Adam Schiff

[LafayetteBear]

not sure how mature that respone is.....

First, my post was of a similar tenor to the post to which I responded. If he wants to hand it out, he should be prepared to receive it back.

Second, I believe the facts, once they come out, will prove my supposition to be correct. What do you think Cheeto was talking about when he wished Epstein more "wonderful secrets?" Why would they need to be secret?

 

[Allornothing]

... said your Orange Guru, to more than one 14 year-old girl.

And you have the proof ******it/BOY/bear? you have the proof, ? "to more than one 14 year-old girl." ****. It's worse than I thought. He's a serial rapist because he did this more than once.

Shat! Why didn't you tell us this a decade ago, because you have the proof right? You single-handedly could have saved this country millions of dollars in litigation.

I mean, I don't have any proof or evidence that you are a racist/pedo, but what the ****. Let's just say it. I mean we all have a mouth. I always thought BC was a rapist (with more than one accuser), and BHO was married to a dude. Yet all this time you had the receipts. I should have come on you (edited to say, to you) earlier.

At what inch level/girth is a **** too big for you to swallow? I don't have any proof either, but I have a mouth just like you do. Let's just say **** together.

I wish it was possible for people like me to sue your dumb *** for defamation of other people because you wouldn't have enough money to live in your mom's basement.

******* ******.

 

[LafayetteBear]

U mad, bro? ROFL.

Unless you are a pedophile yourself (which is at least a possibility, given your unstinting support for Donald Trump), consider how upset you will be if the Epstein files are released in full and evidence surfaces that your Orange Master was a serial rapist (statutory, if we allow the possibility that these young woman gave their "consent") of teenage girls? Answer me this: why do you suppose that your Orange Master is so strongly opposed to the release of the Epstein files?

Here's a photo of Allornothing saying hello to his Orange Master. ("Master! Master! It's me, Master!")

 

[baltimorened]

U mad, bro? ROFL.

Unless you are a pedophile yourself (which is at least a possibility, given your unstinting support for Donald Trump), consider how upset you will be if the Epstein files are released in full and evidence surfaces that your Orange Master was a serial rapist (statutory, if we allow the possibility that these young woman gave their "consent") of teenage girls? Answer me this: why do you suppose that your Orange Master is so strongly opposed to the release of the Epstein files?

Here's a photo of Allornothing saying hello to his Orange Master. ("Master! Master! It's me, Master!")

more info on the original topic of this thread..Adam Schiff......from a new article foxnew.com...so take it however you want.

Schiff's tale goes back to 2003 or so,
It was referred to DoJ by US Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Apparently Schiff claimed Maryland as his primary residence multiple times while refinancing
He also claimed a homeowners tax exemption on his Burbank home claiming it as his primary residence which saved him $$thousands in taxes.

Again, for what it's worth.

 

[LafayetteBear]

He also claimed a homeowners tax exemption on his Burbank home claiming it as his primary residence which saved him $$thousands in taxes.

Again, for what it's worth.

It's not worth much, Ned. I live in California and pay real property taxes here, so I am familiar with California's property tax laws, including the California "Homeowners Exemption." That exemption (set forth in Section 218 of the California Revenue & Taxation Code, allows the owner of a parcel of real property used as the owner's principal residence to claim a $7,000 reduction in the assessed value of that property for real property tax purposes.

But keep in mind that, because California real property taxes are computed by multiplying a property's assessed value by the applicable tax rate (which is typically one percent (1%) but can be slightly higher if voters in the city or county where the property is located have passed local bond measures for schools, etc.), the annual savings from having a Homeowners Exemption in place is approximately $70 (1% x $7,000).

The Homeowner's Exemption does not automatically expire if the property owner moves to a new residence but continues to own the property for which he or she claimed the Homeowner's Exemption. The property owner must affirmatively file to terminate the Exemption. (Of course, if the Owner sells the property to someone else, the Exemption terminates because a new owner is in place and the former owner's obligation to pay real property taxes on that property has ceased in its entirety.)

The bottom line is that Schiff was not saving "$$thousands in taxes" as a result of the Homeowner's Exemption, even if he failed to file to terminate it when he moved into his Maryland property and made it his principal residence., At the rate of $70 per year, it would take him 15 years to save $1,000 in real property taxes via the Homeowner's Exemption. Do you really think he schemed to save $70 per year? My guess is that, if his Homeowner's Exemption was not terminated, it was because he forgot to file the necessary paperwork. That is not unusual. It certainly would not support any kind of prosecution.

