When Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, Obama sent blankets. Trump provided lethal aid, and upped the training of the Ukrainian military.

that’s the current Trump rally talking point. It’s false, and is being eviscerated by fact checkers.

You do realize you are replying to a RNC talking point chat bot.

Zonk's 98 beat me to it. But I'll say again presidents have very little to do with inflation.


The US under Biden has become the largest exporter of energy in the world. I don't credit him for that but again he ain't God.

When Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, Obama sent blankets. Trump provided lethal aid, and upped the training of the Ukrainian military.

that’s the current Trump rally talking point. It’s false, and is being eviscerated by fact checkers.

It's as if they think nobody either remembers or cares about this:

"I would like you to do us a favor, though"

WASHINGTON — It did not take long for President Trump to see an opening during his July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky, the young new president of Ukraine.

Just after 9 a.m. in Washington, Mr. Zelensky was heaping praise on the American president for bragging about helping Ukraine in its yearslong war with Russian-backed separatists. “You are absolutely right. Not 100 percent, but actually 1,000 percent,” Mr. Zelensky gushed, according to a reconstructed transcript of the call the White House released on Wednesday.

When Mr. Zelensky said Ukraine was almost ready to purchase American Javelin anti-tank missiles so it could better repel armored assaults by Russian-supported fighters, Mr. Trump pounced.

“I would like you to do us a favor though,” Mr. Trump responded, beginning a series of pointed requests. The president pressed Mr. Zelensky to use the help of Attorney General William P. Barr in opening an investigation of a company involved in the beginnings of the F.B.I. inquiry of Russia’s 2016 election interference. He also wanted a corruption investigation connected to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic rival.

Both held the potential to benefit Mr. Trump politically. And in case Mr. Zelensky needed reminding, Mr. Trump was quick to point out that “the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine.”

Mr. Trump’s suggestion that American law enforcement be directly involved and in contact with Ukraine’s government marks the first evidence that the president personally sought to harness the power of the United States government to further a political investigation. ...

No matter how some folks try to spin it, Obama - the guy who had Medvedev tell Vlad he’d have more flexibility after the 2012 election - only sent non-lethal aid to Ukraine after Russia invaded in 2014. Trump sent lethal weaponry.

Trump froze the aid packages and they only got unfroze because of a whistleblower and pressure from well, pretty much everybody. He ended up getting impeached over the whole thing.

Crediting Trump for this aid is like crediting Vinnie in My Blue Heaven for building a little league park with funds he stole and planned on keeping but got caught.

As I have mentioned in the past here, the thing about people who are completely disingenuous online is that you can see how they actually think people in their daily lives don't see they are like this all the time. They imagine they are respected.

He ended up getting impeached over the whole thing.

I mean, it was in all the papers. Surprised Clapper didn't know that.

Look Al their talking politiks again like we are all Willder Wilson. They tried to quitt Baseball Think Factory but just like Tawny in Cleveland they found it very hard.

I mean, it was in all the papers. Surprised Clapper didn't know that.

The paper boy doesn't go to the Sigmaringen enclave anymore...

There is an argumentative fallacy – I am hopeless at the names of these things, there may not be a precise name. It's not a Gish Gallop; it's more patient and stubborn than that. It might be termed a repeated application of ignoratio elenchi: specious but irrelevant points.

So let's say you maintain that the Yankees have been, overall, much better than the Red Sox in the 21st century. You are not interested in examining the evidence, you are just a die-hard Yankee fan.

Somebody starts to bring up total World Series victories, and you say "There was that series in August 2021 that the Yankees swept!"

Somebody brings up total World Series victories again, and you say "But there was that stupid move that Francona made in 2008!" And on it goes. You have an answer to everything, and you're sort of right with the specific thing you say; you're just avoiding the actual topic. The conversation always hits a wall, but it was never intended to go anywhere in the first place.

And then there's the JE technique of bringing up obscure factoids that only the most inside of insiders know and care about, but nobody knows WTF he's talking about and thus they can't effectively be refuted. They may be 100% BS. They may have a nugget of truth but are grossly exaggerated, they may be 100% true but irrelevant to the argument. Nobody knows.

So let's say you maintain that the Yankees have been, overall, much better than the Red Sox in the 21st century. You are not interested in examining the evidence, you are just a die-hard Yankee fan.

Somebody starts to bring up total World Series victories, and you say "There was that series in August 2021 that the Yankees swept!"

Somebody brings up total World Series victories again, and you say "But there was that stupid move that Francona made in 2008!" And on it goes. You have an answer to everything, and you're sort of right with the specific thing you say; you're just avoiding the actual topic. The conversation always hits a wall, but it was never intended to go anywhere in the first place.

Hopefully, this is more like secretly wanting to cut bait on Jeff Weaver, but not sure if you can swing the trade for Esteban Loaiza...

