2024 Presidential Elections: the schadenfreude commences

[Belize]

Taxes, am I right?

[Belize]

Also, Jill Stein. It's pretty clear to me that she is a Russian government asset meant to cause chaos. And no real American would actually fall for it. 

[PenguinBoss]

9 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

And Harris wants to implement an unrealized gains tax. So we can all kiss our retirements, investment, and wealth building goodbye.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/23/kamala-harris-unrealized-capital-gains-tax

Quote

It applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth who do not pay at least a 25% tax rate on their income (inclusive of unrealized capital gains). Payments can be spread out over subsequent years.

I know it'll hit board users hardest.

[scoobdog]

19 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

And Harris wants to implement an unrealized gains tax. So we can all kiss our retirements, investment, and wealth building goodbye.

That isn't what she's implementing.  Granted, it's debatable whether you will survive on whatever retirement package you have, but she won't be targeting 401ks, government bonds or any other retirement account that, in fact, constitutes a realized gain.  Your idea of wealth building is way different than someone who's on the cover of Fortune 500.  What she's targeting is stock options - you know, the thing that Elon Musk used to artificially inflate his net worth.  He and his ilk use those options to hide their wealth from taxes by not cashing them in while using them as to bolster their wealth and influence.  Musk used his artificially inflated wealth in the form of Tesla stock options to purchase Twitter, and we all know how spectacularly bad that was.  He likely would not have done that if he was forced to pay taxes on stock options he would not ordinarily have had to pay taxes on until he sold them.

[matrixman124]

19 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

And Harris wants to implement an unrealized gains tax. So we can all kiss our retirements, investment, and wealth building goodbye.

You know that it's aimed at people in the higher income brackets. The fact that you think it will impact everyone equally shows that you are being duped by right wing propaganda.

[scoobdog]

1 minute ago, matrixman124 said:

You know that it's aimed at people in the higher income brackets. The fact that you think it will impact everyone equally shows that you are being duped by right wing propaganda.

I will say this... I totally see her boss changing her bonus to stock options so he can keep her happy while he bleeds the company dry and sends it to bankruptcy.

[matrixman124]

2 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

I will say this... I totally see her boss changing her bonus to stock options so he can keep her happy while he bleeds the company dry and sends it to bankruptcy.

Stock options are great as long as the company does well. If it sinks well, it's worth a less than a monetary bonus.

Stock options are real until they aren't 

[scoobdog]

1 minute ago, matrixman124 said:

Stock options are great as long as the company does well. If it sinks well, it's worth a less than a monetary bonus.

Stock options are real until they aren't 

Which is probably why most people would never see this proposed tax.  A middle class worker isn't going to accept a stock option bonus after maybe the IPO because it doesn't give them the needed liquidity.  Making it for people who make over $100 mil is less about clawing back tax money and more about stopping the ultra rich from using that phony money as a leverage.

[Master-Debater131]

18 minutes ago, matrixman124 said:

You know that it's aimed at people in the higher income brackets. The fact that you think it will impact everyone equally shows that you are being duped by right wing propaganda.

Name one tax that started as only for high income people and didnt make its way to everyone.  You cant, because thats how this works. Even the initial selling argument for the income tax was only for rich people to "pay their fair share", now it hits everyone.

The second that tax is implemented, they will look at ways of expanding who its hitting.

[naraku360]

3 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Name one tax that started as only for high income people and didnt make its way to everyone.  You cant, because thats how this works. Even the initial selling argument for the income tax was only for rich people to "pay their fair share", now it hits everyone.

The second that tax is implemented, they will look at ways of expanding who its hitting.

So you're criticizing Harris as worse than Trump for a thing that a sentiment like this plainly spells out would also happen under Trump.

[Jman]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/27/trump-harris-budget-deficit-economy-election.html?__source=iosappshare|com.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
 

A number crunch on the proposed Trump budget sees federal spending resulting in the deficit increasing five fold if implemented.

[scoobdog]

17 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Name one tax that started as only for high income people and didnt make its way to everyone.  You cant, because thats how this works. Even the initial selling argument for the income tax was only for rich people to "pay their fair share", now it hits everyone.

The second that tax is implemented, they will look at ways of expanding who its hitting.

