Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[djpannda]

So are people's ears mess up too? or i guess is ok when Joe is a racist literally says the N-word

lols its like white and gold / black and blue dress garbage a couple of years ago... People wanted to see the white and gold dress although the dress is blue... but in this case ..you know people are soo used to 4 year of racism, it feels weird when the President isn't being racist

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

lols its like white and gold / black and blue dress garbage a couple of years ago... People wanted to see the white and gold dress although the dress is blue... but in this case ..you know people are soo used to 4 year of racism, it feels where to when the President isn't being racist

You got it the wrong way around, they wanted to see a blue dress even though it was white and gold

 

[IncredulousP]

Masks are not effective.

You invalidated your entire post with 4 words.

 

[leon315]

I saw ex administration Trump blamed China for every mess;
Now we have Biden blames Windstrom for Blackout in Texas.

Very creative indeed, LMAFO.

If Trump won the election, i bet 100% he would blames Chyna for stealing the electricity FROM TEXAS muahahahhaha

 

[Nynrah]

You invalidated your entire post with 4 words.

Not really.

 

[djpannda]

You invalidated your entire post with 4 words.

what are you talking about @Nynrah.. knows the Truth.!!! Surgical mask are a dangerous and don't work...
I mean if they worked, Then wouldn't Dr and Nurse would be wearing Mask for the last 100 year.. I mean what the heck do Dr and Scientist who have studied Diseases and Virus Their whole Lives with Multimillion $ equipment know.
My uncle Bob has worked for Construction and he states mask do not work and never wore them... he states his chronic lung disease has nothing to do with Asbestos

 

[Plasmaster09]

There are so many falsehoods in there that I couldn't ignore this. Honestly, one can only come to believe all of this by taking over what 'news' channels like CNN feeds you without doing your own research.

1) Masks are not effective. In fact, it's even bad for your health to use the same cloth mask for prolonged periods of time like most people do. Just because Fauci or the opposition says something doesn't makes it true.

2) That 500k death toll claim is ridiculous. Do you even know how covid cases and deaths are diagnosed or the statistical hijinx that are pulled? One of the most absurd examples I know of is a Croatian man dying because he falls of a ladder, but he's counted as a covid victim because "covid caused him to get dizzy and fall". First off, the flu is reported to practically have vanished (for 95%). In the Netherlands for example the absense of deaths due to flu and other causes balances out the reported covid deaths, meaning there's no legitimate cause for acting as if more people died than normally; the amount of deaths is within the range of what's normal across the last years. It's no different for the USA. And you also can't just say take the CNN (or whatever channel you watch) death ticker as if that number represents the absolute severity of the matter. There's a major difference between dying BECAUSE OF or dying WITH covid. Speaking in terms of the big picture, most people who don't survive it are old or have comorbidities. Those are the same people who are just as likely to not survive something like a influenza (and no, influenza isn't an innocent virus and that's considering the current state of affairs where have flu jabs (a vaccine)), noro or rinovirus infection. And on top of that there's the unreliability of the PCR tests that much policy is based on. Even the WHO is now (too late) admitting that the number of false positives is too high.

3) When the former President issued a travel ban on China everybody was pissed that he took action because it was allegedly xenophobic and the likes of Pelosi even encouraged mass gatherings in response. I can also write a lot of stuff in a book, but that doesn't makes it true, even if I'm feeding you the words you want to hear. Besides, that guy took an awful long time before coming out with his 'breaking news'. It reeks of self-interest. As for trying to downplay things, I'd take that over intentionally frightening people. Fear is a bad advisor. Things like showing a Chinese guy dropping dead on the street (turned out to be a heart failure), or rows of coffings with covid victims in Italy (turned out those pictures also showed up in articles from years prior, except the coffins contained refugees who died crossing the Mediterranean sea) or death/infection tickers without giving any nuance or context to the numbers. Mortality is the most fragile point of the human psyche, which is why you normally approach such topics with more sensitivity, but this time they threw all of that out of the window and opted to select the most nasty and terrifying choice of words they could come up with. One year later we know that covid's mortality rate is close to flu-range mortality (0.16% vs covid's 0.23% to cite the Netherlands' case), but a disproportionate amount of fear has been instilled in people by marketing the virus as a killer virus that belongs in the same street as ebola. People who live in the tropes and deal with diseases that are beyond question much nastier and deadlier than anything we face are much more sober than how we're responding to covid en masse. So yes, I'd actually appreciate a leader who doesn't wants to frighten his people.

