Post New

As an independent, i had some reason to believe this feature missing since 2016 would return with trump's loss to biden. Now with the undeniable split-vote math (+allegiance pledge), it appears viewers will also be denied a rodeo clown carcrash derby if trump is absent.

Here is the reasoning :

The GOP's debate eligibility for polling ; <1% not invited.
This means the only 2 candidates willing to confront Trump (Christie,Hurd) may not make the stage. Credit to Christie willing to do this for entertainment purposes, given his limited value otherwise.

Unlike an expected role for the lone serious contender, DeSantis is clearly afraid to challenge the leader as long as it remains Trump. He rails against the legal 'weaponization', secretly hoping court\jail keeps trump away from any direct confrontation.
Frankly, Desantis doesnt have the personality nor cult generated over many seasons on trash TV to succeed, and it is only a matter of time before Fox&Musk say they were for trump all along.

Regarding the others, they are all auditioning for a job\VP, and will at best politely pretend to disagree with trump on irrelevant issue and\or nonsense (who God has chosen, or loves America more).
- We have 2 from South Carolina, neither of which may win their own state.
- We have Pence, who among recognized names, seems to have a unique distinction of being least admired by all parties and Independents.

Conclusion : entertainment rating = 0
we are in for a predictable train of anti-biden cliches, and no substance. there is no chance the debate is usefully moderated (e.g., cutting trump's microphone). trump gets a record appearance fee, and out-rants desantis in the final debate.
go on vacation and\or say you did anyway.

I will vote against any politician that invokes "culture wars". One word of "anti-woke", and they can take a long hike on a short pier, as far as I'm concerned. Same with stolen election BS.

I am live and let live, but do not think genetic males should be participating in female sporting contests, so that is a negative for any pols that are pushing that. But I am against discriminating against trans or gay people. It's not my thing, but they are still Americans and deserve the same opportunities as the rest of us.

I am a gun owner, and I am for gun regulation of some type. I have zero fear that my hunting weapons will be taken away from me, so any pol pushing the NRA bias has lost me.

The above are just a few issues. I also want rational debate on the national debt, abortion rights, gerrymandering, lifelong Supreme Court justice terms, ..............
We have plenty of issues in America, I'd like to hear political candidates debate these issues.

I really want to have at least 2 functioning political parties, think it's important that they keep each other somewhat in check. I would sincerely be interested in listening to a GOP candidate that will actually talk about issues and how he/she would attempt to handle them.
But any of this alternate reality BS that the bandwidth-hog candidates are spewing are a hard, hard pass for me.

I hope both sides can put out some rational candidates, but so far I see no reason to get my hopes up.

As an independent

Sure, lol.

Unlike an expected role for the lone serious contender, DeSantis is clearly afraid to challenge the leader as long as it remains Trump. He rails against the legal 'weaponization', secretly hoping court\jail keeps trump away from any direct confrontation.
Frankly, Desantis doesnt have the personality no

Nah. He just has that thing called An Awesome Record Of Being An Awesome Governor. I think that's plenty.

Or at least it should be.

we are in for a predictable train of anti-biden cliches, and no substance. there is no chance the debate is usefully moderated

For curiosity's sake, what would you consider to be of substance?

I actually agree with your last point. The GOP will pick liberals to moderate the debates, who will use the time to inject democrat talking points. The most famous example being George Stephanopolous launching the War on Wimmins in 2016.

I will vote against any politician that invokes "culture wars"

Interesting.

I would sincerely be interested in listening to a GOP candidate that will actually talk about issues and how he/she would attempt to handle them.

Interesting. So when DeSantis starts talking about reforming the structure of the federal government and putting agencies closer in geography to the areas they regulate (for example, siting Fish and Wildlife or the Department of the Interior in, say, Denver) you'd be willing to listen?

"Interesting. So when DeSantis starts talking about reforming the structure of the federal government and putting agencies closer in geography to the areas they regulate (for example, siting Fish and Wildlife or the Department of the Interior in, say, Denver) you'd be willing to listen?"
-------------------------------------------------------

It looks like they have 8 regional offices, it doesn't bother me that their HQ is in DC.
The Mountain& Prairie Regional Office is in Lakewood, Colorado. Doesn't matter to me at all that it's not in Denver.
I am not interested in hearing GOP or Dem candidates debate on where the HQ of Fish and Wildlife is located, but that's just me, you do you.

https://www.fws.gov/about/regions#:~:text=The%20Se...

"The Service has eight different geographic regions with our headquarters located in Washington, D.C. But no matter the location, each region is dedicated to conserving the nation's fish and wildlife resources and fostering an environmental stewardship ethic based on ecological principles, scientific knowledge of fish and wildlife and a sense of moral responsibility."

Dope1: He just has that thing called An Awesome Record Of Being An Awesome Governor. I think that's plenty.

Yeah, unless you're Black or a woman or LGBTQ+ or old.

DeSantis is so awesome for Blacks that the NAACP said Black Americans should avoid Florida travel.

And that six-week abortion ban (with no exceptions for rape, incest, or human trafficking) is so awesome it gives women a few days to make a major life decision... if they even know they're pregnant at fewer than six weeks.