But it likely won't ever hit anyone that isn't making over $100 million.  Stock options aren't a thing in the middle class bracket, and people in the lower upperclass are more likely to convert profits from their ventures into a fixed asset like property - basically something that is more useful for things like credit and financial stability.

[[classic swim]]

4 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ohhhhhh man is this hilarious. 

 

[Dusty Shackleford]

Don't mind me I'm just here for the entertainment

Edited August 28 by Dusty Shackleford

[mthor]

10 minutes ago, Dusty Shackleford said:

Don't mind me I'm just here for the entertainment

🍿

[Dusty Shackleford]

2 minutes ago, mthor said:

🍿

Political fuckery just hits different

[Belize]

Bravo on ignoring the "Harris and Walz and doing an interview" bait.

That post is just sitting there with no engagement at all. 

[rpgamer]

52 minutes ago, Belize said:

Bravo on ignoring the "Harris and Walz and doing an interview" bait.

That post is just sitting there with no engagement at all. 

A testament to just how stupifying MD's take on taxes is.

Mf out here trying to convince us $7.25 would be totally fine for everybody if it weren't for those pesky taxes.

[Blackrose321]

4 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Regarding Wal-mart, I 100% agree with you. There was an idea floated for a while about a corporate welfare tax where if a company over a specific size had a percentage of people on welfare they would be taxed to make up for essentially using welfare to make up for their wages. never went anywhere, but thats an idea I do agree with.

I would also argue that the single biggest hurdle people have for living a better life is the theft of their income through taxes. Its not just income tax people pay. You are taxed at every single step of your life. You have a paycheck that is taxed. Then you go to the store, which is taxed. Own a house or rent something, which is taxed. Utilities, also taxed. Have a phone, taxed.  Participate in the economy by going to a movie, taxed. Sports event, taxed. Ever single thing we do is taxed. Its insidious how much we truly pay in taxes.

If we truly wanted people to get ahead we would simplify taxes by eliminating huge chunks of them, crack down on companies like wal-mart, and reign in government spending. We wont because its way more convenient for the ruling class to have everyone bickering all the time, but thats the simply way to get people ahead in life.

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

I'm not opposed to reviewing taxation and spending, it's important to review what you are doing for improvement. But that would require a fairly significant amount of intervention from the government and a large part of the Republican platform is based around "small government", a refusal to regulate because the theory is that the market will correct itself somehow. That people will just not shop at, or work for Walmart, as if there are so many better options for everyone. I know in my tiny hometown, Walmart is definitely a major employer and I'm sure that's the case for many such towns all across rural America and they are the ones feeling the crunch the worst. Simply not shopping there (after they drove out all competition) or working there (after said competition closed, and factory jobs got sent overseas) is just not an option.

One of Trump's major undertakings was trying to roll back over 100 environmental regulations. He managed to roll back 98 out of 112. And Texas is super proud of their unregulated power grid, even though it fails so badly that the federal government has to save the day. They don't want oversight but they want federal money. And I gotta tell ya, I don't play that game even with my friends. Shit happens sometimes but if someone keeps making the same mistake over and over against everyone's advice, when shit hits the fan, I'm not turning up with a mop. No one ever learns that way, and the same applies to corporations even more so.

All that said, do you see Trump being the person who would make what you wrote part of his platform? Telling his party that they need to intervene where corporations have crushed the little guy? I don't expect either candidate to push for major change, I don't think they'd get anywhere even if they tried, but do you think it's even on his "wishlist" of items? Do you think it's important to him, that he'd do it if he could?

Ultimately, the bolded part is the sticking point - you are 100% correct that division is the goal. It's why, for a while, Republicans pushed so hard against CRT. I have a master's degree, so I've had plenty of time to have CRT foisted upon me - I have not once studied, let alone been forced to study, CRT. I'd never heard of it until Fox brought it up. It was an expensive distraction - we lost time, we lost focus, we lost money. I feel the same way about LGBTQ+ - trans people make up less than 2% of the population, I think the highest number I've seen was like 1.13%. They shouldn't make up 83% of a party's platform. The reason we hear about it all the time is because people talk about it all the time, not because it's a pressing issue. If we stopped trying to regulate their bodies - and instead started regulating businesses, spending, etc. - the furor would die down on both sides. There would be no reason to worry about "trans people taking over" or whatever the fear is, because life would just go on like normal for once.

