-
@pakman said in US Politics:
This Presidency is not going to end well.
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
-
Interesting public comment mentioning that for transgender criminals in the prison system, the individual will determine if "she" is a woman, NOT the prison system. Reversing the old legislation that required evidence of 2 years previous changing gender activity among other criteria.
President-elect Joe Biden has said that “in prison, your sexual identity is defined by what you say, not what the prison says.”
Going be an explosion of "female" felons.
Quire a first day Joe. You've eliminated the idea formerly referred to as "women's rights" 😄
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals". -
USA USA
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
And I don't have to be a Biden supporter to have this opinion. I could be a Mitt Romney. Or a John McCain. Or possibly, even a Mitch McConnell.
Ahh yes the pie in the sky useless argument cop out.
Renders your opinions worthless in a discussion. A very popular face saving device these days.And I don't have to be a Biden supporter to have this opinion. I could be a Mitt Romney. Or a John McCain. Or possibly, even a Mitch McConnell.
Regards this
"Ahh yes the pie in the sky useless argument cop out.
Renders your opinions worthless in a discussion. A very popular face saving device these days."
Complete rubbish.
I have explained why I think President Trump was a terrible leader.
Others agree with me, journalists, ex-Trumpers, Presidential historians, even Republicans so it is not simply a left-right partisan opinion.
Biden just has to be not-terrible to be better than Trump.
Like Snowy said, it is too early to call that.I don't see anything in what I have written to render my opinion useless.
But just to save you time I consider this closed. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
And yet you are arguing - or the historians you quote to prove your point - that unreleased historical records are irrelevant in judging whether Trump is the "worst President ever".
Nope I don't believe I said "irrelevant" and I don't see where they did either. I imagine they believe they have enough evidence already.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/presidential-historian-michael-beschloss-on-trump-he-did-literally-the-worst-thing-an-american-president-could-ever-do/ar-BB1cXz49?li=BBorjTa--In the links you can find those historians and decide for yourself. You could also email survey organizers and ask if the names of the historians were made available: "For additional information about the survey visit www.siena.edu/sri/research or contact Don Levy at 518-783-2901, dlevy@siena.edu or Doug Lonnstrom at 518-783-2362."
-They aren't historians - they teach Sociology & Business Studies at Siena.
They ran the survey on the historians (hence I called them survey organizers not historians) and could hopefully inform you who the historians are- I only mentioned this because you questioned the sources.
Ad hominem: I don't believe I explicitly used one. I'm suggesting if you don't think they undertook sound historical analysis you could show them how it is done. Totally up to you.I believe I was explaining to someone else I was not alone in my opinion of Trump's presidency and I provided examples. I wasn't trying to create an argument based on appeals to authorities.
I've already said where I thought Trump may have shown skills and success but we should not expect to agree or disagree if we are judging on criteria unknown or untested by others. Besides, we may even have similar values but different priorities. And relatively clear marks, like 2 impeachments, might be considered political rather than merit-based by some.
But from my standpoint he has undermined civic debate and trust in government more than the others, he has been ineffectual in crises, and incapable of keeping staff working to consistent, strong policies and principles. Let alone keeping staff.
My colleagues in American organizations have told me of the incredibly mercurial and inconsistent and opaque decision-making blunders of US govt. depts over the last 4 years, this goes back to him and his appointments.
Overall, in my opinion, he will be viewed less favourably than Nixon by 2030.
I'm not American and I won't be too bothered if this opinion is not substantiated within a decade..but if Biden proves to be worse than Trump, I will be truly alarmed for my American friends. -
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
They ran the survey on the historians (hence I called them survey organizers not historians)
Precisely my point. They are non-historians doing a survey ( a meta-analysis) of, I assume, genuine historians views. They wouldn't have the skills to take into account the streams these historians follow, allow for the differences, and come to a proper conclusion.
Overall, in my opinion, he will be viewed less favourably than Nixon by 2030
But I thought your argument was that Trump was already the worst President ever?
And this was backed up by "historians" who judged his long term legacy before he'd even left office - based on his tweets.
-
Good essay. Trump was more reflective of a view, rather than creating it: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-was-inept-but-his-instincts-werent-wrong-x7sp2lr6d
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
I actually don't disagree with that last sentence, but how different is that interpretation from those words?
I also think it can be looked at from the other side too.
Biden may have done as best as he can here - it nods towards the radical wing, but also very few would actually disagree that ppl should receive equal treatment under the law.
As you said, some may mount legal challenges (each way) based on the different interpretations already in effect (states have different rules for transgender kids), so I wonder whether this was a way of getting it to advance through the court system, where at the end of the day a conservative leaning Supreme Court will end up ruling on this.
He virtual signaled to his radical base, and their actions will likely see their arguments fail once they go through the court system.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
From that rather limited quote he says that "children" (note children) should not be denied access to school sports, which they shouldn't (if we focus on sports), the others are equally relevant. If they are already undergoing gender change hormones / operations, then they are what they are born with, until old enough to change things.