 

[LafayetteBear]

no, as I said the complaint about Schiff came from someplace else. Trump simply piled on by posting a Schiff signed document stating the Maryland was his primary residence

Ned: Sorry brother, but your statement is simply not correct. Trump did a whole lot more than simply "posting a Schiff signed document." Read the quotes in the following linked article from Faux News. The quotes are classic Trump. Histrionic and factually challenged. Senators do not have to live in their home state for their entire tenure in office. (That would be difficult to do if they want to represent their constituents in the nation's capital.) They only need live their at the time of their election.

Trump invokes Russia collusion hoax while calling for longtime foe Schiff to face jail time

President Trump floats Sen. Schiff face jail time over alleged mortgage fraud while citing declassified documents about the Russia collusion narrative.

www.foxnews.com

 

[LafayetteBear]

If I'm reading you correctly, you have a real problem with politicians who lie?

LOL.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Speaking of plummeting approval ratings ...

Opinion | The most striking thing about Trump's plummeting approval ratings

Trump ran on immigration and the economy. Polls show most Americans don't like how either are going.

www.msnbc.com

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I just can’t imagine actually caring about this

 

[baltimorened]

Ned: Sorry brother, but your statement is simply not correct. Trump did a whole lot more than simply "posting a Schiff signed document." Read the quotes in the following linked article from Faux News. The quotes are classic Trump. Histrionic and factually challenged. Senators do not have to live in their home state for their entire tenure in office. (That would be difficult to do if they want to represent their constituents in the nation's capital.) They only need live their at the time of their election.

Trump invokes Russia collusion hoax while calling for longtime foe Schiff to face jail time

President Trump floats Sen. Schiff face jail time over alleged mortgage fraud while citing declassified documents about the Russia collusion narrative.

www.foxnews.com

no, you misunderstood. My statement was in response to someone posting that Trump initiated the Schiff thing. My point was the he just piled on, he didn't initiate it. The article you referenced was the piling on

 

[baltimorened]

It's not worth much, Ned. I live in California and pay real property taxes here, so I am familiar with California's property tax laws, including the California "Homeowners Exemption." That exemption (set forth in Section 218 of the California Revenue & Taxation Code, allows the owner of a parcel of real property used as the owner's principal residence to claim a $7,000 reduction in the assessed value of that property for real property tax purposes.

But keep in mind that, because California real property taxes are computed by multiplying a property's assessed value by the applicable tax rate (which is typically one percent (1%) but can be slightly higher if voters in the city or county where the property is located pass have passed local bond measures for schools, etc.), the annual savings from having a Homeowners Exemption in place is approximately $70 (1% x $7,000).

The Homeowner's Exemption does not automatically expire if the property owner moves to a new residence but continues to own the property for which he or she claimed the Homeowner's Exemption. The property owner must affirmatively file to terminate the Exemption. (Of course, if the Owner sells the property to someone else, the Exemption terminates because a new owner is in place and the former owner's obligation to pay real property taxes on that property has ceased in its entirety.)

The bottom line is that Schiff was not saving "$$thousands in taxes" as a result of the Homeowner's Exemption, even if he failed to file to terminate it when he moved into his Maryland property and made it his principal residence., At the rate of $70 per year, it would take him 15 years to save $1,000 in real property taxes via the Homeowner's Exemption. Do you really think he schemed to save $70 per year? My guess is that, if his Homeowner's Exemption was not terminated, it was because he forgot to file the necessary paperwork. That is not unusual. It certainly would not support any kind of prosecution.

aw, come on just a couple of days in Jail for Schiff?

Still waiting for the two undeniable instances of Trump colluding with Russia!

 

[TigerGrowls]

Speaking of plummeting approval ratings ...

Opinion | The most striking thing about Trump's plummeting approval ratings

Trump ran on immigration and the economy. Polls show most Americans don't like how either are going.

www.msnbc.com

FAKE NEWS!!! Matt Towery at Insider Advantage has been consistently correct the last 10 years and he says Trump is still over 50 percent net approval currently.

 

[dpic73]

FAKE NEWS!!! Matt Towery at Insider Advantage has been consistently correct the last 10 years and he says Trump is still over 50 percent net approval currently.

The PollTracker in the Cook Political Report begs to differ - Bigly!

https://www.cookpolitical.com/survey-research/cpr-polltracker/trump-trendlines

 

[TigerGrowls]

The PollTracker in the Cook Political Report begs to differ - Bigly!

View attachment 857550

https://www.cookpolitical.com/survey-research/cpr-polltracker/trump-trendlines

I am not worried at all. Trump is keeping promises and making America great again. Nuff said.

 

[fatpiggy]

Speaking of plummeting approval ratings ...

