2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Yeah, when the "leftists" in question are, checks notes, the Democratic party of the USA, I'm gonna go ahead and disbelieve them.
For the specific issue of immigration in the last decade they are actually pretty leftist.
But anyway if 30% for le pen or 33% for afd or 4 millions of votes to Farage dont convince you, keep doing large scale unfilter immigration of uneducated /low skill military age men what could go wrong
For the specific issue of immigration in the last decade they are actually pretty leftist.
But anyway if 30% for le pen or 33% for afd or 4 millions of votes to Farage dont convince you, keep doing large scale unfilter immigration of uneducated /low skill military age men what could go wrong
Obama had the most deportation .
Glad u see democrats are not leftish and evil .
Keep denying reality, nothing could go wrong
i literally stated that they could do it via unisex bathrooms if those were available
not all schools have those
And that is literally irrelevant to your claim that he put tampons in boys restrooms. Therefore it was ignored.
You are making up that Tim Walz put tampons in boys restrooms. There are no tampons in boys restrooms and the law he signed does not require it. Why did you claim he did? I would appreciate it if you would either acknowledge your error or stop lying about it. Democrats not succumbing to Republican efforts to use exclusive language instead of inclusive language doesn't change the reality of the law, no matter how hard you try to distract with it.
REALITY CHECK:
There are no tampons in male bathrooms and the law does not require it. This is the end of the discussion. Your claim of "he actually did though" has been CONCLUSIVELY debunked. Move along.
you're normally a great poster, this is the first time i've seen you cling to objectively false lies and building strawman putting words into my mouth i never uttered
it's been addressed, he absolutely mandated that schools provide them and if the school doesn't have unisex bathrooms then they would need to be put in mens rooms if there were trans students - there is nothing speculative about that
you're just clinging onto the fact that thus far, any schools that had that issue already had a unisex bathroom available - which doesn't negate that they would need to put them in men's rooms if they didn't have those
you're normally a great poster, this is the first time i've seen you cling to objectively false lies
sad
Quote the lie and demonstrate it is false.
But first answer this question: if Tim Walz put tampons in boys restrooms, why are there no tampons in boys restrooms?
Also please point out the "whataboutism" since I never used anything even roughly equivalent to that.
I have to say I find your behavior here very strange.
Consider for a moment that there is more evidence that Donald Trump put birds in the sky than there is that Tim Walz put tampons in the boys restrooms since there are actually birds in the sky.
If that doesn't make you stop to consider how insane your behavior is, I don't know what will help.
Quote the lie and demonstrate it is false.
But first answer this question: if Tim Walz put tampons in boys restrooms, why are there no tampons in boys restrooms?
Also please point out the "whataboutism" since I never used anything even roughly equivalent to that.
I have to say I find your behavior here very strange.
you cling to "they don't need to put them in men's bathrooms"
i'm saying "they would if they didn't have a unisex bathroom"
so yes, if the school didn't have a unisex bathroom (none of the schools i went to had one) then they would indeed be mandated to put them in there
that's literally how the law is written and it was intentionally written that way because efforts were made to specify which gender bathrooms and that was shut down - you're just larping on about how it's been enforced thus far and not on how it could be enforced going forward once its around long enough to no longer be populated by edge cases
this is like me pointing out the massachusetts laws against sodomy and you claiming "those laws don't exist people have anal sex all the time and don't get arrested" to which I agree, it's never enforced, but the laws still exists on the books despite that despite that they are never enforced, the supreme court even felt the need to state that they are bogus back in 2002 just in case at a future time they are enforced as intended
you cling to "they don't need to put them in men's bathrooms"
i'm saying "they would if they didn't have a unisex bathroom"
Weird, because despite this and your claim that not every school has a unisex bathroom, there are still not tampons in the boys bathrooms. Explain please? NEVERMIND DON'T
so yes, if the school didn't have a unisex bathroom (none of the schools i went to had one) then they would indeed be mandated to put them in their
And yet they aren't, and as I provided with a source, legal experts don't agree with you. Strange.
that's literally how the law is written - you're just larping on about how it's been enforced thus far
But it's not, as actual legal experts have stated (ie NOT YOU).
