All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

Considering how tied he was to the Iraq War, No he wouldn't have won.

If Powell had been able to win the nomination he would have run instead of Dubya, so him throwing himself on his sword at the U.N. would never have happened.

History might have been different if he had even ONE ally in the cabinet also.

[Tendrin]

The Justice Department on Friday challenged an Alabama law that makes it a felony for a doctor to administer gender-affirming health care to minors.

"This lawsuit challenges a state statute that denies necessary medical care to children based solely on who they are," the department said in its complaint.

The complaint filed Friday alleges that "the new law's felony ban on providing certain medically necessary care to transgender minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause."

The Justice Department is asking the court to issue an immediate order blocking the law, which is set to go into effect on May 8.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/do...03b40c4d59d519

[worstblogever]

If Powell had been able to win the nomination he would have run instead of Dubya, so him throwing himself on his sword at the U.N. would never have happened.

History might have been different if he had even ONE ally in the cabinet also.

Not picking Dick Cheney for his VP would have been the big difference-maker, I'd think, and instead, if he'd had someone like McCain that knew their way around the Senate. Knowing the dirty tactics Dubya employed against McCain in the 2000 Primary, the Senator would have likely wanted to unite against them.

Although, given McCain's ego, he might have pitched the two of them on a ticket with him at the top, and Powell as HIS VP. Even if he was trailing him in polls.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published profiles of Joel Kleefisch, a former member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, and the husband of former Wisconsin Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, who had over a decade long history of writing extreme anti-abortion legislation in Wisconsin, as well as his attempt to amend the Wisconsin state constitution to include a ban on same sex marriage. Kleefisch’s ugliest legislative efforts, however, seem to be when he has supported bills to change child support payment rules on behalf of a wealthy campaign donor of his, and the specific change to the law that Kleefisch was asking for would have allowed a specific deadbeat dad and donor to get off scot free. But the most hypocritically frustrating thing in Joel Kleefisch’s voting record would have to be his fervent support for Wisconsin’s strict new Voter ID laws, because he insisted the statistically non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud is widespread, and we need to put a stop of it. There is, however, actual video of Joel Kleefisch pushing buttons on the desks of absent legislators in the Wisconsin Assembly to vote on their behalf as he sees fit, which IS actual in person Voter Fraud but Kleefisch has zero problem with that kind. He also wanted to eliminate the age restriction on hunting so that parents can take their two or three-year olds out to bag a buck (really). Oh, and did we mention that on a local conservative talk radio show, Joel Kleefisch defended his belief that Jesus co-existed at the same time as the dinosaurs? Because yes, that also really happened. Kleefisch also failed in his efforts to find a back-door around the 4th Amendment to allow Gov. Scott Walker to drug test welfare recipients, in the form of a bill he filed that would have required all high school students who participate in an extracurricular activity or park a car on a school campus to undergo random drug testing. And mercifully, after 2018, Kleefisch called it a career after seven years of stupidity in office.

On this date in 2019, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Matt Manweller, a former schoolteacher and former member of the Washington House of Representatives from 2012-2018. And sure, legislatively, he might not have been the wildest extremist we’ve seen, with the harshest things we could find in his voting record being his minority party votes in a blue state against things like minimum wage increases, a ban on bump stocks, or any bill that would try to make it easier to register to vote in the state. No, the real reason we’re profiling Manweller is the wave of accusations of sexual assault and misconduct that plagued him during his tenure at Central Washington University and forced him to resign in disgrace in September of 2018. How bad were they? Well, one of his accusers mentioned that he had an improper sexual relationship with her when she was still his 17 year old underage student (and she had a diary from the time proving it). Adding to the scumbag factor is as a legislator, Manweller’s voting record also showed he voted against a bill to allow victims of sexual assault to receive permanent orders of protection against their attackers, instead of just temporary ones, and that he considered how he was pressured to leave office “McCarthyism”.

On this date in 2020, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Robert Hyde, a 2020 Republican candidate seeking to become the next U.S. House Representative from Connecticut’s 5th Congressional District, one of five members of the GOP seeking to unseat Democratic Congresswoman Jahana Hayes. Now, the first time Robert Hyde made the news during his early candidacy was when in December of 2019, he posted a vulgar, sexist tweet directed at Sen. Kamala Harris when she dropped out of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary. Thus, the media wanted to learn more about the MAGA meathead running for Congress who said awful things about Sen. Harris, and lo and behold, they discovered he had plenty of cash lying around to donate money to Trump’s SuperPAC, but alas, could not find a single dime to give towards child support he owes. But it didn’t take long before the rabbit hole got deeper. During the Trump impeachment hearings, word came out that Robert Hyde was a known associate of Lev Parnas, aka one half of Lev & Igor, aka one of the two goons who worked for Trump and Rudy Giuliani who were involved in trying to smear Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and help pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 elections. Text messages between Giuliani and Hyde seemed to show that he may have offered help in providing surveillance on Yovanovitch’s whereabouts and daily movements. Because, y’know, it’s a good look to be spying on a U.S. Ambassador, especially one who was threatened to “go through some things” by Trump. It seems that Robert Hyde is simply a little remora trying to swim with some bigger sharks by hanging out around the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., and is nothing more than a deadbeat landscaper who threw around enough cash to make the acquaintance of said sharks and is in way, way over his head. And he has a history of paranoid behavior, including a raving outburst that was deranged enough to have security escort him off the premises of Mar-A-Lago that had him involuntarily committed in May of 2019. Robert Hyde had little to no campaign staff, and with all the controversy, withdrew from the race. He instead has decided it would be a good idea to run for U.S. Senate in 2022… and he’s almost definitely going to implode in that effort.