One more time, Obama only sent non-lethal aid to Ukraine. Spin all you like, but that’s what he did, which didn’t exactly have Putin shaking in his boots. Trump sent lethal aid, and upped the training of Ukraine’s military. Trump, not Obama. Whether that aid should have subsequently linked to a corruption investigation is another matter, but I as I recall, there was little outcry here when Biden threatened to withhold $1B in aid to Ukraine, despite apparently not being authorized to do so as VP and having an obvious conflict of interest due to an ongoing investigation that implicated his own son.

Trump sent lethal aid the way Hitler gave back Poland.

One doesn't need spin, just a calendar and perhaps a re-watch of the first impeachment hearing - where this same, tired excuse was trotted out.

In 2014, Paul Manafort's previous client had just been toppled and fled to Russia. There were serious doubts about the stability of the nascent new Ukrainian government, to say nothing of the capabilities of its armed forces.

Starting in 2015- and continuing up until today - the US/NATO were heavily involved in training Ukraine's forces and surprise: the value, wisdom, and calculus of arming Ukraine changes when your analysis of their capabilities changes after years of making them into an effective military.

This was all laid pretty bare and clear during the impeachment proceedings.

Trump sent lethal aid the way Hitler gave back Poland.

Hey, technically -- Poland received some slices of Czech territory in the first Vienna... for less than a year.

One may well ask how the American conservative legal movement that has so vehemently objected to any talk of Supreme Court reforms in the United States feels about these measures in Israel. But to ask that question assumes a consistency in constitutional thought and values that has not been very much in evidence in recent months. Indeed, the very same Wall Street Journal editorial pages that have inveighed time and again against any efforts to reform the US Supreme Court as partisan and outcome-oriented, are now fairly teeming with respected conservative thinkers who support the notion of stripping Israel’s high court down to its studs.

The same conservative legal movement stalwarts who howl at the prospect of turning the US Supreme Court into a “partisan political body” are bizarrely sanguine about doing the same thing in Israel. The seeming lack of awareness—both of the fact that the U.S. constitutional system and the Israeli one are not directly comparable, and that you can’t be for tyranny of the majority in one land but opposed to it in another—is fascinating. More likely, the willingness to accept a religious juristocracy in America while dismantling a secular juristocracy in Israel illuminates a consistent theory of governance that has less to do with judicial independence and majority rule, than the preference for religion and rejection of pluralism and liberalism worldwide.

Al Capone was a very charitable murderer. Did FDR ever open a soup kitchen? Well, did he?!

Nothing Trump did subsequently makes Obama’s refusal to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine look any better.

Ukraine during his administration makes the decision look good.

but I as I recall, there was little outcry here when Biden threatened to withhold $1B in aid to Ukraine, despite apparently not being authorized to do so as VP and having an obvious conflict of interest due to an ongoing investigation that implicated his own son.

And this, by the way, is perhaps the silliest and most ridiculous of Clapper spintronics.

As he well knows, because it was discussed extensively at the other place before Clapper fled to a safe space, this is completely upside-down.

Biden's only offense is puffery of his role: As Clapper is certainly aware, if Biden was actually *aiming* to protect his kid, he'd have been acting to keep Shokin in place, given that his ignominious brief term saw him pursue just *one* "anti-corruption" investigation... against AntAC, an anti-corruption Ukrainian NGO that was severely critical of him.

The EU, the IMF, the World Bank - and the US - were severely critical of Shokin and all of them predicated continued aid to Ukraine on Shokin's removal. It wasn't just that Shokin was locally corrupt - he was refusing to cooperate other, foreign law enforcement efforts against a variety of crooked oligarchs.

That's without even getting *into* the fact that pay-for-play Shokin didn't even start singing his tune - a tune nobody else on the planet can join the chorus- on Hunter Biden until *after* he was paid by Trump lawyers Rudy and Crazy Joe DiGenova to testify as a character witness in Dmytro Firtash's extradition case.

Clapper knows all this, of course... but the organ grinds and the dance must be danced.

Yes. Had Obama sent lethal aid to a pro-Putin government, Clapper would have been the first to call for his impeachment.

Had Obama sent lethal aid to a pro-Putin government, Clapper would have been the first to call for his impeachment.

A Pro-Putin government? In Ukraine? In 2014? After the Maidan Revolution? After Russia invaded? You seem to be unaware of even the basics here, or have put them aside in your partisan zeal.

FWIW, me and all my never-Trumper contacts - and there are lots of us - are all in for DeSantis. He addresses all of the stuff we loathed about Trump (incompetence, impulsivity, sedition) while keeping the elements we liked. If DeSantis can win the nomination (and that's no sure thing given that 50% of the Republican party has gone full-Larouche), there is a pool of people who have basically stayed out of politics for a decade who will swing to him. It may not be a huge pool - maybe 2% of the electorate? - but it's overrepresented in purple districts. DeSantis-Biden is a real toss-up because DeSantis reactivates dormant voters in swingy places.

I think Biden will beat Trump McGoverningly.

