╌>

After national backlash, Florida lawmakers eye changes to book restrictions

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  kavika  •  one month ago  •  132 comments

After national backlash, Florida lawmakers eye changes to book restrictions

ALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature wanted to keep obscene books out of the hands of kids. But some are now acknowledging they created a “logistical nightmare” that lawmakers are trying to rein in.

Legislators this month introduced a new idea to curb frivolous challenges to books — one of the first admissions the law, which tightened scrutiny around books with sexual content in K-12 schools, may have gone too far. The potential solution: allowing local schools to charge some people a $100 fee if they want to object to more than five books.


“I’m happy that we are digging in and trying to remove reading material that is inappropriate for our children,” said state Rep. Dana Trabulsy, a Republican from Fort Pierce who is sponsoring the legislation. “But I think [book challengers] really need to be respectful of the amount of books that they are pouring into schools at one time.”

Florida’s Legislature in 2023 expanded education transparency laws by requiring books considered pornographic, harmful to minors or that depict sexual activity to be pulled from shelves within five days and remain out of circulation for the duration of any challenge. If school officials deem a book inappropriate, it can be permanently removed from circulation or restricted to certain grade levels.

The law caused a national outcry after local schools received hundreds of challenges to a wide range of books, leading to reviews of titles like Ernest Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls” and “And Tango Makes Three,” a kids book about a penguin family with two dads. It’s also led to multiple lawsuits against top education officials   and local school boards   asserting that the restrictions violate free speech. Florida, according to the free speech advocacy group PEN America, has “banned” more books than any other state — some 1,406 works total.


Even conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly derided the law after school officials in Escambia County removed two of his books — Killing Jesus: A History” and “Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault That Changed a Presidency” — pending a review for possible sexual conduct. O’Reilly told Newsweek   he implored the state and Gov. Ron DeSantis to take action because the policy is “far too nebulous in Tallahassee” and needs to be “tightened up.”

LINK TO SEEDED ARTICLE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/after-national-backlash-florida-lawmakers-eye-changes-to-book-restrictions/ar-BB1gXp0l?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=607dc7f85f014e4bb029a7ea61762c56&ei=18


Red Box Rules

OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT WARNING.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  author  Kavika     one month ago

DeSantis is too busy losing the presidential primary to be bothered with this.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1    one month ago

from great white GOP hope to just another GOP dope...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago
from great white GOP hope to just another GOP dope...

He laid off more of his campaign staff the other day.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1.1.1    one month ago

2nd place may mean headlining the GOP ticket, if their primary winner is in jail...

did you see on the news that another moms for liberty bimbo got popped for shoplifting at target?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one month ago

I am convinced that the current GOP would continue with Trump even if convicted of a felony.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one month ago
did you see on the news that another moms for liberty bimbo got popped for shoplifting at target?

Didn't see that but it can't be true since they believe that they are in charge of telling us what is moral and what isn't. /s

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.5  author  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    one month ago
I am convinced that the current GOP would continue with Trump even if convicted of a felony.

Without a doubt.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.6  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    one month ago

... currently, I agree. at this point the emotional investment combined with blind loyalty empowers them with the ability to mentally justify any end run around logic and reason. trump has tapped into a segment of voters that 7 years ago were invisible to political science, the pathologically flawed voter.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one month ago

Gee, what a shocker.  These phonier than thou hypocrites are always the ones with the nastiest skeletons in their closets, the first ones caught with their pants down, or with dead hookers, little boys, little girls.  Freaking amoral hypocrite scum.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one month ago

The former 'president's' 'attorneys' are abandoning him in droves and the one who has stuck around, is like she has no knowledge of the law or experience whatsoever.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago

Am I crazy or did I see somewhere where they are banning the dictionary and thesaurus?  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.10  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.9    one month ago

stephen colbert monologue...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.9    one month ago

I'm not, it was in Escambia County, FL

Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus for Students

With Full Color World Atlas

BANNED

Unreal 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.12  author  Kavika   replied to  Tessylo @1.1.11    one month ago

Wow, banning the dictionary, the next step to a country that will be illiterate.

