The General Election

[knapplc]

From the NYTimes article JJ linked to above:

 

A school’s obligation under federal law “to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns,” the letter states. “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”

As soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that “differs from previous representations or records,” the letter says, the child is to be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced. It says that schools may — but are not required to — provide other restroom and locker room options to students who seek “additional privacy” for whatever reason.

“What you don’t do is go and tell a kid, ‘You know, there is something so freakishly different about you that you make other people uncomfortable, so we’re going to make you do something different’,” said Mr. Aberli, who estimated that his school of 1,350 students had about six transgender children. “There’s been no incident since its implementation. It’s really just a nonissue in our school.”

 

I know it's more fun to fly off the handle and get all upset about everything, but this doesn't sound like coed locker rooms or orgies in the bathrooms. It sounds like it has to be parent-initiated, and won't be "Johnny decided he was a girl today so he showered in the girls' locker room and sexed everyone."

[teachercd]

From the NYTimes article JJ linked to above:

 

 

A school’s obligation under federal law “to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns,” the letter states. “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”

 

As soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that “differs from previous representations or records,” the letter says, the child is to be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced. It says that schools may — but are not required to — provide other restroom and locker room options to students who seek “additional privacy” for whatever reason.

 

“What you don’t do is go and tell a kid, ‘You know, there is something so freakishly different about you that you make other people uncomfortable, so we’re going to make you do something different’,” said Mr. Aberli, who estimated that his school of 1,350 students had about six transgender children. “There’s been no incident since its implementation. It’s really just a nonissue in our school.”

 

 

I know it's more fun to fly off the handle and get all upset about everything, but this doesn't sound like coed locker rooms or orgies in the bathrooms. It sounds like it has to be parent-initiated, and won't be "Johnny decided he was a girl today so he showered in the girls' locker room and sexed everyone."

It is funny because this entire thread is basically people flying off the handle and getting all upset about everything.

 

I imagine this will be followed with the class "Show me where someone flew off the handle" post (not by you Knapp, just in general)

[AR Husker Fan]

Both JJHusker1 and Coach Power'T have had their accounts suspended for their personal attacks above.

 

That makes three today. We are not joking; if you have to take shots at someone, find another board. Or, if you want to hang around and simply can't control yourself, don't frequent this area or use the Ignore function. But enough is enough.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

 

Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation.

 

What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of?

 

I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification.

 

Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong."

 

Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development."

 

France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president.

In an interview published by a Mexican newspaper, President Enrique Pena Nieto compared Trump's "strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" to big problems to the rhetoric of the world's most notorious dictators.

"That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived," Pena Nieto said.

There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate?

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

LOL.....

 

 

So, the numb nuts comes out bragging that his charity event raised OVER $6,000,000 for vets. brag brag brag brag....after all....he constantly tells us how much vets love him he loves vets.

 

So...time goes on and Washington Post starts snooping around and asking questions about what "Vet organizations" did the money go to? Well...of course the amazing human being himself scoffed at the idea anyone would question him and they must just be "haters".

 

Well.....so.....today he gives out a list of organizations that received the money. Obviously by doing this it proves he is such a great guy. Honestly....I just can't believe how awesome he is. He was able to time the donations perfectly to coincide with the day the article came out.

 

 

Oh...and....little tid bit of info......he didn't come close to the WAY over 6,000,000 that he claimed he raised.

 

But...hey....that's just one of those little tid bits of info that is meaningless.

 

 

After all.....he only speaks the truth.....you know.......

 

There was actually a vet on the podium wearing a MAGA hat that came up and yelled at the media for "using veterans as political pawns."

 

I about lost my sh#t at that moment.

 

But, you know, the media need to be ashamed of themselves. HOW DARE THEY DO THEIR JOB!?

 

The media in this country hasn't "done their job" in decades due to their liberal agenda. The Washington Post lost all legitimacy when they put 20 people to look up any skeletons in Trumps past and failing to do the same for Hillary. Just like the protest that wasn't staged by the Clinton Campaign today...well upon further review....

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/24/here-we-go-again-clinton-campaign-busted-manufacturing-astroturf-protest-against-trump/

 

The Clinton campaign swiftly organized a conference call for Saturday, led by the Clinton campaign’s veterans and military families outreach director, Jonathan Murray. According to one of the people on that call, participants were told that the Clinton campaign should not be seen viewed as behind the organizer of the protest.

At Monday’s protest, Marine veteran and Clinton supporter Alexander McCoy served as a spokesman for the demonstrators—and went to great lengths to hide the Clinton campaign’s involvement with organizing the demonstration.

 

“We’re not affiliated with any campaign, we’re not affiliated with any organization,” McCoy told reporters, saying the protesters used “grassroots organizing techniques, we came together over social media.”

McCoy later told The Daily Beast he reached out to the Clinton campaign to obtain press contacts but denied that Clinton staffers had been involved in organizing the event.

Then, reached by phone after the event, McCoy acknowledged that the Clinton campaign organized the conference call bringing together possible attendees to the protest.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

Sorry, Shark, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out how people who claim to hate Big Government, Big Spending, and ill-conceived Social Engineering would line up behind the man who wants to build a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican border.