On this date in 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Eric “EJ” Parker, who ran for District 26 of the Idaho State Senate in 2020, and yes, was a member of the 3% Militia group that pointed assault rifles at government agents from the Bureau of Land Management during the standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in 2014. Of course, Parker was charged and plead guilty to misdemeanors to avoid jail time. Eric Parker then spent several months trying to whip up Islamophobia in rural Oregon in “anti-refugee protests”, and in January of 2016, Parker took part in the occupation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. So of course, he found allies within the Idaho GOP like Heather Scott who thought that it would be great to try an elect an anti-government domestic terrorist into the Idaho State Senate. Facebook, however, did not find Parker’s candidacy so innocent, removing him and all of his campaign pages from their platform in August of 2020 as part of a sweep that removed those who would use violent rhetoric and encouraging violence against the government. The scary part is, Eric Parker was not completely rejected by voters in his attempt to overthrow the government from within, still getting 44% of the vote in 2020 in his attempt to reach office. We will temporarily breathe a sigh of relief he didn’t make it to office, and set aside his profile at this time to cover another wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 1097-55, since this was established in July 2014.

[Mister Mets]

If Powell had been able to win the nomination he would have run instead of Dubya, so him throwing himself on his sword at the U.N. would never have happened.

History might have been different if he had even ONE ally in the cabinet also.

If Powell had run, it likely would have been in 1996.

By 2000, George W Bush was a heavy favorite for the nomination, as the son of a recent President who was reelected Governor of the second most populated state in the country whose personal story gave him a unique appeal to the religious community. Powell would likely have to run in the same establishment lane.

Had he been elected President in 1996, the response to 9/11 would have been quite different.

Not picking Dick Cheney for his VP would have been the big difference-maker, I'd think, and instead, if he'd had someone like McCain that knew their way around the Senate. Knowing the dirty tactics Dubya employed against McCain in the 2000 Primary, the Senator would have likely wanted to unite against them.

Although, given McCain's ego, he might have pitched the two of them on a ticket with him at the top, and Powell as HIS VP. Even if he was trailing him in polls.

If Powell had run in '96, George W Bush would have been the obvious running mate.

[worstblogever]

Matt Maddock

Welcome to what is the 1097th original profile here at “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day”, where we’ll be discussing Matt Maddock, who was first successfully elected to office in the 2018 elections in District 44 of the Michigan House of Representatives. Our profile picture above is Maddock with his wife Meshawn, the current Co-Chair of the Michigan Republican Party at the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C. where he helped bus Trump supporters/domestic terrorists and those who fell into both categories to our nation’s Capitol on January 6th, 2021 for the coup attempt the Republican Party was attempting. And yes, Meshawn has also been named as those who attempted to commit fraud who forged documents to pose as fake electors during the count of electoral votes.

The above sedition in the name of inserting Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s autocratic dictator is not the only fascist ideas Maddock has supported, though, because as a legislator, he submitted a bill that would require any “fact-checker” in the press to register with the state and be fined $1,000 if they correct any politician’s lies if they haven’t already been cleared to do so by a state registry. If you remember, there’s a whole First Amendment of the Constitution that allows a freedom of the press, and provided they don’t print any falsehoods that would leave them susceptible to a libel lawsuit, the whole thing reeked of a man at war with the media for daring to ever correct him.

Outside of that stupidity, both Matt Maddock and his wife have been spreading Covid-19 misinformation throughout the pandemic, stating his belief that “Covid is less harmful than the flu.” Maddock also decided to attempt to impeach Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for reasons that amount to, “took actions to save thousands of lives but personally inconvenienced me”, in late 2021, but there wasn’t enough support to take out the Democratic Governor.

We are hoping that perhaps the people of Maddock’s district realize they have put a very dangerous man in the state legislature and can correct that error in the GOP Primary or general election. Before he and his wife can do any more damage.

[Dalak]

But the studies don't show that the 1 in 20 figure was a gross exaggeration. The percentage of students who are trans men, trans women, genderqueer, non-binary, agender, genderfluid or who do not have a listed identity is 4.2%. It's not a gross exaggeration to put that at 1 in 20 (5%) females, especially as the numbers are a bit different between the two sexes.

There are more trans men than trans women at the college, although there are also more women than men. However, there is a big increase in the level trans men compared to any increase in trans women, as trans women used to outnumber trans men by quite a lot.

Yes, it is a gross exaggeration to say 1 in 20 as that was being used to show how many were transitioning into men when nowhere NEAR that number was actually trans let alone transitioning. It's also highly inaccurate to throw anything that isn't Gay or Straight into the Trans pile as you are suggesting, as that isn't even technically correct. Considering your stance below this is even more of a stretch for you.

I also have no idea if trans women outnumbered trans men as much as you say, but I'd like clarification and evidence before I accept it considering what media you consume.

I'm pretty sure that Pete Buttigieg's love for his husband is deeper and purer than David Vitter's love of getting spanked by prostitutes while he's wearing diapers, but when it comes to deviance, it is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the stuff you mention doesn't involve consenting adults, so it's not comparable.