I think, if we set aside anything related to the culture wars, there's probably a lot more we agree on, but maybe not the how. If we could get back to saying okay, if a job exists, the job needs to be done, it should be paid a fair wage. As in enough to live on. No one with a full time job should be starving to death in the "number one country in the world". So how do we fix that?

[Jman]

Speaking of the economy, during an antitrust trial, Kroger execs admitted under oath they jacked up prices above inflation levels to pad their profits.

https://www.rawstory.com/during-antitrust-trial-exec-admits-kroger-jacked-up-milk-and-egg-prices-above-inflation/

Point that out next time someone blames Biden.

Edited August 28 by Jman

[katt_goddess]

6 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

If you get paid more you have a large amount of your income taxed.

If EVERYONE paid their fair share in taxes, the tax burden would be stabilized over a much wider population.

Instead of being slammed on all the actual working people while the millionaires and billionaires stand on them to enjoy a view they don't pay for. 

[scoobdog]

10 minutes ago, katt_goddess said:

If EVERYONE paid their fair share in taxes, the tax burden would be stabilized over a much wider population.

Instead of being slammed on all the actual working people while the millionaires and billionaires stand on them to enjoy a view they don't pay for. 

To be clear:  "fair share" of taxes means what you can safely afford to contribute.  The term gets thrown around a lot by people who support flat taxes and by people who want to cut welfare programs, always with the intent of changing the metric to "the hard earned fruits of my labor" from "what I need to survive in my current situation."

[discolé monade]

5 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

And Harris wants to implement an unrealized gains tax. So we can all kiss our retirements, investment, and wealth building goodbye.

that's reagan you're thinking about. 

weirdo. 

[katt_goddess]

1 minute ago, scoobdog said:

To be clear:  "fair share" of taxes means what you can safely afford to contribute.  The term gets thrown around a lot by people who support flat taxes and by people who want to cut welfare programs, always with the intent of changing the metric to "the hard earned fruits of my labor" from "what I need to survive in my current situation."

Oh no, I've already posted that flat tax is shit using almost the same lines as what was just posted on the previous page - if everyone has to pay $5 flat, it will still bankrupt the person with only $10 to their name while the owner of wherever they work will accidentally light a cigarette with that $5 and think nothing of it. I'm talking about people paying their taxes, period. No more tax cuts for people who are going to cry if they can't get a yacht in this year's color. No more hiding money on an island somewhere. No more Melon Husk shell games where he has enough money to spend billions to ruin something for the lols and gets billions in tax payer money for 'government contracts' but mysteriously can't pay in a single penny in taxes. 

Pay taxes and use it for the people [ plural ] not the politicians. 

[discolé monade]

12 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

To be clear:  "fair share" of taxes means what you can safely afford to contribute.  The term gets thrown around a lot by people who support flat taxes and by people who want to cut welfare programs, always with the intent of changing the metric to "the hard earned fruits of my labor" from "what I need to survive in my current situation."

to be clear. i take this to mean tax the rich accordingly, NOT how they can skim by on bloated tax laws, while the rest of us try to figure out why we are getting taxed so much. 

maybe? 

i don't know. 

but fuck the billionaire class. fuck the classists. 

 

also i thought flat tax meant like, 13% across the board?

Edited August 28 by discolé monade

[Master-Debater131]

1 hour ago, Blackrose321 said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

I'm not opposed to reviewing taxation and spending, it's important to review what you are doing for improvement. But that would require a fairly significant amount of intervention from the government and a large part of the Republican platform is based around "small government", a refusal to regulate because the theory is that the market will correct itself somehow. That people will just not shop at, or work for Walmart, as if there are so many better options for everyone. I know in my tiny hometown, Walmart is definitely a major employer and I'm sure that's the case for many such towns all across rural America and they are the ones feeling the crunch the worst. Simply not shopping there (after they drove out all competition) or working there (after said competition closed, and factory jobs got sent overseas) is just not an option.

One of Trump's major undertakings was trying to roll back over 100 environmental regulations. He managed to roll back 98 out of 112. And Texas is super proud of their unregulated power grid, even though it fails so badly that the federal government has to save the day. They don't want oversight but they want federal money. And I gotta tell ya, I don't play that game even with my friends. Shit happens sometimes but if someone keeps making the same mistake over and over against everyone's advice, when shit hits the fan, I'm not turning up with a mop. No one ever learns that way, and the same applies to corporations even more so.