FWIW, me and all my never-Trumper contacts - and there are lots of us - are all in for DeSantis. He addresses all of the stuff we loathed about Trump (incompetence, impulsivity, sedition) while keeping the elements we liked (fascism; homophobia; evangelical supremacy; crushingly large budget shortfalls)

FTFY

I think Biden will beat Trump McGoverningly.

The polling doesn’t show that, at least yet. The RCP Poll Average has Trump leading Biden 44.6% to 44.4%, while DeSantis trails Biden 43.2% to 42.8%. There are still a lot of voters unfamiliar with DeSantis, so he might move up after he gets formally into the race. It’s still early.

I think it's rather telling that a pretty easy way to sum up the veneer of the objection as saying "Mitt Romney was right!"

And in fact - on the specific disagreement vis a vis Russia in 2012? I have zero problem saying that Mitt Romney was far more right in 2012 specifically on Russia than Obama. Wouldn't have changed my vote - and I don't think it changes, really, anyone's vote.

However, specific to Russia? There is absolutely a fair case to be made that both Democrats and Republicans, since Putin (which includes the brief shadow term of Medvedev) have engaged in wishful thinking that Russia was lurching - corruptly, unevenly, etc - towards westernization. In the aughts? The W administration wasn't particularly concerned about Russian aggression in Chechnya and Ossetia because, hey, GWOT... Under Obama, I think there was naivety about a new "Concert of Westernization" that saw *solely* China as the nut that wouldn't crack on its own.

I think it's rather telling that more Democrats are willing to say this than Republicans, for sadly obvious reasons.

and that's no sure thing given that 50% of the Republican party has gone full-Larouche

At some point, you gotta take the hit for a cycle and grit your teeth... Though, the 'real' Illinois Democrats in the mid-80s were no prize peaches themselves, but they sealed their fate in the near-term by refusing to run with the LaRouchies...

It's not a problem that will just fix itself.

fascism; homophobia; evangelical supremacy; crushingly large budget shortfalls

“In terror the Boy ran toward the village shouting "Wolf! Wolf!" But though the Villagers heard the cry, they did not run to help him as they had before. "He cannot fool us again," they said.”

“In terror the Boy ran toward the village shouting "Wolf! Wolf!" But though the Villagers heard the cry, they did not run to help him as they had before. "He cannot fool us again," they said.”

I don't think that analogy shows what you wanted it to. In that quote the boy is running in terror because this time there is an actual wolf, so that means that DeSantis is actually all those things.

I think it's rather telling that a pretty easy way to sum up the veneer of the objection as saying "Mitt Romney was right!"

And in fact - on the specific disagreement vis a vis Russia in 2012? I have zero problem saying that Mitt Romney was far more right in 2012 specifically on Russia than Obama. Wouldn't have changed my vote - and I don't think it changes, really, anyone's vote.

However, specific to Russia? There is absolutely a fair case to be made that both Democrats and Republicans, since Putin (which includes the brief shadow term of Medvedev) have engaged in wishful thinking that Russia was lurching - corruptly, unevenly, etc - towards westernization. In the aughts? The W administration wasn't particularly concerned about Russian aggression in Chechnya and Ossetia because, hey, GWOT... Under Obama, I think there was naivety about a new "Concert of Westernization" that saw *solely* China as the nut that wouldn't crack on its own.

I think it's rather telling that more Democrats are willing to say this than Republicans, for sadly obvious reasons.

i kind of believe the argument made here that putin's mentality changed after he saw what happened to his dictator friends around the arab spring.

one event is missing from these analyses, an episode that combines political and emotional aspects, and helped crystallize Putin’s distrust of the West, his own sense of vulnerability, and his ultimate decision to return as Russia’s president: the 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya that resulted in the violent death of the country’s eccentric dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
[...]
he saw in Gaddafi someone who had accepted the West’s terms and yet nevertheless paid the price, a fate that could ultimately await him. The lesson is a dire one for Ukraine: In Putin’s current worldview, backing down or making any concessions is a death sentence.
[...]
Zygar writes that “Putin was apoplectic” when Gaddafi was killed. According to several accounts, including current CIA chief William Burns’s book The Back Channel, Putin frequently replayed the gruesome footage of Gaddafi being captured in a drainage pipe, being beaten to death.
[...]
the lesson Putin drew from Libya was different: Being a pariah had served Gaddafi best; only when he had opened up to the West had they come after him.

granted, putin's pre-arab spring crackdowns in chechnya and georgia are strong counter-arguments to this theory, but i'm not sure they completely refute it.

I don't think that analogy shows what you wanted it to. In that quote the boy is running in terror because this time there is an actual wolf, so that means that DeSantis is actually all those things.

and to have the ####### gall as a "never-trumper" to pull that weak-ass #### after watching your entire ####### party grovel to suckle at trump's teet (desantis included, btw).


and as long as you're reaching for a literary reference here, the one you want isn't the boy who cried wolf; it's cassandra.

