|
Queering Wheel posted:I don't know, I'm not the loving president! I'm not the most powerful person in the world with practically unlimited resources who's currently sitting on his hands while like half the states in the union are marching toward making it illegal for me to exist. I'm just a loving dumb nerd who wants to enjoy the treats of life without having to worry about being directly targeted by my state government (and soon to be federal if Trump wins, jesus christ I'll probably be loving dead in a year or two if that happens lol) What exactly is he doing? It seems to me that when someone makes a clearly unreasonable assertion the normal inclination is to gently push back and ask simple questions to make it clearer what the thought process is and to eke out additional and more interesting discussion and more clearer effort. As an example, what if it were Trump, would you want Trump to use those "practically unlimited resources" to be able to make the bad things red states are doing worse? Have you considered the negative consequences of what you're asking for? Especially considering by your admission that what you're asking for is vague and undefined; do you want a fascist President to be able to freely be able to use vaguely undefined powers at their whims? Socratic Dialogue isn't sealioning.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
This isn't socratic dialogue, it's asking someone to do more than performative ranting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 00:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This isn't socratic dialogue, it's asking someone to do more than performative ranting. I don't think it's performative for trans people to be extremely concerned about their safety in the US of all places right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Kalli posted:In a very funny update to that excellent news about automatic refunds from airlines last week comes a bipartisan attempt to immediately get rid of that: they even had the audacity to write it out as though this was an improvement over the current situation instead of rolling back consumer protection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This isn't socratic dialogue, it's asking someone to do more than performative ranting. I was about to ask "What's the difference?" but the problem here is by "Socratic Dialogue" I meant "Socratic Questioning", hope that clears it up. Mischievous Mink posted:I don't think it's performative for trans people to be extremely concerned about their safety in the US of all places right now. Holy Argument of Theseus Batman! That's a rather unfair way of describing the back and forth! The contents Queering Wheel's post is not conceptually the samething as the concerns of transpeople, and people disagreeing with the argument of Queering Wheel's post is not saying that transpeople being worried is performative or illegitimate. Only that certain specific arguments and claims being made, disputable and asking for elaboration and evidence regarding the lack of action by the Biden Administration to do something about it. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Holy Argument of Theseus Batman! That's a rather unfair way of describing the back and forth! The contents Queering Wheel's post is not conceptually the samething as the concerns of transpeople, and people disagreeing with the argument of Queering Wheel's post is not saying that transpeople being worried is performative or illegitimate. Only that certain specific arguments and claims being made, disputable and asking for elaboration and evidence regarding the lack of action by the Biden Administration to do something about it. Just wondering, do you also say "blackpeople" or "gaypeople" when you're talking about those groups? If not, then why are you doing it for trans people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:02
|
|
|
After The War posted:Reminder that people are dying every day because of states refusing the Medicare extensions* in the ACA, leading to hospital closure. They have no problems loving over their own citizens. * Medicaid expansion, not Medicare extension. e: People also dying every day because of the ACA but less than the nos. would be under the AHCA (Trumpcare). 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
Mischievous Mink posted:I don't think it's performative for trans people to be extremely concerned about their safety in the US of all places right now. I'm not asserting it is as any kind of categorical. It is in the specific when a person goes for multiple rants in which they've taken the time to do things like alternate case and paraphrase, all without substantiating any part of their claim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not asserting it is as any kind of categorical. It is in the specific when a person goes for multiple rants in which they've taken the time to do things like alternate case and paraphrase, all without substantiating any part of their claim. I think they're just mad and lashing out at those who happen to be nearby. Calling it performative is kinda lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Just wondering, do you also say "blackpeople" or "gaypeople" when you're talking about those groups? If not, then why are you doing it for trans people? tbh I assumed transman and trans man were currently interchangeable but I get the argument to use the second one, so thanks for bringing it up e: also on a different note you're on pretty iffy rhetorical ground when you say "the Biden admin has done nothing", especially when you're not really elaborating on what state level actions you're talking about. That's not great for discussion, whether or not someone responds with something done Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:I don't know, I'm not the loving president! I'm not the most powerful person in the world with practically unlimited