I honestly don’t believe that the school’s “right” here is a good faith assertion. The assertion is that they have some need to tell kids what bathroom to use. Why?
Bear in mind here, that part of my perspective here hinges on the fact that this entire argument regarding transgender people is purely a political talking point of the right. And yes, it’s a point of the right, not both sides as you suggested. Because up until recently, no one tried to legislate this stuff. The attempts to legislate this arose ONLY after gays fell out of favor as the number one scapegoat. Thus, I don’t recognize that there is any legitimate need for such legislation, other than as a political football. In contrast, protecting the right of the individuals who are being told what bathroom to use is in fact a legitimate thing, since you are restricting their rights in a manner which was not restricted previously.
This is absurd, because you aren’t observed while using the bathroom. Bathrooms aren’t just big rooms with holes in the floor that we all relieve ourselves into.
Was there a specific ruling declaring his actions in that case to be unconstitutional?
You’re creating a circular argument here. In order to justify the personhood of a fertilized egg, you are using the argument that it has potential. In order to justify potential as metric of personhood, you are using an example of an organism which is already fully established as a person. So that argument is not valid, from a purely logical perspective.
The same counter exists that existed before. An embryo is not a person. The coma victim is. You have not established an equivalence between them.
Oh, without question Putin has always been bad, you will get no argument from me. And I was not a proponent of Obama’s foreign policy. That’s all largely immaterial, since Obama’s actions do not justify Trump’s.
Now you’re changing your argument. It’s fine for you to say that we shouldn’t intervene in Syria, but you were using Syria as an example of Trump being tough on Russia. You can’t say, “Trump opposed Russian actions in Syria!” and then when that’s shown to be the case, just shift to “We shouldn’t intervene in Syria anyway!”
Again dude, whataboutism with Obama doesn’t work on me. Hopefully your quiver’s got other arrows in it.
That being said, this argument is silly on its face, because no one would suggest that Obama’s failure to act in Syria was due to a desire to not piss off Putin. He just didn’t want to get involved in another ground war.
And as I posted above, you can say the same thing about Trump if you want, but then you can’t use it as an example of him being tough on Russia.
No, that’s bullshit, especially from a conservative perspective. That’s just used as a figleaf to handwave away the fact that his actions are indefensible.
The GOP used to at least PRETEND to care about things like character and principles. The idea that you will build half of your policy platform on so-called christian values, while promoting such overtly offensive people such as Trump and Roy Moore (or the other multitudes of GOP candidates who are constantly embroiled in ridiculous scandals of marital infidelity, sexual harrassment, secret gay sex, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Even up until the 2016 election, the primary attacks upon Clinton, even laughably waged BY TRUMP, were essentially ALL character assassination attempts. It was based entirely upon shit that Trump’s administration has now done to a far greater extent. There are already so many cases of various members of this administration getting various personal benefits in exchange to preferential handling of various lobbyists. I guess the shouts of “Pay to play!” only matter prior to election… Or the accusations of corruption within the Clinton foundation, which have actually been demontrably proven, in court now, as being done by the Trump organization. I mean, jesus christ, I could go on for ages with this crap. The list is seemingly never ending. The hypocrisy is unparalleled.
Trump has yet to actually do anything in North Korea. It is possible that these 3 prisoners being released could actually be a positive action, albeit a trivial one from the perspective of actual international policy… but they’re still in NK being conditioned, and until they’re free, I’m not going to count my chickens.
In terms of actual progress with NK? Yeah, forgive me for being supremely skeptical, and thinking that the idea of the US president meeting with the leader of NK, directly, is a bad idea.
What’s funny is that, up until this year, my position was that of the GOP and conservatives. That’s why we criticized Clinton’s actions in NK in the 90’s… and hell, he didn’t even meet with KJU directly. We criticized him for merely having his SecState meet with him. Because it legitimized a meglomaniacal dictator, and it achieved nothing.
If somehow NK actually abandons its crazy leader deification, and becomes a good actor on the international stage? Then I’ll absolutely give Trump credit, although I will certainly be amazed that such random ass actions led to it. But I’m thinking that this is just gonna end the same way that all prior actions with NK have ended. NK gets legitimization, a removal of sanctions, more money and bribes from the international community… and then after a while, just starts acting up again.
In terms of a tax bill, this most recent tax bill is a travesty from the perspective of fiscal conservatism. It totally exploded the deficit, and it has essentially no real benefit. The vast majority of the cut went to people and corporations that simply didn’t need it. The economy was already doing well, so you aren’t going to see any real stimulative effect. And we’re already seeing that most of those corporate gains were simply used to facilitate share buybacks, instead of investment into the workforce.
If corporations were struggling under a tax burden, then such a thing would make sense. But they had massive cash reserves already. They weren’t short on capital to invest. So from a purely economic perspective, the idea that changing their taxes would result in any kind of short term stimulative effect just makes no sense.
But that’s not really the most offensive part… the tax cuts on the ultra wealthy were, again, not useful. Such changes will have no stimulative impact at all. They’re just giving money to folks who already have tons. But the tax cuts on normal people are all going to sunset out of existence later… but the tax cuts on groups that don’t really need them are permanent. So yay?
I would have structured such tax cuts to focus the benefit squarely on middle class people, without the upper class changes, because you could then have cut taxes (more) on folks who would then spend that money on goods, without exploding the national debt. THAT would have been the fiscally conservative move. But that’s not what we got. We got a tax bill that, laughably, specifically targeted the donors and in many cases politicians themselves. And no one cared about paying for it.
As for “gorsuch”, jesus christ dude. This is such a hilariously weak “accomplishment” that the fact that it’s always listed just highlights how non-existent the list of Trump’s accomplishments is. Further, despite being a Republican at the time, intellectual honesty and a sense of fair play forced me to acknowledge that the GOP’s refusal to even perform their constitutional duties and hold confirmation hearings for Obama’s nomination to fill an open seat on the court, was APPALLING. They straight up cheated, and their arguments to try and justify it were mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, and ultimately baseless. And bear in mind here, I’ve defended Gorsuch on these forums, but I will not defend the way that McConnell disgraced himself and the Senate.
Again, cheating used to be something that conservatives opposed. But I guess not any more.