• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Biaggi’s Second Opium Den

Comrade Izaac said:
>Unpopular President with high inflation ratings
>Win historic victories regardless in off-year midterms by engaging in untraditionally bold liberal economic and social policy while the opposition handicaps itself thru promoting unpopular and insane restrictions on civil and economic liberties
>Immediately pivot rightwards on key issues like immigration and LGBT policy, do little to nothing to enshrine abortion rights into law federally

either Jeffrey Zients is completely fucking up Ron Klain's previous groove or this is one of those moronic Democratic 600IQ strategies where they deliberately try to coax the Republicans into achieving the most unpopular social policies on the state level possible to reap the rewards electorally. that could either fail horribly, see Trump 2016 or work well because of a favorable environment ala post-Dobbs 2022 Midterms and forward. either way it's a stupid and risky gamble that completely betrays his constituents. what's new.
Click to expand...
Disappointing but the GOP controls the House lmao, what is Brandon supposed to do.

Also, the trans athletes issue is something the GOP has an advantage on in terms of public support, unfortunately.
 
theflyingmgoose said:
Also, the trans athletes issue is something the GOP has an advantage on in terms of public support, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

issue polling means jack shit, let's all be fr here. it has demonstrably cost the GOP unbelievably winnable to slam dunk elections, the physical evidence is plain to see.
theflyingmgoose said:
Disappointing but the GOP controls the House lmao, what is Brandon supposed to do
Click to expand...

THIS WASNT FROM CONGRESS THIS WAS A TITLE ORDER FROM A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT.
 
Comrade Izaac said:
issue polling means jack shit, let's all be fr here. it has demonstrably cost the GOP unbelievably winnable to slam dunk elections, the physical evidence is plain to see.


THIS WASNT FROM CONGRESS THIS WAS A TITLE ORDER FROM A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT.
Click to expand...
Joe Biden praised segregationists and defended his opposition to bussing just a few years ago.

The truth is that he was always this conservative, and all this wishcasting about him being the second coming of FDR is proving counterproductive. If he commits to this right-ward road any further, he needs to be primaried. The centre-left has the opportunity to establish a soft hegemony for the first time in 80 years, and we can’t let Junior Soprano block it.
 
Catalunya said:
Joe Biden praised segregationists and defended his opposition to bussing just a few years ago.

The truth is that he was always this conservative, and all this wishcasting about him being the second coming of FDR is proving counterproductive. If he commits to this right-ward road any further, he needs to be primaried. The centre-left has the opportunity to establish a soft hegemony for the first time in 80 years, and we can’t let Junior Soprano block it.
Click to expand...

the problem with Biden is that, because we cannot forget that the man's brain is literally dying, Brandon isn't really in charge. basically all candid reporting of the White House functions confirm he's being run around by a rotating troika of key white house staff and his wife, as well as Congressional leadership.

fuck primarying Biden, that's a useless endeavor although i will be voting for Marianne Williamson, was already going to ask a joke but now im actually fr about it. the real gold is toppling the Democratic Party leadership by fundamentally changing their bench of elected officials. there needs to be a massive doubling down by liberal, progressive and socialist organizations in explicitly running strong Congressional and state level campaigns, modeled after winning successes in the Great Lakes and major cities like L.A, Chicago, Boston and Pittsburgh. that's the only way shit is going to get done at all around here, the voting base has to express it's popular will in the three actual institutions that matter anymore (Congress, State Governments and Courts, all of which are linked).
 
Comrade Izaac said:
View attachment 67707

like ok man what the fuck kinda David Shor ass nonsense is this
Click to expand...

This just reads as the admin prohibiting blanket bans on trans students and giving schools a little wiggle room to disallow outlier cases. It's shitty and reeks of compromise for the sake of compromise, but it's not as bad as y'all were making it out to be. The rule still prohibits schools from the wholesale prevention of student athletes competing in the division matching their gender identity.
 
Luke_Starkiller said:
This just reads as the admin prohibiting blanket bans on trans students and giving schools a little wiggle room to disallow outlier cases. It's shitty and reeks of compromise for the sake of compromise, but it's not as bad as y'all were making it out to be. The rule still prohibits schools from the wholesale prevention of student athletes competing in the division matching their gender identity.
Click to expand...

yet it explicitly allows "exceptions" on the basis of gender inspection and other "sexual factors" under the blanket jurisdiction of "meeting educational needs", if u read the actual text of the Department of Education's order. let's not be ignorant or blind to the legal reality of that text, that is explicitly allowing conservative states who have control of local power structures like (heavily gerrymandered) state legislatures and local courts to pursue bans on trans athletes in red states under the explicit knowledge that they will do so.
 
Also IDK how this makes Biden not FDR, considering the latter for all his basedness threw Japanese Americans in internment camps and excluded Black people from the New Deal.
 
Comrade Izaac said:
yet it explicitly allows "exceptions" on the basis of gender inspection and other "sexual factors" under the blanket jurisdiction of "meeting educational needs", if u read the actual text of the Department of Education's order. let's not be ignorant or blind to the legal reality of that text, that is explicitly allowing conservative states who have control of local power structures like (heavily gerrymandered) state legislatures and local courts to pursue bans on trans athletes in red states under the explicit knowledge that they will do so.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree that it carves out too large of an exception and that red states will try to take a mile after being given this inch.