Welcome to ''Hickory Hollar''

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @1.1.12    one month ago

Of course banning a dictionary is silly, but I can't remember the last time that I used a paper version instead of one online.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @1.1.12    one month ago

Someone will aways come along and defend the indefensible

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.14    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.16  Greg Jones  replied to  Kavika @1.1.12    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.16    one month ago

What's the problem?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.18  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    one month ago
"I am convinced that the current GOP would continue with Trump even if convicted of a felony."

He won't be.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.19  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.18    one month ago

I think he will be because of the location of some of the trials, however, the appellate courts would rightfully overturn the convictions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.18    one month ago

How can you possibly be so confident?   His indictments are based on merit with substantial supporting evidence.

Do you actually believe Trump did not do what he is accused of doing?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.19    one month ago

The location?   How about the merits of the case?    Do you think Trump did not engage in the wrongdoings of which he is accused?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.22  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    one month ago
"His indictments are based on merit with substantial supporting evidence."

No they are not.  

No I don't. He hasn't been convicted of anything except a he said, she said sham trial.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.22    one month ago
He hasn't been convicted of anything except a he said, she said sham trial.

Why do you mention the lack of conviction when I made no claim that he was convicted?   There are three key trials regarding Trump's behavior as PotUS.  (44 federal felony charges.)   All of these trials are in formulative stages and thus have not produced a verdict.

You simply declare that none of the indictments have merit.   You simply 'believe' Trump has done no wrong.

So, for example, you (inexplicably) believe that Jack Smith just invented the allegation that Trump engaged in a scheme of creating fake electors in seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).   That these electors went through the same process as legitimate electors, signed the same documents, etc.  That Trump's team attempted to coerce officials such as former Speaker of the AZ House Rusty Bowers to submit his fake electors.   

Similarly you apparently believe that Trump did not try to suborn Pence to violate the CotUS by tabling the certified votes from select states where he won in an attempt to cease the official counting of votes and force Congress to resolve the matter with the hope that (somehow) the fake electors would be chosen over the legitimate electors.   What do you think Trump was referring to when he claimed that Pence let them down?

This, Greg, is a historically unique situation where a PotUS actually attempted to steal a US election.   He attempted to violate the CotUS which he swore to preserve, protect, and defend.   He attempted to circumvent the foundation of democracy — the vote of the electorate.

The evidence is substantial.   The testimonies of high-ranking Republicans who risked their political careers by testifying against Trump are also in play.   

Yet you merely declare that all 91 criminal charges in his indictments are without merit.

You offer:  nuh uh.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.24  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.23    one month ago

apparently trump's fight in the courts for full immunity from his criminal activities isn't convincing...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.1.24    one month ago

I remain amazed at the crazy shit Trump attempts.   Go back to the Big Lie campaign.   What kind of special craziness causes someone to believe that he can literally violate the CotUS with a fake elector scheme and somehow cause Congress to deem him the winner and then get away with that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.23    one month ago
What do you think Trump was referring to when he claimed that Pence let them down?

They DON'T CARE what was meant. Trumpsters, in the political sense, are not redeemable and we should stop trying to reason with THEM. We should try and reason with people who have not yet drank that kool-aid. We cant go around trying to pump the stomachs of everyone who has. 

On the face of it we live in a country where a sizeable percentage of the population shows signs of inhabiting, by choice, an idiocracy.  We have to write the idiots off, not as human beings, but as rational actors in the political sense. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.26    one month ago
... should stop trying to reason with THEM ...

As I have noted before, I do not try to reason with Trump supporters.   I point out the flaws in their claims (and 'arguments').   But I never expect any of them to see reason.

On the face of it we live in a country where a sizeable percentage of the population shows signs of inhabiting, by choice, an idiocracy. 

In the past, I would have deemed that to be an absurd claim.   Nowadays, it is demonstrably true.   

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.28  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.21    one month ago
Do you think Trump did not engage in the wrongdoings of which he is accused?

This has been answered over and over by every conservative on here, but yet you do not accept what you are told.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.1.28    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.28    one month ago
This has been answered over and over by every conservative on here, but yet you do not accept what you are told.

When you write comments that suggest the only reason Trump might be held guilty is location, you are implying that the cases have no merit.   You are implying that guilt is a function of location rather than a function of evidence, the law, and jurisprudence.

You can acknowledge that Trump has engaged in wrongdoing but that does not give you immunity from challenge when you make statements that contradict that acknowledgement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    one month ago

Interesting, I had someone trying to use location to explain the breakdown of the vote on the Civil Rights Bill.

