Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.
I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.
read the 14th amendment in full.
This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope. Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.
I believe the one rep alwrted police that mtg may have been of of the reps leading tours on jan 5. if any of those folks seen on footage from jan 5 then entered on jan 6, logical argument is mtg helped them.
logical, but not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt. Was it a scouting mission and was she aware of that? I'm just saying, what we believe and what can be proved are different.
plain language of 14 doesnt make that distinction. so the originalist court would in theory need to rule her out.
would also point out the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a consideration for criminal proceedings but civil realm has a less strict burden to meet.
But there's no definition of what it means to engage in insurrection. So that needs to be litigated. I'm just saying it feels like a high hurdle.
well surely there is a mechanism to stop these fucktards without relying an electorate that is passively ignorant, willfully militant or just trolling for a lark.
I'm no legal scholar, but my best guess is that there is not such a mechanism.
Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.
I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.
read the 14th amendment in full.
This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope. Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.
I believe the one rep alwrted police that mtg may have been of of the reps leading tours on jan 5. if any of those folks seen on footage from jan 5 then entered on jan 6, logical argument is mtg helped them.
logical, but not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt. Was it a scouting mission and was she aware of that? I'm just saying, what we believe and what can be proved are different.
plain language of 14 doesnt make that distinction. so the originalist court would in theory need to rule her out.
would also point out the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a consideration for criminal proceedings but civil realm has a less strict burden to meet.
But there's no definition of what it means to engage in insurrection. So that needs to be litigated. I'm just saying it feels like a high hurdle.
well surely there is a mechanism to stop these fucktards without relying an electorate that is passively ignorant, willfully militant or just trolling for a lark.
I'm no legal scholar, but my best guess is that there is not such a mechanism.
The House can vote to refuse to seat her. I think that's a 2/3 majority, not sure. But that can be for any member, for any reason.
Liberal activists doing their best to sue to disqualify Marj from running for re-election. A similar case was already lost in NC, so this seems likely headed to SCOTUS. I could see Roberts voting with the libs and losing 5-4, so the Court would then confirm that an insurrectionist can run for Congress or even President. Wonder if Roberts feels any culpability letting the extremist horses loose from the barn.
I can’t stand MtG, but I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless someone was convicted of a crime or impeached. If you let courts and politicians decide who can run then that defeats the purpose of an election. Let the people vote. Don’t like her, then put up a better candidate to run against her.
read the 14th amendment in full.
This is a tricky topic because one could argue that most of what Team Trump did was advancing crackpot legal theories that had no chance under a judicial microscope. Only if you could prove that they intentionally organized and unleashed the mob AND MTG was aware and part of that conspiracy, would it be disqualifying.
I believe the one rep alwrted police that mtg may have been of of the reps leading tours on jan 5. if any of those folks seen on footage from jan 5 then entered on jan 6, logical argument is mtg helped them.
logical, but not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt. Was it a scouting mission and was she aware of that? I'm just saying, what we believe and what can be proved are different.
plain language of 14 doesnt make that distinction. so the originalist court would in theory need to rule her out.
would also point out the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a consideration for criminal proceedings but civil realm has a less strict burden to meet.
But there's no definition of what it means to engage in insurrection. So that needs to be litigated. I'm just saying it feels like a high hurdle.
well surely there is a mechanism to stop these fucktards without relying an electorate that is passively ignorant, willfully militant or just trolling for a lark.
I'm no legal scholar, but my best guess is that there is not such a mechanism.
The House can vote to refuse to seat her. I think that's a 2/3 majority, not sure. But that can be for any member, for any reason.
In these divided times that is a pretty high bar that makes it next to impossible to implement.
And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."
They're is know doubt your write on the spelling part.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."
They're is know doubt your write on the spelling part.
You'ah dame write I aim!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."
I don’t think it’s that she or her base likes Putin. But that she’s willing to sacrifice Ukraine so gas will go down 10 cents.
And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."
I don’t think it’s that she or her base likes Putin. But that she’s willing to sacrifice Ukraine so gas will go down 10 cents.
Maybe, but would she say the same thing if there was a war in the Middle East involving Muslims? I don't think you can discount the far right (led by Trump)general affinity for Putin and Russia.
And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."
I don’t think it’s that she or her base likes Putin. But that she’s willing to sacrifice Ukraine so gas will go down 10 cents.
“Grooming” has become the most recent scare tactic of choice for the right. Fox News host Laura Ingraham included a segment on her show last month where she claimed public schools have become “grooming centers” where “sexual brainwashing” takes place. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene recently tweeted that the Democrats are the party of “grooming and transitioning children.” Last week, One America News host Chanel Rion even called President Joe Biden “the groomer-in-chief.”
