Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

This is interesting. Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, was quizzing Rachel Levine, Biden's pick for assistant secretary at HHS, about childrens' genitalia at her confirmation hearing. He has three sons, so his questions probably focused on female childrens' genitalia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rachel-levine-assistant-health-secretary-biden/2021/02/26/26370822-7791-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html

MTG has played the trans card too, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/25/marjorie-taylor-greene-471481.

Some people sure scare easily.

[Alan Klein]

I take solace in the way my private message board lit up.

What are you ganging up on me?  Coward! 

[Robert Roaldi]

Don't tell me my posts are wrong.  They're right. ...

Whoah, hardly seems worth debating if that's the way you feel. 

In the earlier exchange you mis-characterized everything I wrote and deliberately ignored the points I raised in order to further a conversation that seemed to be going on only in your head, and not for the first time. There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing.

[JoeKitchen]

This is interesting. Senator Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, was quizzing Rachel Levine, Biden's pick for assistant secretary at HHS, about childrens' genitalia at her confirmation hearing. He has three sons, so his questions probably focused on female childrens' genitalia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rachel-levine-assistant-health-secretary-biden/2021/02/26/26370822-7791-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html

It was a good and legitimate question on whether the government should intervene and force parents to have their children to use puberty blockers and gender surgery if they feel they should transition when the parents disagree? 

This should have been a very simple answer, that being "no!"  Because children do not have the capacity to understand the long term ramifications of their decisions.  This has been proven, time and time again, and is the main reason why we have separate child courts.  Many studies show that people do not develop this ability to understand long term thinking until their mid-20s.  If you feel that a child can understand this decision but are still for child courts, you are being hypocritical fyi. 

Levine refused to answer the question, which gives me great pause.

[JoeKitchen]

Honestly though, I am more interested in other things at the moment, like it is suddenly okay to bomb other countries again.  Who would have thought, right? 

I was thinking about doing an over/under bet on how long it would take for us to get in a conflict under Biden.  I thought a fair number was 150 days.  Well, actually it's 36 days! 

Second, it is looking more and more like the relief package just ain't gettin passed.  Moderates refuse to vote for it if the $15 a hour is in the bill and progressives refuse to vote for if that is not in the bill.  If only Biden had decided to reach across the isle and try to unify the country, like he ran on, I would be willing to bet it would have already passed with the required bare majority.  He would have gotten enough Republican votes to make up for the number of progressives that would have voted against it. 

Oh well, another lost opportunity. 

And as each day goes by and Covid numbers continue to drop (I think we are at a 1/7 the case load we were a month ago now), it is going to just get harder and harder to justify this $1.9T totally unnecessary package. 

What was the Obama saying about Biden? Was it, "dont underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up." 

And I have not even gotten to talking about kids in cages containers and tents soft walled structures.   

[faberryman]

Second, it is looking more and more like the relief package just ain't gettin passed.  Moderates refuse to vote for it if the $15 a hour is in the bill and progressives refuse to vote for if that is not in the bill.  If only Biden had decided to reach across the isle and try to unify the country, like he ran on, I would be willing to bet it would have already passed with the required bare majority.  He would have gotten enough Republican votes to make up for the number of progressives that would have voted against it.

As I understand it, the Senate parliamentarian said the Democrats couldn't pass the minimum wage hike through reconciliation, so it has been dropped from the relief package. From what I've read, it won't get 60 votes as a standalone bill, so it is probably dead in the water, at least for now.

[JoeKitchen]

As I understand it, the Senate parliamentarian said the Democrats couldn't pass the minimum wage hike through reconciliation, so it has been dropped from the relief package. From what I've read, it won't get 60 votes as a standalone bill, so it is probably dead in the water, at least for now.

Yes, but the VP can override the Senate parliamentarian, which is what progressives are calling for. 

It is a stalemate right now, that could have been prevented if Republican support was sort after.  Now, I am not going to say it is dead in the water, but as each day goes by, it will only become harder and harder to sell. 