DeSantis-Biden is a real toss-up because DeSantis reactivates dormant voters in swingy places.

FWIW, while I agree DeSantis-Biden would be a toss-up -- I don't think it would be because DeSantis brings more people to the polls. I think he gives the GOP a better shot at *getting* the votes of the middle/upper-middle class voters in the burbs, but that demographic tends to vote in high numbers regardless... and over the last 3 cycles? They've increasingly decided they'll hold their nose to vote against Trumpism. 2018, 2020, and 2022 election results were written on that.

Rather, I think it's more a matter of whether the Who Wants to be a LaRouchie gameshow host damaging DeSantis such that the certainly evident MAGA fandom that Trump brought to the polls sits things out.

Personally?

Much as there may be circles we possibly just can't square on various social matters, I would personally, very much prefer to see the NeverTrump conservatives migrate over because I do believe in free trade, I do believe in limited government intervention on the decisions of private industry, and I do think that for all its faults and false promises, export of the 'shining city on a hill' is a worthwhile foreign policy.

I have no answers on social matters - and while I hope we could find at least detente on entitlements and the safety net - if the GOP no longer has need for free trade, free enterprise, and the global export of democracy... I would very much like to see the Democratic party scoop up and champion those concepts, as they appear to be freely available.

"Wolf! Wolf!"

Evidently, you aren't on Twitter. The fascists are rattling the sabres there like crazy.

Don't say "gay"!

I think that it's very difficult for any GOP candidate to win in '24. DeSantis won't get the Trump base, and Trump won't get all Republicans to vote for him.

They may have a chance if a lefty runs as a 3rd party candidate.

I think 2024 is gonna be like 50-48.

It's far, far too early to speculate. More so than any other year - before- election, because of Trump. What does Trump do if he loses the primary to DeSantis or any other? It's not in his DNA to accept defeat gracefully and throw his support behind the nominee. I think the best they could hope for is that he sulks quietly. more likely is that he engages in some sort of his patented "stop the steal" routine and that will doom the nominee.

One thing I'm sure of: Trump will not endorse anyone else as the R nominee. Unless he's promised a blanket pardon, and he believes the candidate would honor the promise.

I think that it's very difficult for any GOP candidate to win in '24. DeSantis won't get the Trump base, and Trump won't get all Republicans to vote for him.

They may have a chance if a lefty runs as a 3rd party candidate.

trump proved that the path to victory for the republican party is a bottomless pit of hatred.

romney lost because he wasn't vile enough.
mccain lost because he wasn't vile enough.


desantis (last seen waging political war against micky mouse, ffs) does not appear to be someone who will make taht same mistake. 2024 will be a very ugly race to the bottom.

One thing I'm sure of: Trump will not endorse anyone else as the R nominee. Unless he's promised a blanket pardon, and he believes the candidate would honor the promise.

if i was advising desantis, i'd tell him to go straight for trump's head, for that exact reason. winning the primary is not enough (and you're not gonna beat trump in a primary, once he goes back on the adderall, btw); you need to put his head on a pike.

I think all the worry about trump is much ado about nothing. If he runs as a third party candidate? Sure, be worried. If he loses the nomination and doesn't run? He'll have no effect.

He'll have no effect.

30% of the R party will stay home if Trump isn't the nominee, especially if Trump whines about it.

I doubt that seriously

One thing I'm sure of: Trump will not endorse anyone else as the R nominee. Unless he's promised a blanket pardon, and he believes the candidate would honor the promise.

This is what the Republican establishment is assuming. (I can sort of speak to that b/c I still have a couple of friends in it.) Trump is actually quite transactional in a weird but predictable way. You can cut a deal with him, and he generally will live up to it as long as it is in his interest to do so. But he expects you to live up to your side of the deal even if it is not in your interest to do so. So if you were to offer him a pardon for support, and its a credible offer, that's a trade you can make and you probably can count on him doing his part as long as you have a reasonable shot at winning. That's why DeSantis's path is such a tightrope, because the goal is to beat Trump without humiliating him so that you can offer him the deal that gets him his pardon and lets him fight another day. (####, he may primary you in four years, but that's a high class problem.) You have to understand that from DeSantis's or any other Republican's persective, the odiousness of cutting a deal with Trump is far less than the odiousness of another Biden term (or worse still a part Biden part Harris term), so you hold your nose and you make the trade.

If you really beat up on Trump you take away his cover to cut the deal and get his ego involved, and then you're dealing with a truculent megalomaniac. That's why back in the day the banks tried to be as constructive with Trump as possible when they took his assets away - there was no percentage in pissing off the bear.

I don't think that analogy shows what you wanted it to. In that quote the boy is running in terror because this time there is an actual wolf, so that means that DeSantis is actually all those things.