For the unfamiliar, “grooming” is a term typically reserved to describe the type of behavior that child sexual abusers use to coerce potential victims without being caught. But now some Republicans are using it against any Democrat (or company)1 who disagrees with them on certain policy issues. This is a deliberate tactic that was promoted as early as last summer by Christopher Rufo, the same conservative activist who helped muddle the language around critical race theory. “Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights.
“There is no better moral panic than a moral panic centered on potential harm to children,” said Emily Johnson, a history professor at Ball State University who specializes in U.S. histories of gender and sexuality.
This most recent round of high-profile “grooming” warnings seems to have started in early March, as Democrats attacked Florida’s law limiting what can be taught in schools. Republican defenders turned to “grooming” as a way to push back.
“The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Christina Pushaw, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, tweeted on March 4. “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.”
Except there’s no mention of grooming in the law. Instead, it prohibits “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
So if casting those who oppose this law as “pro-grooming” is not rooted in evidence, what is it rooted in? In part, it’s a dog whistle to the party’s most extreme, conspiracy-minded base. The foundation of the QAnon conspiracy theory is that there is a mass, secret, underground ring of Satanic pedophiles whose members consist of Democratic leaders and Hollywood elites. Painting anyone who opposes Florida’s law (i.e., mainly Democrats) as being pro-grooming fits neatly into that narrative and winks at QAnon adherents without requiring politicians on the right to actually endorse the outlandish theory.
But this rhetoric also harkens back to age-old attacks on the LGBTQ community. Casting LGBTQ people as child predators and their very existence as something inherently sexual was a tactic used by anti-LGBTQ activists since the 1970s in their efforts to stifle or roll back LGBTQ legal protections, according to Marie-Amélie George, a law professor at Wake Forest University who specializes in LGBTQ rights. George said that for a long time, many people believed that being gay was the result of child sexual abuse.
“The religious right really modernized and repackaged that claim in the late ’70s and early ’80s to be that ‘gays and lesbians cannot reproduce, so they have to recruit,’” George said.
Of course, it’s not the ’80s anymore. Over the past few decades, Americans’ understanding and acceptance of the LGBTQ community has increased. A series of Gallup polls captures this evolution: In 1977, just 13 percent of Americans believed that “[b]eing gay or lesbian is something a person is born with,” but by 2019, 49 percent of Americans did. As this social shift happened and the LGBTQ community achieved more rights, it made the “child predator” narrative less effective.
Why, then, is it back? George suspects the reason we’re seeing it come up again is due to the most recent frontier of LGBTQ rights: trans rights. “The reason it’s gaining more resonance now is, in part, because people understand trans identity much less clearly,” George said. “There’s a misunderstanding that people are electing a different gender identity as opposed to coming to realize what their gender identity is.”
George said anti-LGBTQ activists are capitalizing on this misunderstanding to advance their agenda. George identified this trend in her 2017 paper she published in the Wisconsin Law Review. She noted that from 1999 until 2012, voters regularly supported LGBTQ protections in local ballot measures. But around 2012, anti-LGBTQ activists began highlighting the gender-identity protections in these laws, and the ballot measures began failing.
Pushaw, for her part, denies that any of this rhetoric is homophobic. She told Vice News she “never once singled out LGBTQ people” and that the “assumption that criticism of grooming is criticism of the LGBTQ community equates LGBTQ people to groomers, which is both bigoted and inaccurate. Do better. And, any adult who wants to discuss sexual and gender identity topics with other people’s 5- to 8-year-old children—while keeping this a secret from their parents—is either a groomer or is complicit in promoting an environment where grooming becomes normalized.”
But what’s being normalized here isn’t grooming; it’s the use of homophobic rhetoric and conspiracy theory language. And it’s intended not to protect children but to advance political causes and slander political enemies.