resources who's currently sitting on his hands while like half the states in the union are marching toward making it illegal for me to exist. I'm just a loving dumb nerd who wants to enjoy the treats of life without having to worry about being directly targeted by my state government (and soon to be federal if Trump wins, jesus christ I'll probably be loving dead in a year or two if that happens lol) PPACA isn't going to override direct state bans on providing care. It regulates the insurance industry, not what treatments the states can or cannot ban. The state bans don't care about who's paying, they directly criminalize the care. I'm also trans but I'm personally insulated, living in Massachusetts and being somewhat well off. I'm asking questions because I thought you might've read something which laid out a plan Biden could be following to help other trans people in red states but instead you're vaguely angry because he's not doing things you're not even sure about. Also gently caress you too and your insinuation of bad faith. What should I do instead? Should I be incurious and generally angry ? If you haven't seen a plan of action, what would you even pressure him to do? I'm not sealioning I'm asking for actual loving discussion and reasoning! Without a plan all you're doing is wallowing with no path to actual activism. Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:20
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I think they're just mad and lashing out at those who happen to be nearby. Calling it performative is kinda lovely. I think it's kinda lovely to be lashed, especially at direct expense to discussion of any kind of factual reality. Performance is a better explanation than mood after several hours of lashing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:20
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:* Medicaid expansion, not Medicare extension. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:* Medicaid expansion, not Medicare extension. This framing is nonsense. Sure, compared to European-style Single Payer, which most people here will agree is vastly superior to what we have now, but the comparison should be to what we had before Obamacare, and specifically to the original point, states that do have Medicaid expansion vs those that don't. The idea that Republican governors and legislators are quite literally killing their residents by refusing to expand Medicaid is true. Also, what's extra silly about your framing of Obamacare vs Single Payer is that Obamacare encompasses all types of plans, including those that pay zero or very little in subsidies and have high deductibles, which force people to make decisions about whether to see a doctor or not because they'll have to pay. Medicaid expansion via Obamacare would be free, or almost nearly free. Medicaid is the absolute best healthcare that you can get in the country, on par with Single Payer for the patient (but not for the government, as it costs way more than Single Payer would). For example, I had a near-Medicaid plan at one point in which I paid $25 for a $10k surgery with zero premiums. My grandmother received double bypass surgery on Medicaid that she didn't pay a nickel for, and cataract surgery, and hernia surgery, as well as many other treatments. She never thinks about whether to see a doctor because it's always free. She was never denied care for anything. Also, she gets free transportation to the doctor and back. Also, food stamps are often included with Medicaid expansion, so that's even more help. You're completely underestimating how good Medicaid expansion is. small butter fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
The reason that mandated Medicaid expansion was overturned by SCOTUS back in the day was bc the ACA was written to withdraw all federal funds unless states accepted the expansion..quote:In NFIB, the Court held that Congress did not have the authority under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution to require states to implement the Medicaid Expansion provisions or lose their existing federal Medicaid funding. This was unduly coercive. The Court also held that the violation is fully remedied by prohibiting the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing a long-standing Medicaid provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396c, that would otherwise authorize her to withhold all the existing federal Medicaid funding of a state that does not properly implement the Medicaid Expansion. Thus, the NFIB holding is a narrow one, finding only that it was coercive for Congress to force states to adopt the Medicaid Expansion or lose all federal funding for their existing Medicaid programs. I support expanded Medicaid & would love to see that model used for a single-payer plan--except for two issues: 1. It's been almost fully privatized now, especially in states with expanded Medicaid. One one hand, this solved the problem of not enough providers taking it bc of low reimbursement rates; otoh it's usually an ultra-narrow network in which people have difficulty seeing specialists or receiving top-notch care (but otohoh, that's pretty standard for private insurance also these days). 2. Many states, including Democratic states like California & Illinois, have Medicaid clawback laws on the books, in which states are allowed to seize the assets of a deceased person who's been on Medicaid after age 55 in order to "repay" the state for their medical care. I don't underestimate the good Medicaid does and I'm unsure as to why you intuited that from the chart, when it's the closest thing we have to single-payer even with its privatization. I've long forgotten where I got it but the ACA nos. look to be modeled on Sanders' campaign stat of 80k people/year dying bc of being uninsured or underinsured. eta: I'm guessing the Medicaid expansion is a primary reason for the difference between the Obama plan & Trump death numbers, in fact. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:56