Maybe. Alternatively, it means that every viable Republican from McCain to DeSantis has been called a facist and a racist and a homophobe and a whatever, and like, none of them actually are racists or homophobes and only Trump was a quasi-fascist (but really more of a totalitarian, he's not really into conformity and the power of the state he's more into a cult of personality). So like, oh no, some liberal dude is telling me I'm a racist, this bothered me in 2007 or whatever but in 2022 it is not possible for me or anyone else with similar politics to give less of a #### that someone thinks I'm a racist. All the rhetorical power of the name-calling has been lost through overuse. I'm this close to calling my conservative buddies "my racist!" and claiming it back.

This is what the Republican establishment is assuming. (I can sort of speak to that b/c I still have a couple of friends in it.) Trump is actually quite transactional in a weird but predictable way....etc etc

I can see that. But the problem DeSantis has is that Trump will to go after him like he went after Rubio, Bush, and all the other R candidates in 2016. It will be hard for DeSantis to survive it without trashing Trump. We'll see.

every viable Republican from McCain to DeSantis has been called a facist and a racist and a homophobe and a whatever, and like, none of them actually are racists or homophobes

How does this square with "don't say 'gay'"?

How does this square with "don't say 'gay'"?

I say this non-rhetorically - here is the actual text of the bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF. What's the objectionable part - the preamble? Because the operative language of the statute is from my perspective pretty inoffensive? I don't follow the culture war #### closely enough to really understand the positions on this - I just kind of read the statute a few months ago, rolled my eyes and moved on to something more interesting (really, anything in the world is more interesting than school board ####).

But the problem DeSantis has is that Trump will to go after him like he went after Rubio, Bush, and all the other R candidates in 2016.

DeSantis is already polling well above where Rubio, Bush et al. were in 2016. He won’t be helped if the non-Trump vote is split many ways, but it remains to be seen how many other candidates will get in and stay in through the early primaries, much less the late ones.

What's the objectionable part - the preamble?

I guess the slippery slope argument is being used: Once they've succeeded in prohibiting something that isn't happening (discussing LGBTQ+ issues with kindergarten through 3rd graders), it will lead to teachers in later grades to be fearful of answering questions kids might have about things like gay marriage, etc, lest they be subject to sanctions, lawsuits, whatever.

You tell me. If teachers in FL (or anywhere) aren't discussing gender ID issues with K-3 (and they aren't), why do they need a law? What's the real motive?

DeSantis is already polling well above where Rubio, Bush et al. were in 2016.

It's not 2024 yet.

You tell me. If teachers in FL (or anywhere) aren't discussing gender ID issues with K-3 (and they aren't), why do they need a law? What's the real motive?

I think they are discussing genderID with K-3. My former elementary school was involved in a scandal last year because they were doing just that and someone found the materials and posted them online and all the parental heads exploded. And this in a blue state!

Since I expect people will say "PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN", here are the videos from the consultant they were using.

https://www.youtube.com/@AMAZEParents/videos

I think they are discussing genderID with K-3. My former elementary school was involved in a scandal last year because they were doing just that and someone found the materials and posted them online and all the parental heads exploded. And this in a blue state!

It must have been publicized. Care to share?

They were showing this particularly astonishing video to first graders, but I think this one got the most publicity simply because it was the most outrageously inappropriate. The whole curriculum - which was being used throughout the K-3 school - was batshittedly progressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOcaYIaeEDQ&t=9s

Trump doesn't need a pardon and doesn't want one. He wants money and eyeballs.

I don't see anything inappropriate about the youtube clip.

152...I wouldn't call that a video about gender ID. I mean, sure the talk about erections and clitorises may have been too early (maybe not, I'm not sure), but nowhere did they discuss gender ID.

Fox News went to town last year on pornographic lessons being taught to kids in school.



"They said vulva!!!"

Yeah, that video is not great, but I agree with Cap'n Joe.

Re 155. I think ignoring what's actually going on in a kid's world is stupid and harmful. I personally don't know the best way to talk to a first grader about it but i know pretending like there's nothing there and ignoring their curiosity and feelings is simply going to result in ignorance and kids getting their education from somewhere else.

152...I wouldn't call that a video about gender ID. I mean, sure the talk about erections and clitorises may have been too early (maybe not, I'm not sure), but nowhere did they discuss gender ID.

If you look at the other stuff on their YouTube page, it is obvious they are teaching gender ID / sexual orientation material to Grade 3 and under. You have to be pretty willfully naïve to deny this is happening - though obviously not in all schools. My old school is pretty progressive and I imagine most of this vendor's client schools are similar.

I wouldn't call that a video about gender ID. I mean, sure the talk about erections and clitorises may have been too early (maybe not, I'm not sure), but nowhere did they discuss gender ID.

All that bill did was limit that sort of stuff being utilized for kindergarten through 3rd grade, although like the library book controversy, that won’t prevent some from deliberately misconstruing the contents. Speaking of the library book issue, anyone notice that several weeks in the vast majority of Florida counties haven’t had any problem, and that teachers in those counties aren’t being hauled away in paddy wagons? It should be obvious to all by now that one county was deliberately misinterpreting the law in an attempt to discredit it.