Guess I'll have to inform them that is stupid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.31    one month ago

You totally missed the point.

If someone believes that Trump will be found guilty ONLY because of location then they are ipso facto claiming that the case has no merits.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.32    one month ago
You totally missed the point.

No, I simply did not.

I have no earthly idea why you make the claim that people don't understand you so often. I believe everyone gets you.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.34  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.32    one month ago
ONLY because of location then they are ipso facto claiming that the case has no merits.

Not true. It is well known that the demographics of certain locations of this country lean heavily to one side of the political spectrum and it is well known that Trump is not liked in some of those locations, therefore, minds have been made up even before a trial has started, ergo, it depends on the location if he will be found guilty because of personal biases, no matter the merits.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.35  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @1.1.34    one month ago

For instance, DC leans 94 percent democrat and voted as such for president in 2020.

Do you think those people will listen to reason and base their verdict on the merit, or will they base it on personal biases based on their ideology.

My guess, and it is correct, they will choose the latter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.1.35    one month ago
Do you think those people will listen to reason and base their verdict on the merit,

Nope!

or will they base it on personal biases based on their ideology.

yep!

We have already seen plenty of evidence of such.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.37  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @1.1.34    one month ago

”…it depends on the location if he will be found guilty…”

And the alternative?

If one breaks a law and is indicted in one jurisdiction, had a day in court, and faced the potential consequences…how in any way in our system of jurisprudence does it excuse the crime? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.34    one month ago

I did not and do not suggest that location is irrelevant.   So get that incorrect thought out of your mind.

I have clearly stated that if someone believes that Trump will be found guilty ONLY because of location then they are ipso facto claiming that the case has no merits.

In other words, imagine (if you can) that the cases against Trump are strong and that he would be found guilty by the most objective jury on the planet.   Now hold that thought:

If the trial is conducted in a very biased location and Trump is found guilty, that does not mean that Trump is NOT indeed guilty.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.33    one month ago
I have no earthly idea why you make the claim that people don't

Yeah I should not be so euphemistic.   Most of the time they do indeed understand but pretend obtuseness in lieu of a cogent rebuttal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.39    one month ago
Yeah I should not be so euphemistic.   Most of the time they do indeed understand but pretend obtuseness in lieu of a cogent rebuttal.

Which has little to do with the usual claim that no one understands your "points" and are just too fucking stupid to understand your words.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.41  bugsy  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.37    one month ago
how in any way in our system of jurisprudence does it excuse the crime? 

It doesn't, but if the appeals process shows, and most of these trials will probably go to the SC, that the original jury was wrong in their decision, then it would already had been known that their biases overtook any merits that may have been exonerate to the defendant.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.40    one month ago

I have not made that claim.    You are again, IMO, pretending to not understand plain English.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.43  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.38    one month ago
I did not and do not suggest that location is irrelevant.

Never said you did, so get that thought out of your mind.

"I have clearly stated that if someone believes that Trump will be found guilty ONLY because of location then they are ipso facto claiming that the case has no merits."

That's what you claim, but that is also untrue. The true merits of the case may show that Trump is innocent (imagine that if you can) of the charges brought against him. He does have a very good defense team. The demographics of the political leanings of the population play a huge part in their decision. Some can't help it with their partisanship.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.44  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.40    one month ago

Generally speaking pretzel logic is not easy to untwist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.41    one month ago

Your original comment implied that a guilty verdict of Trump is due merely to the location (the bias of the jury) and NOT due to the merits of the case.   

The case against Trump is substantial.   The likelihood of a guilty verdict is high.   The key mitigating factor, really, is politics due to the fact that a guilty verdict would make Trump the first PotUS in US history to be convicted of a felony and would trigger a shit storm among his irrational supporters.

Bias and politics actually play more into Trump's favor than against it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.42    one month ago
I have not made that claim. 

Your posts are crystal clear to me.

You may not have written the exact words, but the intent is very, very clear.  When one is constantly bombarded with "You don't get it" nonsense, it is easy to discern intent.

You are again, IMO, pretending to not understand plain English

Well, everybody has an opinion.

I think I clearly demonstrated a very real knack for understanding perfectly what you write and what you mean. 