Opinion | The most striking thing about Trump's plummeting approval ratings

Trump ran on immigration and the economy. Polls show most Americans don't like how either are going.

www.msnbc.com

yeah the democrats have no guiding light. No policy ideas. No leadership.

Democrats need a leader and someone with policy ideas on how to help the American people.

 

[LafayetteBear]

yeah the democrats have no guiding light. No policy ideas. No leadership.

Democrats need a leader and someone with policy ideas on how to help the American people.

I actually agree with you on this. There is no single person on the Democratic side of the aisle who has distanced himself (or herself) from the rest in terms of securing the 2028 nomination for president. It is still quite a way off, however.

I would note that no matter which Democratic name I propose, you would immediately tell us how unsuitable he or she is, and come up with a litany of criticism for that person. But then again, you are likely supportive of JD Vance for the 2028 GOP nomination, so your credibility on this subject is already highly suspect.

 

[baltimorened]

I actually agree with you on this. There is no single person on the Democratic side of the aisle who has distanced himself (or herself) from the rest in terms of securing the 2028 nomination for president. It is still quite a way off, however.

I would note that no matter which Democratic name I propose, you would immediately tell us how unsuitable he or she is, and come up with a litany of criticism for that person. But then again, you are likely supportive of JD Vance for the 2028 GOP nomination, so your credibility on this subject is already highly suspect.

to me, democrats have to come up with a platform the american people will accept. I just saw an articles where sen kelly said democrats have a messaging problem. I disagree. The Democrats don't have policies in sync with what Americans want. Dems are still pushing for illegal immigrants, boys in girls sports, tax billionaires (which might be a good seller but they've been beating that horse for at least a decade with zero results), increased taxes, increased spending, antisemitism (don't know how they let that happen), socialism (they'll support him in NY).

Trump has done an excellent job in stealing a lot of what used to be democrat basics. I'm not predicting they can't or won't recover but right now they don't have anybody that makes me believe in their future.

 

[LafayetteBear]

to me, democrats have to come up with a platform the american people will accept. I just saw an articles where sen kelly said democrats have a messaging problem. I disagree. The Democrats don't have policies in sync with what Americans want. Dems are still pushing for illegal immigrants, boys in girls sports, tax billionaires (which might be a good seller but they've been beating that horse for at least a decade with zero results), increased taxes, increased spending, antisemitism (don't know how they let that happen), socialism (they'll support him in NY).

Trump has done an excellent job in stealing a lot of what used to be democrat basics. I'm not predicting they can't or won't recover but right now they don't have anybody that makes me believe in their future.

I'm not concerned, even a little, about the issue of "boys in girls sports." And it is trans girls in girls sports, not boys in girls sports. It just happens to be an issue on which we will have to agree to disagree, but I remain amused how triggered Republicans get over it. It's as if it is the biggest problem facing this country, when I would put it at around, say, 1,043rd in terms of its importance.

I would also like to impose more taxes on billionaires, and hire a bunch more IRS folks to go after the rich tax cheats. And don't kid yourself; there are a ton of them. Those IRS employees would collect FAR more than what they are being paid, and the deterrent effect of holding tax cheats accountable is worth a whole lot in a system which relies on voluntary adherence to the filing of income tax returns and payment of income taxes. (Sure, there are penalties for late filing/payment and non-filing/payment, but the system still relies on citizens taking the initiative to file and pay.)

Antisemitism certainly exists, but I don't equate objecting to Netanyahu's draconian policies and actions in Gaza with antisemitism. It takes a lot of ignorance to do that. In case you had not heard, there is mass starvation going on right now in Gaza. Food aid needs to be delivered immediately, or tens of thousands will die. Allowing that to happen is not wise or humane foreign policy,

I am not "pushing for illegal immigrants," but Trump's policy of mass deportations without due process, and carried out by non-uniformed, masked goons accosting people on the streets and hauling them off in unmarked vans is WAY beyond the pale. In case you were unaware, roughly 62% of American presently object to Trump's immigration and deportation policies.

 

[fatpiggy]

I'm not concerned, even a little, about the issue of "boys in girls sports." And it is trans girls in girls sports, not boys in girls sports. It just happens to be an issue on which we will have to agree to disagree, but I remain amused how triggered Republicans get over it. It's as if it is the biggest problem facing this country, when I would put it at around, say, 1,043rd in terms of its importance.

I would also like to impose more taxes on billionaires, and hire a bunch more IRS folks to go after the rich tax cheats. And don't kid yourself; there are a ton of them. Those IRS employees would collect FAR more than what they are being paid, and the deterrent effect of holding tax cheats accountable is worth a whole lot in a system which relies on voluntary adherence to the filing of income tax returns and payment of income taxes. (Sure, there are penalties for late filing/payment and non-filing/payment, but the system still relies on citizens taking the initiative to file and pay.)