I think the main voice actress in that video is the woman from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Their youtube page looks like a bunch of training videos for adults to talk to kids about stuff and stuff for older kids to watch. About a variety of "uncomfortable" topics. They have one about gender for little kids which looks fine to me. It basically says be what you want to be and don't let labels hurt you

161...lol I'll need to watch it again now...if it is indeed Sweet Dee I will grab my pitchfork. Pardon the expression.


159...please don't make me waste my time searching...if you know of a relevant video, link it please.


160...several weeks is enough to judge whether the law is effective and appropriate , you say! I'll reserve judgement, if you don't mind.

https://amaze.org/


They're tackling a tough subject and one some parents will freak out about

They're tackling a tough subject and one some parents will freak out about

totally. but, Joe asserted that there was no teaching on sexual orientation and gender ID happening below fourth grade. This is obviously untrue. With that understood, now we're haggling over what is or isn't appropriate at what age, and now the Florida law makes a heck of a lot more sense.

This is obviously untrue.

Not to me. What video shows this to be untrue? Not the one you linked to...and we were doing so well up until now!

The org looks to be teaching kids about their bodies. I'm not sure what the issue is or whether or not something is obviously untrue.

Not to me. What video shows this to be untrue? Not the one you linked to...and we were doing so well up until now!

did you actually look through the amaze.org website

if yes, then dude, how are you misssing it
if not, then, geez, how lazy can you be, its not easily linkable, but you can take it on faith that this consultant is 100% teaching this stuff to 9 year olds and younger. ask others in this thread who are clicking on it.

Kindergarten Cop had a cute scene where a kid (boy) blurted out "boys have penises and girls have vaginas", and all the kids giggled, and a flustered Arnold said "thank you" and the discussion ended. But, the implication was that kids know about penises and vaginas when they're kindergarten age, and that was back in the 80's. I'm not saying whether it should or shouldn't be taught, the kid probably repeated what he was taught at home by his parents (which I think is the appropriate way for kindergarteners to learn about their private parts). I think most people agree that "gender ID" shouldn't be taught to kindergartners, but until I see proof that schools are broaching that subject, it doesn't happen.

168...I don't want to waste time sifting through videos. Link to one?

McCoy gave his opinion on one he saw. He said it was fine. I trust McCoy's judgment. Show me where he's wrong.

I can be very lazy, whether I make an assertion, but especially when someone else does.

https://youtu.be/St6t1WvbysU

this video is expressly about gender ID and is designed for small children. you may find it inoffensive, but it is literally about gender stereotypes and teaching boys its OK to wear pink clothes.

https://youtu.be/lbhd-23mloc

here's another one, expressly intended for age 7. shows a boy playing with dolls, says "there are no rules" and "ideas about how boys and girls are supposed to act are really old fashioned".

again, I'm not saying you should or would disagree with these videos, but they are gender ID videos.

The one i saw had a cartoon girl crying because she likes to play baseball and people make fun if her for it and the responsible adult says its ok to like baseball

https://youtu.be/St6t1WvbysU

this video is expressly about gender ID and is designed for small children. you may find it inoffensive, but it is literally about gender stereotypes and teaching boys its OK to wear pink clothes.

You know that is not what "gender ID" is, right? Gender ID is about identifying as a different gender than you were assigned at birth, it's not about liking things that are stereotypically not for your gender.

I will say, there is at least one video from that producer that is about transgender issues, but it looks to be aimed at parents. (There could be more, ones aimed at children, but I did look through them all closely.)

I say this non-rhetorically - here is the actual text of the bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF. What's the objectionable part - the preamble? Because the operative language of the statute is from my perspective pretty inoffensive? I don't follow the culture war #### closely enough to really understand the positions on this - I just kind of read the statute a few months ago, rolled my eyes and moved on to something more interesting (really, anything in the world is more interesting than school board ####).

But here's the thing...

If these semantics don't matter, then we shouldn't be looking for new laws to suppress them.

At some point, if one wishes to just stand astride of the ever-flowing current of society, you end up in place where you either say "Government, get out of the way" or "Government, stop or slow this".

The latter simply has a long and overwhelming history of being.... ultimately wrong.

What does gender ID mean in terms of what should and shouldn't be taught to 6 year olds? Define the term.

172...it was inoffensive. If that's the kind of video the right doesn't want kids to see, they've lost their minds. Girls can play with trucks and be firefighters when they grow up if they want is not appropriate to tell kids? Boys can wear pink IF THEY WANT is not appropriate to tell kids? WTF?

I swear to god, if anyone told me that I could wear a dress and mince about like Truman Capote when I was a kid, I would have shook my head and continued to try and copy Carl Yastrzemski's batting stance, but from the right side. WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously. This isn't grooming. No boy decides to dress like a girl just because he's told it's ok. He'll dress like a girl because he wants to, and is reassured that he won't be punished if he does. Except by the right. They'll punish him for his tastes and blame society. LOL!