I know, personally, if I felt no one got what I was saying, I would change how I write so that my words were plain and give people JUST a  little credit for reading and comprehending instead of pretending they are too stupid to get me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.47  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.44    one month ago
Generally speaking pretzel logic is not easy to untwist.

Amen!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.43    one month ago
The true merits of the case may show that Trump is innocent (imagine that if you can) of the charges brought against him.

A possibility.   Not likely if one objectively considers the evidence relative to the charges.   And Trump's legal team clearly knows this.   That is why they are engaging in meta tactics to delay the trials, to argue that Trump is immune, etc.    Similar to Trump's early attempts with the classified docs case of declaring they were declassified.   This is all so obvious.   It really is pathetic seeing people bend over backwards in ridiculous attempts to defend Trump.

Some can't help it with their partisanship.

Projection.

Given you have already forwarded your excuse if Trump is found guilty to be a biased jury (per location), your attempt to portray yourself as objective is futile.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.46    one month ago

Again, as you continue to spin, I know you understand what I write.   When you pretend to miss my point again, maybe I should just call out faux obtuseness — pretending to not understand as an avoidance tactic.

I suspect most everyone reading this knows it anyway.   


My point:  If someone believes that Trump will be found guilty ONLY because of location then they are ipso facto claiming that the case has no merits.

Now if you can rebut this thoughtfully, let's see it.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.50  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.45    one month ago
implied

Subjective

"The likelihood of a guilty verdict is high.   The key mitigating factor, really, is politics due to the fact that a guilty verdict would make Trump the first PotUS in US history to be convicted of a felony and would trigger a shit storm among his irrational supporters."

It is and I have said why. No need to go into it again.

What kind of shit storm do you think the left will engage in if he is found not guilty, whether through the original trial or if the SC decides it? My guess is the left will do their usual burning, looting and killing to "peacefully protest" the not guilty decision.

"Bias and politics actually play more into Trump's favor than against it."

Not in the cases if where the cases are being heard, but again, I have already discussed it, so I will not repeat the same things over and over just for sanity sake.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.51  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @1.1.41    one month ago

“…and most of these trials will probably go to the SC…”

Ah, so you are entirely focused on trump and the 91 charges. My comment had no such restrictions.

If there are separate avenues to adjudication, (possibly to a court he helped confirm) for someone with his resources, with his circumstances, then we are defining the two-tiered system of justice so many ignorantly confirm.

Equal justice must…must apply to us all. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.49    one month ago
Again, as you continue to spin

I spun nothing, but am used to people attempting to use that tired, lame tactic on me, Won't work, you'll need another line of attack.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.53  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.48    one month ago
Not likely if one objectively considers the evidence relative to the charges

Not likely in most of these cases.

"That is why they are engaging in meta tactics to delay the trials, to argue that Trump is immune, etc. "

Wouldn't you if you are being tried in a hostile environment by highly biased DA's and prosecutors?

"It really is pathetic seeing people bend over backwards in ridiculous attempts to defend Trump."

The same for those that screech at every breath that Trump is legally guilty of everything he is accused of.

"Given you have already forwarded your excuse if Trump is found guilty to be a biased jury (per location), your attempt to portray yourself as objective is futile."

Your opinion but I'm sorry I did not bend to it for you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.1.53    one month ago

See, if you say anything about Trump that isn't 100% negative, you are a Trump supporter and therefore partisan.

Conversely, if you don't like Trump and already have convicted him, that just means you are not partisan.

See how it works now?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.51    one month ago
Equal justice must apply to us all. 

Appeals are for all Americans convicted of anything.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.56  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.54    one month ago
See how it works now?

I do and that mindset is truly laughable.

And highly partisan

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.57  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.55    one month ago

... and according to the ahole you're defending, taking the 5th is for criminals.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.57    one month ago
and according to the ahole you're defending, taking the 5th is for criminals.

You should read more. I defended no one, but you could always QUOTE me if you want to persist down that road.

And either people can take the 5th or not, no matter what someone may have said. Why on earth do you hang on Trump's every word??????

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.59  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1.57    one month ago
taking the 5th is for criminals.

Will you repeat that if Hunter Biden invokes the 5th during his hearing next month?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.60  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.58    one month ago

It truly is amazing the infatuation some have with one man they will never vote for.