And Disney pulling the plug on an office complex that was scheduled for construction in Orlando at a cost of roughly $1.3 billion sure was awesome.

Florida had the awesome distinction of having the 3rd most deaths from COVID-19.

Teachers' salaries are among the lowest in the nation -- and its public schools rank 42nd in the nation -- in the awesome state of Florida.

The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that studies health-care systems globally, found in its 2022 'scorecard' that the awesome state of Florida had the 16th worst health care among the 50 states.

More than 12% of Floridians are without medical insurance, a worse record than all but four other awesome states.

The awesome state of Florida ranked as 11th-worst state to raise a family in 2022.

According to a study released by researchers at Lending Tree, awesome Florida was named the third worst state for single parents.

Among the 50 worst U.S. cities to live in, three are in one Florida county: Miami-Dade.

So, yeah, swesome.

I am not interested in hearing GOP or Dem candidates debate on where the HQ of Fish and Wildlife is located, but that's just me, you do you.

It was an example.
What does interest you?

Yeah, unless you're Black

I'm just going to stop you right here.

Where does the head of the NAACP live? The answer might tell you something about your programmed attack line.

I haven't watched the debates in several cycles. They aren't really debates. They are staged dog and pony shows. At least for the primaries (both sides). Waste of time.

The debate between parties for the general election is a little bit better (but still not a real debate format).

Looked it up. Born in Detroit. Latest degree from Texas. For a while headed the Mississippi state chapter.

The NAACP recently moved from Baltimore to D.C., presumably to have better access to the halls of power (lots of folks do that...I think it's "K-Street"?).

So what?

I agree that DeSantis is a serious threat to both Trump and Biden (in terms of possibly winning an election). I don't agree that he's a serious person. He picked a fight with Disney for no other reason than Disney disagreed with a position of his. He changed FL law so that he could run for POTUS while still living in the governor's mansion (FL had previously banned that practice). He was one of the more prominent COVID deniers (e.g. "masks are useless"). Plus lots more. He's a culture warrior, and reacts to disagreement by trying to oppress the dissenters.

You should have read the rest of the other poster's list, instead of focusing on the NAACP move. That really isn't relevant to anything. Heck, DeSantis wants to move to D.C. in 2024. There's nothing nefarious about that.

So what?

Leon W. Russell lives in Florda, the very state he says is too dangerous for blacks to travel to. Womp, wompppppppp.

The "so what" is that I'm not going to dignify - nor will I bother to acknowledge - the lazy, ChatGPT generated partisan political BS that dude spews nonstop in this election cycle. It's a waste of time and why should those intellectually dishonest attacks be honored with serious replies?

He picked a fight with Disney for no other reason than Disney disagreed with a position of his.

No, Disney decided that as a public corporation it was going to use its influence to lean on the state of Florida. I remember when liberals didn't like it when corps tried to throw their weight around. What changed?

He changed FL law so that he could run for POTUS while still living in the governor's mansion (FL had previously banned that practice).

So? He doesn't seem like a billionaire; he needs to live somewhere. Is it now a requirement to have beach houses all over the place?

He was one of the more prominent COVID deniers (e.g. "masks are useless").

Masks aren't 100% useless, but they weren't the security blanket that a lot of blue-staters seem to think they are. To this day I see scads of Seattleites running around outside masked up -or- while driving. Alone. Inside the car.

The most hilariously inept ones are the dudes with their beards. How well do you think the N95 they're wearing seals against all the facial hair?

You should have read the rest of the other poster's list, instead of focusing on the NAACP move.

No. He's a serially dishonest sh1tposter, and it took less than 15 seconds to spot the BS in his attempt to derail the thread with more partisan nonsense.

I'd rather discuss the issues with serious people.

Leon W. Russell lives in Florda, the very state he says is too dangerous for blacks to travel to. Womp, wompppppppp.

The head of the NAACP is Derrick Johnson.

No, Disney decided that as a public corporation it was going to use its influence to lean on the state of Florida. I remember when liberals didn't like it when corps tried to throw their weight around. What changed?

I don't think Disney crossed a line. At least for me, I object to corporations piling money into campaigns for candidates. I have a little less problem with them doing that for issues that affect them (e.g. access to well water for semiconductor manufacture...I know a bit about that). Though I still insist corporations are not people, and money is not speech, so there should be reasonable limits. If Disney wants to be accepting of LGBTQ folks, it is very un-Republican of DeSantis to impose his will on the company (as many Republicans have criticized him for). To my knowledge, they didn't "throw their weight around". Speaking an opinion is different than funding an opponent. Disney was just protecting their corporate image (i.e. everyone is welcome). When DeSantis started to bully them, they shelved some expansion plans. DeSantis cost FL thousands of jobs just because he can't tolerate dissent.

So? He doesn't seem like a billionaire; he needs to live somewhere. Is it now a requirement to have beach houses all over the place?

The point is that you didn't used to be able to run for one office while holding another. I think every state should have that. FL did, but DeSantis decided he didn't like it because then he'd have to really commit to one or the other.