I've read the text and I can easily see the admin going "actually this is functionally a categorical ban" whenever the red states try to kick trans students off teams. The regulation reads as follows:

"If a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student's eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied."

That language is classic litigation bait, and more importantly, it's injunction bait. In lieu of this regulation, red states were going to keep discriminating. Now, when they try to do it, the DOJ will drag the school/state in front of a federal judge- possibly a Biden appointee instead of the guarantee of some toadie of the red state's governor.

That's HUGE for kids in red states that are part of moderate-to-liberal federal circuits. Kids in states like Kansas and Oklahoma, or Indiana, or Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee get to breathe a little easier now.

Is it perfect agency rulemaking? Fuck no. I wish it would've granted more protections. But it seems like it's a positive step forward without putting all our cards on the table.
 
Last edited:
Luke_Starkiller said:
I 100% agree that it carves out too large of an exception and that red states will try to take a mile after being given this inch.

I've read the text and I can easily see the admin going "actually this is functionally a categorical ban" whenever the red states try to kick trans students off teams. The regulation reads as follows:

"If a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student's eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied."

This is litigation bait, and more importantly, it's injunction bait. In lieu of this regulation, red states were going to keep discriminating. Now, when they try to do it, the DOJ will drag the school/state in front of a federal judge- possibly a Biden appointee instead of the guarantee of some toadie of the red state's governor.

That's HUGE for kids in red states that are part of moderate-to-liberal federal circuits. Kids in states like Kansas and Oklahoma, or Indiana, or Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee get to breathe a little easier now.
Click to expand...

i can see the logic here but if im being frank i do not think the Biden Administration is operating off of this logic because to be clear, the people who run the Administration are less intelligent than a bunch of 19 year olds on an alt history forum unironically
 
Comrade Izaac said:
i can see the logic here but if im being frank i do not think the Biden Administration is operating off of this logic because to be clear, the people who run the Administration are less intelligent than a bunch of 19 year olds on an alt history forum unironically
Click to expand...

I mean regardless of what logic they use, I think this will be the practical effect provided that Merrick Garland isn't a pussy and lets Assistant AG Kristen Clarke do her thing.
 
Luke_Starkiller said:
"If a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student's eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied."
Click to expand...

And speaking as someone in law school who wants to work for the DOJ, if this was the language given to me to enforce, this is how I do it:

  1. red state gets greedy, decides to try to kick a trans kid off a sports team
  2. I body slam through the skylight
  3. We eventually go before a federal judge in like the 6th or 7th circuit (assuming it's Tennessee or Indiana, who are trying to pull this shit atm)
  4. "It's vague language? Fuck you, we still got chevron deference so your ass gotta listen to me!"
  5. "You ain't minimizin' harm, WHAT!, this isn't fulfillin' an educational objective, WHAT!, and this here's functionally a categorical ban, WHAT!"
  6. "and THAT'S THE BOTTOM LIIINE, 'CUZ STONE COLD SAID SO."
  7. Circuit judge shrugs, grants an injunction
  8. It takes two years to come before SCOTUS, meaning that the admin has ample time to keep boiling the transphobic frogs.
 
Comrade Izaac said:
i can see the logic here but if im being frank i do not think the Biden Administration is operating off of this logic because to be clear, the people who run the Administration are less intelligent than a bunch of 19 year olds on an alt history forum unironically
Click to expand...
I mean I'll be honest as someone in law school who has read arguments, this sounds like how the government/outside groups would attack red state bans. I also bet from the backlash we get a "clarification" on certain parts.
 
AnActualFam said:
I mean I'll be honest as someone in law school who has read arguments, this sounds like how the government/outside groups would attack red state bans. I also bet from the backlash we get a "clarification" on certain parts.
Click to expand...
I think it’s worth separating the legal logic here - a significant improvement on the status quo that minimizes the attack surface on pro-trans policy and maximizes it on the bigots, if backed up by effective Justice Department support - and the political logic, where selling it as a compromise* and including the specific language seriously weakens trust in the administration without getting anything out of it for anyone.

*Can this be chalked down to the Washington Post and other sources interpreting the new policy in a specific light, rather than a deliberate triangulation? It is possible, but either the administration failed the basic test of recognizing how the policy would be read, recognized it but decided not to get ahead of it, or deliberately sold it to the press that way. Any of those would be malpractice.
 
Wolfram said:
I think it’s worth separating the legal logic here - a significant improvement on the status quo that minimizes the attack surface on pro-trans policy and maximizes it on the bigots, if backed up by effective Justice Department support - and the political logic, where selling it as a compromise* and including the specific language seriously weakens trust in the administration without getting anything out of it for anyone.

*Can this be chalked down to the Washington Post and other sources interpreting the new policy in a specific light, rather than a deliberate triangulation? It is possible, but either the administration failed the basic test of recognizing how the policy would be read, recognized it but decided not to get ahead of it, or deliberately sold it to the press that way. Any of those would be malpractice.
Click to expand...
This is very true, though I will point out that WaPo apparently misread it and had to edit it, so if I had to bet, it might be the former, but who knows. We should get further "clarifications" to see where the administration truly stands as this is a proposed policy, so it will be interesting to see what changes and stays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top