Posting here because this was where the discussion happened. After it was brought up I was curious if/where gender identify etc. was being taught. Did a Google search of “gender identity curriculum” and this was the first hit. Seattle public schools does have a curriculum to teach it in k-5. The goal of the lessons seem to be acceptance, but it’s using trans examples and teaching what that means. The consensus here seemed to be this wasn’t talked about in elementary schools. That doesn’t appear to be the case. https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/health-education/lgbtq-programs-curriculum-and-support/list-of-books-by-grade/
Posting here because this was where the discussion happened. After it was brought up I was curious if/where gender identify etc. was being taught. Did a Google search of “gender identity curriculum” and this was the first hit. Seattle public schools does have a curriculum to teach it in k-5. The goal of the lessons seem to be acceptance, but it’s using trans examples and teaching what that means. The consensus here seemed to be this wasn’t talked about in elementary schools. That doesn’t appear to be the case. https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/health-education/lgbtq-programs-curriculum-and-support/list-of-books-by-grade/
if acceptance of any individual's right to be themselves is being taught at that level, I'm all for it.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Posting here because this was where the discussion happened. After it was brought up I was curious if/where gender identify etc. was being taught. Did a Google search of “gender identity curriculum” and this was the first hit. Seattle public schools does have a curriculum to teach it in k-5. The goal of the lessons seem to be acceptance, but it’s using trans examples and teaching what that means. The consensus here seemed to be this wasn’t talked about in elementary schools. That doesn’t appear to be the case. https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/health-education/lgbtq-programs-curriculum-and-support/list-of-books-by-grade/
if acceptance of any individual's right to be themselves is being taught at that level, I'm all for it.
I don’t think it was teaching them to be themselves, it was teaching acceptance. Anyway, I saw several people respond to the Florida bill by saying what’s the point, no one teaches what that is anyway. But it looks like they do. It does seem a little young to me. There are so many ways to teach acceptance, I don’t understand why use a concept they don’t understand or haven’t even considered not being typical at that age. Being told they need to accept someone who dresses different or has same-sex parents is probably the first time they’ve even considered that would be a reason not to accept someone when you’re 5 years old.
doesn't matter. she will take the 5th. or trump will give her a cabinet position if he wins in 2024. probably appoint her speaker of the house since anybody can be speaker of the house. you do not have to be elected to hold that position.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
doesn't matter. she will take the 5th. or trump will give her a cabinet position if he wins in 2024. probably appoint her speaker of the house since anybody can be speaker of the house. you do not have to be elected to hold that position.
I'm the speaker of the house!
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,292
And God Bless fucking MTG too! Yaaaaaaarrrrrr!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Posting here because this was where the discussion happened. After it was brought up I was curious if/where gender identify etc. was being taught. Did a Google search of “gender identity curriculum” and this was the first hit. Seattle public schools does have a curriculum to teach it in k-5. The goal of the lessons seem to be acceptance, but it’s using trans examples and teaching what that means. The consensus here seemed to be this wasn’t talked about in elementary schools. That doesn’t appear to be the case. https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/health-education/lgbtq-programs-curriculum-and-support/list-of-books-by-grade/
if acceptance of any individual's right to be themselves is being taught at that level, I'm all for it.
I don’t think it was teaching them to be themselves, it was teaching acceptance. Anyway, I saw several people respond to the Florida bill by saying what’s the point, no one teaches what that is anyway. But it looks like they do. It does seem a little young to me. There are so many ways to teach acceptance, I don’t understand why use a concept they don’t understand or haven’t even considered not being typical at that age. Being told they need to accept someone who dresses different or has same-sex parents is probably the first time they’ve even considered that would be a reason not to accept someone when you’re 5 years old.
yes, if you re-read my sentence, I was saying acceptance is being taught.
I think teaching acceptance is different than teaching the subject matter itself. kids at that age are taught all kinds of concept at the granular level that they won't understand other than the basics of that concept. if they have questions, great, you just say "everyone has a right to be themselves, no matter who that is" and most likely that kid will move on.
it's not necessarily that it will draw a thesis on the subject out of that kid; it's planting the seed of acceptance before they grow the weeds of intolerance.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
she's probably loving this in reality. these idiots love:
1) any opportunity to be seen as a victim, especially by the oppressive authoritarian deep state 2) get more donations from idiots 3) be given a platform to grandstand and shout lies
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Comments
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And of course what she is really saying is, "The US should stop sending military aid to Ukraine and let them be invaded because Russia will “inevitably” win because my flock loves Putin and they know I am grate and Trump is grate and autocracy is grate and Democrasy sucks and being intelligent and educated is stoopid and spelling sucks."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
or her stock goes up
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-conservatives-are-talking-about-grooming-all-of-a-sudden/
Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About ‘Grooming’ All Of A Sudden
By Kaleigh Rogers
APR. 13, 2022, AT 6:00 AM
“Grooming” has become the most recent scare tactic of choice for the right. Fox News host Laura Ingraham included a segment on her show last month where she claimed public schools have become “grooming centers” where “sexual brainwashing” takes place. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene recently tweeted that the Democrats are the party of “grooming and transitioning children.” Last week, One America News host Chanel Rion even called President Joe Biden “the groomer-in-chief.”