Either way, the statement was, and read this carefully: TIM WALZ DID NOT PUT TAMPONS IN BOYS RESTROOMS. You responded and said he did. Since there are, in fact, not tampons in boys restrooms, the discussion is over and he did not.
I'm quite sure you will reply to this post with even more df-ery, and when you do, you will also be added to my ignore list because this is absolutely INSANE.
edit: actually, I'm sick enough of this and you that I'm just going to add you now. There's no reason to wait on your inevitable df reply.
The law Tim walz signed didn't mandate schools to put tampons on boy restrooms, but it implied at the very least to have unisex bathrooms and encouraged that, and implied also that having tampons in boy restrooms makes sense , which is already pretty gross.
Why are democrats so ashamed to admit they are happy to bend to any request of trans activists , given they do and have parties in the chambers when they do?
Maybe they realized the median voter in purple states doesn't agree even with the notion that's possible a school might consider reasonable nevermind encouraged to put tampons in boys restrooms?
Too late, made your bed, sleep in it.
And yes you can go on with the opinion of "law experts" and the "fact checking" when the median voter is disgusted even at the notion of the whole topic
Here is a quote from the internet based on this question: Do any MN schools have tampons in boys bathrooms?
"No reports
Searching the Nexis news database, we found no reports that menstrual products are being provided currently in boys’ restrooms in any Minnesota school district."
However I think we should let this go. It is conceivable that a school would be forced to put tampons in a boys bathroom if there were no unisex bathrooms in the school.
I think it wouldn't happen though because apparently in MN when a school has a trans or non-binary male student they instantly change one bathroom in their school to unisex.
My guess is that for schools that have a trans student that is still in the closet that student would just get a tampon from the girl's bathroom...
Here is an article on this MN subject th...:
"All schools are required to provide improved bathroom access for transgender and non-binary students, including more accessible all-gender bathrooms that are not locked or hidden away. "
The law Tim walz signed didn't mandate schools to put tampons on boy restrooms, but it implied at the very least to have unisex bathrooms and encouraged that, and implied also that having tampons in boy restrooms makes sense , which is already pretty gross.
Why are democrats so ashamed to admit they are happy to bend to any request of trans activists , given they do and have parties in the chambers when they do?
Maybe they realized the median
It didn't imply nor encourage anything.
Why are you so ashamed to admit that this has nothing to do with you thinking tampons in boy restrooms are "gross"?
Here is the wording that currently has you guys losing your minds
Section 1. [121A.212] ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS.
A school district or charter school must provide students with access to menstrual products at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.
BTW, you had Alabama mandating period products be available in restrooms back in like 2016 and no one gave a ****, but this is just the latest wave of anti-trans outrage trying to be twisted by Republicans against Democrats despite the fact this was widely considered a "good thing" just a few years ago
Yeah it seems to imply having it in the women’s room and the unisex room. Having it in the unisex room would seem to be enough to fulfill this law, regardless of if it was in the women’s room or not.
Yeah it seems to imply having it in the women’s room and the unisex room. Having it in the unisex room would seem to be enough to fulfill this law, regardless of if it was in the women’s room or not.
It doesn't imply anything. It explicitly states all menstrating students. There is nothing implicit about it
Alabama mandated tampon access to "trans youth" in school in 2016??
It doesn't imply anything. It explicitly states all menstrating students. There is nothing implicit about it
Yes putting into law that a 4th grader can be trans is absolutely not controversial and certainly wouldn't seem gross to the median voter in Pennsylvania or Arizona.
You want to be at the radical edge of the topic against what happens in every other country in the world? Fine, but don't flee from that and accept the consequences with voters. Maybe they won't care much or maybe they will even reward you for that, who knows.
But from the reaction, you all would rather the topic wasn't discussed during national elections that depend on very specific voters.
Sorry but not sorry, the topic will be discussed as long as you keep defending the idea that it's sensible for the law to think 4th graders can be trans.