4) Claiming Trump tried to worsen the 'pandemic' (it's only a pandemic because the WHO adjusted the criteria of when something's a pandemic) and get people killed on purpose? That's just hilarious. If anything, a claim like that would be more at home with the Democrat who pushed for and imposed lockdowns. Lockdowns are not proven to be effective, but the collateral damage is catastrophic on so many fronts (financial, sociological, psychological, etc.) and it exceeds any imagined gains. Even the WHO is saying that lockdowns aren't meant to be used like that. Places like Sweden, Japan an Florida are examples that show that you aren't off worse without lockdowns compared to places like Ney York and California, but Democrats and ,Democrat governors in particular, imposed draconian lockdowns regardlessly. It doesn't gets closer to worsening things on purpose than that.

5) Do you even know anything about how things work when it comes to the border? I'm not going to claim things are perfect, but anyone who works at border patrol can tell you that things aren't as cut and dry as news channels are having you believe. Human smuggling and child smuggling is a big problem at the southern border and there's such a thing as "fake families" . Doing nothing out of the goodness of our hearts is also not an option. It's not like Trump invented this policy, he upped the ante with the whole zero-tolerance stuff. Just the media outrage wasn't as present in years prior doesn't means the situation was fine and dandy at the border beforehand - it just didn't warrant TV time.

6) Trump was well within his rights to ask Ukrain to look into Biden's actions. Biden's son was on the board of Burisma (with zero experience in that particular sector). The company which was under investigation, which included Hunter Biden himself. Joe Biden even bragged on camera that he (sucessfully) threatened to withold a billion dollars of aid if Ukrain didn't fire the prosecutor. This isn't up for debate, he bragged about it ON CAMERA. That's called corruption and there's no legimate reason to not investigate it. Doing so isn't strongarming a country to dig up dirt on someone. Besides, Biden hadn't even announced he was going to run for presidency back then, so the notion of Trump trying to eliminate a political opponent doesn't holds up either.

7) There are legimate concerns about the election. Unsollicited voting by mail is logically more prone to fraud because the chain of custody is longer and contains more weak links where things can go wrong. There is plenty of evidence of fraud. There are more people who have reported under oath that misconduct took place (running same ballots multiple tie through the machine, barring Republican pollwatchers from doing their jobs, etc.). In some cases there was even video footage supporting this (Georgia...). You also can't explain to me with a straight face why Biden, who hardly even campaigned, did worse than Hillary everywhere except for the exact places that actually mattered thanks to the counting of votes stopping and dumps of ballots coming in almost exclusively for Biden. A statistical anomaly can happen, but every exact right spot at the exact same time? That's fishy at the very least. Proper audits were never conducted. Just recounting votes serves no purpose if you don't do things like signature verification; I recall that during Bush v Gore every ballot was scrutinized meticulously, didn't happen this time. And not to mention the unconstitutional election rule changes in the swing states. That's beyond debate, but you and likeminded folks conveniently gloss over that. The swing states changed their election rules without going through the state legislature and following proper procedure as they pushed for mail-in-voting and removing as many integrity measures as possible (e.g. signature verification). That's in violation of theie state constitutions and by proxy the constitution IIRC. The fact of the matter is that the courts, even SCOTUS, refused to rule on the merits and dismissed the cases on procedural grounds such as standing and being "too late". If you can't make your case, you can't present your evidence. Getting dismissed on procedural grounds does not equal your arguments getting shattered. That's a fallacy. Officially there's no answer given to the question of whether the election was stolen and the Biden camp and supporters should have welcomed proper investigation the case coming before a judge if only to prove their point once and for all. If the case was judged on the merits, then no room for debate on the matter anymore, but that didn't happen and so people can rightly believe that the election was straight from a banana republic.