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:PPACA isn't going to override direct state bans on providing care. It regulates the insurance industry, not what treatments the states can or cannot ban. The state bans don't care about who's paying, they directly criminalize the care. Biden's administration could sue every red state doing this for discriminating against trans people on the basis of sex, using the same logic as the Bostock and Obergefell decisions. There's one of my ideas. Maybe it won't work, I don't know. Again, I'm not the loving president. All I know is that half the trans kids in America can't get healthcare, trans adults in Florida straight up aren't safe there because their HRT has also been heavily restricted on top of the harshest bathroom ban in the country, and Biden has failed to stop any of it. Maybe he could send federal agents to Florida and loving arrest the officials who are endangering trans lives by taking away the medication that they need in order to live. Maybe he could direct the FDA to make HRT easier to access over-the-counter nationwide like they've already done with mifepristone. I'm not a policy wonk but it's not like nobody has talked about these ideas before. Also, I don't believe you. I think you were being dishonest when you asked "What, specifically, would you have him do about what the red states are doing?" because the same question has been asked so many times whenever people are unhappy about Biden's inaction on other issues, not just trans issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 02:02
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Biden's administration could sue every red state doing this for discriminating against trans people on the basis of sex You mean what his admin did literally three days ago?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Biden's administration could sue every red state doing this for discriminating against trans people on the basis of sex, using the same logic as the Bostock and Obergefell decisions. There's one of my ideas. Maybe it won't work, I don't know. Again, I'm not the loving president. All I know is that half the trans kids in America can't get healthcare, trans adults in Florida straight up aren't safe there because their HRT has also been heavily restricted on top of the harshest bathroom ban in the country, and Biden has failed to stop any of it. Maybe he could send federal agents to Florida and loving arrest the officials who are endangering trans lives by taking away the medication that they need in order to live. Maybe he could direct the FDA to make HRT easier to access over-the-counter nationwide like they've already done with mifepristone. I'm not a policy wonk but it's not like nobody has talked about these ideas before. Obergerfel was litigated privately by people with standing. The EOEC only had standing on Bostock because of the civil rights act giving them such. There's no federal legislation that demands doctors treat people similarly on the basis of sex, because the laws impact the furnishment of care, the PPACA provisions don't apply. Edited: In many cases the federal government may or may not have standing but this is less clear to me as I'm not a lawyer. Sending federal agents in without any legislation to back it up is just asking for a literal constitutional crisis. Making HRT more available OTC is the only part of this that he could actually do. This would likely be wildly unpopular to offer to under 18s without parental consent but is the one part of this where I think you're on to something. What other question would you have me ask? I'm also angry about what the red states are doing but anger alone doesn't get anything loving done! What am I going to demand of Biden now, or make sure that whoever is running in 2028 is going to do? What should I tell Ayanna Pressley or Liz Warren's staff to focus on if I call them up? Activism is anger directed into a plan, without a plan you're just whining. I'm surprised they have standing here but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that works. Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 02:22
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:I'm surprised they have standing here but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that works. It seems that under the Civil Rights Act, the Attorney General has the right to join any lawsuit filed anywhere in the US that alleges an Equal Protection violation and has "general public importance". That's what's going on here - several people who did have standing sued to block the Tennessee bill, and then the administration invoked that right to join in as a Plaintiff-Intervenor on their behalf. The relevant section of federal law is 42 U.S. Code § 2000h–2, from Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
Sorry trans people, The Rules say we can't do anything. Please die quietly, your yelling and whining is very rude. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 07:16
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Sorry trans people, The Rules say we can't do anything. Please die quietly, your yelling and whining is very rude. I think it’d be horrible to have goons advocating this. We should ban them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 07:41
|
|
|
Did you link the wrong thing? This article is from a year ago, not three days ago, and it's talking about a lawsuit that hasn't been successful. Tennessee trans kids still don't have healthcare as of today. e: here's an article that IS from this year and describes what a hellscape TN has become for LGBTQ people https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/...in-recent-years Queering Wheel fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 08:58