173...so if you won't say whether it's an ok or not an ok video, why can't a 7 year old see it? What does it have to do with having sex? How does it suggest that kids can sexually attracted to same sex kids? Where does that leap occur?

Oops. It was soccer not baseball for the video I watched. As far as i could tell the was no go have a gender reassignment surgery or you were born the wrong sex talk in those videos. It was just be happy with yourself and some people won't be nice

"Government, get out of the way" or "Government, stop or slow this".

The latter simply has a long and overwhelming history of being.... ultimately wrong.

And impossible...unless they want to do it by force, and that's where the warnings about fascism arise.

I think that it's very difficult for any GOP candidate to win in '24.

So, you’ll be offering ‘Bivens odds’ reflecting that?

So, you’ll be offering ‘Bivens odds’ reflecting that?

Sure. For Monopoly money.

I don't bet on everything I have an opinion about...and I will never make a bet that my winning depends on the intelligence of the electorate, ever again.

If that's the kind of video the right doesn't want kids to see, they've lost their minds. Girls can play with trucks and be firefighters when they grow up if they want is not appropriate to tell kids? Boys can wear pink IF THEY WANT is not appropriate to tell kids? WTF?

FWIW, I don't think its appropriate for a SCHOOL to be teaching that to kids. What is it the school's business, anyways? My wife feels pretty strongly about discouraging my daughter from opposite gender stuff - why is a school trying to overrule her?

And if your wife feels very strongly about discouraging math?


If you don't like your school system you can always home school her.


So what is a teacher supposed to do if Sally comes crying to them because they want to play with a truck and a bunch of boys won't let her and make fun of her for wanting to play with trucks? Make fun of her as well?

Are teachers supposed to send boys home if they wear pink?

I'll also add that because screwed up kids have access to guns and schools are limited in their abilities to identify problematic kids and remove them from the system it's very much the school's business to teach kids how to process their feelings and respect others.

There are books for very young kids about gender identity: Lesléa Newman's Sparkle Boy, for instance. They are age-appropriate because they're not about sexuality, just about the freedom to escape gender conventions. These books are not geared toward changing children, but about making those who feel unconventional also feel accepted, by themselves and others.

Florida law actually seems to allow "age-appropriate" materials, but as Bivens says, the law is intended to intimidate; the way to escape censure for teaching age-appropriate materials is to teach none of them at all.

So you don't teach books that even allow that transgender thoughts can exist. Meanwhile there are thousands of children's books that reinforce cisgender identity, but that's fine because that's the great majority of kids. So the majority can see itself and demand approval, but a minority will be discouraged from doing so. If that's the kind of school system you want, fine, but acknowledge that that's what's happening.

My wife feels pretty strongly about discouraging my daughter from opposite gender stuff - why is a school trying to overrule her?

Parents used to feel strongly about desegregation, too (and maybe still do). MAGA would like to go back to pre-desegregation days.

Donor-class Republicans rallying behind a guy who thinks the government should punish companies for their speech is a new twist.

My wife feels pretty strongly about discouraging my daughter from opposite gender stuff - why is a school trying to overrule her?

Parents used to feel strongly about desegregation, too (and maybe still do). MAGA would like to go back to pre-desegregation days.

Good luck convincing anyone those two things are comparable.

Parents used to feel strongly about desegregation, too (and maybe still do). MAGA would like to go back to pre-desegregation days.

The goalposts moved so gradually from “we’re not teaching gender ID in primary school” to “we are teaching it, but our values are right, yours are wrong and if you disagree you’re George Wallace and #### you” that I didn’t even notice!

(I kid. I did notice.)

My wife feels pretty strongly about discouraging my daughter from opposite gender stuff - why is a school trying to overrule her?

How's that work exactly? Does she cover your daughter's eyes when a Nike commercial comes on with girls playing sports? Is she allowed to wear pants? Do she have to do the cooking and vacuuming before she goes out to play with friends?

Donor-class Republicans rallying behind a guy who thinks the government should punish companies for their speech is a new twist.

authoritarianism is a hell of a drug

The goalposts moved so gradually from “we’re not teaching gender ID in primary school to “we are teaching it, but our values are right, yours are wrong and if you disagree you’re George Wallace and #### you” that I didn’t even notice!”

If only it were just a case of "not teaching gender ID in primary school". Do you really think some of these legislatures and "Moms For Liberty" zealots are going to stop at that?

‘Slavery was wrong’ and 5 other things some educators won’t teach anymore----To mollify parents and obey new state laws, teachers are cutting all sorts of lessons

Excerpts from Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.” Passages from Christopher Columbus’s journal describing his brutal treatment of Indigenous peoples. A data set on the New York Police Department’s use of force, analyzed by race. ...

1 ‘Slavery was wrong’...

2 Christopher Columbus’s journal ...

3 A data set on police use of force...

4 ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’...

5 ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ and ‘Of Mice and Men’ ...