It wouldn't be comparable except for the fact that many elected GoP officeholders across the country make those comparisons regularly, and your unconscious bias is revealed by what comparisons you make i.e. Vitter went to see a prostitiute while cheating on his wife (Illegal and immoral), yet you see that the same as a married gay couple. You gotta fight past that sort of bias unless you just don't care.

It depends on the argument you're making. If you're trying to convince people who believe Democrats are mistaken politically that they still deserve votes because of superior morals Democrats need significantly superior morals.

And as a whole they do. They don't defend the vast majority of their members who do repugnant things like pal around with bigots of all stripes, preach for the sanctity of marriage while pulling a Vitter or worse, pull a Roy Moore, fanatically support Trump regardless of what he says or does, and so on. Not every Dem has to be perfect for Democrats to have better morals than Republicans like you are implying.

I don't donate much to politicians. The last time was probably to Joe Lhota, Republican nominee for mayor of New York City in 2013 (he lost.) I live in Queens so there aren't many Republican officeholders, or much reason to remember who I voted for due to a lack of competitive elections.

In the last two elections, I have posted my preferences for candidates in key elections.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...37#post3979337
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ns#post5194070

You donated to a R who has since abandoned the party over Trump and the shit they've pulled, but then say you prefer people like Rick Scott to be in power? That's why I'm asking who you support and vote for as opposed to who you think will win. Preference = What you want to happen as opposed to a prediction, so if that's not the case you should clarify.

If you have better readily available facts go ahead. One thing I am picking up is that it may seem that people are arguing past one another, for example if one person's definition of trans includes everyone who identifies as something other than the gender they were assigned at birth (this is the definition used by the Human Rights Campaign), and another who limits it only to people who explicitly identify as trans men or women.

If something is technically correct, it is correct. If you want to argue that something else is genuinely correct, or more practical, or more considerate of important context, fine. That argument can be made explicitly.

Director Andrew Stanton had a great term in an interview: "the note behind the note." His point was that studio notes that seem ridiculous are often based on a legitimate underlying concern, and that writers and directors will make better work when they realize what those are. It's a reminder that someone who may have a weird view on things may be trying to articulate something else. This is important to keep in mind, though my takeaway is the importance of articulating things effectively. Given the wide array of political views, and potential problems with different sources of information, frames of reference and priorities, it doesn't work to expect anyone else to figure out exactly what you're trying to say. It's one thing for a filmmaker who has to deal with producers to get funding to go through the effort of determining their unarticulated concerns. It would be another to expect it of strangers online. One person may be informed by a viral video and that becomes a context for his comments. Another may be unfamiliar with the video and its argument, or may have seen it convincingly rebutted, so she won't immediately consider that.

The 2 bolded directly contradict each other, as there is nothing about genderqueer, nonbinary, and others that make them Trans unless it's an intention to overestimate the number for shock value. You can apply LGBT to them, but that includes far more than just T. It also is pretty damning for reporters who make these stances to lack the education to have these false definitions in mind, and shows they either don't know the subject enough or are deliberately skewing things which is bad in either case for any claim of journalistic integrity. You can expect them to articulate things well as that's their career, and when they don't they spread the misinformation that taints people who expect them to deliver the truth - just like you were misinformed by that 1 in 20 number they inflated AFTER lumping in anything not biologically male or female. (4.2 is far closer to 1 in 25, and it's taught in schools to round DOWN below .5)

BTW I have been arguing that clarifying your stance strongly is necessary rather explicitly, while you seem to be defending deliberately allowing others to misunderstand your stance. If I'm wrong please clarify and correct me.

Politicians are able to vote based on their religious understandings. Religion tends to be associated with right-wing politicians, but someone on the left can believe that God wants them to make sure the poor are taken care of, the death penalty is abolished, and that the moral case against Donald Trump is spread wide and far. I also don't trust anyone to determine that a politician is obviously wrong and the only potential reason for their decision is their religious faith.

And I said there are many religious politicians who don't let their religion force their beliefs on others whom I can respect for that fact, it's the ones who do things like vote for Evolution not to be taught or just as much as christian alternatives (Not any other religious origin of existence, just Christianity) that are teh ones I'm discussing and you know it. If they cannot allow others who disagree with them to live their lives as they believe (Protected in the First amendment) then they are not fit to govern.

I agree that there should be ways to punish politicians who lie. I am concerned about the mechanisms. Anything that gives Democrats the power to punish Marjorie Taylor Greene for lying would give Republicans the power to punish any Democrat who exaggerates the moment the party is able to take unified control.

The best approach may be for some kind of private group giving its seal of approval to politicians who meet neutral standards. But this group needs to be pretty damn perfect to avoid the inevitable disagreements.

Another possibility would be for a major party to set clear rules on what politicians can do in order to have access to funding, endorsements, legislative committees, etc. But that's likely to lead to some internal conflicts, especially if there's a sense that is used selectively to punish one faction.

I want it to affect EVERYONE so this is not a worry of mine, I want everyone on the government payroll (And contractors/etc taking govt money temporarily) to be strongly punished if they lie in a way that's strong enough to make them all think twice before letting their mouths run away with them. If this hits left or right I don't care as long as it's genuine and even handed. Whether any party would abuse this would depend on clarifications built into any legislation, but there is no neutral standard of Falsehood compared to Truth. Either something is a fact or it's not, and relying on the old excuse of "It's just an opinion" or "I heard other people say it" will not be allowed if I was writing the law. Once enough people have been abused of the notion that they can get away with spreading lies and misinformation then ALL will equally learn to control their tongues or get fined a percentage of their income then be jailed after enough infractions.