Antisemitism certainly exists, but I don't equate objecting to Netanyahu's draconian policies and actions in Gaza with antisemitism. It takes a lot of ignorance to do that. In case you had not heard, there is mass starvation going on right now in Gaza. Food aid needs to be delivered immediately, or tens of thousands will die. Allowing that to happen is not wise or humane foreign policy,

I am not "pushing for illegal immigrants," but Trump's policy of mass deportations without due process, and carried out by non-uniformed, masked goons hauling accosting people on the streets and hauling them off in unmarked cars is WAY beyond the pale. In case you were unaware, roughly 62% of American presently object to Trump's immigration and deportation policies.

The trans issue goes far beyond just the trannies.

It’s about reality. If you can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman then why should we trust that you have good judgment in other areas?

If you can’t tell that men are stronger than women and it’s unfair for them to compete against each other then you lack the judgement to be a leader.

The trans issue is a big stain on the Democrat party.

And trans “women” are men. There are no other exceptions to that statement. Trans should be treated as a mental illness, akin to anorexia. No one ever tells an anorexic person they look good. That is not compassion.

 

[LafayetteBear]

The trans issue goes far beyond just the trannies.

It’s about reality. If you can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman then why should we trust that you have good judgment in other areas?

If you can’t tell that men are stronger than women and it’s unfair for them to compete against each other then you lack the judgement to be a leader.

The trans issue is a big stain on the Democrat party.

And trans “women” are men. There are no other exceptions to that statement. Trans should be treated as a mental illness, akin to anorexia. No one ever tells an anorexic person they look good. That is not compassion.

Exhibit A ^^^^ as to why:

1. You should never be allowed to procreate.
2. You should not be allowed out in public.
3. You are the comedic entertainment here.

 

[baltimorened]

I'm not concerned, even a little, about the issue of "boys in girls sports." And it is trans girls in girls sports, not boys in girls sports. It just happens to be an issue on which we will have to agree to disagree, but I remain amused how triggered Republicans get over it. It's as if it is the biggest problem facing this country, when I would put it at around, say, 1,043rd in terms of its importance.

I would also like to impose more taxes on billionaires, and hire a bunch more IRS folks to go after the rich tax cheats. And don't kid yourself; there are a ton of them. Those IRS employees would collect FAR more than what they are being paid, and the deterrent effect of holding tax cheats accountable is worth a whole lot in a system which relies on voluntary adherence to the filing of income tax returns and payment of income taxes. (Sure, there are penalties for late filing/payment and non-filing/payment, but the system still relies on citizens taking the initiative to file and pay.)

Antisemitism certainly exists, but I don't equate objecting to Netanyahu's draconian policies and actions in Gaza with antisemitism. It takes a lot of ignorance to do that. In case you had not heard, there is mass starvation going on right now in Gaza. Food aid needs to be delivered immediately, or tens of thousands will die. Allowing that to happen is not wise or humane foreign policy,

I am not "pushing for illegal immigrants," but Trump's policy of mass deportations without due process, and carried out by non-uniformed, masked goons accosting people on the streets and hauling them off in unmarked vans is WAY beyond the pale. In case you were unaware, roughly 62% of American presently object to Trump's immigration and deportation policies.

you and I have had many very good conversations over the years on the other site. I don't take issue with your perspective on any of these topics. My only point was that right now, IMO democrats don't have someone who can steal back the issues that used to be theirs.
If you talk to democrats, and I do as I'm sure you do also, very few are for the issues mentioned = transgenders, illegal migrants, antisemitism - but when they go into the voting booth they pull"D". And, republicans are no better. I'd wager that a large % of Trump voters would rather have voted for someone else, but given the options he was the lesser of two evils. And, again IMO, there have been too many elections that have come down to that. Democrats should have won in 2016 and 2024 but they had crummy candidates.

Tax billionaires, great idea. How do we do that? There are less than a handful of Americans who make $1billion/year (if any). And, we don't have a wealth tax, and there have been numerous debates about whether a wealth tax is even constitutional. I'd be all for a "surcharge" on incomes over a certain level - maybe $10million or so - as we've done that before- as long as the money went for deficit reduction. I don't think we'd get a majority of democrats to vote for a wealth tax...I might be wrong!