Luciom it’s a state’s rights issue why are you trying to impose federalism
It doesn't imply anything. It explicitly states all menstrating students. There is nothing implicit about it
There could be menstruating students in the men’s room if they are socially transitioned trans men who haven’t gone on hormone therapy. I think that’s what Luciom is referring to.
There isn't only america, UK government already is to the far left of the democratic party (economically) , and most of Europe is to the left (economically) of the UK including Meloni
Sounds a bit globalist-minded so I'll give you a couple R points.
but still a lefty 😀
If people 'go nazi' no one made them do it but themselves. Personal responsibility and all that jazz.
There could be menstruating students in the men’s room if they are socially transitioned trans men who haven’t gone on hormone therapy. I think that’s what Luciom is referring to.
Yes, why would anyone have an issue with trans people having access to basic health care like every single one of their peers?
This is what I meant when I said "Why are you so ashamed to admit that this has nothing to do with you thinking tampons in boy restrooms are "gross"?"
Because its about denying trans people access to basic health care, not about tampons being cooty filled
people assign far too much to a governor, he just signed the bill - although he could have vetoed it, could have even forced the version of the bill republicans wanted to specify women's and unisex by just threatening to veto otherwise
this isn't like romney in mass where his people laid out the foundation of the healthcare plan and ensured it got passed, this was just him signing a bill put forward by the state
i don't think it's fair to call him the tampon governor nor claim that he mandated it
but it unequivocally a lie to say that he did no such thing which would force schools to put tampons in the men's room because under certain circumstances of not having unisex bathrooms available, the law would indeed force them to do so
it goes back to my massachusetts sodomy laws, we have 2 of them forbidding sodomy, they are never enforced, and yet, the supreme court still took the time in 2002 to ensure they never could be simply because there still existed a legal framework in massachusetts (and many other states) in which you could effectively outlaw homosexuality
it's one thing to state "it hasn't yet happened" which is entirely true, and another to lie and just stretch that into "there's no such law forbidding gay sex"
Yes putting into law that a 4th grader can be trans is absolutely not controversial and certainly wouldn't seem gross to the median voter in Pennsylvania or Arizona.
You want to be at the radical edge of the topic against what happens in every other country in the world? Fine, but don't flee from that and accept the consequences with voters. Maybe they won't care much or maybe they will even reward you for that, who knows.
But from the reacti
The law is about providing EVERYONE with basic healthcare necessities
It takes a special kind of evil to hammer on that for ways to find exclusions and exceptions. Any way you twist it you just look evil.
And let me be completely clear if it wasn't already; I don't give one **** what an Italian who longs for the good ol days has to say on this topic. You don't represent the majority. You don't even represent Americans.
Have I said or implied this law is illegitimate? The people of Minnesota through their elected representative should be allowed to legislate on this.
I don't understand how you leftists reason, for normal (ie pro freedom) people, the system shouldn't guarantee good outcomes, it should just prevent the worst ones.
Freedom includes the possibility of doing a lot of terrible (for you) things.
I am pro state rights because this 9y old trans legislation is less problematic if there is no way to have a federal one on the topic. At the very worst you vote with your feet which is one of the major, incredible freedoms allowed by state rights. Just move to the place where people have values closer to yours.
If you are disgusted by a federal rule you have no recourse. Which is why as few rules and laws should be federal as possible, to maximize everyone freedom through self sorting into polities of similar values.
people assign far too much to a governor, he just signed the bill - although he could have vetoed it, could have even forced the version of the bill republicans wanted to specify women's and unisex by just threatening to veto otherwise
this isn't like romney in mass where his people laid out the foundation of the healthcare plan and ensured it got passed, this was just him signing a bill put forward by the state
i don't think it's fair to cal
I think its completely fair to call him tampon tim or the tampon governor
Its entirely wild to think thats some sort of insult
I grew up on free lunches. Sometimes I even had to go without. I can't imagine the philosophical outrage if I was a trans male and had to eat free lunches in the male bathroom. Maybe you can explain how that would be a bad thing?
But back to the original topic, now you are arguing semantics and trying to call semantics a lie. On a semantic level, Tim Walz has put 0 tampons in boys bathrooms. Tim Walz will never put a tampon in a boys bathroom.