Of course this would only apply when they are on govt time, trying to represent their office on their own time, or doing an interview, you can't control whether people lie in their off time when it's unrelated as that also would breach the 1st.

[Mister Mets]

In some really good news, the global medium income doubled from 2000 to 2017.

https://twitter.com/DinaPomeranz/sta...78202020237313



I mentioned this a few posts ago but there was a recent discussion online that crystallized some of my thinking about modern politics.

Matthew Yglesias wrote a substack article with the headline "Rigorous, accurate policy analysis is underrated"


He was worried that left-wing advocacy groups were prioritizing being a team player over accuracy, which became a problem when it took years to recognize a major flaw in important proposed legislation.

One particularly striking example of this is the child care subsidy proposal that was part of the Build Back Better package. The genesis of this legislation was a 2015 proposal from the Center for American Progress to create sliding-scale tax credits to defray the cost of child care. Over time, the proposal became more generous (capping costs at 7 percent of income rather than 12 percent) and accrued various pro-labor provisions, as well as a plan for a multi-year transition from the current unsubsidized system to the new permanent vision. The problem, as Matt Bruenig pointed out (see more here and here), is that the transition plan was very poorly structured and would have pushed the cost structure of child care up before the subsidies kicked in, leaving tons of middle-class families worse off. Democrats eventually scrambled to tweak the proposal, but BBB’s family provisions became a tangled mess of phase-ins and phase-outs, and eventually the whole thing died on the vine.

But how was it that nobody noticed this problem until Bruenig? I heard from someone who used to work at a well-regarded center-left think tank that one of her colleagues noticed this exact problem earlier. But when she raised the issue, she was told to keep quiet because the care groups have always been supportive on other issues.

That is the most explicit statement of Coalition Brain that I’ve heard, but I think it’s a widespread syndrome across causes and institutions. Everyone is supposed to mind their own business and support the team, not directly fire at anyone else. And of course it’s true that politics is fundamentally a team sport and a game of coalitions. But I think two problems arise when Coalition Brain gets too severe. One that I’ve talked about a lot is that while you avoid nasty fights about prioritization, you also wind up not actually setting priorities. To set priorities, different groups need to be able to criticize other groups’ ideas and say that the other group’s proposal is actually not very well-designed, addresses an unimportant topic, or for some other reason is a less-worthy use of a limited budget. But the other is probably that the journalists and elected officials who depend on the groups to develop policies can end up with an exaggerated sense of the policies’ merits.

Because of the current economic climate, we have a return to tradeoffs.

Today, we have full employment, which is great. But we also have inflation, which is less great, and that means everything has tradeoffs. When you spend $1 billion on X, you can’t spend it on Y. Or if you do spend on both X and Y, that is inflationary. Targeted student loan relief to help those in need could be a good idea, but the more student loans you forgive, the more inflation you’ll generate, so you need to think carefully about what you’re doing. Loan relief for recent law school grads will directly press up housing costs for working-class renters; you can’t just call it all stimulus.

This return of tradeoffs raises the value of sound policy analysis because it raises the bar for what’s actually worth doing.

Democratic strategist Ray Texeira wrote about the shortcomings of what he saw as the Fox News folly, the suggestion if Fox News hates something, it must be good.

This is the idea that if Fox News (substitute here the conservative bête noire of your choice if you prefer) criticizes the Democrats for X then there must be absolutely nothing to X and the job of Democrats is to assert that loudly and often. The problem is that an issue is not necessarily completely invalid just because Fox News mentions it. That depends on the issue. If there is something to the issue and persuadable voters have real concerns, you will not allay those concerns by embracing the Fox News Fallacy. In fact, you'll probably intensify them by giving such voters the impression that Democrats simply don't care about their concerns and will do nothing to address them. That will undermine the Democrats’ ability to respond to predictable attacks against their candidates in 2022 and raise the likelihood of a midterm debacle.

There's a similar bad argument on the Republican side, when bad politicians are defended because they have the right enemies. I'm pretty sure the same argument applied to Charles Manson.

[Mister Mets]

Josh Barro considered the implications of these two pieces on his Substack.

But beneath the Fox News Fallacy is a style of tactical thinking among liberals that doesn’t make a lot of sense: If you admit the problem is real in any aspect and try to distance yourself from its unpopular aspects, or express that you are also trying to do something about it, or establish a position close to the median voter, then what you’re actually doing is “feeding” into Fox’s “narrative” and making people more likely to think everything said on Fox (or, more often lately, by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis) must be true. Unfortunately, there is a flip side: If your strategy is just to deny that there’s any problem, you end up owning whatever problem it is that voters believe exists, because you have effectively declared you won’t do anything about it.

Teixeira cited rising violent crime, unauthorized immigration, and the controversy over critical race theory in education as three examples of issues where Democrats got tripped up by the Fox News Fallacy and ended up signaling to voters that they weren’t taking their real and valid concerns seriously. I would add that inflation was a major problem area here for a while, though most Democratic commentators seem to have been beaten into submission by reality on that topic.