 

 

How exactly does a wall on the southern border have anything to do with big government? It's supporting nationalism, nothing more. People like me who oppose big government support Trump because of his ideas to cut many of the over-reaching aspects of our government, and as a former educator who has seen how our educational system works first-hand, he is going to get rid of arbitrary testing and bring educational decisions to the state and local levels, which is how it SHOULD be.

 

 

Building a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican Border would be a massive undertaking by the federal government, not merely the construction but the maintenance and administration, and regardless of what Trump says in his stump speech, the cost would be footed by the American taxpayer. The purpose of the wall is the very definition of federal government over-reach, a wildly expensive and inefficient response to an issue way down the list of what America needs most at this time.

 

It's a fact that the federal government has ballooned under Republican administrations despite their "small government" claims, and Trump sounds no different. Under the guise of patriotism, they are huge spenders, social engineers and wealth redistributors, merely funneling taxpayer money to their own colleagues, donors and agenda.

 

Now who is this "former educator" you're speaking about, who has seen our education system first-hand? Did you mean you, or Trump?

[Guy Chamberlin]

The media hasn't "done their job" in decades, mostly because of the decimation of print journalism and the consolidation of broadcast media, where news divisions were slashed because legitimate news gathering was slow and expensive and unable to return the investment. News divisions used to be considered prestigious, and the old school media barons allowed them to be loss leaders out of noble duty. It was very elitist in its way, but it was also highly professional. Reporters and their magazines/newspapers/networks may have had their leanings, but the reporting itself had to be solid.

 

Not really sure what we have today. It's not good enough to say "there are two sides to every story" because chances are the sides aren't equal. Someone is lying slightly more than the other. A little digging and some editorial courage and you can figure it out.

 

Also, there are generally way more than two sides to every story, but somewhere along the way anything political was shoved into a binary system.

 

The Annenberg Foundation sponsors FactCheck.org. They're pretty good at objective research and apolitical mythbusting, but you're obliged to believe them even when they tell you things you don't want to hear.

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

 

Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation.

 

What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of?

 

I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification.

 

Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong."

 

Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development."

 

France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president.

In an interview published by a Mexican newspaper, President Enrique Pena Nieto compared Trump's "strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" to big problems to the rhetoric of the world's most notorious dictators.

"That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived," Pena Nieto said.

There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate?

 

As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack.

 

They are scared of the economic part because the trade deals will be reworked and therefore they won't be making the $$$$ off of us as our failed trade agreements such as NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP have done nothing but send our jobs overseas and allow other countries and the companies to get even fatter due to having to pay low wages vs what they will have to pay here. Not to mention they don't have to pay Tariffs or taxes as long as their HQ's are in the US.

 

France? They are useless and what they think doesn't mean anything to me. Europe as a whole needs to wake up when it comes to radical Muslims as they are seeing firsthand what happens with no background checks.

 

Of course the Mexican president is against it as we are allowing them to keep on taking our money and not making them pay it back, not to mention NAFTA allowed our factories to go into Mexico. Put the wall on top of it, then Mexico has every reason to want to put a Democrat into office so they will keep the status quo.

 

I don't like a lot of what Trump says or how he says it. The statement about having us go kill wives and children of known terrorists is one of the worst things I have ever heard a politician say. I understand the sediment behind it and I agree that we have been fighting the war on terror with one arm tied behind our backs due to political correctness that has ruined this country. Am I for what he said, hell no, but I am also not for what the current administration is doing by trying to close GITMO and freeing known terrorists to go back into the fight to kill Americans. Or putting them in a jail in the US where they would eventually be freed due to a legal loophole. They are POW's and need to be treated as such.

 

What social concerns are you worried about?

[zoogs]

There are a lot of thoughtful, intelligent, and professional pieces articulating contrasting perspectives and preferences in this race, and it isn't really all that hard to find them.

 

The "media isn't doing their job" refrain is an attempt to put noise to all of that.

 

Once you convince people to put everything up in the air, then anything is equally legitimate. If anything, it's an argument to listen to these highly partisan, dubiously credentialed voices on the margins instead of ... you know, the lame stream guys, not that the latter are above critique.

 

With such proliferation of the former, it's not hard to build a broad consensus that the modern media is failing us. But good political discourse has far from vanished. It's just that the same people who will try to convince you it has are the ones trying to push you towards subscribing to empty blather instead.

 

And "[the established _____] was out to get us all along" is such a convenient sop to offer for why a candidate waged a losing campaign. It couldn't possibly have been they just didn't have very much to offer, could it?

[AFhusker]

The media hasn't "done their job" in decades, mostly because of the decimation of print journalism and the consolidation of broadcast media, where news divisions were slashed because legitimate news gathering was slow and expensive and unable to return the investment. News divisions used to be considered prestigious, and the old school media barons allowed them to be loss leaders out of noble duty. It was very elitist in its way, but it was also highly professional. Reporters and their magazines/newspapers/networks may have had their leanings, but the reporting itself had to be solid.