8) Ah, there it is, the insurrection! I find it funny how people can act like this was the worst thing ever. On footage you see barriers being removed to let people in. Instead of storming the building you them walking inside, even following the path like a bunch of tourists. Most people who were in Washington did not invade the Capitol. Your rhetoric about Trump inciting people to "fight for him" is dishonest. News outlets as well as the Democrats during the impeachment trial have used doctored footage where they didn't show the entire clip. He clearly instructed people to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard". No sane person person who listened to the entire speech can claim in his/her honest mind that Trump incited people to violently storm the Capitol. Even in terms of the timeline it doesn't makes sense, because he was still giving his speech when people started entering the building. And considering what has been reported and the footage I've seen there's no doubt in my mind that there were Antifa and BLM fellows present there to shake things up in a bad way. And if you want to talk about 'inciting' rhetoric, let's remember how many Democrats have been using similar and even worse rhetoric over the last year. That's ranging from things like telling people to get in the faces of representatives to encouriging the BLM riots (which were objectively worse in damage, deaths and intensity than what happened at the Capitol) and the hateful "make them pay!" rhetoric towards Trump supporters. The Trump defense team presented a nice montage of Democrats in their own words violating the same standards they tried to impose on Trump, which is highly hypocritical. If you think Trump went to far, then you are obligated to also feel the same about many Democrats. Last, but no least, let's not pretend this was a unique event. I recall how the Capitol also got invaded by people during the Kavanaugh confirmations with people banging loudly on the doors in intimidating fashion.

Let's pick through this absolute mess one point at a time.

1) Masks work. This has been proven time and again. Also, by "prolonged periods of time", either you mean for more than a few hours a day (and surgeons don't seem to suffer from wearing the things for hours and hours on end for an operation, so grow up) or you mean wearing the same mask regularly (in which case, just clean the damn thing from time to time). If you're so utterly brainwashed you would believe some random crazies over actual health professionals and just general reason, please do actual, legitimate research before returning to this thread and spewing more dangerous misinformation.

2) Currently, the US COVID-19 death toll is roughly 500k. (And don't you dare blame the last month's on Biden, because there is absolutely zero feasible way for him to have magically prevented those in the span of a month. That's Trump's leftovers.) Statistically speaking, the former President is likely directly responsible for approximately 40-50% of said deaths due to his intentional negligence and active spreading of harmful misinformation.

3) Thing is, it actually is significantly worse than the flu, and Trump's months-long refusal to admit that is why we're doing so badly compared to other nations. The mortality rate may be slightly better, but it spreads like wildfire, we basically just STARTED pushing out vaccines (meaning it had a year-long head start) and it seems to flip the bird to the basic concept of post-case antibodies. Trump deciding to prioritize short-term PR over long-term health and safety is why so many people died of the coronavirus, and "leading by fear" (or rather, leading by safety and sanity) would have likely resulted in a lot less deaths.

4) What? Lockdowns at this point are sort of like a class of students being stuck on silent lunch ad infinitum because the shithead in the corner won't shut up. We all have to do them because every time you REFUSE to is another time we're all potentially in danger. It's significantly better to be 'too' cautious than to be not cautious enough and end up spreading the virus.

5) Morally speaking, even if your unjustified, unproven, racially biased and frankly ridiculous fears are so correct that the number of malicious cases ("child smuggling" and that shit) are equal to the number of non-malicious ones, it's still kinda fucked up to chuck kids in places with conditions so bad they can only sanely be considered concentration camps because there's a coin-flip chance of them possibly being in here for bad reasons that we don't know about. That's if it's 50/50, which it absolutely is not.

6) WHAT?! How the fuck does Trump have any justification whatsoever for asking a foreign power to dig up dirt on his opponent?! You would've flipped your shit in five directions if Biden did the same for Trump!

7) Please provide sources for this brick of nonsense. Every single time Trump and team's unproven fraud claims were brought to court (bar ONE out of SIXTY), they have been shown to be just that- unproven.