You use the word "women" not children which really is quite different.
As for well informed and reasonable people, they might be more concerned about what "might" happen than what has been said.
I would say his words are very carefully chosen.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
From that rather limited quote he says that "children" (note children) should not be denied access to school sports, which they shouldn't (if we focus on sports), the others are equally relevant. If they are already undergoing gender change hormones / operations, then they are what they are born with, until old enough to change things.
You use the word "women" not children which really is quite different.
As for well informed and reasonable people, they might be more concerned about what "might" happen than what has been said.
I would say his words are very carefully chosen.
Children includes teenagers which includes scholarships etc.
And then when these transgender kids graduate with the scholarships they took from biological females... where to then? Do they suddenly go back to competing against men where they will be middle of the field at best? Or do they continue to compete against women?
At the end of the day this shouldn't be up for interpretation. Biological males should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. No ifs, no buts, end of story. Biological males should be discriminated against when it comes to competing in protected women's categories, that's the only way to make it fair. Any EO like this should be explicitly clear on this but it appears to be vague and up for debate.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
From that rather limited quote he says that "children" (note children) should not be denied access to school sports, which they shouldn't (if we focus on sports), the others are equally relevant. If they are already undergoing gender change hormones / operations, then they are what they are born with, until old enough to change things.
You use the word "women" not children which really is quite different.
As for well informed and reasonable people, they might be more concerned about what "might" happen than what has been said.
I would say his words are very carefully chosen.
Children includes teenagers which includes scholarships etc.
And then when these transgender kids graduate with the scholarships they took from biological females... where to then? Do they suddenly go back to competing against men where they will be middle of the field at best? Or do they continue to compete against women?
At the end of the day this shouldn't be up for interpretation. Biological males should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. No ifs, no buts, end of story. Biological males should be discriminated against when it comes to competing in protected women's categories, that's the only way to make it fair. Any EO like this should be explicitly clear on this but it appears to be vague and up for debate.
In the UK they need to be 18, under that they are children, over that adults. There is no legal distinction for "teenagers". I don't know about the US, it may vary state to state?
I said that if they haven't started to actually change their sex they are stuck with what they had. If they have a penis they compete with men until they don't. Then they have compete in their own "class".
The words were carefully chosen. It was about children so probably under 18s until they can actually change gender.
We agree that biological males should not be allowed in women's sport but that wasn't what was said.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
From that rather limited quote he says that "children" (note children) should not be denied access to school sports, which they shouldn't (if we focus on sports), the others are equally relevant. If they are already undergoing gender change hormones / operations, then they are what they are born with, until old enough to change things.
You use the word "women" not children which really is quite different.
As for well informed and reasonable people, they might be more concerned about what "might" happen than what has been said.
I would say his words are very carefully chosen.
Children includes teenagers which includes scholarships etc.
And then when these transgender kids graduate with the scholarships they took from biological females... where to then? Do they suddenly go back to competing against men where they will be middle of the field at best? Or do they continue to compete against women?
At the end of the day this shouldn't be up for interpretation. Biological males should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. No ifs, no buts, end of story. Biological males should be discriminated against when it comes to competing in protected women's categories, that's the only way to make it fair. Any EO like this should be explicitly clear on this but it appears to be vague and up for debate.
In the UK they need to be 18, under that they are children, over that adults. There is no legal distinction for "teenagers". I don't know about the US, it may vary state to state?
I said that if they haven't started to actually change their sex they are stuck with what they had. If they have a penis they compete with men until they don't. Then they have compete in their own "class".
The words were carefully chosen. It was about children so probably under 18s until they can actually change gender.
We agree that biological males should not be allowed in women's sport but that wasn't what was said.
I think we mostly agree, but I probably have more concerns over this EO than you? It'd be great if we could get much more clarity on this, but I just don't think we have anyone in media that's actually able to properly investigate/query it to get a full understanding of the implications.
I don't like that it appears Biden is nodding to the radicals in the party while giving himself wriggle room to get out of what they are advocating. Given the recent debates around this, and the fact that there are already athletes competing at the top level making a farce of the sport (E.G. Laurel Hubbard) we really need clarity around what the laws are going to be moving forward. Having an op and suppressing testosterone doesn't wipe out the (massive) advantages biological males get by going through puberty with elevated levels of testosterone, not by a long way.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
It'd be great if we could get much more clarity on this
Yes it would. Snippets of text aren't that helpful.
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
I don't like that it appears Biden is nodding to the radicals in the party while giving himself wriggle room to get out of what they are advocating.
Pretty good politics I would have thought. Appease them but give them nothing.
We do agree on the premise that initially biological men should not be in women's sport but he would have to say more than he has for this to be going down that path yet. I actually think that if the IOC and sports regulatory bodies should dictate what happens once they reach adulthood.
They have Paralympics, why not Transolympics? Should draw a crowd...
US Politics