6 A Library of Congress video of a ‘cakewalk’ ...

The goalposts moved so gradually from “we’re not teaching gender ID in primary school” to “we are teaching it, but our values are right, yours are wrong and if you disagree you’re George Wallace and #### you” that I didn’t even notice!

Surely you'll link to a video where someone is teaching gender ID to first graders then? As opposed to a video where it expressly says that it's ok for boys to wear pink and girls to play with fire trucks?

Because right now you just look insane.

FWIW, I don't think its appropriate for a SCHOOL to be teaching that to kids. What is it the school's business, anyways? My wife feels pretty strongly about discouraging my daughter from opposite gender stuff - why is a school trying to overrule her?

Schools have an interest in preventing bullying.

195 Don't call me surely

Donor-class Republicans rallying behind a guy who thinks the government should punish companies for their speech is a new twist.

Despite all the talk about inflation (very interesting); Ukraine/Russia (again interesting); what I hear from Gov Des is he's going to fight the "woke" corporations. This is a genius marketing move b/c what does it cost to do that? Close to nothing. DeS is not going to TAX corporations which is what they really care about (and by using the pronoun "they" I don't mean to imply corporations are people, but Soylent Green is, btw). Now, Gov DeS may have a special bone to pick with Disney (so that he put his political appointees on a board overseeing what currently is the special district), but there are hundreds of other special districts in Fla which will be left alone; so the idea Gov Des is against corporate welfare is inaccurate. I actually heard a right wing radio host (listen almost exclusively to the right wing to get perspective) say you had a movement a few a years ago about the 1%, but now the left and these corporations care about being woke. Really? That's hilarious. See how the ball moves?

For two years, the R's had the senate, the house and the prez (and I think Trump thumped deplorables, we'll put the coalminers out of work Clinton by selling himself better than she did). What did we get from that trifecta (as if you didn't know what i was going say): tax cuts for billionaires. Add in deregulate businesses and backstop them with taxpayer dough and you get the complete picture. Dough, dough and more dough to the fraction of the 1%.

Now, the corporate dems are really not much better. The corporate dems could have reversed tax cuts; raised taxes, but no, they won't do it either. They will hand wring and do nothing.

Go back to the tax rates from the 1950's with that commie Ike

I don't believe in these labels, pejoratives; call it for what it is; tax cuts for billionaires. The cultural issues are just used as a wedge to divide us.

Consider another big issue the student loan cancellation. It is extremely entertaining to hear the pundits prognosticate on how the supremes will handle this one. Kids have it rough where they have to shell out all that money for an education. Any one want to change it? Get the government out of the business of backstopping banks. That'll drop tuition real quick. If the banks think it's such a good investment (and banks still do make such private loans), then they are free to make those loans; that's capitalism, comrade. Or, the schools can finance the students themselves out of their endowments. At one point a community college in CA was $6 to enroll; that's it; Cal State U's (a nice education) at $200 per semester; UC's (very nice education) $250 a quarter. There was no tuition. Who changed it (fees, with an emphasis on out of state students)? Saint Ronnie, of course. So, we have a system where taxpayers finance the schools and the banks. Gov DeS will focus on the "woke" banks. Thank for fighting the woke mob, Gov

All that bill did was limit that sort of stuff being utilized for kindergarten through 3rd grade

If this was accurate, that might be ok, but let's actually finish the sentence of that specific part:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards

What is not appropriate for a fourth grader then? What about a high school senior? Who gets to decide that?



Here, a Florida conservative, who ran for office as a Republican specifically says that the bill is so intentionally vague that it allows him to sue teachers for teaching about the mere existence of homosexuality to 17 year olds.

FWIW, I don't think its appropriate for a SCHOOL to be teaching that to kids. What is it the school's business, anyways? My wife feels pretty strongly about discouraging my daughter from opposite gender stuff - why is a school trying to overrule her?

A huge part of early childhood education is in fact teaching kids how to interact with others and their environment - waiting your turn, listening politely to others when they are talking, picking up your stuff, playing together, etc. Teaching a kid it's ok to like a toy others don't or teaching a kid to not harass someone for wearing something 'different' is 100% appropriate for school. There is no harm in accepting others when they have zero impact on you.

A huge part of early childhood education is in fact teaching kids how to interact with others and their environment - waiting your turn, listening politely to others when they are talking, picking up your stuff, playing together, etc. Teaching a kid it's ok to like a toy others don't or teaching a kid to not harass someone for wearing something 'different' is 100% appropriate for school. There is no harm in accepting others when they have zero impact on you.

and a huge part of republican politics is in fact encouraging people to do the exact opposite of everything you just said.

A huge part of early childhood education is in fact teaching kids how to interact with others and their environment - waiting your turn, listening politely to others when they are talking, picking up your stuff, playing together, etc. Teaching a kid it's ok to like a toy others don't or teaching a kid to not harass someone for wearing something 'different' is 100% appropriate for school. There is no harm in accepting others when they have zero impact on you.

I wish we could still do primies. This could not have been a better response.