TBayXXXVII

I don't see "crosshairs" as violent rhetoric... nor do I think is "bullseye", they're figures of speech. I believe @RLLD's stance is that as well... though, the non-stop violent rhetoric from the left makes bullseye worse. If you want to say that Palin started it, fine... but I don't even remember that let alone any other violent (if you want to call "crosshairs" violent), rhetoric just like I didn't even remember Biden saying "bullseye". But really, was there any other comments back then... at all? I'm willing to bet there isn't because no one on the Left has brought it up. The reason why I believe @RLLD's stance on Biden's comments is more harsh than Palin's is because Biden's is among an extensive list of violent rhetoric statements made at Trump since 2015, so it's not like that was the only one. We have people on this board like @squistion, @GutterBoy, and @Pimpadeaux (and his 50 other alias'), constantly call Trump Hilter or a dictator, or a threat to Democracy, or a threat to the country, just like the media and Left in DC. It's non-stop. They constantly have taken "bloodbath" out of context as well as "very fine people on both sides", and use that as a hammer for violent rhetoric. Let's even take the most recent example of the assassination attempt. There were plenty of left-wing news outlets saying Trump "fell" or that "loud noises" were heard at the Trump rally, completely downplaying what happened. Then, after they were forced to cover the assassination attempt, they started victim blaming... while 'ho hum let's back off the violent talk'. Biden comes out and acts presidential, but 24 hours later, he's back to calling Trump a threat. So, as isolated incidents pertaining to crosshair's and bullseye, they're a nothingburger in my opinion. Amidst the constant onslaught of violent talk from the Left over the last 9 years, bullseye is just one of the many things that the left has said on a regular basis. Keep in mind, even MSNBC had to sideline their worst examples of this with the Morning Joe show the day after the assassination attempt because even MSNBC knew that those two are horrible people and couldn't be trusted.

Right, that's authoritarianism. The government is giving the education system the leash to withhold information from parents that a parent could feel they have a right to. Also, this legislation also protects the school/teachers/entire education system, when they lie to the parent if said parent asks them a direct question. I'm curious. Let's say a kid who is going through this and said information is kept from the parents, and because this information is withheld, they are out of the loop.... and said kid commits suicide. Can the school, teacher/therapist, government be held responsible for being complicit in withholding information that could've saved that kids life?

Exactly.

Ok, so just so we're clear, if a kid tells a teacher that if their parent will be angry with them... the teacher can ONLY without that information, if it relates to them being trans? Gotta love it when people are acting as if discretion should only be held by the government over it's constituency, but the other side are the fascists.

You're assuming that. Their study didn't say that.

What if the kid cheats on a test and the kid tells the teacher not to tell their parents? That's ok to keep from the parents too? If so, why do the parents need to be told anything?

I didn't make anything up. Apparently we have a different opinion on what that link said. I read it as the abuse came before the kids transitioned... you, for some unknown reason, think the opposite.

It's not at all a different story... it's the same thing. When a kid says "please don't tell my parents or they will go balastic and kick me out of the house ", that's not a form of abuse?

Says the person who's prior link proved the other person right.

@The Real timschochet does. He's the one who brought it up (link). To be clear though, you're saying that a kid can go to a teacher and say my parents will harm me if they find out, the teacher will just say "ok" and everything will be good? I'd like to think that if a kid thinks the child would be harmed... REGARDLESS of the reason, the teacher should absolutely say something and get a "Wellness Check" on that kid. If a child thinks they are in danger from their parent(s), then there's a LOT more issues at home than pronouns and transitioning where keeping quiet is NOT the right thing to do.

Dude, you think very backwards. LOL

Ok, so you're saying that the Republican's started it and while you put "some" blame on Palin for the incident, you don't have a problem with Democrats doing the same thing (because I've never seen any of your posts condemning them), and with that, it's only the Republican's being inconsistent? As for me not being inconsistent... I never said I had a problem with Palin's comments nor will you find a post of mine blaming Biden for his comment. That seems pretty consistent... does it not? Where you hear me blaming Democrats for, on their rhetoric, it's pertaining to identity politics.

This doesn't prove @kilroy69 wrong. In fact, it proves him right. These kids are already being abused before any essence of transition is happening. Yes, I could buy the stance that the transitioning is happening because, as this study finds that girls are the most frequent target, that they're transitioning on purpose to be a boy, in hopes they stop getting abused. This still would back up @kilroy69's stance because in that scenario, the transitioning is a result of the abuse, not the cause.