All that said, do you see Trump being the person who would make what you wrote part of his platform? Telling his party that they need to intervene where corporations have crushed the little guy? I don't expect either candidate to push for major change, I don't think they'd get anywhere even if they tried, but do you think it's even on his "wishlist" of items? Do you think it's important to him, that he'd do it if he could?

Ultimately, the bolded part is the sticking point - you are 100% correct that division is the goal. It's why, for a while, Republicans pushed so hard against CRT. I have a master's degree, so I've had plenty of time to have CRT foisted upon me - I have not once studied, let alone been forced to study, CRT. I'd never heard of it until Fox brought it up. It was an expensive distraction - we lost time, we lost focus, we lost money. I feel the same way about LGBTQ+ - trans people make up less than 2% of the population, I think the highest number I've seen was like 1.13%. They shouldn't make up 83% of a party's platform. The reason we hear about it all the time is because people talk about it all the time, not because it's a pressing issue. If we stopped trying to regulate their bodies - and instead started regulating businesses, spending, etc. - the furor would die down on both sides. There would be no reason to worry about "trans people taking over" or whatever the fear is, because life would just go on like normal for once.

I think, if we set aside anything related to the culture wars, there's probably a lot more we agree on, but maybe not the how. If we could get back to saying okay, if a job exists, the job needs to be done, it should be paid a fair wage. As in enough to live on. No one with a full time job should be starving to death in the "number one country in the world". So how do we fix that?

Theres a lot here so Ill try and get it all, but I may miss something. Not doing that intentionally.

Walmart - you aren't going to hear me argue against your points. Walmart is close to a monopoly in a lot of regards, and trust busting is absolutely a proper role for the government. The feds going after Google, Amazon, Walmart and any of those other mega corporations would be great. Walmart absolutely has a great business model, but that business model also comes at the expense of wherever it goes. For all the crap South Park gets, that Walmart episode was damn near perfect at capturing the entire Walmart debate.

Texas - what they are doing with their power is freaking dumb. I think what that shows more than anything though is the inevitable problem when one party controls a state by itself for extended periods of time. The stupidest ideas start to win, and then they become law. Ive become a big fan of divided government in recent years because it prevents the worst ideas and impulses from winning out. Im also not inclined to give Texas much help when their grid collapses and they bitch and moan about not getting help. Thats kinda your own fault there bud. Same with California though. Thats been a 1 party state for a long time, and they can deal with their own mess at this point.

Thats also one of my biggest splits from the modern GOP. I do think regulations are important, its just a question of how many and how intrusive. Your point on the environmental regulations has me wondering why there were so many in the first place. I work in the environmental industry, and I cant tell you how many public works projects go horribly over budget, behind schedule, or are outright canceled because of environmental regulations. Should we have environmental protections? Absolutely. I like clean water and air.  Should we care if a roadway impacts a field mouse or if people collect their own rainwater? Ehhhhh, Im not as inclined to say yes there.

Frankly I dont see Trump nor Harris doing anything to bring the country together and fix problems. Both are horrible candidates, and both will make things worse. its just a question of in which way will they decided to fuck us.

LGBT stuff- The one thing that sticks out the most on this, and so many other cultural issues, is when it starts to involves kids. Im in a lesbian relationship, have been for a while. No one cares that Im fucking a girl. What they care about is if we try to push that on kids, or try to otherwise expose them to things like sexuality that should be up to parents and not schools and institutions. No one (who isnt a complete asshole) cares about adults, they care about when adults start to involve kids. After the SCOTUS ruling there was this amazing golden age where no one really cared about LGBT issues. People were just kinda like "yea, ok, thats cool and all, did you see the game?" But in recent years there has been this continued creep to bring this kind of stuff into classrooms. People can say its not happening all they want, but it is. There are countless images of classrooms that look like a Pride parade went on a bender, got sick, and threw up the rainbow all over the room.  And they can be for it all they want, but at no time has an adult saying "Its OK, this can be our secret" to a kid ever turned out OK. We still make Catholic priest jokes, and that was decades ago (holy crap I feel old now). Neither of us even feel comfortable going to Pride events anymore because of how extreme things are recently. We just want to be left alone.