Masks aren't a panacea, but he actively discouraged their use. I recall a speaking event and he seemed very frustrated that the audience (children, as I recall) were wearing masks. He said something like "don't wear those, they don't do anything...oh well...fine...whatever". It was genuinely bizarre. He could have just delivered his little speech and not made any comment about masks, and it would have been fine. Just a routine event. But he had to interject his disinformation. Yes, there are some folks that are silly about masks. I still wear them in enclosed public places. Outside, or in my car, etc, I don't bother. Also I wear them in the MC unit my mom is in (because they are all old, and it's almost a bubble in there so if one person gets sick, they all get sick).

IMHO, he was just responding to your "awesome" comment with several "awesome" things DeSantis has done, or was responsible for. But, yeah, strictly speaking neither you nor he was "on-topic" about debates and issues. Personally, I don't mind that too much since conversations evolve as they progress, and I didn't think it was too far off the rails (yet). My post is a continuation, and also would strictly be off-topic. But we're having a conversation here. :-)

But he had to interject his disinformation. - 1pg

================

Maybe Desantis should have left that out of his event, but that doesn't make it disinformation.

It was apparent the statistic showed that children in particular were damn near immune naturally. Jerry Nadler would to this day still have two year olds masking up. He recently said parents who failed to mask their toddlers are guilty of child abuse.

At the time, I don't think we knew that (i.e. kids were not strongly affected). Plus there was active concern about them carrying it home to adults/seniors (grandma!). Though I think Nadler is wrong, and it doesn't appear the science (even today) supports his assertion. Not that I know or care who he is, but his statement isn't supported by evidence.

It does appear DeSantis was correct in resuming school earlier than most states, but he really didn't have any way to know that at the time. He was just going off of ideology. He happened to be correct this time, in hindsight. Even a broken clock is right twice a day**.




**That should probably be updated. Most clocks I see are digital, and if they're flashing "12:00 am" then they're only right once per day. ;-)

If Disney wants to be accepting of LGBTQ folks, it is very un-Republican of DeSantis to impose his will on the company (as many Republicans have criticized him for). To my knowledge, they didn't "throw their weight around". Speaking an opinion is different than funding an opponent. Disney was just protecting their corporate image (i.e. everyone is welcome). When DeSantis started to bully them, they shelved some expansion plans. DeSantis cost FL thousands of jobs just because he can't tolerate dissent.

Disney thought they would put pressure on the state to not pass laws limiting sexually explicit content in classrooms for little kids (which is what the misnamed by the media "Don't say gay" bill was really about). The law had zero to do with Disney's business.

The expansion plans were already slated to be cut as a money-saving measure. Nothing to do with DeSantis.

The point is that you didn't used to be able to run for one office while holding another. I think every state should have that. FL did, but DeSantis decided he didn't like it because then he'd have to really commit to one or the other.

Seems like he's committed to running for President, as he should.

IMHO, he was just responding to your "awesome" comment with several "awesome" things DeSantis has done, or was responsible for. But, yeah, strictly speaking neither you nor he was "on-topic" about debates and issues.

We can agree to disagree there.

"What does interest you?"

At the moment, what I listed upthread. And I get that other people have different priorities.
I think I've read that you're in Seattle area, so I can understand how the homeless people
living on the street could be an issue for you and others in the PNW. ( I've been to Seattle area once, after finishing up a backpacking trip in Olympic NP, and loved it, but that was in the mid 1990's ). I live in northern Michigan, and while there are homeless, it is not an issue that is on everyboy's radar up here. The homeless do not flock here, as winters are pretty hard.
( but there are homeless here, and there are facilities and some very basic service for them )

I feel very safe, pretty much everywhere up here. The most nervous I've been recently was when a black bear appeared seemingly out of nowhere on a trail that I like to run on. But it was a non event, the bear just stared at me for a sec then ambled off into the thicker woods. So I do not
feel the need to be armed, anywhere that I go. In fact, if I see someone carrying a gun in my city, that would make me very nervous. So in my world, some type of gun control seems like a no-brainer. But I know there are posters here who most definitely do not feel that way. I respect that, but I can't really relate. The vast majority of people I know have hunting weapons, including myself, so it isn't a lack of familiarity.

I personally feel that either Trump is living in an alternate universe, or he is just a sociopath.
I'm real unsure about how people can follow him. But they have the right to follow him, if they want. But Trump followers need to realize that there are millions more Americans that do not agree with him, or believe his election lies. That is our right, too.

I guess what interests me most is Americans getting back to being able to relate to each other, to be able to disagree and settle differences without anger, shouting, and gunfire. I do not want to be enemies with other Americans.

Leon W. Russell lives in Florda, the very state he says is too dangerous for blacks to travel to. Womp, wompppppppp.

I don't understand the "Womp, wompppppp" reference, here.

Russell didn't recently move to Florida. He's lived here for decades - at least since the 1980's. Florida used to be a Democratic state, and then a somewhat 'purple' one.

