3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

They could try to pivot but the message would have been heard only by the MAGA base.  There are a couple of no brainer topics and this is one of them.  Taking the easy wins away from MAGA is something that should always be done.

Again I think that's naive. They'd be heard by plenty no matter how petty and silly the debate, always trying to tug the strings of fear. And cause more harm than good by setting up overly vague regulations.

10 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Again I think that's naive. They'd be heard by plenty no matter how petty and silly the debate, always trying to tug the strings of fear. And cause more harm than good by setting up overly vague regulations.

@DrPhilly wants to be the guy looking down kids pants at school bathrooms

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Again I think that's naive. They'd be heard by plenty no matter how petty and silly the debate, always trying to tug the strings of fear. And cause more harm than good by setting up overly vague regulations.

Ok, well you see me as being naive and I see you as being dug in.  Either way, I'm 100% sure the Biden/Harris team would have liked to have dealt with this topic before that commercial came out.  Simple people aren't very sure about the ins and outs of medical treatments for people with mental disorders but they know damn well they don't agree with males in the women's locker room or competing in a woman's sporting event.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

@DrPhilly wants to be the guy looking down kids pants at school bathrooms

Nah, I'll let you continue with that job

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Ok, well you see me as being naive and I see you as being dug in.  Either way, I'm 100% sure the Biden/Harris team would have liked to have dealt with this topic before that commercial came out.  Simple people aren't very sure about the ins and outs of medical treatments for people with mental disorders but they know damn well they don't agree with males in the women's locker room or competing in a woman's sporting event.

I just recognize when an argument isn't being had in good faith.

IMO they should have said "I'm voting against these bills because they're fear mongering petty nonsense and it's not the role of the federal government to regulate how the NCAA manages its athletes or how doctors/patients make medical decisions".  But just going along with them because they're popular is just emboldening these idiots to reach further. 

25 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Exactly. Let's not fool ourselves, they're not making good faith arguments. They never were.

I agree with this, but also, good faith arguments do not work on them. 

7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I just recognize when an argument isn't being had in good faith.

Are you suggesting I'm not discussing this "in good faith"?  If so, then please do explain what makes you say that.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Are you suggesting I'm not discussing this "in good faith"?  If so, then please do explain what makes you say that.

Not you. The Republicans highlighting these "issues". Again it's the same "identity politics" they constantly whine about. Just the negative kinda aimed at sparking fear. It isn't about trans athletes in the locker room or Haitian immigrants eating your house cat.  It's about setting up an "other" to act as a scapegoat. 

8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

federal government to regulate how the NCAA manages its athletes

NCAA - Title IX?

 

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Not you. The Republicans highlighting these "issues". Again it's the same "identity politics" they constantly whine about. Just the negative kinda aimed at sparking fear. It isn't about trans athletes in the locker room or Haitian immigrants eating your house cat.  It's about setting up an "other" to act as a scapegoat. 

Of course they'll come up with another topic but that doesn't mean the Dems shouldn't have shut this one down.

We're going to start going in circles now.  I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

Did you guys hear about the trans pole vaulter in Maine?  PM @mikemack8 for details

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Did you guys hear about the trans pole vaulter in Maine?  PM @mikemack8 for details

Does Wake have any chance to be selected as an "at-large"?

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

NCAA - Title IX?

Something regarding funding for all female athletes is a bit different than regulating whether or not less than 10 athletes can participate in certain events my man. 

 

Shocked face 

 

 

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

Something regarding funding for all female athletes is a bit different than regulating whether or not less than 10 athletes can participate in certain events my man. 

meh, a good example of the Federal Govt regulating how the NCAA manages its athletes

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Does Wake have any chance to be selected as an "at-large"?

Maybe for the NIT

14 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Simple people aren't very sure about the ins and outs of medical treatments for people with mental disorders

This, in my opinion, is equally wrong messaging. The TG mind may not be the "norm,” but categorizing it as a mental disorder is the same argument used against the LGB crowd. I believe that it wrongly assumes it is something that can be "cured,” in a "don’t be TG camp.” 

1 minute ago, Tnt4philly said:

This, in my opinion, is equally wrong messaging. The TG mind may not be the "norm,” but categorizing it as a mental disorder is the same argument used against the LGB crowd. I believe that it wrongly assumes it is something that can be "cured,” in a "don’t be TG camp.” 

You're right.  I don't think that way and shouldn't have used the term "disorder".  Sloppy of me.  What I meant was "mental health problem".

32 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I just recognize when an argument isn't being had in good faith.

IMO they should have said "I'm voting against these bills because they're fear mongering petty nonsense and it's not the role of the federal government to regulate how the NCAA manages its athletes or how doctors/patients make medical decisions".  But just going along with them because they're popular is just emboldening these idiots to reach further. 

I agree the argument isn't being made in good faith. 

But most political arguments are made in bad faith. 

Like it or not the obstinacy you're displaying was a significant factor in losing. 

You can't move the ball forward if you're out of power. 

Dems needed to listen to James Carville more.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I agree the argument isn't being made in good faith. 

But most political arguments are made in bad faith. 

Like it or not the obstinacy you're displaying was a significant factor in losing. 

You can't move the ball forward if you're out of power. 

Dems needed to listen to James Carville more.

Meh I'd argue you can't move the ball forwards if you acquiesce every time the opposite side tries to set up a political Boogeyman to attack either. I'm not saying they went about it the "right" way. But I don't think caving into the fear mongering like Dr is suggesting is the right way either. 

Just now, DEagle7 said:

Meh I'd argue you can't move the ball forwards if you acquiesce every time the opposite side tries to set up a political Boogeyman to attack either. I'm not saying they went about it the "right" way. But I don't think caving into the fear mongering like Dr is suggesting is the right way either. 

Two steps forward and one step back still moves the ball forward. Society never changes as fast as those on the edges of the progressive movement want. But one party is an ally to the progress but knows they need to pump the breaks or else the pendulum swings back with a vengeance. The other stands in aggressive opposition. 

By pushing too hard too fast we're now taking three steps backwards instead of two forward one back. 

Progressives who abandoned the Democratic party for not moving quickly enough are partly to blame. They didn't do it alone but a lot of stupidity and ignorance compounded into this current situation.

7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Meh I'd argue you can't move the ball forwards if you acquiesce every time the opposite side tries to set up a political Boogeyman to attack either. I'm not saying they went about it the "right" way. But I don't think caving into the fear mongering like Dr is suggesting is the right way either. 

I think it’s more of a "pick your battles” moment, than just caving. The LGB crowd didn’t get their rights overnight. 

18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Two steps forward and one step back still moves the ball forward. Society never changes as fast as those on the edges of the progressive movement want. But one party is an ally to the progress but knows they need to pump the breaks or else the pendulum swings back with a vengeance. The other stands in aggressive opposition. 

By pushing too hard too fast we're now taking three steps backwards instead of two forward one back. 

Progressives who abandoned the Democratic party for not moving quickly enough are partly to blame. They didn't do it alone but a lot of stupidity and ignorance compounded into this current situation.

You can accept that political reality without actively voting for the steps backwards IMO. Again I don't think making counter bills to force trans athletes to be and to do whatever they want is the right call either and the Dems definitely crap the bed on that approach. But there's a difference between that and voting in these silly bills. 

dummies all around..I don't think she realizes she's also talking about most members of congress.
 

 

24 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

You can accept that political reality without actively voting for the steps backwards IMO. Again I don't think making counter bills to force trans athletes to be and to do whatever they want is the right call either and the Dems definitely crap the bed on that approach. But there's a difference between that and voting in these silly bills. 

Was there a step backward in my proposal?