’t in the country.

Yes, that's going to be a very easy pivot point.

As if on cue, the top story on Fox News:

Man arrested in rape of Ohio 10-year-old cited by Biden is illegal immigrant, ICE source says

SI