Now you would know, but I read that those that are in the country illegally are not entitled to free legal counsel (a state might provide funding). True?? They can have a day in front of an immigration judge but on their dime. I'm all for due process, but, if you're in the country illegally, then you're in the country illegally. Something like 95% of asylum cases are denied, so that says something.
I've lived overseas and I am empathetic to the desire for folks to come to the US. But, we're $37 trillion in debt, adding another $3trillion over the next 10 years (bet it's more), and borrowing money to house, feed, educate, and provide medical care for people who aren't supposed to be here . And yet aren't providing sufficiently for some of our own citizens.

 

[baltimorened]

Exhibit A ^^^^ as to why:

1. You should never be allowed to procreate.
2. You should not be allowed out in public.
3. You are the comedic entertainment here.

you should note, there does seem to be cracks forming in democrats position on trans in girls sports. We know that Newson has already declared it as unfair, and I just saw today that another 2028 potential candidate - Buttegieg -used the same word "unfair" when talking about biological males in women's sports. This might not be a big issue out there in California, but there are a lot of people with young girls in sports who will vote that issue.

 

[yoshi121374]

you should note, there does seem to be cracks forming in democrats position on trans in girls sports. We know that Newson has already declared it as unfair, and I just saw today that another 2028 potential candidate - Buttegieg -used the same word "unfair" when talking about biological males in women's sports. This might not be a big issue out there in California, but there are a lot of people with young girls in sports who will vote that issue.

I agree with you on this topic. I also think one of the challenges with the current Democratic Platform is that many of the positions require an ability to understand nuance. If we have learned anything recently, it's that simple slogans and ideas work better today. I've gotten incredibly frustrated in the seeming move towards Idiocracy that we have seen in America.

I agree that Democrats need a candidate who can move more to the center. I actually really like Pete Buttigieg, but I don't know if America is ready for an openly gay president. I really like his ability to discuss topics in a clear and concise manner, he's also one of the few Dems who can go on conservative podcasts and not just hold his own but win people over.

 

[dpic73]

I agree with you on this topic. I also think one of the challenges with the current Democratic Platform is that many of the positions require an ability to understand nuance. If we have learned anything recently, it's that simple slogans and ideas work better today. I've gotten incredibly frustrated in the seeming move towards Idiocracy that we have seen in America.

I agree that Democrats need a candidate who can move more to the center. I actually really like Pete Buttigieg, but I don't know if America is ready for an openly gay president. I really like his ability to discuss topics in a clear and concise manner, he's also one of the few Dems who can go on conservative podcasts and not just hold his own but win people over.

Not sure I like the order here and I don't want to take a chance on running a female again but interesting results.

 

[LafayetteBear]

See my comments in orange type. (It's a Clemson Tigers board, after all.

you and I have had many very good conversations over the years on the other site. Yes, but it's bugging me just a bit that I haven't as yet figured out what your PSU posting handle was. I may end up asking you to PM me with it! I don't take issue with your perspective on any of these topics. My only point was that right now, IMO democrats don't have someone who can steal back the issues that used to be theirs. True dat. Buttigieg is perhaps the most articulate of the Demos who have put themselves forward as candidates for the nomination, but I don't see a gay candidate getting the nomination, much less winning a general election. That may change in 30 years, but I don't see that happening today. Schiff is actually brilliant, but his stint managing the House impeachment proceedings against Trump has stamped him as too partisan for Republicans to stomach. I actually like Delaware Senator Chris Coons quite a bit. He's smart and he's very good at cultivating and maintaining relationships with Senators of both parties, but he has not, to my knowledge, expressed any interest in the presidency. Newsom has his flaws, but he is the most likely candidate at this point. But a whole lot can change between now and 2028. If you talk to democrats, and I do as I'm sure you do also, very few are for the issues mentioned = transgenders, illegal migrants, antisemitism - but when they go into the voting booth they pull"D". And, republicans are no better. I'd wager that a large % of Trump voters would rather have voted for someone else, but given the options he was the lesser of two evils. And, again IMO, there have been too many elections that have come down to that. Democrats should have won in 2016 and 2024 but they had crummy candidates. A lot of American voters are uniformly tribal in their voting habits. That has ossified over the last couple of decades as the party platforms have diverged much more than they used to. I voted for Reagan in 1984 and Bush Sr. in 1988. And I have voted for some Republicans (e.g., Schwarzenegger and Hayakawa) )in state and local elections. But I don't see myself pulling the lever for a Republican while that party is lined up behind Trump in such monolithic fashion. There is no legislative check and balance on Trump at all right now. The GOP caucuses in the House and Senate do whatever he tells them to do. But that will change at some point.

