Posted by Guitarguy567 on 2/13/2021 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Since the precedent has been set, can we now impeach Bush for his illegal Iraq War?

While we're at it, I push for the impeachment of the following former presidents:

Lyndon B. Johnson
FDR
Harding
Woodrow Wilson
Taft
Hayes
Buchanan
Pierce
Tyler
Jackson
Jefferson

Get on it *House!

Trump second impeachment occurred while he was President. No precedent has been set.

in 1844 Henry Clay would've beat Polk if the Democratic Party Machine didn't stuff the ballot in NYC. Just saying. Henry Clay? Yes, all the way.

Pivotal elections in US History (AKA WE"D BE A LOT BETTER OFF IF THE OPPOSITE RESULT OCCURRED)

1800: Adams beating Jefferson (I would've been a federalist then, and I am one now)
1828 Quincy Adams beating Jackson (guess I am an Adams man too. John Q Adams needs more respect, historically)
As mentioned, 1844 Clay Beating Polk

1852 - Stephen Douglas winning the primary over Pierce and then likely the election.
1912- Taft gets the eff out of the way, Teddy wins the election, and war criminal Woodrow Wilson never has the chance to connive us into a war we had no business being in. Lesson: do NOT elect Ivy League academics.

1932: Hoover somehow beats FDR (would need a change in 1929 to make this feasible). FDR was essentially a monarch and put the system in place that will ultimately be the cause of the decline and fall of the american empire

1963: Kennedy dodges the CIA (Lyndon B was an absolute disaster)

2000: Gore beats Bush. (the world would be a lot saner place right now if that one simple thing had happened. Neocons are the worst. Well, they were until the rise of the Woke Left anyway)

2020: still too early to tell, but some of the policy proposals by Dems are downright frightening (and totalitarian). The mob justice and mob rule of the woke left, at the very least, means sanity and science will not be deciding factors in policy decisions. A new war (or two) seems likely.

There ya go.

Joe Biden is controlled by the "woke left," whoever they are.

To enact unnamed totalitarian policy proposals that will destroy the country.

Also, Republicans are famously pro-science and pro scientific method. Just ask CCCP, who flatly rejects all forms of study besides his own intuition. Or Strikeout, who doesn't care what academic institutions say because the facts disagree with him. Or you, who bought into the election conspiracy myth with zero supporting evidence. Sanity!

Wait, what? Saying people with penises are men and people with vaginas are women is anti-science? That's good to know. I guess I'm anti-science and proud of it. I guess it's also anti-science to say that an organism with a beating heart, limbs, and brain activity is life. If that's "anti-science", sign me up.

Tang, I don't trust the academic community because THEY are now anti-science. They are no longer objective arbiters of truth and fact. They bow to whatever pressures the far left apply to them. Look at the CDC's new school opening guidelines. This is something that should be based entirely on facts and data, not what the "stakeholders" say (their word, not mine).

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/16/2021 9:33:00 PM (view original):
Wait, what? Saying people with penises are men and people with vaginas are women is anti-science? That's good to know. I guess I'm anti-science and proud of it. I guess it's also anti-science to say that an organism with a beating heart, limbs, and brain activity is life. If that's "anti-science", sign me up.

Sex and gender aren't the same thing. This has been well-recognized for decades. You aren't "pro science" if you disagree with them whenever it fits your narrative.

Can you please give evidence that the academic community, as a whole, has their studies influenced by the far-left, to the extent that they ignore scientific data?

I don't know where you got the CDC thing, but I looked up their guidelines from four days ago and searched for the term "stakeholder." It appeared three times - basically encouraging schools to communicate with the community and be transparent about operations. Is this supposed to be where the far-left influenced the CDC? I also looked at the interview they did, and they used "stakeholders" as in they talked to parents and teachers. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

In a document from last year, they define "stakeholder" as "youth service organizations, health centers, etc."

Also, the CDC report appears to be pro-reopening?

"Evidence suggests that many K-12 schools that have strictly implemented mitigation strategies have been able to safely open for in-person instruction and remain open. This document provides an operational strategy to support K-12 schools in opening for in-person instruction and remaining open through an integrated package of mitigation components."

The document is encouraging schools to open with guidelines.