Truly mind boggling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.1.59    one month ago
Will you repeat that if Hunter Biden invokes the 5th during his hearing next month?

images-of-people-laughing-hysterically-gifs-tenor_90.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.63  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.1.60    one month ago
It truly is amazing the infatuation some have with one man they will never vote for. Truly mind boggling.

A fascinating watch, for sure!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.64  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.60    one month ago

How many comments have you made about Biden and you will never vote for him?    This should not boggle your mind. 

This is obvious.   The two likely nominees for PotUS in an election year are going to be mentioned continuously on a news forum such as this.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.65  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.64    one month ago
How many comments have you made about Biden and you will never vote for him?

Difference is I am not infatuated with him.

And I don't always opine about him

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.65    one month ago
Difference is I am not infatuated with him.

The difference is that you are supporting a traitor whose has engaged in some very serious wrongdoings and you obviously cannot defend him (nobody can, effectively).

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.67  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.66    one month ago
you obviously cannot defend him (nobody can, effectively).

Nobody has

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.67    one month ago

Correct.  The attempts at defending Trump are necessarily feeble because it is defending the indefensible.   Not smart.  Not honest.  

In result, nobody has successfully defended Trump.   But some continue in the attempt.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.69  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.68    one month ago
nobody has successfully defended Trump. 

Will you admit you are wrong if he is found not guilty in any of his trials?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.69    one month ago

Depends on the specifics, right?

If a trial determines that Trump did NOT engage in fraud or coercion then I will accept the verdict.   The degree to which I believe the verdict to be correct depends on the actual evidence and arguments (and the law itself).    However, there is no possible way he has not lied or incited his supporters ... we have all seen that ... it is what it is.

But we do not even need a trial for me to admit being wrong.   Make an argument and show that I am wrong about something specific.   A select group of Trump supporters like you are very willing to make claims and disagree on criticism but always, consistently fall short of making an actual argument.

So, for example, I claim that Trump violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS by suborning Pence to table votes from select states that Trump lost (he had created fake electors in seven states) in the hope that this would cease the counting and force the House to step in and (with great wishful thinking) declare him the winner.   This not only violates the CotUS but it disenfranchises voters ... it attacks the very foundation of democracy.

Let's see a thoughtful argument that shows that the above is wrong.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.71  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.70    one month ago
However, there is no possible way he has not lied or incited his supporters ... we have all seen that ... it is what it is.

Subjective

"consistently fall short of making an actual argument."

Again, subjective

"(he had created fake electors in seven states) "

Not the first time a losing presidential candidate has done that, but I'm sure you are well aware.

"The degree to which I believe the verdict to be correct depends on the actual evidence and arguments (and the law itself)."

So you agree what most of us have been saying for months, The evidence is what the prosecution SAYS happened. The defense will also do the same to counter it. I have never stated guilt or innocence, unlike many left wing partisans who have, readily, without push back from the "independents", readily opining that Trump should have been hung from the rafters since Jan 20, 2016

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.71    one month ago

Of course, you offer no argument.

Stating that a trial will include evidence from both sides is of no value.   We all know that.

Claiming that some people have declared Trump guilty is also pointless.   I have never declared him guilty so focus on who you are engaging.

Referring to the Kennedy election is also irrelevant because first you equate this with the Trump scheme (as if the same) and second, even if equivalent, you would be arguing that it is right just because it was done before.   Obvious nonsense.


I claim that Trump violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS by suborning Pence to table votes from select states that Trump lost (he had created fake electors in seven states) in the hope that this would cease the counting and force the House to step in and (with great wishful thinking) declare him the winner.   This not only violates the CotUS but it disenfranchises voters ... it attacks the very foundation of democracy.

You have failed to produce an argument showing I am wrong on this point. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.73  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.72    one month ago

Thank you for your opinion

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.74  Right Down the Center  replied to  bugsy @1.1.71    one month ago

Well said

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.75  bugsy  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.74    one month ago

Thanks

[Deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.76  cjcold  replied to  bugsy @1.1.43    one month ago

Trump is guilty as sin of everything he has ever been accused of and his defense team (the ones who haven't quit) obviously suck hugely.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.77  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @1.1.76    one month ago

I don't think that you have to worry about being selected for jury duty.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.1.65    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.64    one month ago

How many comments have you made about Trump and you will never vote for him?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.80  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.79    one month ago

You really should follow the thread.   