An obvious question is, why do Democrats engage in the Fox News Fallacy? One possibility is they buy into the nonsense tactical idea described above. But I think it’s better understood as a strategy to avoid unpleasant intra-coalition fights. There are a lot of ideas that liberals feel they can’t defend (because they’re wrong and/or unpopular) and also can’t criticize (because someone in the coalition, perhaps from a “marginalized group,” feels strongly about the matter) and the Fox News Fallacy provides a way to deflect and claim that dissonance doesn’t exist. It’s not a good tactic for persuading voters, but it’s a perfectly good tactic for avoiding getting yelled at.

Really it’s a more general form of the “coalition brain” problem Matt Yglesias describes as having doomed Build Back Better: Democrats solved for a way to avoid criticizing anyone within the coalition, and they got everything they wanted except legislation that could pass. And on these social issues, Democrats are finding a way to avoid ever telling anyone “on-side” that they have a bad or overreaching idea, and it achieves every goal except being popular and winning elections.

Except on policing, where I think it’s worth noting how Democrats managed to shed Coalition Brain and demonstrate a self-preservation instinct.

Liberal interest groups with nothing to do with policing, such as the abortion-rights group NARAL, have coalition-brained their way into tweeting about how we needed to defund the police, which means anytime NARAL endorses a Democratic candidate, Republicans get to say that candidate is backed by a “defund-the-police” group. But at least Democratic politicians themselves have stampeded away this language, telling anyone who will listen that they are opposed. Standing in opposition to the demands of self-styled racial justice protesters once looked hazardous — simply warning about the negative political effects of protests that turn violent was enough to get David Shor fired — but now you can beat up on “defund” all you want with no apparent political consequence. Joe Biden is president, Eric Adams is mayor of New York, and the left-wing activists were paper tigers.

So, where else can we do this? What other unpopular ideas can Democrats drop like hot rocks with no consequence beyond some activists complaining on Twitter?

One would seem to be the idea that we need to liberalize the asylum process at the southern border.

He considered other unpopular views supported on the left.

Broadly, there are a lot of ideas about “equity” in education that are popular at education schools but way out of step with the public — this is why you see administrators and some Democratic officials trying to abolish popular gifted and talented programs, water down advanced math, teach that linear thinking is “white supremacy culture,” and the like. You have schools introducing highly ideological ideas about race and racism into curriculum, often outside of history and social studies classes — seeking a “social justice lens” when teaching math, for example — and then there are elementary schools teaching that the relationship between sex and gender is essentially arbitrary.

This has some implications. There seems to be a view that passing unpopular legislation activists want is the way to show other activists you care about their interests as well. But this sometimes it leads to freakouts about moderate positions, and an inability to compromise when there isn't enough money or votes.

[Mister Mets]

Yes, it is a gross exaggeration to say 1 in 20 as that was being used to show how many were transitioning into men when nowhere NEAR that number was actually trans let alone transitioning. It's also highly inaccurate to throw anything that isn't Gay or Straight into the Trans pile as you are suggesting, as that isn't even technically correct. Considering your stance below this is even more of a stretch for you.

I also have no idea if trans women outnumbered trans men as much as you say, but I'd like clarification and evidence before I accept it considering what media you consume.

The Human Rights campaign said that the "word “transgender” – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth."

https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community

This includes trans men, trans woman, people who identify as nonbinary and others.

It wouldn't be comparable except for the fact that many elected GoP officeholders across the country make those comparisons regularly, and your unconscious bias is revealed by what comparisons you make i.e. Vitter went to see a prostitiute while cheating on his wife (Illegal and immoral), yet you see that the same as a married gay couple. You gotta fight past that sort of bias unless you just don't care.

Vitter cheating on his wife was immoral. If they were in an open marriage, it's a different story.

You and I disagree with the GOP officeholders who compare being gay to pedophilia and bestiality, so that comparison isn't relevant.

We may be arguing past one another on deviance. I'm trying to apply it neutrally to consider atypical sexual practices.

I remember an argument a decade ago that any Republicans talking about deviance should have asked former Supreme Court justice Antonin about his unconventional life. He and his wife had nine children, which is an unusual life choice.

And as a whole they do. They don't defend the vast majority of their members who do repugnant things like pal around with bigots of all stripes, preach for the sanctity of marriage while pulling a Vitter or worse, pull a Roy Moore, fanatically support Trump regardless of what he says or does, and so on. Not every Dem has to be perfect for Democrats to have better morals than Republicans like you are implying.

Not every Democrat has to be perfect, but if you want people to vote against their policy preferences for moral reasons, they should be really impressive.

Sometimes arguments from Democrats come across like a school board candidate caught slashing the tires of five cars claiming the other guy cut the tires of twenty cars. You could argue that the other guy is four times worse, but it's still a fight between two lunatics.

You donated to a R who has since abandoned the party over Trump and the shit they've pulled, but then say you prefer people like Rick Scott to be in power? That's why I'm asking who you support and vote for as opposed to who you think will win. Preference = What you want to happen as opposed to a prediction, so if that's not the case you should clarify.

I don't like Rick Scott, but I also don't like Elizabeth Warren whose advocacy for cancellation of student debt is toxic on many levels.

You asked me who I voted for and donated money for, which is largely limited to moderates in New York.

Preferences in other races is a different goalpost, partly because even informed people don't necessarily know the specifics of particular races (which are also undecided.) In some cases, a moderate amount of research indicates that a Republican candidate is trash. For example, potential Colorado Senate nominee state representative Ron Hanks does not look like someone I could support.
In Missouri, I would back a normal Democrat over Eric Greitens.