Tax billionaires, great idea. How do we do that? There are less than a handful of Americans who make $1billion/year (if any). I define a billionaire as someone who has at least $1 billion in assets. If they have that amount of assets, trust me, they have a whole lot of income, too. And, we don't have a wealth tax, and there have been numerous debates about whether a wealth tax is even constitutional. I'd be all for a "surcharge" on incomes over a certain level - maybe $10million or so - as we've done that before- as long as the money went for deficit reduction. I don't think we'd get a majority of democrats to vote for a wealth tax...I might be wrong!

Now you would know, but I read that those that are in the country illegally are not entitled to free legal counsel (a state might provide funding). True?? I'm not aware of any blanket rule prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving free legal counsel. But they are most likely to get it from some NGO, not the government itself. there are plenty of lawyers and legal organizations that provide legal services on a pro bono basis. Most county bar associations do this. I have volunteered with a couple of them. They can have a day in front of an immigration judge but on their dime. Immigrants generally arrive here in the U.S. with little in the way of assets, but they are typically able to get legal representation on a pro bono basis from one of more volunteer legal service organizations. (How about that! Lawyers volunteering their services!) I'm all for due process, but, if you're in the country illegally, then you're in the country illegally. Something like 95% of asylum cases are denied, so that says something.
I've lived overseas and I am empathetic to the desire for folks to come to the US. But, we're $37 trillion in debt, adding another $3trillion over the next 10 years (bet it's more), and borrowing money to house, feed, educate, and provide medical care for people who aren't supposed to be here . And yet aren't providing sufficiently for some of our own citizens. I understand your position.

 

[LafayetteBear]

you should note, there does seem to be cracks forming in democrats position on trans in girls sports. We know that Newson has already declared it as unfair, and I just saw today that another 2028 potential candidate - Buttegieg -used the same word "unfair" when talking about biological males in women's sports. This might not be a big issue out there in California, but there are a lot of people with young girls in sports who will vote that issue.

In truth, I am not as inflexible on this issue as you might have thought. I believe it is fair to say to a trans woman (i.e., a person born male, who has transitioned to female) that she cannot compete against females if the sport is an individual sport and the participant in question has a meaningful physical advantage and that advantage has manifested itself in prior competitions. The Penn swimmer is a good example.

But there are also cases where a male has transitioned to female, wants to participate in a sport as a member of a women's team (usually to try and fit in a bit more as a female), and that trans woman poses no competitive threat to anyone. In a case like THAT, I see no reason why the trans woman should not just be allowed but invited to participate. A bit of empathy and kindness goes a long way.

What I suppose I am saying is that I do not believe a single hard and fast rule is appropriate in all cases. I also continue to find it amusing that Republicans are so easily triggered by this issue, and continue to harp on it as if it is one of the biggest problems facing this country, when it clearly is not. Less than 1/1oth of 1% of the population is trans.

 

[baltimorened]

I agree with you on this topic. I also think one of the challenges with the current Democratic Platform is that many of the positions require an ability to understand nuance. If we have learned anything recently, it's that simple slogans and ideas work better today. I've gotten incredibly frustrated in the seeming move towards Idiocracy that we have seen in America.

I agree that Democrats need a candidate who can move more to the center. I actually really like Pete Buttigieg, but I don't know if America is ready for an openly gay president. I really like his ability to discuss topics in a clear and concise manner, he's also one of the few Dems who can go on conservative podcasts and not just hold his own but win people over.

the issue for me with Buttegieg is competence. I was really turned off by his fake bike riding to work. He left the FAA in really bad shape both in personnel shortages and antiquated equipment. I agree he comes across as charismatic, but he'd have some selling to do to get over his "racist roads", inability to get EV chargers out. I'm just not sold on him.

 

[yoshi121374]

the issue for me with Buttegieg is competence. I was really turned off by his fake bike riding to work. He left the FAA in really bad shape both in personnel shortages and antiquated equipment. I agree he comes across as charismatic, but he'd have some selling to do to get over his "racist roads", inability to get EV chargers out. I'm just not sold on him.

I agree to some degree, but if Trump has taught us anything, it's that voters don't really seem to care about facts.

I would say the FAA stuff is a collective issue with the government. I would suggest that the current admins method of firing everyone doesn't seem like a smart way to address shortages on the FAA.

 

[baltimorened]

In truth, I am not as inflexible on this issue as you might have thought. I believe it is fair to say to a trans woman (i.e., a person born male, who has transitioned to female) that she cannot compete against females if the sport is an individual sport and the participant in question has a meaningful physical advantage and that advantage has manifested itself in prior competitions. The Penn swimmer is a good example.

But there are also cases where a male has transitioned to female, wants to participate in a sport as a member of a women's team (usually to try and fit in a bit more as a female), and that trans woman poses no competitive threat to anyone. In a case like THAT, I see no reason why the trans woman should not just be allowed but invited to participate. A bit of empathy and kindness goes a long way.