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Did you link the wrong thing? This article is from a year ago, not three days ago, and it's talking about a lawsuit that hasn't been successful. Tennessee trans kids still don't have healthcare as of today. He misread the date but it is still proof that Biden is trying to stop the states from being poo poo with the limited tools that the federal government has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 09:14
|
|
|
Two things to note: 1. The President is not a king. Their power is great, but it is not unlimited, and it is often gated behind bureaucratic procedures that are slow moving at the best of times, and enforcement is limited to what legislation has already been passed and what court decisions have been made. (As an example, the Title IX changes that were just released that, among other things, prohibit schools from discriminating on the basis of gender identity were originally announced two years ago.) Shouting that the administration should be "doing more" while actively admitting you don't actually know what they already have done or are doing is... not productive. 2. This thread is not your therapist. Screaming into the void is one thing, screaming at other people who also care about these issues and have just as much power as you do is being inconsiderate at best. There is a real person on the other side of that screen, and they're not the ones making the world worse. We can all do well to remember that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 09:37
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Sorry trans people, The Rules say we can't do anything. Please die quietly, your yelling and whining is very rude. This is how every other minority has been treated along the way to getting their rights so it feels pretty unsurprising that we have to go through it too. Ruby Bridges wasn't escorted into school based on a unilateral presidential decree. Queering Wheel posted:Did you link the wrong thing? This article is from a year ago, not three days ago, and it's talking about a lawsuit that hasn't been successful. Tennessee trans kids still don't have healthcare as of today. I think they just read the date wrong because it's from a year and three days ago. They also haven't lost the lawsuit yet and are still waiting on a response to a writ of cert from SCOTUS. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/...are-for-minors/ Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 14:26
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Did you link the wrong thing? This article is from a year ago, not three days ago, and it's talking about a lawsuit that hasn't been successful. Tennessee trans kids still don't have healthcare as of today. Yup that's my bad, but it considering how long legal challenges tend to be that's probably still a case that's ongoing? Maybe someone more clued in to the US legal system can give an update. And of course there were the recent Title IX changes which are prompting Red States to try to sue the Biden Administration over it because it expands the protections of trans people. And of course the HRC also has a timeline of pro-LBGTQ+ actions the Biden Admin has done. To circle back to your claim that the Biden Admin has done nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 14:37
|
|
|
Edit - no longer required post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
Why is the president such a stickler for this type of poo poo? Isn't it contrary to the values espoused by his campaign and rather Trumpian? U.S. and Mexico will boost deportation flights and enforcement to crack down on illegal migration  www.seattletimes.com - Tue, 30 Apr 2024 posted:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador are moving swiftly on new steps to crack down on illegal migration that include tougher enforcement on railways, buses and in airports as well as increased repatriation flights for migrants from both the U.S. and Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Just wondering, do you also say "blackpeople" or "gaypeople" when you're talking about those groups? If not, then why are you doing it for trans people? "Transpeople" doesn't show up as needing spell check like "blackpeople" and "gaypeople" do, at least on my browser. I think that's probably why a lot of people write it like that instead of trans people. Trans is a prefix in English while black and gay aren't. It's just because of the language changing most of the time, I think. I will personally try to write trans people from now on though if that is preferred.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why is the president such a stickler for this type of poo poo? Isn't it contrary to the values espoused by his campaign and rather Trumpian? Not really, no. Having a border and preventing people from crossing it illegally is a bipartisan issue, Republicans and Democrats disagree on how cruel it should be, and the level of racism, but not on the more fundamental concept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why is the president such a stickler for this type of poo poo? Isn't it contrary to the values espoused by his campaign and rather Trumpian? A stickler for what - controlling immigration in accordance with existing laws, and partnering with a nation whose border we share? Everyone agrees that there is a problem at the border with Mexico, the difference is that the GOP and the Democrats have different views on what it should be. That doesn't mean you just wholesale ignore the issue. Mexico also has a vested interest in border enforcement for a variety of reasons, it's not like they are unwilling partners in this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:11