8) This is roughly one ton of hypocrisy. First off, the guards letting them in is not a sign of peace (considering they had no business being there and were carrying actual weaponry), it's a sign of which guards need to be fired. A "peaceful protest" wouldn't have carried pipe bombs and had presumably-traitorous staff on the inside tear out panic buttons beforehand. Also, our clips of Trump telling his supporters to fight like hell to "stop the steal" are (according to you) doctored, but your clips of Democrats literally just saying the word "fight" taken completely out of context... aren't? What the fuck? Also, there is absolutely zero evidence of antifa (which is, need I remind you all, NOT AN ACTUAL ORGANIZATION TO BEGIN WITH) or BLM counter-protestors- the only example provided turned out to be the alt-right extremist Jake Angeli, who actually took getting called antifa an insult (despite antifa just being short for "anti-fascist", implying he literally is fascist...). Also, in terms of your various false equivalencies regarding BLM protests, there's an important difference. BLM protests and "making [racist officials and policemen responsible for racially disproportionate deaths] pay" were about systemic bigotry, a general issue. Trump's sore-loser rhetoric surrounded his continued denial of the legitimate results of the presidential election, which he refused to admit for months, and he instructed his protestors to "fight like hell" to change the election results. There's also the matter of that other call we have of him, which amounts to him responding to "President, your base is attempting a coup and they're seriously trying to lynch the VP, do something!" with "I guess [the insurrectionists] care more about the integrity of the election than you, huh?".

You have zero excuse to defend Trump for all he's done.
Please seek psychological help.

 

[Nynrah]

what are you talking about @Nynrah.. knows the Truth.!!! Surgical mask are a dangerous and don't work...
I mean if they worked, Then wouldn't Dr and Nurse would be wearing Mask for the last 100 year.. I mean what the heck do Dr and Scientist who have studied Diseases and Virus Their whole Lives with Multimillion $ equipment know.
My uncle Bob has worked for Construction and he states mask do not work and never wore them... he states his chronic lung disease has nothing to do with Asbestos

I was talking about cloth masks...

 

[Plasmaster09]

I was talking about cloth masks...

You said, and I quote, "Masks are not effective".
This statement is demonstrably false, and even if it applied solely to cloth masks, that too is false (they're significantly more effective than NO mask- just somewhat less effective than actual surgical masks).
Cease spreading misinformation.

 

[djpannda]

I was talking about cloth masks...

I see you can ride a bike

 

[Foxi4]

There's a lot of junk science surrounding masks and people don't account for all of the factors. The way WHO describes it is that they have "plausible mechanistic effectiveness". What they mean by that is, given optimal operating procedure, they provide a degree of protection against pathogens and particulate, which is what they're designed to do. The degree of protection depends on what you wear and how you wear it. The big concern with COVID is exchange of bodily fluids, and your breath does carry droplets. Any physical barrier will redirect airflow from your air passages, but you want to avoid wearing what's effectively a wet sponge on your face. The better the mask is the better it stops moisture from your own mouth from shooting out at someone else *and* prevents you from breathing in moisture and particulate from your surrounding area. There is some truth in saying that, once saturated, a face mask becomes a breeding ground for pathogens that you're wearing on your face. This is precisely why you shouldn't reuse masks repeatedly, or at least you shouldn't do it often. I personally have a rotation of several masks which I keep clean and only wear when I know they're dry to maximise their protective qualities. With that said, the system only "works" if others also follow the same precautions, so real life performance remains to be determined. I don't think enough time has passed to draw accurate conclusions - COVID isn't when we started looking into face mask effectiveness, it's something that's been researched with a variety of airborne diseases. The very least you can say about them is that they stop you from breathing directly at other people's faces, which logically should reduce the spread of pathogens. There's no reason *not* to wear them unless you have a serious respiratory issue already, for instance asthma. Yes, they're annoying - it's been a year and my nose has been rubbed raw many a times. I can live with that, it's a minor inconvenience. Now, if we could *not* spread misinformation in the middle of a pandemic, that'd be great. If you post a claim that's contrary to the scientific consensus, please support it with an actual study, otherwise it's conspiratorial junk.

 

[Hanafuda]

If you read the letter, the Biden administration granted the request from Texas to increase power. They didn't block it. The only BS here is your post.

Well, not exactly from what I've been reading from Texans on twitter. The gist being that ERCOT was asking to bring decommissioned plants back online temporarily to meet power grid needs until the emergency was over. DOE granted the request, provided they could keep the plants operating within current EPA guidelines (unlikely, since that's why they were closed) or else sell the resulting power at $1500 / MWh, which is 6000% the standard rate.