The 2 bolded directly contradict each other, as there is nothing about genderqueer, nonbinary, and others that make them Trans unless it's an intention to overestimate the number for shock value. You can apply LGBT to them, but that includes far more than just T. It also is pretty damning for reporters who make these stances to lack the education to have these false definitions in mind, and shows they either don't know the subject enough or are deliberately skewing things which is bad in either case for any claim of journalistic integrity. You can expect them to articulate things well as that's their career, and when they don't they spread the misinformation that taints people who expect them to deliver the truth - just like you were misinformed by that 1 in 20 number they inflated AFTER lumping in anything not biologically male or female. (4.2 is far closer to 1 in 25, and it's taught in schools to round DOWN below .5)

BTW I have been arguing that clarifying your stance strongly is necessary rather explicitly, while you seem to be defending deliberately allowing others to misunderstand your stance. If I'm wrong please clarify and correct me.

The definition of trans as I understand it is that someone's gender identity does not correspond to their sex at birth.

If someone in college identifies as agender, that is probably not the gender on their birth certificate.

I do want to note again that this is the definition of trans used by the Human Rights Campaign, as well as Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association and GLAAD.

The difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 25 isn't really what anyone's arguing about when it comes to policy implications and exaggerations, especially as 1 in 25 in a general college population may end up being 1 in 20 among a non-random selection of college students (IE- those determined to be female at birth.)

And I said there are many religious politicians who don't let their religion force their beliefs on others whom I can respect for that fact, it's the ones who do things like vote for Evolution not to be taught or just as much as christian alternatives (Not any other religious origin of existence, just Christianity) that are teh ones I'm discussing and you know it. If they cannot allow others who disagree with them to live their lives as they believe (Protected in the First amendment) then they are not fit to govern.

Does this also apply to any left-wing candidates who are motivated by religion. For example, should a devout Christian who wants to increase services for the poor be declared unfit to govern? What is the limiting factor?

I want it to affect EVERYONE so this is not a worry of mine, I want everyone on the government payroll (And contractors/etc taking govt money temporarily) to be strongly punished if they lie in a way that's strong enough to make them all think twice before letting their mouths run away with them. If this hits left or right I don't care as long as it's genuine and even handed. Whether any party would abuse this would depend on clarifications built into any legislation, but there is no neutral standard of Falsehood compared to Truth. Either something is a fact or it's not, and relying on the old excuse of "It's just an opinion" or "I heard other people say it" will not be allowed if I was writing the law. Once enough people have been abused of the notion that they can get away with spreading lies and misinformation then ALL will equally learn to control their tongues or get fined a percentage of their income then be jailed after enough infractions.

Of course this would only apply when they are on govt time, trying to represent their office on their own time, or doing an interview, you can't control whether people lie in their off time when it's unrelated as that also would breach the 1st.

I suspect you will very quickly find edge cases.

There is a question of who gets to decide what's true and false, or what falls in the category of things that reasonable people can argue about. What should people on government payrolls be allowed to say about the extent to which higher levels of spending led to increased inflation, or the financial consequences of the Florida legislature's vote against Disney?

[Tendrin]

Yes, it is a gross exaggeration to say 1 in 20 as that was being used to show how many were transitioning into men when nowhere NEAR that number was actually trans let alone transitioning. It's also highly inaccurate to throw anything that isn't Gay or Straight into the Trans pile as you are suggesting, as that isn't even technically correct. Considering your stance below this is even more of a stretch for you.

I also have no idea if trans women outnumbered trans men as much as you say, but I'd like clarification and evidence before I accept it considering what media you consume.

And, I must point out, the *only* reason we're on this subject is because of the claimed 'spike' in trans masculine identity which *doesn't frigging exist* and has been shown not to exist multiple times now, thus disproving the entire thesis of Abigal Shrier's book. Are we now onto 'there are too many transwomen'?

[Dalak]

The Human Rights campaign said that the "word “transgender” – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth."

https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community

This includes trans men, trans woman, people who identify as nonbinary and others.

The goalposts were based on the quote: "the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender soared from 1 in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20" which at the best interpretation is still a lie as there is no clue where 3.7% of the 4.2% land on their biology. In other words, the number of girls in that figure is unclear at best and at worst it's a bald faced lie meant to enflame the current anti-trans mania.

Vitter cheating on his wife was immoral. If they were in an open marriage, it's a different story.

You and I disagree with the GOP officeholders who compare being gay to pedophilia and bestiality, so that comparison isn't relevant.

We may be arguing past one another on deviance. I'm trying to apply it neutrally to consider atypical sexual practices.

Vitter was dealing with a prostitute, who may or may not have been a victim of trafficing and sexual slavery on top of the current illegality. Again, not a good comparison to a loving married couple who happen to be gay, something that is not atypical as homosexuality is noted in many species of mammal other than just Human. It is natural, normal, and while not the majority it is not atypical or any sort of aberration. I'd suggest you break yourself of that sort of thinking as well. The size of a family isn't deviance either, but considering that elected officials who are making anti-trans policy are spreading anti-trans propaganda to enflame anti-trans bigotry is VERY relevant considering otherwise reasonable people are excusing it.

E: I'll note this whole tangent started because of the question "Why is it objectionable to teach kids to respect those different than them?" in regards to a pride week in elementary school.

Not every Democrat has to be perfect, but if you want people to vote against their policy preferences for moral reasons, they should be really impressive.

