The Real timschochet

I won’t pretend anything. I side with the medical experts. When the majority change their opinion I will too. I don’t have any dog in this hunt other than I believe in respecting people and general acceptance and you seem to want to line up on the intolerant side.

Yes. Here is a rebuttal: https://www.gendergp.com/response-to-the-cass-review/ “Many of the claims in the Cass Report are inaccurate, empirically unsupported, ethically unacceptable, and grounded in prejudice.” It’s telling you what you want to hear, but the majority of medical experts in THIS country say it’s bullsh!t.

We’re actually not that far apart. I agree with you on the sports issue. On the under 18 stuff, I would allow it with parental permission, while you would make it completely illegal under 18. That’s not the same thing but it’s not that big a difference. We both agree that a minor should not be allowed to have gender surgery of his or her own accord. Should a minor be allowed to have hormone treatments (not surgery) of his or her own accord? I’m not sure of this but I lean towards yes.

In cases where some (medical experts) disagree, listen to the majority and those from this country.

OK let’s say that I accepted your logic. What is the alternative? That judges with no medical knowledge rule whether or not a doctor can perform a medical procedure? Thats not acceptable to me. Thats why I say leave it up to the family. The whole thing might disgust you, or me but it’s none of our business. At least that’s the way I see it. Im frankly surprised, since this forum is mostly conservative, that I haven’t encountered more libertarian types here.

For some people sure. Why should you care?

So I will join you in opposing hate speech legislation, always, and you can perhaps join me in opposing laws that try to tell families and their doctors how to handle medical decisions that deal with this? Let people be free to do what they want, say what they want.

It has everything to do with your post. See point #2. Address them however they wish to be addressed. Do your best not to be offensive.

I am no expert. In these situations I have three rules: 1. Listen to the medical experts. In the case where some disagree, listen to the majority from this country and those from reputable organizations. 2. When a group of people asked to be called something try to accommodate them. Respect their wishes. 3. If opposition to any of these issues comes from those who have in the past expressed bigotry towards those they are opposing, then it’s generally a good rule to be on the opposite side.

As I wrote I’m no attorney, but everything I’ve heard and read strongly disagrees with you. So I strongly doubt that if Trump is convicted here (which seems likely though not for sure) he will win any appeal based on this argument. No the pressing question is not if the Judge should recuse himself (he won’t and shouldn’t) but whether or not he should put Trump in jail for contempt of court. It’s a tough decision but I think he has to do something, don’t you? Trump cannot be allowed to break rules that everyone else has to abide by.

Huge difference. Gender dysphoria is a real thing.

All the gaslighting and revisionism is on the other side. I never denied that violence took place in 2020 and I’m not denying that there is some hateful bigotry this time around. But in both cases it doesn’t represent the majority and that’s what you and your buddies try to insist on.

It is not the same. It has never been the same. I would like it, someday, to be the same.

Jewish and non-Jewish students celebrate Passover Seder in the middle of Columbia protest: https://www.cnn.com/shorts/cnn-shorts?iid=vertical-video_entry This is so similar to the George Floyd protests which the conservative right tried to falsely paint as 100% violent thugs. They’re trying to do the same thing here. But the truth is quite different.

Societal norm is whatever normal is. It has nothing to do with “good and correct”, which changes all the time. The n word was used normally by millions of Americans for years, not just by idiots.

You make general arguments for the necessity of recusal and change of venue which are difficult to argue against. But when you apply either to this case you fail, at least IMO, to be compelling. Removing a judge because he or his daughter is involved in liberal causes makes no sense to me. Thats not a conflict of interest. And changing venue when you’re dealing with a man as famous and ubiquitous as Trump is, IMO, absurd. We’d have to move the trial to Jupiter. You also ignore what was obviously the true motivations for all of these motions: delay. Trump doesn’t want any of these trials resolved prior to the election. Except for this one he’s been pretty successful.

So in another thread @RLLD listed what he liked best about Trump’s accomplishments while in office. @Strike asked me to do the same for Biden. I’m happy to do so but I can’t do it without listing what I believe are his drawbacks as well. Also keep in mind that I come to this from a centrist/liberal perspective: I reject both the current conservative or “Trumpian” positions on most issues, and the far left attitudes represented by folks like Bernie Sanders and AOC. If you disagree with on my perspective, you’re unlikely to agree with much of my analysis. But here goes anyhow: Note- I decided to start a new thread on this because hopefully we can limit the discussion to policy. The current Joe Biden thread is currently dominated by talk of his supposed corruption, supposed mental deficiencies, and supposed pedophilia. Those are three topics I personally have very little interest in discussing. 1. Upon taking office, Biden was given vaccines for Covid (thanks in large part to Trump’s Warp Speed policy) but with no organization for the distribution of the vaccine. Biden made the vaccine accessible very quickly to millions of Americans and thus saved unknown thousands of lives. 2. Biden’s spending bill in year one, a follow up on Trump’s emergency spending in 2020, probably saved our economy from collapse. On the minus side, worldwide inflation (not Biden’s fault) was made worse temporarily as a result of this spending. But that price had to be paid. 3. Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan was the correct one. His execution was unfortunately, very poor and disorganized. He can be excused to the extent that there is no historical example of a military pullout that wasn’t a total disaster on the ground, whether or not it’s the US leaving South Vietnam in 1975, the French leaving Algeria in 1960, British leaving India and Palestine in 1948, etc etc. All total fockups. Still, we could have and should have performed better. 3. Biden’s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine is the brightest moment of his Presidency. By taking a stand against aggression and strengthening NATO, Biden acted in the spirit of Harry Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and FDR. 4. On the other hand, I do not understand why Biden is continuing Trump’s tariffs against China. The average import tax for most countries is 3%. For China it’s 19%. As a free trader I think this is hurting China’s economy while not helping ours. I don’t see the advantage. 5. The infrastructure bill and the falsely named “Inflation Reduction Act” (neither Biden nor Congress can do anything to lower inflation which is worldwide; it’s going down but Biden doesn’t deserve the credit) are good spending bills which are going to create an economic boom- it’s already started. 6. Biden removed Trump’s cruel and stupid policies at the border. This has created more chaos at the border but I think chaos is preferable to cruelty. What is needed is an overall policy, but at the moment that seems impossible given the sharp disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. I think overall Biden’s done a pretty good job as President. Not great but not bad either. I don’t mind seeing him in there for another 4 years. I don’t like him much; from what I see he’s a liar and a rotten human being. But for me he’s infinitely preferable to what appears to be the alternative at this time.

Of course it was.

No.

The n word was a long standing societal norm for decades.

Instigating the use of force? No.

No. It wasn’t. I can insist something but I don’t have the right to enforce it.

Fair question. Legally we don’t and should not have the right to insist that you be respectful of others in the way that we would like you to be. For example there should never, IMO, be a law that prohibits you from using the “n” word. But we have developed a society in which using the “n” word is generally considered offensive. I would like to develop a society in which transgenders are given a similar level of respect in terms of what names we used for them. I don’t have the right, ever, to insist that upon you or anyone else, but my goal is that we will get there of our own free will.

I haven’t heard a compelling argument for either but I am a layman, not an attorney. However the Court of Appeals heard both of these motions and quickly denied them.

Uh oh. Pecker just testified that Trump is a micro-manager and paid very close attention to every check that was written. There goes that defense, what else ya got?