So if your home state has become more dangerous for blacks to travel to, why would the credibility of that warning be undermined by the fact that you live there? Lots and lots of people choose to "stay and fight" when things they think are bad start happening to their home city/state/country, so the fact that he continues to live here isn't at all inconsistent with his assessment that things are dangerous for black people.

Could you explain what you think the argument is?

I think I've read that you're in Seattle area, so I can understand how the homeless people
living on the street could be an issue for you and others in the PNW.

Very much so. Homeless campers and their drug/larceny dens are a large fact of life in all the West Coast cities now. It's not so much of a "homeless" problem as it is a drug problem. I have a whole new perspective on the war on drugs now: While we can't go back to just locking people up left and right, the notion of "the war on drugs has failed, let's legalize" is something that's been tried in Oregon (state laws passed that openly decriminalized hard drugs) and in Washington (where prosecutors declined to prosecute such cases, effectively legalizing hard drugs). The results have been catastrophically bad.

Relating this to guns, you'd be amazed at the number of formerly staunch anti-gun folks asking about how to buy one and get training for it. Break ins and property crime that are nearly constant in some neighborhoods up here will tend to do that.

I personally feel that either Trump is living in an alternate universe, or he is just a sociopath.

Both things can be true. He's a massive narcissist who can't get out of his own way and conducts himself as such. His current campaign is run by 12-year olds. I don't support him for President.

I think I linked this before. But here it is again. I'm not engrossed in FL politics, so freely admit there could be gaps in my knowledge. albaby would be more authoritative since this is his backyard. However, several Republicans have been having problems with how DeSantis is handling the Disney situation. This is a little old, but he just keeps doubling-down. I think albaby commented that he can't back down at this point, but it is sort of a lose-lose situation he's managed to get into.

https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-faces-republ...

"I don't like what Disney said about the legislation that I would have supported in Florida, but it's not the role of government to punish a business when you disagree with what they're saying or a position that they take," Hutchinson said Sunday. "If that was the view of a Republican, then we're going to be in all kinds of trouble in our businesses in blue states if they start punishing businesses for taking a more conservative speech or position. I don't understand a conservative punishing a business that's the largest employer in the state."

A number of other more traditional conservatives have taken a similar position to Hutchinson, with some urging DeSantis to end his feud with Disney.

By the way, the FL law apparently applies all the way to 12th grade. Not just "little kids". It also appears to be addressing a non-existent problem. "Sexually explicit" material? Really? That's a problem? It was mostly targeted to discussions about gender, which is why it received its nickname (rightly or wrongly).

I don't support him for President.

I don't think most Republicans do. He has a fanatical ~30% support that will never go away, even if he peed on the flag. Most of the rest of the Republican support appears to be "if it's him or a Dem, I vote him". And then there are the "no Trump, no way" Republicans who either abstain or vote Dem instead of Trump.

Meanwhile, he will rally a lot of people to the blue side to oppose him (as he did in 2020). Unless the Rep primaries are severely divided (like in 2016), I don't think he will win the nomination again.

I'm not sure what the Netherlands are doing different from Seattle, but they have legalized hard drugs and no real problem with crime and homelessness. Somehow they have a handle on it. Maybe they have better services to handle those issues? In which case, Seattle isn't "wrong"; they're just incomplete in their addressing of the issue.

I was in Seattle last month. Yes, there is a visible problem in the area around Pike Street, near the rail stop. A few blocks of vagrants and obvious druggies. They didn't pay any attention to us as we walked by. I also noted a large police presence near the rail stop (I forget the name of the other rail stop nearby...College?). Though at one point walking to the Starbucks with the huge vats (not Pike Street), I did hear a gunshot. Some woman standing waiting for the light asked "what was that". I said "sounded like a gunshot". "You're kidding." "Nope".

So if your home state has become more dangerous for blacks to travel to, why would the credibility of that warning be undermined by the fact that you live there?

Because it's a talking point meant to paint the state of Florida and Ron DeSantis as some kind of KKK haven, which is ridiculous.
This thread is supposed to be about the issues, and not a partisan dumping ground for stupid talking points.

Because it's a talking point meant to paint the state of Florida and Ron DeSantis as some kind of KKK haven, which is ridiculous.

Oh, I can understand why someone might disagree with the warning that was given. I agree that it's a bit of a stretch to see how Florida's education policies on black history, no matter how retrograde, would create an immediate material change in the state that might affect the safety of a traveler.

I was just wondering why the fact that Russell is a Florida resident was relevant.

As a follow-up to drug policies, either approach has secondary requirements. Simplistically, and I make no representation that is remotely complete:

a) criminalize drugs; then you have to beef-up the police, and build more prisons

b) de-criminalize drugs; then you have to expand social services including housing for the indigent, drug treatment and counseling

It's not really just drugs. Whatever you do, you're going to have to spend more money on ancillary things related to whichever approach you take. Again, simplistically, both approaches -done properly- will provide housing, food, and healthcare. One is in a prison, the other isn't. And in either case, if you don't spend the money on the ancillary things, you'll have other problems (e.g. tents on sidewalks, prison over-crowding, etc).

A number of other more traditional conservatives have taken a similar position to Hutchinson, with some urging DeSantis to end his feud with Disney.