Sometimes arguments from Democrats come across like a school board candidate caught slashing the tires of five cars claiming the other guy cut the tires of twenty cars. You could argue that the other guy is four times worse, but it's still a fight between two lunatics.

However as one party is supporting the facist takeover of elections based on lies of fraud being used to subvert Democracy, supports philanderers regardless of the circumstances, has supported members who took pictures to engage in sexual blackmail, accuses others of grooming while covering up and supporting those of their own who are guilty of it, claim to protect children in order to wallow in their anti-trans bigotry after having no problem with Trump keeping children in filth covered cages which resulted in several deaths, and engage in more hypocritical stances involving illegal and immoral acts than I can hope to post here, the Dems ARE far more impressive when it comes to moral stances. Yet you act as if the Dems are barely any better, likening them to doing the same crimes at simply a lesser rate.

That is telling.

I don't like Rick Scott, but I also don't like Elizabeth Warren whose advocacy for cancellation of student debt is toxic on many levels.

You asked me who I voted for and donated money for, which is largely limited to moderates in New York.

Preferences in other races is a different goalpost, partly because even informed people don't necessarily know the specifics of particular races (which are also undecided.) In some cases, a moderate amount of research indicates that a Republican candidate is trash. For example, potential Colorado Senate nominee state representative Ron Hanks does not look like someone I could support.
In Missouri, I would back a normal Democrat over Eric Greitens.

You keep bringing up outside races and other politicians when I've been trying to keep it limited here, the one moving the goalposts to preferences is you which is why I asked for clarification. This is not that BTW, since there was no match up between Warren and Scott either.

The definition of trans as I understand it is that someone's gender identity does not correspond to their sex at birth.

If someone in college identifies as agender, that is probably not the gender on their birth certificate.

I do want to note again that this is the definition of trans used by the Human Rights Campaign, as well as Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association and GLAAD.

The difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 25 isn't really what anyone's arguing about when it comes to policy implications and exaggerations, especially as 1 in 25 in a general college population may end up being 1 in 20 among a non-random selection of college students (IE- those determined to be female at birth.)

See Above. The number, it's exaggeration, and it's interpretation are all nonfactual and used to support more misinformation and bigotry across the country. THis has been pointed out to you at every stage in this multi-week discussion and you don't seem to grasp it as you jump to another flawed argument or more pieces of manipulated alternative facts.

Does this also apply to any left-wing candidates who are motivated by religion. For example, should a devout Christian who wants to increase services for the poor be declared unfit to govern? What is the limiting factor?

When it comes to feeding the poor, there are many organizations based in that which already feed the poor at no harm to anyone and without restricting anyone's rights to food/eating so they can be supported and encouraged. Doing the same with similar organizations which are fighting teaching Evolution or trying to eliminate Abortions are infringing on other's rights. That seems like an easy limiting factor - Don't infringe on anyone's right to believe differently than you.

I suspect you will very quickly find edge cases.

There is a question of who gets to decide what's true and false, or what falls in the category of things that reasonable people can argue about. What should people on government payrolls be allowed to say about the extent to which higher levels of spending led to increased inflation, or the financial consequences of the Florida legislature's vote against Disney?

If someone is going to fact check, they have to show their work proving what is declared false is actually false. There can be escalating punishments for false accusations in order to make sure fact checkers are just as sure in their accusations as others would be in not spreading misinformation or lying if they aren't paid by the govt. If someone on the public dime is claiming their opposition is lying then it better be true or else that's a lie right there and the punishment should be swift.

And, I must point out, the *only* reason we're on this subject is because of the claimed 'spike' in trans masculine identity which *doesn't frigging exist* and has been shown not to exist multiple times now, thus disproving the entire thesis of Abigal Shrier's book. Are we now onto 'there are too many transwomen'?

I'll note that Mets didn't respond to this in responding to me, though he seems to have been saying it once was Trans Women > Trans Men but the carrot has flipped at an unspecified time. That this is just supposed to be accepted without question to the point of mentioning it's a well known feature is involved too.

[Dalak]

If Powell had been able to win the nomination he would have run instead of Dubya, so him throwing himself on his sword at the U.N. would never have happened.

History might have been different if he had even ONE ally in the cabinet also.

Not picking Dick Cheney for his VP would have been the big difference-maker, I'd think, and instead, if he'd had someone like McCain that knew their way around the Senate. Knowing the dirty tactics Dubya employed against McCain in the 2000 Primary, the Senator would have likely wanted to unite against them.

Although, given McCain's ego, he might have pitched the two of them on a ticket with him at the top, and Powell as HIS VP. Even if he was trailing him in polls.

If Powell had run, it likely would have been in 1996.

By 2000, George W Bush was a heavy favorite for the nomination, as the son of a recent President who was reelected Governor of the second most populated state in the country whose personal story gave him a unique appeal to the religious community. Powell would likely have to run in the same establishment lane.

Had he been elected President in 1996, the response to 9/11 would have been quite different.

If Powell had run in '96, George W Bush would have been the obvious running mate.

Considering the pushback to Obama I don't think pre-Dubyah Powell would have got the nomination, but had he been elected before 9/11 he would have handled it far better IMO. Perhaps to the point of preventing the attack entirely. However I assumed this was based on a Powell vs Obama match up in '08 instead.

[Malvolio]

The Republican Party never wanted Colin Powell to be President. They wanted him to run so they could claim not to be racist. But they didn't want him to actually win any more than they ever wanted Herman Cain or Dr. Ben Carson to win.