 

Not really sure what we have today. It's not good enough to say "there are two sides to every story" because chances are the sides aren't equal. Someone is lying slightly more than the other. A little digging and some editorial courage and you can figure it out.

 

Also, there are generally way more than two sides to every story, but somewhere along the way anything political was shoved into a binary system.

 

The Annenberg Foundation sponsors FactCheck.org. They're pretty good at objective research and apolitical mythbusting, but you're obliged to believe them even when they tell you things you don't want to hear.

All we have today is total crap on both sides. I guess CNN is the closest to the middle? I can't watch Fox or MSNBC as they are so agenda oriented that I can see why people get brainwashed by one or the other.

[Moiraine]

 

So, I guess you support this ruling and have plenty of good reasons why it is necessary. I would be most interested to know how you think hormonal teenage boys will not abuse this open invitation to enter girls bathrooms and locker rooms. Please share.......the reasons and/or whatever it is you may be smoking.

 

 

 

Here's 1 reason JJ. Any boy who goes into a girl's locker room will be considered to be a transgender female. How many hormonal teenage boys want people to think they're transgender females? Probably only the ones who really feel the conviction that it's what they are, and they aren't there to ogle girls.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm honestly curious: for the people who think Obama has been a disaster, what exactly did he do that prevented you from your own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

 

The question at this point is typically "are we better off than we were 8 years ago" and the answer is yes, of course, no question about it. And with genuine collaboration and debate rather than mere obstructionism, it could have been better.

 

The things going wrong with America are many years in the making, involve the exponential growth of income disparity and have been fed by both parties.

 

But it seems pretty clear to me the last thing we need right now is a thin-skinned billionaire who wants to take America back to a time that didn't exist.

He mandated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS be forced into having gender neutral LOCKER ROOMS. While that doesn't affect me. It affects my neices, and my potential future daughters.

 

If schools don't comply then federal funding goes out the window? This has gone from absurd to just down right biased and stupid

 

Can you give us a link to this? I googled it and came up with a transgender issue where he said transgender kids should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

 

I'm not coming up with where he directed schools that it should just be a free for all with one big locker room with both boys and girls basketball teams changing together and using the same showers.

 

LINK

 

Locker Rooms are bathrooms. No one is requiring a check on if the person is "transgendered" or not. It's all about what they feel like they are. You know this BRB.

 

So who's going to be the ones that say..."hey you can use the bathroom, but not the locker room."?

 

So, you really view this as just one big free for all orgy in the locker rooms from now on.

 

No but there already have been issues with the bathrooms at places that are "non discriminatory".

 

There was an 8 year old girl that was strangled in the non discriminatory restroom. But because no one can question where anyone goes to the restroom we can't stop these incidents before they begin. (Cue the "her mom should have gone in with her...that's neglect" BS)

 

If you don't think there are going to be problems with the public schools being forced to do this, then you aren't as intelligent as I once thought. For the record, why does everyone defending this stuff say things like what you said above? Does it have to be an incident all the time for it to be considered ridiculous to be mandated?

 

Here's the story of the 8 year old. May 13th, 2016

 

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending-now/man-accused-of-choking-8yearold-girl-in-public-bathroom/281054107

 

 

People got kidnapped from and raped in bathrooms before North Carolina ever passed their law which started this story. At the moment, I fall on the side of thinking kidnappers and rapists will find a way and this probably won't exacerbate the problem.

[zoogs]

With the marriage equality movement came concerns about all these same-sex non couples who get married to exploit the new laws -- or more accurately, protections. And people were going to marry toasters, dogs, and pizzas, too! (I think someone actually did marry a pizza). Where will the madness end?

Play it safe and guard against these clever exploits, or affirm basic personhood for everyone? Hm...

[mrandyk]

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818964/trump-judge-university-mexican

 

Trump University is on trial for fraud. Whether he legally swindled large sums from vulnerable people or not, Trump's likely to be called to testify.

 

As is his way, and the way of his parroting supporters, he's reflexively gone ad hominem to try and dismiss and discredit a threat. In this case that's a federal judge, and the threat is that a trial he stands a chance of losing might go forward.

 

Leaving aside policy altogether, this November is a straightforward referendum on norms. What kind of norms would you like to see prevail? Sanity, or Turkey?

 

How nice that Trump and his campaign have nakedly made clear what it is they stand for. Let's see what you got, America.

It's Hillary that should be in prison though. Don't forget that, otherwise you'll be biased too.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

 

Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation.

 

What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of?

 

I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification.

 

Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong."

 

Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development."

 

France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president.

In an interview published by a Mexican newspaper, President Enrique Pena Nieto compared Trump's "strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" to big problems to the rhetoric of the world's most notorious dictators.

"That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived," Pena Nieto said.

There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate?

 

As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack.

 

I didn't read the article you linked but I searched it for background checks. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Trump stated he wants Muslims banned from the country and their places of worship monitored. This is a lot different than doing background checks. People arriving here from most countries are already screened and I guarantee that those from predominantly Muslim countries were already screened more thoroughly before this was ever a conversation.