And that's fine. BTW Disney isn't blameless here; nobody told them to try to circumvent the planning commission thingy.

By the way, the FL law apparently applies all the way to 12th grade. Not just "little kids". It also appears to be addressing a non-existent problem. "Sexually explicit" material? Really? That's a problem? It was mostly targeted to discussions about gender, which is why it received its nickname (rightly or wrongly).

https://flgov.com/2022/03/28/governor-ron-desantis...
The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade and prohibits instruction that is not age appropriate for students and requires school districts to adopt procedures for notifying parents if there is a change in services from the school regarding a child's mental, emotional or physical health or well-being. The bill builds on the Parents' Bill of Rights, which was signed into law in Florida last year, and is part of Governor DeSantis' Year of the Parent focus on protecting parental rights in education.

Let's break that down.

The first part says "no gender orientation" and what not until the 4th grade. I don't think people have a problem with this if they stop and think about it.

The second part says "prohibits instruction that isn't age appropriate" which is code for "no pron in the schools". Have you seen some of the examples of what was turning up in the libraries? How-to manuals for kids to, uh, "explore" each other. No, that doesn't belong in a high school library at ANY grade level. Putting it another way: would you want X-rated films to be shown in sex ed?

The third part requires the school to notify parents in the event the school starts treating their child differently. What's wrong with that?

I'm not sure what the Netherlands are doing different from Seattle, but they have legalized hard drugs and no real problem with crime and homelessness. Somehow they have a handle on it. Maybe they have better services to handle those issues? In which case, Seattle isn't "wrong"; they're just incomplete in their addressing of the issue.

I was in Seattle last month. Yes, there is a visible problem in the area around Pike Street, near the rail stop. A few blocks of vagrants and obvious druggies. They didn't pay any attention to us as we walked by. I also noted a large police presence near the rail stop (I forget the name of the other rail stop nearby...College?). Though at one point walking to the Starbucks with the huge vats (not Pike Street), I did hear a gunshot. Some woman standing waiting for the light asked "what was that". I said "sounded like a gunshot". "You're kidding." "Nope".

The problem spills out into the neighborhoods. I live near the Seattle ship canal. The homeless camp we had there (there were actually two of them) was one of the milder ones and it still was a pain in the rear. They don't just live there, they bring drugs and all manner of crime. In that particular camp there were random people running around with axes and one guy got high enough he decided to try and cut down some trees with it (not to mention threatening joggers). A poor kid from Seattle Pacific U was stabbed for just jogging by on the public trail. Then there was the bike chop shop they were running (with all the attendant thefts), shopping carts they would steal and leave in the road (nice high speed obstacle to encounter, btw), trash, needles, name it.

Most citizens here are fed up. The primary for city council is going to be very interesting.

The problem that Seattle has is that the progressives that run the place are incapable of applying sticks as well as carrots: you HAVE to have some level of accountability baked into whatever services you're providing else you just get more of the same.

It's not really just drugs. Whatever you do, you're going to have to spend more money on ancillary things related to whichever approach you take. Again, simplistically, both approaches -done properly- will provide housing, food, and healthcare. One is in a prison, the other isn't. And in either case, if you don't spend the money on the ancillary things, you'll have other problems (e.g. tents on sidewalks, prison over-crowding, etc).

Actually you do option (c): Criminalize drugs and send them to prison BUT include intense drug detox - plus follow up services - as an option. Rhode Island nails it:

https://www.chcf.org/project/medication-assisted-t...
People released from jail or prison are at increased risk of death, especially in the first four weeks after leaving incarceration. The prime driver is drug overdose, including opioid overdose death. While opioid agonist therapy ' buprenorphine or methadone ' has been shown to substantially reduce death rates from opioid overdose in the general population, these treatments are rarely available in jail or prison settings. But they could have a big impact. A British study found that prison-based opioid agonist therapy was associated with a 75% reduction in death in the first four weeks after release. In Rhode Island the post-release overdose death rate dropped 61% within a year after the state implemented an MAT-in-corrections program (offering buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone).

This kind of hybrid approach is the way to go.

Dope1: No. He's a serially dishonest sh1tposter, and it took less than 15 seconds to spot the BS in his attempt to derail the thread with more partisan nonsense.

Umm, what?

Let's review.

You said (in response to a comment that DeSantis doesn't have the personality nor cult generated over many seasons on trash TV to succeed in the 2024 presidential campaign):

Nah. He just has that thing called An Awesome Record Of Being An Awesome Governor. I think that's plenty.

Which led me to give you a long list of exactly why DeSantis is just a loud-mouthed Culture War governor of a mediocre state.

As albaby1 pointed out, you didn't spot any BS -- there was no BS. Here's what Russell wrote about Florida:

Recently my home state of Florida has been at the center of heated debates. We have faced a devastating near-total abortion ban, new laws further restricting trans rights, a war against immigrants, and extensive efforts to remove DEI programs and Black history curricula from our schools. Our state's so-called leaders' unrelenting assaults on fundamental rights have made Black residents and visitors alike feel unwelcome and unsafe in our state.