 

[djpannda]

I've been reading from Texans on twitter .

....Texans on twitter.. "America's trusted source"

 

[Hanafuda]

....Texans on twitter.. "America's trusted source"

They're the people affected. So I looked into what they were saying, because I too had given the letter a cursory reading and thought, "looks like DOE actually granted the request."

So I went back and read the full letter, all 4 pages, and that is exactly what it says. The $1500/MWh price for any power produced as a result of deviating from EPA emissions regs is on page 3 of the letter.

 

[djpannda]

They're the people affected.

So then I went back and read the full letter, all 4 pages, and that is exactly what it says. The $1500/MWh price for any power produced as a result of deviating from EPA emissions regs is on page 3 of the letter.

it issue is that you are crediting random "Texans from twitter" with Understanding the Complex Emergency Orders. (no name no link, not even a screenshot)
I raised the issue of Texas ERCOT Gouging Citizens last week because they were not fed. regulated. Regulation is needed otherwise the $80 monthly bill just because $3000 ...

 

[Hanafuda]

it issue is that you are crediting random "Texans from twitter" with Understanding the Complex Emergency Orders. (no name no link, not even a screenshot)
I raised the issue of Texas ERCOT Gouging Citizens last week because they were not fed. regulated. Regulation is needed otherwise the $80 monthly bill just because $3000 ...

The comments I read prompted me to re-read the letter, to look beyond simply concluding that the request was "granted." If you want to get technical about "sources" then the sources are the DOE letter itself, and me reading it. I invite you to do the same. Page 3.

DOE gave ERCOT a Catch-22. Either run the old plants within current EPA emissions regs (impossible since they've not been retrofitted for it), or else sell the resulting power at $1500/MWh, a rate which would bankrupt providers and customers, and at which no neighboring state would buy either.

 

[FAST6191]

Coincidentally enough, the first relevant 'next subject' I can think of is the hopefully-upcoming Equality Act (tl;dr for anyone still unaware, it's basically going to amend the Civil Rights Act to properly protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination),

Do they not already have this?
Generally seems you would have already been in for a world of hurt, both legally and socially, if you were all
"ew no gays, can't work here/live here/shop here"
"ew no tran nies, can't work here/live here/shop here"
and that has been the case for quite a few years now.
Or is this some kind of federal level clarification?

I read
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/02/10322166/equality-act-biden-lgbtq-protection-details and the PDF there. Seems a few states (I am guessing members of the "does not touch water or Canada" set) are missing things at state level. Oh well, minor clarification for a few places and if playing with federal law (which can be distinct from state) then not the worst thing.

Some of it seems dubious -- charging women more than men at dry cleaners was specifically cited in that. I thought it was generally understood that whatever frilly 50 sections thing many women opt for was harder than a simple shirt you shove on a mannequin and steam (or indeed maybe even a special steam mannequin). That is to say an entirely different service -- want to use my CNC machine to make a part and fair enough here are the keys to the workshop, ask me to manually do things to get it all going on and different service entirely.
Car repair was also cited. Generally car repair places (and car stealerships in general) will try to charge you as much as they think you will pay, usually relative to your skills* and manner of dress/signs of wealth, with all kinds of nice pressure things to boot (there are "honest" ones but it is a rarity and they don't usually last as long as those that can undercut others because they are making it somewhere where). I don't doubt women as a whole will generally come off worse for it (biologically speaking they are less interested in technical things, represent a tiny fraction of trades and STEM, high pressure sales tactics don't work as well when if it went down you would not be a smear on the floor and likely be risky enough to pause before someone throwing the first haymaker) but enforcement of that seems mightily hard to do. This is before the "your brakes are not below the limit but getting there, might want to replace them now" response that for many men is "meh, gotta die sometime" (or on the flip side be more likely to appreciate a "well they are in there anyway" type concept) where women tend to be more risk averse as a population and likely to spring for it.
*personally I do all I can to appear clueless and if they take the bait them flip the script after they have already hung themselves as it were. Little more enjoyable than watching sales morons squirm.