What I suppose I am saying is that I do not believe a single hard and fast rule is appropriate in all cases. I also continue to find it amusing that Republicans are so easily triggered by this issue, and continue to harp on it as if it is one of the biggest problems facing this country, when it clearly is not. Less than 1/1oth of 1% of the population is trans.

First of all, if you go back to blue white and figure who was the most reasonable conservative to post there, you'll know my old moniker right away. Plus, who was the only conservative to ever agree on any of your positions?

I agree that there should be some method of case by case determination in such cases. But we're not programmed that way. In our system, currently, it's a one size fits all which reasonable people recognize might be easier but not necessarily right.

Same argument about folks kicked off Medicaid for some meaningless reason when a common sense analysis would determine that the ruling is inappropriate.

I do think it's a 50-50 triggering between Democrats and republicans. IMO, once Trump came out with his executive order it was a perfect "off ramp" for democrat governors to just accept the ruling and take a "just following orders" approach. But for some reason some still view the transgender thing as a winner politically. I feel for a transgender trying to fit in. We shouldn't be making them pawns in a political debate

 

[baltimorened]

I agree to some degree, but if Trump has taught us anything, it's that voters don't really seem to care about facts.

I would say the FAA stuff is a collective issue with the government. I would suggest that the current admins method of firing everyone doesn't seem like a smart way to address shortages on the FAA.

I agree to a point. There are people at the FAA and then there are people at the FAA. What I mean is that they need controllers right now. The current administration was left with a significant shortage. And, I'm not blaming the previous administration entirely. I'm sure there are multiple reasons. But, the last administration seemingly didn't take aggressive steps to fill the training slots because, according to reports - which may or may not be accurate - the administrative added so many DEI requirements that "qualified" applicants couldn't be found.

It was the same with the internet to everybody bill - can't remember exactly the name. Last I heard, after three years not a single customer had been connected (I haven't been following closely so that data might be OBE). And the reason, again according to reports, is that the government could not find enough contractors who met the DEI requirements.

To your first point...American voters are not very politically astute. Most of us really don't understand the facts behind the issues. Democrats go into the voting booth and Pull "D", republicans pull the "R" regardless of their knowledge of what their candidate stands for. Just look at this board. You can pick out after a couple of days those that lean "D", those who are hard "D", the moderates in the middle: same for the "R"s. And, if you take this all the way back to the primaries, for both parties it's even worse. How could reasonable people pick these candidates? I've said this before and I'll use Bernie Sanders as an example - and it goes both ways, not picking on Bernie - He is a stated socialist. He would lead the country in a socialist direction. He was the leader in the 2020 democrat primary until the party decided to "do him in" in favor of Biden. Yet, if you asked the primary voters if they were for or against socialism in the US, the vast majority would have said "NO". Yet, they went to the primary voting booth and pulled the lever for "Bernie". How does that make sense? Again, Republicans do the same thing. Just look at 2016 and 2024 primaries.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I agree to a point. There are people at the FAA and then there are people at the FAA. What I mean is that they need controllers right now. The current administration was left with a significant shortage. And, I'm not blaming the previous administration entirely.

I sure hope you aren't blaming the Biden Administration "entirely" for the shortage of air traffic controllers, given that Trump/Musk summarily fired a bunch of them right after Trump took office. Then, after realizing those firings were a blunder, Trump had to go out looking for the fired controllers and offer to re-hire them. I'm not sure how many elected to re-up., but it certainly was not all of them.

 

[LafayetteBear]

First of all, if you go back to blue white and figure who was the most reasonable conservative to post there, you'll know my old moniker right away. Plus, who was the only conservative to ever agree on any of your positions?

I'm thinking Ros.

 

[baltimorened]

I sure hope you aren't blaming the Biden Administration "entirely" for the shortage of air traffic controllers, given that Trump/Musk summarily fired a bunch of them right after Trump took office. Then, after realizing those firings were a blunder, Trump had to go out looking for the fired controllers and offer to re-hire them. I'm not sure how many elected to re-up., but it certainly was not all of them.

no not all Bidens/Buttegieg, but they certainly played a role. I used to work for a company that was a major player in the radar/FAA game. We were pitching upgrades to the system as far back as 2007. The problem, or a problem, has been Congress inability to actually fund upgrades that needed to be done. The whole approach has been piecemeal, bandaids.

The lack of controllers has been a disgrace. There are plenty of people that would like jobs like this, the training is difficult and extensive, but pays well and is relatively secure. Air travel isn't going anywhere soon.

 

[baltimorened]

I'm thinking Ros.

not even close . although you did get 2 letters right.