For the unfamiliar, “grooming” is a term typically reserved to describe the type of behavior that child sexual abusers use to coerce potential victims without being caught. But now some Republicans are using it against any Democrat (or company)1 who disagrees with them on certain policy issues. This is a deliberate tactic that was promoted as early as last summer by Christopher Rufo, the same conservative activist who helped muddle the language around critical race theory. “Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights.
“There is no better moral panic than a moral panic centered on potential harm to children,” said Emily Johnson, a history professor at Ball State University who specializes in U.S. histories of gender and sexuality.
This most recent round of high-profile “grooming” warnings seems to have started in early March, as Democrats attacked Florida’s law limiting what can be taught in schools. Republican defenders turned to “grooming” as a way to push back.
“The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Christina Pushaw, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, tweeted on March 4. “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.”
Except there’s no mention of grooming in the law. Instead, it prohibits “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
So if casting those who oppose this law as “pro-grooming” is not rooted in evidence, what is it rooted in? In part, it’s a dog whistle to the party’s most extreme, conspiracy-minded base. The foundation of the QAnon conspiracy theory is that there is a mass, secret, underground ring of Satanic pedophiles whose members consist of Democratic leaders and Hollywood elites. Painting anyone who opposes Florida’s law (i.e., mainly Democrats) as being pro-grooming fits neatly into that narrative and winks at QAnon adherents without requiring politicians on the right to actually endorse the outlandish theory.
But this rhetoric also harkens back to age-old attacks on the LGBTQ community. Casting LGBTQ people as child predators and their very existence as something inherently sexual was a tactic used by anti-LGBTQ activists since the 1970s in their efforts to stifle or roll back LGBTQ legal protections, according to Marie-Amélie George, a law professor at Wake Forest University who specializes in LGBTQ rights. George said that for a long time, many people believed that being gay was the result of child sexual abuse.
“The religious right really modernized and repackaged that claim in the late ’70s and early ’80s to be that ‘gays and lesbians cannot reproduce, so they have to recruit,’” George said.
Of course, it’s not the ’80s anymore. Over the past few decades, Americans’ understanding and acceptance of the LGBTQ community has increased. A series of Gallup polls captures this evolution: In 1977, just 13 percent of Americans believed that “[b]eing gay or lesbian is something a person is born with,” but by 2019, 49 percent of Americans did. As this social shift happened and the LGBTQ community achieved more rights, it made the “child predator” narrative less effective.
Why, then, is it back? George suspects the reason we’re seeing it come up again is due to the most recent frontier of LGBTQ rights: trans rights. “The reason it’s gaining more resonance now is, in part, because people understand trans identity much less clearly,” George said. “There’s a misunderstanding that people are electing a different gender identity as opposed to coming to realize what their gender identity is.”
George said anti-LGBTQ activists are capitalizing on this misunderstanding to advance their agenda. George identified this trend in her 2017 paper she published in the Wisconsin Law Review. She noted that from 1999 until 2012, voters regularly supported LGBTQ protections in local ballot measures. But around 2012, anti-LGBTQ activists began highlighting the gender-identity protections in these laws, and the ballot measures began failing.
Pushaw, for her part, denies that any of this rhetoric is homophobic. She told Vice News she “never once singled out LGBTQ people” and that the “assumption that criticism of grooming is criticism of the LGBTQ community equates LGBTQ people to groomers, which is both bigoted and inaccurate. Do better. And, any adult who wants to discuss sexual and gender identity topics with other people’s 5- to 8-year-old children—while keeping this a secret from their parents—is either a groomer or is complicit in promoting an environment where grooming becomes normalized.”
But what’s being normalized here isn’t grooming; it’s the use of homophobic rhetoric and conspiracy theory language. And it’s intended not to protect children but to advance political causes and slander political enemies.
https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/health-education/lgbtq-programs-curriculum-and-support/list-of-books-by-grade/
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
It does seem a little young to me. There are so many ways to teach acceptance, I don’t understand why use a concept they don’t understand or haven’t even considered not being typical at that age. Being told they need to accept someone who dresses different or has same-sex parents is probably the first time they’ve even considered that would be a reason not to accept someone when you’re 5 years old.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think teaching acceptance is different than teaching the subject matter itself. kids at that age are taught all kinds of concept at the granular level that they won't understand other than the basics of that concept. if they have questions, great, you just say "everyone has a right to be themselves, no matter who that is" and most likely that kid will move on.
it's not necessarily that it will draw a thesis on the subject out of that kid; it's planting the seed of acceptance before they grow the weeds of intolerance.
-EV 8/14/93
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1) any opportunity to be seen as a victim, especially by the oppressive authoritarian deep state
2) get more donations from idiots
3) be given a platform to grandstand and shout lies
-EV 8/14/93