United States Politics: ∆τ_i*ε*φ*m_i<0 where ε=4 and φ=0.25

[Nintex]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1820866471830175881?t=Wgwe5y0j32OvOMyQyyqcSg&s=19[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1820955593114275959?t=evMsXBJEOEUlugPsBwrurA&s=19[/tweet]

Game on

[killamajig]

Damn, Walz went Trump on Vance. 

[Rendle]

Starting to look more and more like this election is gonna be a... walz in the park

[chronovore]

[tweet]https://www.twitter.com/dudes4harris/status/1820805378076012628[/tweet]

[benji]

https://twitter.com/Dexerto/status/1820506245352104369


https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1820506649771098116

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1820526297153679840

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1820530745708023961

That's why Barron is now calling the shots

[TylenolJones]

He’s pretty bright. 

[benji]

Another Trump victory:


 

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

He endorsed all three.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

tex is slacking



fanfic is fantastic

[DavidCroquet]

tex is slacking



fanfic is fantastic

I kinda wanna see this happen. The idea of a doddering, incoherent biden showing up unannounced with the intent to "crash" anything has massive comedy potential.

"LISTEN HERE JACK!" he whispers defiantly in the K&W Cafeteria that he has mistaken for the DNC convention.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

"and make no mistake, violent crime was up under Donald Trump....that's not even counting the crimes he committed."-Tim Walz

[benji]

   

[Polident]

Walz and Vance… they’re so bad at the insult game. Shades of Christie’s Donald Duck remark. It’s strained. They don’t have it. It’s not the worst thing to be a boring politician.

[Nintex]

[Cauliflower Of Love]

You think some of the SS left with the wrong group?

Like those penguins


I also like how nobody answered him. 

[Uncle]

seems that last year, Walz approved an amendment redefining sexual orientation, specifically to remove language that excluded pedophilia from being considered a legally valid sexual orientation

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1655&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0&format=pdf



https://house.mn.gov/hjvid/93/896506

19:31, the amendment is discussed by the trans representative who put it forth, who characterizes it as "Human Rights Act sections removed that allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation," because it would be inappropriate to discriminate against pedophiles

[benji]

[Potato]

Is it necessary to specifically exclude paedophilia when that is specifically illegal AND doesn't really fall under the definition of sexual orientation as written anyway?

[Uncle]

Is it necessary to specifically exclude paedophilia when that is specifically illegal AND doesn't really fall under the definition of sexual orientation as written anyway?

acts are illegal, but is professing an attraction illegal? you know, just saying that's your orientation without having actually done anything, and asking for recognition or privileges on that basis? "I was fired because I said this, and that's discrimination based on sexual orientation, I deserve compensation?"

and why would you remove clarifying language that's already there? what harm was it doing?

[Nintex]

The world has been gaslit by a bunch of commie zoomers 

[Potato]

Is it necessary to specifically exclude paedophilia when that is specifically illegal AND doesn't really fall under the definition of sexual orientation as written anyway?

acts are illegal, but is professing an attraction illegal? you know, just saying that's your orientation without having actually done anything, and asking for recognition or privileges on that basis? "I was fired because I said this, and that's discrimination based on sexual orientation, I deserve compensation?"

and why would you remove clarifying language that's already there? what harm was it doing?

Dunno man, I just figure that no one considers MILF hunter to be a sexual orientation or a BBC hound or Asian fetishists, so why the special need to mention paedos?

I'm not really a legislation guy, but there is a trend where I live to make legislation more general in nature and allow common sense interpretation rather than trying to be overly specific which sometimes allows for more argument because a definition might not include all possibilities that would otherwise be prohibited by a general reading of the Act.

Like in my example above, if paedo is specifically excluded, does that mean that everything else is included? What about animal fuckers? They're not specifically outside the definition. Do they get special protection from discrimination? Necrophiliacs? 

The simpler definition makes it clear that it is only about sexual attraction to other people regardless of their sex. Specific fetishes, while not explicitly excluded, are not included either.

I guess it's two ways to approach legislation and both probably have their positives and negatives. 

As I said, I'm definitely not a legislation guy, so I could be completely wrong here (I'm sure benji will let me know soon), but broad vs specific definitions are an interesting thing to think about when talking about laws and how they're interpreted.

[Nintex]

Stolen Valor is sinking the ship.

Tampon Tim left the bois in Iraq behind

[Polident]

Is it necessary to specifically exclude paedophilia when that is specifically illegal AND doesn't really fall under the definition of sexual orientation as written anyway?

acts are illegal, but is professing an attraction illegal? you know, just saying that's your orientation without having actually done anything, and asking for recognition or privileges on that basis? "I was fired because I said this, and that's discrimination based on sexual orientation, I deserve compensation?"

and why would you remove clarifying language that's already there? what harm was it doing?

Dunno man, I just figure that no one considers MILF hunter to be a sexual orientation or a BBC hound or Asian fetishists, so why the special need to mention paedos?

I'm not really a legislation guy, but there is a trend where I live to make legislation more general in nature and allow common sense interpretation rather than trying to be overly specific which sometimes allows for more argument because a definition might not include all possibilities that would otherwise be prohibited by a general reading of the Act.

Like in my example above, if paedo is specifically excluded, does that mean that everything else is included? What about animal fuckers? They're not specifically outside the definition. Do they get special protection from discrimination? Necrophiliacs? 

The simpler definition makes it clear that it is only about sexual attraction to other people regardless of their sex. Specific fetishes, while not explicitly excluded, are not included either.

I guess it's two ways to approach legislation and both probably have their positives and negatives. 

As I said, I'm definitely not a legislation guy, so I could be completely wrong here (I'm sure benji will let me know soon), but broad vs specific definitions are an interesting thing to think about when talking about laws and how they're interpreted.

Think it’s because there’ve been attempts to make “minor attracted person” a cause. If a bunch of people came out trying soften others like “horse attracted person” with Mr Hands flags, you’d likely see more specific language to counter it.

[Nintex]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1821512154702295084?t=8dTvzzZToqPE62YoZg4DtA&s=19[/tweet]

Good luck JD!

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Just looked up tampon tim.

Imagine being a weird dude in the GOP thinking providing menstrual supplies to menstruating people is gonna turn people off.

[Polident]

Goes back to the bubble thing. Republicans don't think in terms of "menstruating people." They're fine with menstrual products available for the girls. The push back, and current line, is placing them in the boy's room. To them it is yet another transgender issue. When you look how it's shared by democrat readership, they downplay that side of it. For better or worse, most articles bury it somewhere down the inverted pyramid. Strategy worked to change the conversation within that bubble to general resources for students.

[Sman]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1821512154702295084?t=8dTvzzZToqPE62YoZg4DtA&s=19[/tweet]

Good luck JD!

While there's no denying JD is a drag, the real problem still lies at the top.

[who is ted danson?]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1821512154702295084?t=8dTvzzZToqPE62YoZg4DtA&s=19[/tweet]

Good luck JD!

Vance out, Don Jr in

[killamajig]

[Nintex]

Trump announces 3 debates

September 4th

September 10th

September 25th

[killamajig]

Trump really wanted to run against Biden.