Between this and the AOC thing, I'm going to have to vigorously fact-check every claim you make from now on. Whoever is giving you this news is not doing it in an accurate way.

Here's the flaw in your argument. I have no narrative in regards to this. I really don't care what people want to identify as. I will call people whatever they ask me to call them. But words must have an objective and practical meaning. The way the left uses the term "gender" has no true definition. And no, it has not been "well-recognized for decades." I'm not sure where you got that from, but you are wrong. Up until very recently, sex and gender were synonymous (they still are on the right).

Posted by tangplay on 2/16/2021 10:14:00 PM (view original):
Can you please give evidence that the academic community, as a whole, has their studies influenced by the far-left, to the extent that they ignore scientific data?

Yes. This one is easy. The "academic community" agrees that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Thanks for the easy question.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/16/2021 10:21:00 PM (view original):
Here's the flaw in your argument. I have no narrative in regards to this. I really don't care what people want to identify as. I will call people whatever they ask me to call them. But words must have an objective and practical meaning. The way the left uses the term "gender" has no true definition. And no, it has not been "well-recognized for decades." I'm not sure where you got that from, but you are wrong. Up until very recently, sex and gender were synonymous (they still are on the right).

I would argue that the left's conception of the term sex vs gender is far more practical than the right's. Why would we have a different term for sex and gender if they mean the same thing?

Words are constantly changing meaning. I don't deny that for most Americans, the terms were and to some extent still are synonymous. When I said "well-recognized for decades," I was referring to the academic community.

Think about it. If you see someone just in daily life, how do you know what pronouns to call them without asking? You can't see their genitals, right? I could give a ton of other examples proving that sex and gender clearly are not referring to the same thing.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/16/2021 10:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/16/2021 10:14:00 PM (view original):
Can you please give evidence that the academic community, as a whole, has their studies influenced by the far-left, to the extent that they ignore scientific data?

Yes. This one is easy. The "academic community" agrees that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Thanks for the easy question.

As stated before, no one believes that boys can be girls. Trans women are women.

How do you know that their conclusion about trans people is influenced by the far-left and isn't factual?

If transitioning isn't something backed up by data, why is it that trans suicide rates plummet when given puberty blockers from a young age or hormone therapy?

Again, every normative claim made by the left appears to be accurate.

Posted by tangplay on 2/16/2021 10:21:00 PM (view original):
I don't know where you got the CDC thing, but I looked up their guidelines from four days ago and searched for the term "stakeholder." It appeared three times - basically encouraging schools to communicate with the community and be transparent about operations. Is this supposed to be where the far-left influenced the CDC? I also looked at the interview they did, and they used "stakeholders" as in they talked to parents and teachers. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

In a document from last year, they define "stakeholder" as "youth service organizations, health centers, etc."

Also, the CDC report appears to be pro-reopening?

"Evidence suggests that many K-12 schools that have strictly implemented mitigation strategies have been able to safely open for in-person instruction and remain open. This document provides an operational strategy to support K-12 schools in opening for in-person instruction and remaining open through an integrated package of mitigation components."

The document is encouraging schools to open with guidelines.


Between this and the AOC thing, I'm going to have to vigorously fact-check every claim you make from now on. Whoever is giving you this news is not doing it in an accurate way.

Since you looked at the guidelines, I guess that you saw that it was broken down into four tiers based on community spread. According to CNN, 99% of students fall into the "red zone", which basically still calls for virtual learning. I will post an interview with Jake Tapper and Walensky below where he did a great job pressing her on this. No, the guidelines do not advocate for school reopening when you actually look at them.

I know what they meant by "stakeholders" in the interview and no I don't think that teachers or parents should have a say in whether schools reopen or not. This decision should be based strictly on facts and data.

I get my information first-hand. Google scholar is a great tool. Just because I don't trust the "academic community" broadly, doesn't mean that I can't look at a study and tell if it's credible or not.

Yeah, I screwed up the timing and context of the AOC quote. I had heard somewhere and was pressed for time, so I didn't verify it thoroughly. Shoot me for it.

Tapper interview:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/02/14/cdc-director-rochelle-walensky-reopening-schools-tapper-sotu-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/coronavirus/