 

[The real m.knox]

And you have the proof ******it/BOY/bear? you have the proof, ? "to more than one 14 year-old girl." ****. It's worse than I thought. He's a serial rapist because he did this more than once.

Shat! Why didn't you tell us this a decade ago, because you have the proof right? You single-handedly could have saved this country millions of dollars in litigation.

I mean, I don't have any proof or evidence that you are a racist/pedo, but what the ****. Let's just say it. I mean we all have a mouth. I always thought BC was a rapist (with more than one accuser), and BHO was married to a dude. Yet all this time you had the receipts. I should have come on you (edited to say, to you) earlier.

At what inch level/girth is a **** too big for you to swallow? I don't have any proof either, but I have a mouth just like you do. Let's just say **** together.

I wish it was possible for people like me to sue your dumb *** for defamation of other people because you wouldn't have enough money to live in your mom's basement.

******* ******.

LOL... you need to understand lafayettebears track record... It's like zero for ten thousand..... And for over a DECADE.... Let that sink in. A decade of #MUSTGETTRUMP.... lol...

"You will be calling Hillary "Madam President" Wednesday morning."
"MUELLER TIME"
"Michael Avenatti, MAN OF THE YEAR."

After Trump won a SECOND TIME, he disappeared like that Tik Tok lady who bought a bottle of campaign to celebrate Kamala's win, "even Iowa!!!" It's all so embarrassing.

It goes on and on. NOW WE GOT HIM!!!! lmfao.... Dershowitz already said he knows the names because he was Epstein's lawyer, and there are no CURRENT politicians on it. Former? Yup.

 

[The real m.knox]

First of all, if you go back to blue white and figure who was the most reasonable conservative to post there, you'll know my old moniker right away. Plus, who was the only conservative to ever agree on any of your positions?

I agree that there should be some method of case by case determination in such cases. But we're not programmed that way. In our system, currently, it's a one size fits all which reasonable people recognize might be easier but not necessarily right.

Same argument about folks kicked off Medicaid for some meaningless reason when a common sense analysis would determine that the ruling is inappropriate.

I do think it's a 50-50 triggering between Democrats and republicans. IMO, once Trump came out with his executive order it was a perfect "off ramp" for democrat governors to just accept the ruling and take a "just following orders" approach. But for some reason some still view the transgender thing as a winner politically. I feel for a transgender trying to fit in. We shouldn't be making them pawns in a political debate

In my opinion, the most reasonable conservative on the old rivals board was Aardvark, but I don't believe he went "premium."

 

[baltimorened]

In my opinion, the most reasonable conservative on the old rivals board was Aardvark, but I don't believe he went "premium."

boy you guys hurt my feelings. glad to see you over here. I don't know how long you've been here, but you'll find that there are some Slions, fbh1 and pp s here.

 

[The real m.knox]

boy you guys hurt my feelings. glad to see you over here. I don't know how long you've been here, but you'll find that there are some Slions, fbh1 and pp s here.

I'm not good at guessing. Too many to choose from over the years. Heck, some are even dead. Now if the board still existed, I might be able to take your clue and do a little research.... I posted a few times here a couple weeks ago. Agreed, you get the same old same old. TEN YEARS AND COUNTING!

 

[fatpiggy]

Exhibit A ^^^^ as to why:

1. You should never be allowed to procreate.
2. You should not be allowed out in public.
3. You are the comedic entertainment here.

If you defend the trannies you are a sick individual. Get help

 

[fatpiggy]

In truth, I am not as inflexible on this issue as you might have thought. I believe it is fair to say to a trans woman (i.e., a person born male, who has transitioned to female) that she cannot compete against females if the sport is an individual sport and the participant in question has a meaningful physical advantage and that advantage has manifested itself in prior competitions. The Penn swimmer is a good example.

But there are also cases where a male has transitioned to female, wants to participate in a sport as a member of a women's team (usually to try and fit in a bit more as a female), and that trans woman poses no competitive threat to anyone. In a case like THAT, I see no reason why the trans woman should not just be allowed but invited to participate. A bit of empathy and kindness goes a long way.

What I suppose I am saying is that I do not believe a single hard and fast rule is appropriate in all cases. I also continue to find it amusing that Republicans are so easily triggered by this issue, and continue to harp on it as if it is one of the biggest problems facing this country, when it clearly is not. Less than 1/1oth of 1% of the population is trans.

Because trans women aren’t women at all. This is not hard.

There are two sexes and zero genders..


This will always be a losing issue for Dems because trans is morally wrong.


want to be a weirdo? Do it on your own time. Don’t expect regular society to acknowledge your delusions.