Even on cultural issues theres likely a whole lot that we could agree on. Part of the problem though is that, recently, either you are 100% with an ideology or you are considered an enemy. That goes for both sides. The LGBT issue above is a great example of that. Im all for LGBT issues, but I dont think its appropriate for that to be brought up in the classroom. And because of that Im considered an enemy even though Im in a lesbian relationship. On the Right because im not some MAGA diehard Im considered a liberal bitch. The ability to have any nuance or disagreement on issues that you might have 80% in common with is just gone.

I will continue to argue and believe that the biggest hindrance to anyones prosperity is the federal government. They consistently get in the way of people living their life because some bureaucrat somewhere thinks that they know better than the person living their own life. Is there a role for the government? Yes, but it should be limited, targeted, and actually effective. None of this huge sweeping bureaucracy thats making rules no one has any say on.

Did I get everything? I think I did. But its also been a long day.

[discolé monade]

erRrRrR iT's Ok BeCaUsE tHe FaMiLy SaId So.

it's weird how the magatards/drumpfers can't even follow the rules.

But according to a statement from Arlington National Cemetery obtained by CNN, federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries.

[katt_goddess]

3 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

to be clear. i take this to mean tax the rich accordingly, NOT how they can skim by on bloated tax laws, while the rest of us try to figure out why we are getting taxed so much. 

maybe? 

i don't know. 

but fuck the billionaire class. fuck the classists. 

 

also i thought flat tax meant like, 13% across the board?

Yes, tax them accordingly. If I have to pay in to social security all year long, millionaires should pay in all year long instead of stopping in February. Loopholes for the rich need to be sown shut. 

And the flat tax idea usually sits around 13-15% but will always favor the rich who can't even be bothered to pay in now anyway. 

[naraku360]

42 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Theres a lot here so Ill try and get it all, but I may miss something. Not doing that intentionally.

Walmart - you aren't going to hear me argue against your points. Walmart is close to a monopoly in a lot of regards, and trust busting is absolutely a proper role for the government. The feds going after Google, Amazon, Walmart and any of those other mega corporations would be great. Walmart absolutely has a great business model, but that business model also comes at the expense of wherever it goes. For all the crap South Park gets, that Walmart episode was damn near perfect at capturing the entire Walmart debate.

Texas - what they are doing with their power is freaking dumb. I think what that shows more than anything though is the inevitable problem when one party controls a state by itself for extended periods of time. The stupidest ideas start to win, and then they become law. Ive become a big fan of divided government in recent years because it prevents the worst ideas and impulses from winning out. Im also not inclined to give Texas much help when their grid collapses and they bitch and moan about not getting help. Thats kinda your own fault there bud. Same with California though. Thats been a 1 party state for a long time, and they can deal with their own mess at this point.

Thats also one of my biggest splits from the modern GOP. I do think regulations are important, its just a question of how many and how intrusive. Your point on the environmental regulations has me wondering why there were so many in the first place. I work in the environmental industry, and I cant tell you how many public works projects go horribly over budget, behind schedule, or are outright canceled because of environmental regulations. Should we have environmental protections? Absolutely. I like clean water and air.  Should we care if a roadway impacts a field mouse or if people collect their own rainwater? Ehhhhh, Im not as inclined to say yes there.

Frankly I dont see Trump nor Harris doing anything to bring the country together and fix problems. Both are horrible candidates, and both will make things worse. its just a question of in which way will they decided to fuck us.

LGBT stuff- The one thing that sticks out the most on this, and so many other cultural issues, is when it starts to involves kids. Im in a lesbian relationship, have been for a while. No one cares that Im fucking a girl. What they care about is if we try to push that on kids, or try to otherwise expose them to things like sexuality that should be up to parents and not schools and institutions. No one (who isnt a complete asshole) cares about adults, they care about when adults start to involve kids. After the SCOTUS ruling there was this amazing golden age where no one really cared about LGBT issues. People were just kinda like "yea, ok, thats cool and all, did you see the game?" But in recent years there has been this continued creep to bring this kind of stuff into classrooms. People can say its not happening all they want, but it is. There are countless images of classrooms that look like a Pride parade went on a bender, got sick, and threw up the rainbow all over the room.  And they can be for it all they want, but at no time has an adult saying "Its OK, this can be our secret" to a kid ever turned out OK. We still make Catholic priest jokes, and that was decades ago (holy crap I feel old now). Neither of us even feel comfortable going to Pride events anymore because of how extreme things are recently. We just want to be left alone.