[Mister Mets]

The goalposts were based on the quote: "the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender soared from 1 in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20" which at the best interpretation is still a lie as there is no clue where 3.7% of the 4.2% land on their biology. In other words, the number of girls in that figure is unclear at best and at worst it's a bald faced lie meant to enflame the current anti-trans mania.

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here.

When you say, "3.7% of the 4.2%," I don't know what you're referring to.

The phrase "students brought up as girls" is used to describe people who were assigned female at birth.

Vitter was dealing with a prostitute, who may or may not have been a victim of trafficing and sexual slavery on top of the current illegality. Again, not a good comparison to a loving married couple who happen to be gay, something that is not atypical as homosexuality is noted in many species of mammal other than just Human. It is natural, normal, and while not the majority it is not atypical or any sort of aberration. I'd suggest you break yourself of that sort of thinking as well. The size of a family isn't deviance either, but considering that elected officials who are making anti-trans policy are spreading anti-trans propaganda to enflame anti-trans bigotry is VERY relevant considering otherwise reasonable people are excusing it.

E: I'll note this whole tangent started because of the question "Why is it objectionable to teach kids to respect those different than them?" in regards to a pride week in elementary school.

I'm unaware of any indication that the prostitutes Vitter engaged were victims of trafficking or sexual slavery. If this were the case, it's no longer a situation involving consenting adults.

I do want to note you brought up the phrase "sexual deviance." I'm trying to use it in a neutral and non-judgmental way to discuss sexual practices that are not shared by a majority of the population. What is the percentage of the population that has to act a particular way for it to no longer be considered deviance?

However as one party is supporting the facist takeover of elections based on lies of fraud being used to subvert Democracy, supports philanderers regardless of the circumstances, has supported members who took pictures to engage in sexual blackmail, accuses others of grooming while covering up and supporting those of their own who are guilty of it, claim to protect children in order to wallow in their anti-trans bigotry after having no problem with Trump keeping children in filth covered cages which resulted in several deaths, and engage in more hypocritical stances involving illegal and immoral acts than I can hope to post here, the Dems ARE far more impressive when it comes to moral stances. Yet you act as if the Dems are barely any better, likening them to doing the same crimes at simply a lesser rate.

That is telling.

You have not accurately summarized the parties, although that will likely be another tangent.

My main objection to Democrats when it comes to morality is that it's so self-serving. They tried to push out Governor Northam, until they realized that it might lead to a Republican taking over. They made limited efforts to push out Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax when multiple women accused him of rape and sexual harassment. They make claims about the need to have independent redistricting commissions, but the overwhelming majority of Virginia state legislators changed their policy preferences when they briefly gained unified control. And this hypocrisy is just in one state.

You keep bringing up outside races and other politicians when I've been trying to keep it limited here, the one moving the goalposts to preferences is you which is why I asked for clarification. This is not that BTW, since there was no match up between Warren and Scott either.

You have asked me who I preferred. I guess I got a bit confused since I've answered who I voted for several posts ago. As a recap, it's been sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans, and I don't always remember because the races tend not to be close.

I do think Rick Scott and Elizabeth Warren are roughly similar as Senators in positions of power.

See Above. The number, it's exaggeration, and it's interpretation are all nonfactual and used to support more misinformation and bigotry across the country. THis has been pointed out to you at every stage in this multi-week discussion and you don't seem to grasp it as you jump to another flawed argument or more pieces of manipulated alternative facts.

The difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 25 is not that relevant, especially when considering that we're looking at an increasee from much lower numbers (1 in 2,000) several years ago.

There seems to be a subtext that people who are genderfluid or non-binary or agender do not count as trans. I'm going with the definition used by the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and the American Psychological Association.

When it comes to feeding the poor, there are many organizations based in that which already feed the poor at no harm to anyone and without restricting anyone's rights to food/eating so they can be supported and encouraged. Doing the same with similar organizations which are fighting teaching Evolution or trying to eliminate Abortions are infringing on other's rights. That seems like an easy limiting factor - Don't infringe on anyone's right to believe differently than you.

What private organizations do is a different question as they rely on private donations. However it stands to reason that deeply religious left-wing politicians will be influenced by their faith in decisions involving spending.

The limiting factor does suggest some flexibility for religious individuals in ways they don't have now. For example, it would allow teachers to hold voluntary prayer services in schools.

If someone is going to fact check, they have to show their work proving what is declared false is actually false. There can be escalating punishments for false accusations in order to make sure fact checkers are just as sure in their accusations as others would be in not spreading misinformation or lying if they aren't paid by the govt. If someone on the public dime is claiming their opposition is lying then it better be true or else that's a lie right there and the punishment should be swift.

I can agree with this, but I'm still concerned about the fact-checker. If Congress were to pass these policies in the next few years, and Trump wins again with bigger Republican majorities in congress than ever, it can be abused in ways you would not appreciate.

For example, a corrupt factchecker could try to force Democrats to admit uncomfortable things, while replacing embarrassing and careless Republicans with more disciplined alternatives.

I'll note that Mets didn't respond to this in responding to me, though he seems to have been saying it once was Trans Women > Trans Men but the carrot has flipped at an unspecified time. That this is just supposed to be accepted without question to the point of mentioning it's a well known feature is involved too.

I've answered this quite a few times. Examples are coming soon.