The NAACP is committed to ensuring that Florida is a place where Black Floridians can exist freely and have every opportunity to thrive. Unfortunately, that is not a reality right now under Governor Ron DeSantis' thumb. He has proven that his Florida poses a threat to our lives and livelihood. We refuse to allow his vision for Florida, and this nation, to become our reality. Our travel advisory is an effort to put the country on notice -- if you are Black, if you are a woman, if you are an immigrant, if you are part of the LGBTQ+ community -- be aware that your life, your full being, is not valued by Florida's so-called leaders.

Complete article: https://naacp.org/articles/warning-all-florida-hom...


And sorry, but what exactly was your unsubstantiated blather about DeSantis's awesomeness other than partisan nonsense?

Go find yourself a mirror.

Umm, what?
Yes.

Go find yourself a mirror.

I cast a reflection. Do you?

Which led me to give you a long list of exactly why DeSantis is just a loud-mouthed Culture War governor of a mediocre state.

Tell me you get paid to pump out partisan talking points without telling me you get paid to pump out partisan talking points.

some type of gun control seems like a no-brainer. = UNJ

-----------------

I know that you know better, but your choice of words implies that presently there is no gun control

So if your home state has become more dangerous for blacks to travel to - albaby

-------------------

The point is that is has not and issuing a warning is simply a convenient way to attack a popular conservative. If such warnings were necessary and sincere, he would be issuing one for Chicago but he hasn't. Why?

<<...you HAVE to have some level of accountability baked in...else you just get more of the same.>>

Accountability? More of the same? I hope you apply these standards to Trump...

Trump's job creation record was the worst of any American president on record,
no other modern president has left the U.S. with a smaller workforce than it had when they took office,
since the government started keeping track in 1939.
All while adding $8 trillion in new debt in just 4 years. (Yeah that's trillion with a "T".)
And there's the sexual assault, Jean E. Carroll...Stolen Documents...Insurrection...Covid Fail...Tax Evasion...PornStar Pay-offs...Affairs...I could go on and on.

Many repubicans who do apply your "accountability standard" are completely fed up...

"The amount he's added to the national debt is indecent." ~Mike Pompeo
"The last four years under Trump. We're all pretending we've got a lot to show for it,
because admitting what a disaster it's been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn't really an upside to Trump." ~Tucker Carlson
"I hate him (Trump) passionately!" ~Tucker Carlson
"He's a &@#$ing moron!" ~Rex Tillerson
"We're on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist." ~Marco Rubio
"Trump is utterly amoral. A serial philanderer." ~Ted Cruz
"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell." ~Linsey Graham

By the way, the FL law apparently applies all the way to 12th grade. Not just "little kids". It also appears to be addressing a non-existent problem. "Sexually explicit" material? Really? That's a problem? It was mostly targeted to discussions about gender, which is why it received its nickname (rightly or wrongly).

-------------------

Where do schools get the authority to instruct children on gender issues and sexuality? There is a lot of knowledge that needs to be learned so why not focus on STEM rather than pronouns and the joy of pursuing a career as a drag queen.

The point is that is has not and issuing a warning is simply a convenient way to attack a popular conservative. If such warnings were necessary and sincere, he would be issuing one for Chicago but he hasn't. Why?

I imagine it's because such warnings are issued more for the purpose of attacking conservative policies, not necessarily a conservative politician. The NAACP was incensed by the changes to Florida's educational policies, and the warning was a dramatic - though logically questionable - way of highlighting that opposition.

Where do schools get the authority to instruct children on gender issues and sexuality?

For the most part, they don't do that. And certainly not in younger grades.

Now - there are some (primarily conservative) people who believe that depicting people who are gay or trans in literature, or acknowledging the existence of gay or trans students in the classroom (or even in the broader world) is "instructing children on gender issues and sexuality." This is probably incorrect, and I suspect that when courts get asked to interpret the law, those conservatives are going to get quite a surprise. After all, if showing a gay couple is instructing kids on sexuality, then so is showing a straight couple. If talking about a trans person is "instruction on gender issues," then so is talking about a cis person.

In later grades, almost all high schools teach classes in social studies, civics, biology, and some form of sex education. It is impossible to get a complete (to a high school level) understanding of those topics without being aware that gay and trans people exist, that their rights and place in society have been the subject of considerable contention, and helping students assess and incorporate that into their knowledge of the world. We expect high schoolers to handle some pretty mature things: to be made aware of where babies come from, to know about the horrors of war and genocide, etc. They can and should be able to handle learning that gay and trans folks are out there.

An Awesome Record Of Being An Awesome Governor

Hilarious.

It is impossible to get a complete (to a high school level) understanding of those topics without being aware that gay and trans people exist, that their rights and place in society have been the subject of considerable contention, and helping students assess and incorporate that into their knowledge of the world.

---------------------

It is one thing to teach that such people exist and their rights should be acknowledged and respected. But also teach they are nothing special, just another person. And it is quite another thing to suggest to an adolescent that their angst may be rooted in the fact they are living in the wrong body and perhaps they should talk to their guidance counselor about it. And until we get this figured out, it is best to not let your parents know.

have been the subject of considerable contention

It wasn't nearly as contentious until the trans women started invading women's spaces. But hey, how can I be free unless I can wash my hairy balls in the same shower as your teenage daughter. My rights supersede your daughters rights.