Even on cultural issues theres likely a whole lot that we could agree on. Part of the problem though is that, recently, either you are 100% with an ideology or you are considered an enemy. That goes for both sides. The LGBT issue above is a great example of that. Im all for LGBT issues, but I dont think its appropriate for that to be brought up in the classroom. And because of that Im considered an enemy even though Im in a lesbian relationship. On the Right because im not some MAGA diehard Im considered a liberal bitch. The ability to have any nuance or disagreement on issues that you might have 80% in common with is just gone.

I will continue to argue and believe that the biggest hindrance to anyones prosperity is the federal government. They consistently get in the way of people living their life because some bureaucrat somewhere thinks that they know better than the person living their own life. Is there a role for the government? Yes, but it should be limited, targeted, and actually effective. None of this huge sweeping bureaucracy thats making rules no one has any say on.

Did I get everything? I think I did. But its also been a long day.

What makes discussing homosexualoty more objectionable than discussing heterosexuality?

[Belize]

[matrixman124]

The idea that Trump is a proponent of limited government is such a crock of shit

The state governments having more control than the federal government means that they can pass anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, anti-poor laws in any red states.

The only reason that gay marriage is legal is not because of individual states passing it, it's because of SCOTUS getting the law through.

There are such things as universal rights and having limited government will prevent those universal rights from being protected.

[Jman]

Well he is a fan of deregulation, damn public health.

 

 

[Belize]

 

[matrixman124]

11 minutes ago, Jman said:

Well he is a fan of deregulation, damn public health.

 

 

Can't have my labor stolen to help keep people from being poisoned

[discolé monade]

7 hours ago, Dusty Shackleford said:

Don't mind me I'm just here for the entertainment

[naraku360]

$99 per card!

Buy 15 and you even get a real one!

[matrixman124]

57 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

$99 per card!

Buy 15 and you even get a real one!

Wowee new Fucko pops just dropped

[scoobdog]

3 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

LGBT stuff- The one thing that sticks out the most on this, and so many other cultural issues, is when it starts to involves kids. Im in a lesbian relationship, have been for a while. No one cares that Im fucking a girl. What they care about is if we try to push that on kids, or try to otherwise expose them to things like sexuality that should be up to parents and not schools and institutions. No one (who isnt a complete asshole) cares about adults, they care about when adults start to involve kids. After the SCOTUS ruling there was this amazing golden age where no one really cared about LGBT issues. People were just kinda like "yea, ok, thats cool and all, did you see the game?" But in recent years there has been this continued creep to bring this kind of stuff into classrooms. People can say its not happening all they want, but it is. There are countless images of classrooms that look like a Pride parade went on a bender, got sick, and threw up the rainbow all over the room.  And they can be for it all they want, but at no time has an adult saying "Its OK, this can be our secret" to a kid ever turned out OK. We still make Catholic priest jokes, and that was decades ago (holy crap I feel old now). Neither of us even feel comfortable going to Pride events anymore because of how extreme things are recently. We just want to be left alone.

Where to start with this utter bullshit….

First off, I’m genuinely glad you can publicly be your true self.  Let’s not gloss over how difficult it is to be openly out - just because you have good friends who accept you doesn’t mean you and your wife aren’t targeted.  That you can share it with us is itself an act of bravery that too often gets dismissed.

Second, this whole thing about classrooms using LGBTQIA+ identity as a program to sexualize children is absurd.  I can’t even begin to fathom how you misrepresent gender identity in that context:  it’s illogical at a fundamental level with obvious roots in the very same rigid gender roles that ostensibly mandate removing “sexuality” from education.  Part of it is that the stigma of debunked psychology is difficult overcome, but of greater importance is that there is a vested interest by heterosexuals to connect identity to reproductive function.  Conservatives have long tied primary education to familial programming, either by being excessively repulsed by the concept of training a girl to be sexual or by complaining about the decline in morality curriculum.  For them, being “a good Christian” necessarily incorporates sexuality in identity because intimacy serves a biological function.