We should start calling the Democrat party the Irony party.

So, just to be clear, you don't think it's authoritarian for the state to pass a bill that will keep information of a minor away from their parents?

Shhhh.... it's authoritarianism. But you're not allowed to say that about Democrats... only Trump and MAGA Republicans.

I agree, I don't think politicians should use that kind of language, but they're all doing it. You seem to be putting a lot of blame on Palin. Fine. I have no issue with that. I guess I'm wondering where you're consistency is. I don't recall your same vehemence with what the left has been doing the last 8 years, nor Biden just a week ago with his "bullseye" comment. Maybe that was just you burying the D rhetoric.

I don't disagree. My main point was that you apparently read their chain and decided to go after @RLLD and trying to call out his hypocrisy and not @Herbivore for his.

Why should he, I don't recall @Herbivore having an issue with it. Weird that he did when Palin said it. I mean, I'm guessing he did because he apparently remembers it very clearly. I wonder why I don't recall any outrage from him when Biden made his comment? WAIT, I got it. It's because Palin said "crosshairs", not "bullseye". What was I thinking. My bad.

I think I can sum it up this way.... Trump is bad. It's all his fault.

This. Total agreement here.

Yeah, we're in the ballpark. I do agree that he's still a QB1, but he's not a game winner like he was.

A deal with Cincy for Tee Higgins would be a match. The issue at that point would be... why not just re-ink Aiyuk.

I don't see how this would move the needle for either MVS, Allen, or the Bills. I may be wrong on this, but I don't get the love for Allen and the Bills. Allen is an excellent athlete and a "good" QB. He's not an excellent QB and good athlete. He needs more help than what the Bills are giving him in the passing game. It seems to me that the Bills would want to reduce Allen's rushing because that's going to expedite his demise. Giving him mediocre to below average... and unknown... talent on the outside is NOT going to ensure a solid passing game to limit Allen's exposure to downfield hits. Allen put up good passing numbers in the past because teams had to respect Diggs and the passing game. They don't have to do that now, we kinda saw that in the second half of the season last year. There's no one on this team, yet, that I can see, that warrants special attention. I don't think Allen is that good of a passer to overcome those shortcomings. When I see WR's like are in Buffalo, I think that's great if your QB is Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Pat Mahomes, Tom Brady, because they are elite passers who can get guys the ball if they're open. That's NOT Josh Allen. I think Allen's passing numbers will be worse than last year and I think his rushing numbers will be as well, because I don't think he'll have the lanes he's accustomed to. I think he fails to break 4k passing yards. I think his ceiling on TD's is what he had last year, and I think it's unlikely for him to hit that total. I see him at 3800 yards, 26 TD's, 500 rushing yards and 5 rushing TD's... throw in a half dozen picks and I think he's around 320 points, so about 19 fpg. That's fine, but that puts him in a melting pot of 6 or 7 other guys and no longer a trump card. He's not a QB I take early, he's maybe a 4th or 5th round guy? Looking at ADP, I'd if I'm taking a QB in R's 2 through 4, I'd rather take (in no particular order), Hurts, Jackson, Stroud, & Mahomes over him. I can see an argument for Richardson, but I can't justify picking him based off of only 4 games and a season-ending injury. From a value perspective, based on ADP, I'd rather have Prescott, Burrow, Love, & Goff in their expected rounds over Allen in R2. I think the Bills struggle to be .500. I see them maxing out at 9 wins and missing the playoffs. THIS would change my opinion.

I don't think he has a choice. Well, wait, I do. I think there are only 2 possible scenario's... he does another debate because he needs to give the morons of the country assurance that the last one was a one-off and that he isn't cooked mentally. The other scenario is that he drops out. If he can't show the base that he can do the job, then he can't win. There's no way the Communist party can enter this election with a guaranteed loss. Well, maybe they can. Throw the Scumbag in Chief under the bus and take the "L" and ride off into assisted living in peace because there really isn't enough time to put a legit candidate out there. I mean, they can put Stalin 2.0 from California out there to run with DEI as his VP, but I think that could burn both of their bridges. I think the Commies really want to give Stalin a real shot at 8 years and throwing him into the fire less than 4 months into the election may be too risky.