The hairdresser one is an interesting one. There was that interesting case the other month/year with the waxing service as well and I am not sure what the outcome of that really wants to be -- different skill and whatever else.

To that end much of this seems nebulous and unenforceable which is the most dubious kind of law. That or the document is trying to sell things harder and overstating the perks.

Also seeing "nightclubs that do not serve food" in their little PDF. I eagerly await the first lawsuits to come because the bouncers let all the scantily clad ladies inside before others, let said ladies in for free (or for a little flash of underwear as was the case the last couple of times I had the misfortune of being dragged to a nightclub), tried to ensure parity inside or the like and get caught mentioning that on a hidden camera.

Curious to see how the taxi example will play out as well. The ridesharing stuff deliberately incentivise long trips and high demand in high demand locations. Waiting would then be a less a fact of "ew darkies" and more "all these yuppies leaving the nightclub and wanting a lift back to the 'burbs is going to earn me a fortune so I am going there". Couple that with the general "I don't go south of the river" nature of a lot of taxis and personal preference in things there.

Conversion therapy ban is a tricky one. On the one hand yeah never seen any evidence of it reliably working (which is the principle sticking point for me) and demonstrably has some quite negative outcomes but at the same time that would also mean all quasi medical practices of dubious merit also are up for outlawing. While I laugh at faith healing, crystals, chiropody, homeopathy and related concepts to such things I don't necessarily know that I want to disallow people being morons by force of law. I also wonder what the end runs around such things will be as the "drag the bad kids out to the desert and make them stack rocks" things are probably still A-OK and yeah.

Might have to go find the bill proper. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text seems to be an older version but elsewhere it was mentioned as being reintroduced I will roll with it for now.

"“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."
Will we have to come back in 5 years to deal with the absolute affront that not including pansexuality in there is? Though more seriously the lack of asexuality could be a fun one in this.
Orientation being bundled in with sex is also linguistically clunky (I mean is it not true that gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation), though probably in a manner that makes it subject to an interpretation.

" Failure to bar peremptory challenges based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual" (think in jury selection, witness questions and the like). I don't necessarily know that I would want to outlaw it as it could pertain to the matter at hand or impartiality, though at the same time blank slate. Hard one there and I also don't know how well it would survive a challenge.

Seems foster care and adoption would also be mandated to not take note of status here. Wonder if it will come before or after the supreme court decision which has a case in the final stages ( https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia-pennsylvania/ ) and what might go there.

"(17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women, are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people. For example, older women in same-sex couples have twice the poverty rate of older different-sex couples."
While generally a do nothing/feel good statement in this I am going to wonder there. If women generally earn less (usually by choice rather than wages lower because you have tits) and arguably spend more ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/126029/Consumers-Spending-January-Last.aspx ) then I do have to note simple maths in this. A lot of the older gay male couples I know have some of the best toys as well.

 

[djpannda]

The comments I read prompted me to re-read the letter, to look beyond simply concluding that the request was "granted." If you want to get technical about "sources" then the sources are the DOE letter itself, and me reading it. I invite you to do the same. Page 3.

DOE gave ERCOT a Catch-22. Either run the old plants within current EPA emissions regs (impossible since they've not been retrofitted for it), or else sell the resulting power at $1500/MWh, a rate which would bankrupt providers and customers, and at which no neighboring state would buy either.

my issue is not what the DOE letter states...and its not follow the EPA or sell it at $1500/NWH...its follow the Fed regulation that everyone else Does ( in fact if ERCOT did it from the start it would be a non issue at all).. or not received federal help..( on rules and regulations that ERCOT and Texas did to themselves)..

its the issue "Radom people on the internet" Is not a source

 

[Plasmaster09]

Do they not already have this?
Generally seems you would have already been in for a world of hurt, both legally and socially, if you were all
"ew no gays, can't work here/live here/shop here"
"ew no tran nies, can't work here/live here/shop here"
and that has been the case for quite a few years now.
Or is this some kind of federal level clarification?

Well, they don't have it enshrined into law yet. And as long as it isn't enshrined into law, there will still be numerous cases like the infamous homophobic baker where people will be discriminated against for being LGBTQ+.
Also, when the legal and social "world of hurt" happens, swarms of people flock to side with the offending bigots and cry "cancel culture" as if giving an insulting name to "the consequences of one's decidedly awful actions" makes it any less justified.