Separating identity from biology is one product of a concerted effort to combat racist ideology, particularly eugenics.  It’s no coincidence that multiple genocidal events through the first part of the twentieth century preceded a rise of homophobia that use the exact same terminology.  Gays, like Blacks and Jews, are framed as biologically degenerate.  They’re described as having neurological disorders or having animalistic traits / tendencies.  WWII is the first real time reporting of atrocities that could debunk eugenics by directly connecting the pseudo science with propoganda and its tragic consequences.  As the connection between race and biology dissolved so did other tenuous connections, and a similar backlash ensued.

Naturally, you don’t have to be intelligent to know what you feel.  I wouldn’t expect you to understand why gender identity is unique, but the fact it is can’t have been lost on you given your friends are non plussed by your gender.  By your logic, people walking up to you must assume that being a lesbian means craving foreign objects shoved in your vagina for intimacy:  a thoroughly offensive thought.  Why you wouldn’t connect the dots and assume that teaching intimate interpersonal connections doesn’t necessitate explaining copulation is beyond me.

[rpgamer]

All this glossing over the fact that you don't have to be 18+ to know you're gay, or trans, or anything else about yourself. Kids know what they know, and often the only difference between a kid and adult when it comes to their own identity is whether they have the tools and terms to express how they feel about themselves. And that's what education is all about.

The additional layer of bullshit is this entire railing against "pushing" some LGBT agenda while being completely blind to how that rhetoric is explicitly pushing a very real heteronormative agenda.

Teaching something isn't explicitly pushing anything. It's giving people the tools and knowledge to expand their perspective. Which, understandably, being a conservative parrot, is antithetical to your world view.

[Jman]

 

This is not campaigning on policy.  I think the world is just done with Trump, while another candidate might have been able to reach past the cult to a more general audience.  But the cult was more energized.

Granted, their policy is Project 2025.

[discolé monade]

watching an lbgtq fight for drumps right to blight ....IS SO FUCKING WEIRD!

 

like how can anyone SANE ,look at a convicted felon and a sell out to their own morals,   and say HEY this is a great candidate, great ticket?? 

this trickle down of fucking STUPIDITY is out of control.  

[Insipid]

[SwimOdin]

36 minutes ago, Insipid said:

No. God, no.

[Belize]

 

[discolé monade]

we got a newly elected board. there is a project 2025 supporter on that board. a member of the local heritage foundation klan. 

The rules seek to alter the role of local election officials known as superintendents, whose job is to gather the vote tallies from the polling places within their jurisdiction, add up the tallies, and report those numbers to Georgia’s secretary of state. For at least a century, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that this duty is “purely ministerial” and that these superintendents “have no right to adjudicate upon the subject of irregularity or fraud” in an election.

[tsar4]

On 8/26/2024 at 7:53 PM, Master-Debater131 said:

Damn those greedy grocery stores and their *checks notes* 1.6% profit margins

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/15/kamala-harris-price-gouging-groceries/

 

If only they would refuse to have any profit at all! Then things would be better. Ya know, as long as it goes different than literally every single other time price controls and communism are implemented.

The profit is in the "house" brands, "impulse buys" (that stuff in the register aisle) and stuff like cosmetics.  More margin in those.

[matrixman124]

These poor obscenely wealthy billionaires that didn't exist until all of the massive tax breaks of the 90s and 00s wahhh

[Belize]

People are going to be surprised when Georgia votes Democratic again in 2024, without realizing that it has been getting more Democratic for four years relative to where it was in 2020. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Harris wins Georgia by a wider margin than Biden did. 

[matrixman124]

5 minutes ago, Belize said:

People are going to be surprised when Georgia votes Democratic again in 2024, without realizing that it has been getting more Democratic for four years relative to where it was in 2020. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Harris wins Georgia by a wider margin than Biden did. 

God fucking bless Stacey Abrams

[SwimOdin]

21 minutes ago, Belize said:

People are going to be surprised when Georgia votes Democratic again in 2024, without realizing that it has been getting more Democratic for four years relative to where it was in 2020. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Harris wins Georgia by a wider margin than Biden did. 

My brother and or sister in Christ I pray that’s the case. Don’t fail me now, Georgia! I was so proud in 2020. Sad about 22 other than Warnock, who needs to run for president some day.