And it is quite another thing to suggest to an adolescent that their angst may be rooted in the fact they are living in the wrong body and perhaps they should talk to their guidance counselor about it. And until we get this figured out, it is best to not let your parents know.

I suppose part of that is because we use schools as a front line touch point for mental health services. That's why we have counselors in school - because being a child often comes with a lot of mental health stressors which interfere with getting a good education. We want teachers and counselors to talk to kids when they observe signs of significant mental health problems - mostly because that's our main way of discovering abuse, mistreatment, and neglect in home environments.

But hey, how can I be free unless I can wash my hairy balls in the same shower as your teenage daughter. My rights supersede your daughters rights.

What if my daughter is the trans person, in this scenario?

You consistently frame your rhetorical gestures to emphasize the cis person who might be discomfited. But what do you think should happen if you have a trans daughter? Should they go to the boy's shower room? What do you think will happen to her in there?

You consistently frame your rhetorical gestures to emphasize the cis person who might be discomfited. But what do you think should happen if you have a trans daughter? Should they go to the boy's shower room? What do you think will happen to her in there?

-------------------

I would advise her to shower with the cis girls and not make a big deal out of it. If he/she doesn't, no one else will except perhaps the activists for him/her passing up an opportunity to make a spectacle. I would tell her/him that he/she is no less a person for making this choice but just being practical. His/her value as a person is not tied to being an activist and learning how to get along in society is an important skill.

I would advise her to shower with the cis girls and not make a big deal out of it.

Exactly! That's what trans activists and supporters are trying to do - to have the official school rules be that the trans girls can go shower with the cis girls, without it being a big deal. That's where the trans girls want to shower - with all the other girls.

One obstacle to that happening, though, is when people start getting extremely worked up about how the school could allow people with "hairy balls" to shower with their teenage daughters. And insisting that the trans girls have to use the boys' showers.

<how can I be free unless I can wash my hairy balls in the same shower as your teenage daughter. My rights supersede your daughters rights.> ~bhm

Oh you care about our daughters rights? Great...

Many Women in America have lost the right to control their own bodies.
For nearly 50 years, those with unwanted pregnancies, those impregnated against their will as the result of rape or incest,
or those whose own mental or physical health was threatened by continuing a pregnancy had the constitutional right to make their own decisions.
No more. Conservative justices have decided to drag this country back half a century, to a time when a woman's pregnancy ' wanted or not ' could alter
the course of her life and sometimes even end it.

In fact, these justices decided that their religious beliefs supersede all of our daughters rights.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." 'Florynce Kennedy

"As a rape and abuse survivor, I hate to think of what would have happened had my rape resulted in pregnancy.
But I knew back then, even in Texas, that abortion was a viable option for me. It's unimaginable what rape survivors
in Texas will go through in today's environment. My heart breaks for them." 'Laurie B. Timms

Exactly! That's what trans activists and supporters are trying to do - to have the official school rules be that the trans girls can go shower with the cis girls, without it being a big deal. That's where the trans girls want to shower - with all the other girls.

------------------

Sorry, these days it is confusing who is what. I misstated my position because I mistakenly thought your example trans girl was a girl who wanted to be a boy and wanted to shower with the boys. In that case. my advice was to shower with the girls and not make a big deal about it. Going the other direction doesn't change my answer Shower with the group that matches your genitals. At least till you graduate and become an indepedent person where you can shower alone or choose who you shower with. Trans people have rights. So do cis people. Fewer people are harmed by the pre-op trans person making a concession.

In that case. my advice was to shower with the girls and not make a big deal about it.

So if you had a daughter that was trans - in other words, your child was identified as male at birth but now lived their life as a female - you would tell her to use the boys' locker room and shower? Even though she calls herself by a female name, dresses as a girl, wears make-up and long nails, and does a thousand other little things to present as female?

What do you think that will do to her? What do you think her experience showering with the boys will be like?

<how can I be free unless I can wash my hairy balls in the same shower as your teenage daughter. My rights supersede your daughters rights.> ~bhm

Oh you care about our daughters rights? Great...

Many Women in America have lost the right to control their own bodies. = vsg

=====================

You may be surprised to learn we agree on this issue. The Supremes should have left this alone. The country had settled into an equilibrium and all they did was still up a contentious issue and one that was a net loss to women.

The already born have rights that must be superior to those of the unborn. There is a certain parallel to the trans issue. When two groups have rights that collide, often a compromise can e made. But in cases where that is not realistic a rule must be established to determine rights will prevail. In my opinion, the cis people have rights to privacy and modesty that need to placed ahead of the rights of the pre-op trans people.

So if you had a daughter that was trans - in other words, your child was identified as male at birth but now lived their life as a female - you would tell her to use the boys' locker room and shower? Even though she calls herself by a female name, dresses as a girl, wears make-up and long nails, and does a thousand other little things to present as female?