I don't doubt women as a whole will generally come off worse for it (biologically speaking they are less interested in technical things, represent a tiny fraction of trades and STEM, high pressure sales tactics don't work as well when if it went down you would not be a smear on the floor and likely be risky enough to pause before someone throwing the first haymaker) but enforcement of that seems mightily hard to do. This is before the "your brakes are not below the limit but getting there, might want to replace them now" response that for many men is "meh, gotta die sometime" (or on the flip side be more likely to appreciate a "well they are in there anyway" type concept) where women tend to be more risk averse as a population and likely to spring for it.

Oh god, not this argument again. "Biologically speaking", women being less interested in field XYZ isn't them being less interested, it's them naturally gravitating elsewhere due to field XYZ having basically been locked off from them for a decent portion of history. The bullshit of our past, if you will.

Conversion therapy ban is a tricky one. On the one hand yeah never seen any evidence of it reliably working (which is the principle sticking point for me) and demonstrably has some quite negative outcomes but at the same time that would also mean all quasi medical practices of dubious merit also are up for outlawing. While I laugh at faith healing, crystals, chiropody, homeopathy and related concepts to such things I don't necessarily know that I want to disallow people being morons by force of law. I also wonder what the end runs around such things will be as the "drag the bad kids out to the desert and make them stack rocks" things are probably still A-OK and yeah.

People being morons is fine. People being HARMFUL morons (as is also the case with mask-deniers, antivaxxers, etc., albeit for different reasons) is absolutely not. Conversion therapy's best outcome is tantamount to brainwashing, to say nothing of all the other possible outcomes. If a person is LGBTQ+ in some form, it is not their job to change that, nor is it anyone else's RIGHT to try to change them. It is others' job to fucking accept them as they are. And to be honest, considering all the other pseudoscience nonsense ranges from "side effects may include: loss of money" to "side effects may include: getting brought to the hospital because you chugged a 'remedy' made of literal poison", I wouldn't exactly oppose their banning.

"“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality."
Will we have to come back in 5 years to deal with the absolute affront that not including pansexuality in there is? Though more seriously the lack of asexuality could be a fun one in this.
Orientation being bundled in with sex is also linguistically clunky (I mean is it not true that gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation), though probably in a manner that makes it subject to an interpretation.

"(17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women, are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people. For example, older women in same-sex couples have twice the poverty rate of older different-sex couples."
While generally a do nothing/feel good statement in this I am going to wonder there. If women generally earn less (usually by choice rather than wages lower because you have tits) and arguably spend more ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/126029/Consumers-Spending-January-Last.aspx ) then I do have to note simple maths in this. A lot of the older gay male couples I know have some of the best toys as well.

They'll probably have to account for pan and ace shortly after passing it, I bet. Then again, there haven't exactly been cases of people being refused service or occupation due to being asexual (mostly because there's literally no way to tell if someone is asexual unless they or someone that knows them... tells you), and pansexuality likely falls under bisexuality as far as soon-to-be-unlawful discrimination thereof is concerned.
Also, the gender wage-gap isn't by choice. How the fuck would it be by choice?! Though a crude generalization, "wages lower because tits" is arguably closer to the truth- women tend to end up paid less than men for the same jobs, and this isn't exactly helped by work culture treating one's wage like a personal detail to keep secret from most people at all costs.

 

[Hanafuda]

my issue is not what the DOE letter states...and its not follow the EPA or sell it at $1500/NWH...its follow the Fed regulation that everyone else Does ( in fact if ERCOT did it from the start it would be a non issue at all).. or not received federal help..( on rules and regulations that ERCOT and Texas did to themselves)..

its the issue "Radom people on the internet" Is not a source

Like I said, the source is the DOE letter itself. I only looked more carefully because I saw some people online disputing Biden-shills who were disagreeing with the tweet posted here a few pages back. After I read carefully the conditions under which DOE had "granted" ERCOT's request, I saw it was like telling someone they could have a brand new car for free, if they could jump clear over it lengthwise in one hop from a standing start at the front bumper.

If you read the letter and think it says something different, explain.