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:A stickler for what - controlling immigration in accordance with existing laws, and partnering with a nation whose border we share? Everyone agrees that there is a problem at the border with Mexico, the difference is that the GOP and the Democrats have different views on what it should be. That doesn't mean you just wholesale ignore the issue. Mexico also has a vested interest in border enforcement for a variety of reasons, it's not like they are unwilling partners in this. One big factor in the whole immigration/border debate is that "fixing" the border NEEDS to include some sort of immigration reform to be effective. Not going to put up a text wall, but quick and dirty, if it takes someone 5-10+ years to get a legal status all while being vilified by half the country it's frankly less painful to do it other ways. And the Dems just simply aren't willing to go to the mats on the issue. It's unfortunately easier for both parties to make vaugely racist/nationalist statements and shout things about the border than it is for anyone in power to address the underlying issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why is the president such a stickler for this type of poo poo? Isn't it contrary to the values espoused by his campaign and rather Trumpian? The announcement is basically just an agreement by Mexico to take back its citizens who are already being deported faster and to not have people take busses to try and get large groups to cross the border illegally. Essentially, it is just making Mexico step up and the U.S. enforcing existing law to try and get Mexico to reduce mass crossings before they get to the U.S. border. This part, if they go through with it and if it applies to certain types of asylum claims, would actually be contrary to a statement he made during the campaign and a broken campaign promise on asylum policy: quote:Since the collapse of border legislation in Congress earlier this year, the White House has not ruled out Biden issuing an executive order on asylum rules to try and reduce the number of migrants at the border. Any unilateral action would likely lean on a president’s authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which offers broad powers to block entry of certain immigrants if their entry is deemed detrimental to the national interest. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
Trump did an interview with Time Magazine and made it very clear that he wants to use the US military/National Guard as his own personal Brownshirts https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1785277729224474779
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
They are forcibly flying people back to where they came from, which is a little hosed up. The looming threat of "executive action" where he said he would use "the emergency authority to shut down the border until it could get back under control. If that bill were the law today, I’d shut down the border right now and fix it quickly" is also pretty sickening and sounds exactly like "shut it down until we've got it figured out."
mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
And also like, while we here on this forum presumably support just not having borders and a world wide Schengen Zone this is a incredibly niche and minority position among Americans at large. Even under NAFTA with a skilled trade like a STEM degree its still a massive pain to go to the US for work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:24
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why is the president such a stickler for this type of poo poo? Isn't it contrary to the values espoused by his campaign and rather Trumpian? This neatly summarizes the problem:  The immigration system really is badly, massively hosed right now, and the bureaucracy is badly overwhelmed. Massive amounts of migration, combined with the fact that our lovely immigration laws have caused people to rely extra-heavily on things like asylum, means that the bureaucracy is badly overwhelmed right now and unable to effectively sort out the influx of people. mawarannahr posted:They are forcibly flying people back to where they came from, which is a little hosed up. Well, yes, that is how immigration enforcement tends to work. I don't think Biden has ever advocated or campaigned for completely abandoning all immigration laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:They are forcibly flying people back to where they came from, which is a little hosed up. How do you think they deported people back to their home country for the last 50 years? Some people (if they were Mexican citizens) we used to just turn away at the border and Mexico has begged us to stop doing that. quote:“Mexicans are starting to identify security as a major issue for the presidential campaign,” said Andrew Rudman, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “So I suspect that a lot of that is people feeling they are not safe where they are.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This neatly summarizes the problem: I had edited to add above but just wanted to note the source also -- how would this help do anything but make things worse and probably make him even more unpopular? President Biden has said he'd shut the US-Mexico border if given the ability. What does that mean? apnews.com - Tue, 30 Jan 2024 posted:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden has made some strong claims over the past few days about shutting down the U.S.-Mexico border as he tries to salvage a border deal in Congress that would also unlock money for Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:How do you think they deported people back to their home country for the last 50 years? The bolded part is obvious bullshit from officials in Mexico -- probably printed here in English because it supports this policy -- and I am aware of the Mexican government's historic opposition to immigration especially with respect to labor in their country. If the migrants wanted to go back they wouldn't have left in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 16:33
|
|