[faberryman]

Yes, but the VP can override the Senate parliamentarian, which is what progressives are calling for.

Good point. I'll guess we'll just have to see what happens.

It is a stalemate right now, that could have been prevented if Republican support was sort after.

I doubt that, but I've been wrong before.

[TechTalk]

Don't tell me my posts are wrong.  They're right.  If you disagree with my points, tell me how they are wrong.  Your general statement means nothing. Debate my points.

Your point is that it's a bad idea to take what others write out of context and present them as agreeing with your position. You posited that twisting other's words to fit your point of view is generally unhelpful to a discussion. You and I agree that my statement was meaningful to improving discussion and understanding each others point of view. Isn't that ironic?

[TechTalk]

I was thinking about doing an over/under bet on how long it would take for us to get in a conflict under Biden.  I thought a fair number was 150 days.  Well, actually it's 36 days! 

It was a retaliatory strike for an attack in a region in which we are already involved in a conflict and have been for a long time.

[digitaldog]

Yes, but the VP can override the Senate parliamentarian, which is what progressives are calling for. 

And it appears, Biden isn't going for that.

Biden 'disappointed' in Senate parliamentarian ruling but 'respects' decision

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540640-biden-disappointed-in-senate-parliamentarian-ruling-but-respects?utm_source=thehill&utm_medium=widgets&utm_campaign=es_recommended_content

And of course, republicans (like Cruz) tried to override/fire the Senate parliamentarian in the past.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/323272-cruz-lets-overrule-senate-officer-to-expand-obamacare-bill
Two wrongs don't make a right.

[faberryman]

It was a good and legitimate question on whether the government should intervene and force parents to have their children to use puberty blockers and gender surgery if they feel they should transition when the parents disagree?

Well, if it is an issue that Rand Paul feels strongly about, he should draft a bill to prohibit that, and get it passed. I do not doubt that, if passed, it would be challenged, and the Supreme Court would have the final say. Let just watch and see if Rand Paul follows up.

[digitaldog]

Your point is that it's a bad idea to take what others write out of context and present them as agreeing with your position. You posited that twisting other's words to fit your point of view is generally unhelpful to a discussion. You and I agree that my statement was meaningful to improving discussion and understanding each others point of view. Isn't that ironic?

So many of Alan's posts are wrong, have been illustrated on these pages and elsewhere, and some, he even fessed up to.

[JoeKitchen]

It was a retaliatory strike for an attack in a region in which we are already involved in a conflict and have been for a long time.

Just like when we took out Soleimani in Irac, yet ....

[JoeKitchen]

Well, if it is an issue that Rand Paul feels strongly about, he should draft a bill to prohibit that, and get it passed. I do not doubt that, if passed, it would be challenged, and the Supreme Court would have the final say. Let just watch and see if Rand Paul follows up.

Yes, get it passed in this congress?   

[digitaldog]

Just like when we took out Soleimani in Irac, yet ....

We did? 

[JoeKitchen]

We did? 

No shit.  It was in the news, like all over the place. 

The difference though was doing so was the equivalent of killing the Arch Duke, at least to the Dems it was.  Now though, it's okay to bomb people again. 

[TechTalk]

Just like when we took out Soleimani in Irac, yet ....

Right. It was not a new conflict, but an extension of one in which we were already engaged. As with Biden, it's not a new conflict as it appeared to me you may have been suggesting.

[JoeKitchen]

And it appears, Biden isn't going for that. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/540640-biden-disappointed-in-senate-parliamentarian-ruling-but-respects?utm_source=thehill&utm_medium=widgets&utm_campaign=es_recommended_content

And of course, republicans (like Cruz) tried to override/fire the Senate parliamentarian in the past.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/323272-cruz-lets-overrule-senate-officer-to-expand-obamacare-bill
Two wrongs don't make a right.

This not going to go over well with the progressives.  Checked Facebook and my brother is already on this like a fly on shit. 

[digitaldog]

No shit.  It was in the news, like all over the place. 

It was? What? Do they speak English in "What” or “Irac"?