-----------------------

Perhaps my son should remain as my son until he gets through high school. Who knows he may not be a girl if it wasn't for the continuous encouragement he started getting when he was six. It is a complicated issue but disregarding the legitimate concerns of the cis community is not a solution. People unfortunately are born with various deformities and they learn to live with them.

Even though I am in Florida now I didn't pay too much attention until it looked like a very good case of a violation of the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, by DeSantis. It very much looked like Disney was being punished for speaking out on a subject.

"As an independent
Sure, lol. "

ok, ya got me. i always vote in both primaries and sneak into your local school board election.
if it works for your filter, i also think there will be minimal substance at the dem primaries. however, an appearance by RFKjr would up my entertainment prediction.

as for substance, that is a fair question. i would like to see something original on the way of the debt and deficits.
the dems dont mind spending on military, as long as most everything else they want also increases.
the GOP still rides their fake legacy marketing on fiscal responsibility but 1. only on the dem's 'special interests' and 2. never if the GOP is in the executive branch.
they can fix their credibility by someday ACTUALLY enacting equal cuts across the board, especially if a GOP is president. but that's laughable other than them trying to redefine 'equal'.

except for the small blip under clinton, i expect the inflation-adjusted trend of every presidential term to outspend the previous no matter who is in office.

Perhaps my son should remain as my son until he gets through high school. Who knows he may not be a girl if it wasn't for the continuous encouragement he started getting when he was six.

That doesn't really answer the question, though. What would you do if you did have a trans daughter, rather than just assuming that you wouldn't? Would you tell her that she had to use the boy's locker room and showers?

That doesn't really answer the question, though. What would you do if you did have a trans daughter, rather than just assuming that you wouldn't? Would you tell her that she had to use the boy's locker room and showers?

-----------------

I thought I was perfectly clear. Shower with the group that matches your genitalia and don't complain about it.

It is just one of the burdens that must be born until you reach the age when you usually shower alone or your partner voluntarily showers with you. Not perfect, and not fair but life is often unfair. The modesty and privacy rights of the many supersede the rights on the trans to feel included when they in fact are not.

"Shower with the group that matches your genitalia and don't complain about it."

-------------------------------------------

this is not an issue that I spend much time dwelling on, but I gotta agree with you on this.
Same with sports, compete against the people with the same genitalia. Kind of seems like it's just common sense. Full disclosure, I do not know any transgender people, and have probably only seen 1 that I know of walking down the street. They are Americans with the same legal rights as the rest of us, I would have the legal right to get tossed in jail if I tried to use a womens shower,lol.

This could be leading toward single-capacity public bathrooms and showers, with locking doors
to keep it single occupied.

I would agree drug treatment should be available in prison. Though for detox to take, the person has to want it. Otherwise they are very likely to relapse. Some don't want it (I don't understand why, but they don't). But if you arrest lots of folks, you'll need more prisons. We already incarcerate a large percentage of the population (relative to other countries), and most are on drug charges. Perhaps make dealing and smuggling illegal, but usage not.

My thought has been that we should legalize it, regulate, tax it. There will be a lot fewer drug dealers, gang wars, and all that (violent) nonsense. And you can use the taxes collected to fund better treatment programs. Also we would incur a lot less medical expenses if it is controlled such that overdosing is more difficult.

In AZ they passed "abstinence only" while 1poorkid was in school. I vehemently disagree with that position. So, when the sex-ed module came up, I actually sat in class (in the back) to see what information there were giving, and what information they were withholding. To my mild surprise, the teacher answered questions that would not have been consistent with abstinence-only.

Driving 1poorkid home from school afterwards, I got a LOT of questions. My philosophy is that if she's old enough to ask the question, she's old enough to hear the answer. I sort of had to put my brain in scientist mode and just answer the question, because it was weird talking about it with our daughter. She later told me that she became the "answer girl" at school. Her classmates would discuss stuff, and she would tell them what I told her. So a lot of kids got a lot more information than the school provided, but at least it was accurate information. (The kids are going to talk...you better hope at least one of them knows the actual facts about contraception -and efficacy-, or else your kid could "learn" something that is completely incorrect.) We took her out of district, so I drove her home every day. For about two weeks, the discussion in the car was the facts of life. The school covered the biology adequately. It was amazing the questions she came up with. But it was my job to answer them, not to squirm (like the question "why would a condom break"...yeah...had to suppress a lot of awkwardness to answer that one).

Where do schools get the authority to instruct children on gender issues and sexuality? There is a lot of knowledge that needs to be learned so why not focus on STEM rather than pronouns and the joy of pursuing a career as a drag queen

In addition to STEM, art, history, and phys ed, I recall a class called "Current Events" that existed to educate high school students on current events so that, IN ADDITION TO STEM they would understand the constantly evolving world outside their little bubbles.

Parents are often ignorant, often utterly oblivious to the world around them and incapable of teaching children about that world.

https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/cur...

There were also classes called "health" that taught students how live healthy lives. Nutrition, sex, dangerous habits (drugs, alcohol, smoking).. topics that often go untaught at home were taught, again, to make up for the ignorance of many parents.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.