You inadvertently are supporting my point.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.81  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.80    one month ago

Sorry, I am not in the market for unsolicited advice, but I'll be sure to announce it if I am ever in the market.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.82  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.81    one month ago

Regardless, thanks for supporting my point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.83  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.82    one month ago

That's pretty funny, I'll give you credit for making me laugh, thank you!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.83    one month ago

What is funny is watching you pretend you do not understand that you directly supported my point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.85  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.84    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.86  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.1.76    one month ago

TRUTH!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2  bugsy  replied to  Kavika @1    one month ago

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for Florida, he will return as governor and do just as great a job as he was doing before he started running for president.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  Kavika   replied to  bugsy @1.2    one month ago
Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for Florida, he will return as governor and do just as great a job as he was doing before he started running for president.

Seems that you missed the series of setbacks he suffered in court to his ''agenda'' so it's much more likely that it's unfortunate for you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @1.2.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Kavika @1.2.1    one month ago

What "setbacks" are those?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.2.4  author  Kavika   replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    one month ago
What "setbacks" are those?

Losing court cases that kill some of his so called ''woke'' laws.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.5  bugsy  replied to  Kavika @1.2.1    one month ago
Seems that you missed the series of setbacks he suffered in court

I really don't care about lawsuits as they don't affect me or my family, however, it seems to be a huge part of life for leftists.

"it's unfortunate for you."

DeSantis will drop out soon and continue to be your governor for three more years. Nothing you can do about it.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.2.6  author  Kavika   replied to  bugsy @1.2.5    one month ago
I really don't care about lawsuits as they don't affect me or my family, however, it seems to be a huge part of life for leftists.

Sure they do, where do you think that funds come from to pay for the losing causes? It isn't a huge part of life for me I just enjoy watching him get thumped in court since he has a law degree you would think that he wouldn't take up losing causes, but after all, he is fighting ''woke''...LOL

DeSantis will drop out soon and continue to be your governor for three more years. Nothing you can do about it.

Proving that the war on Woke will not sell nationwide and he looks like the loser that he is. Perfect ending for him and three years as a lame-duck governor. 

Cheers

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2  devangelical    one month ago

to protect against the indoctrination of children in public schools and libraries, ultra conservatives want to remove the responsibility from trained and dedicated professionals and give the responsibility to those with a completely invalid concept of the 1st amendment. where is my right to not have thumpers interfere in public schools and public works.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @2    one month ago
my right to not have thumpers interfere in public schools and public works

Yes, indeed.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @2    one month ago

How about letting parents decide what their children should read? They talk a good game about parents taking responsibility and destroying the Nanny State but here they are playing "nanny" to everyone

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2    one month ago

no bigoted thumper dipshits are ever going to tell me or mine what to read...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3  Greg Jones    one month ago

We're talking about school libraries (K-12) not public libraries. I don't believe the children's section of most public libraries allows pornography either.  Parents have every right to complain about inappropriate materials, and I doubt all of them are "thumpers"

That's Gonna Leave a Mark: Tiffany Justice Demolishes Joy Reid on Her Own Show (Watch) – Twitchy

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Kavika   replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago

Try reading the article again and the morality police of FL. ''Moms for Liberty'' are either being arrested for shoplifting or involved in three way with their husband and friend. 

Hypocrites are the last group of nuts we need telling us what our morals should be or what our kids should be reading.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
3.1.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Kavika @3.1    one month ago
'Moms for Liberty'' are either being arrested for shoplifting or involved in three way with their husband and friend. 

Wasn't the husband accused of raping the third 'party' in the 'split roast' ?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.1    one month ago

he wanted to plug in the rug cleaner even though he forgot to bring along the rug..

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.3  author  Kavika   replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.1    one month ago

Yes, he was but as of a few days ago that charged was dropped.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @3.1.1    one month ago

Yes Iggy, they were doing three ways before and there was another scheduled three way that the Mrs. Moral Values bowed out of and when Mr. Moral Values showed up at her house without the Mrs. Moral Values, she declined, so Mr. Moral Values raped her

The ones espousing moral values are always the first ones caught with their pants down.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @3.1.3    one month ago

cha-ching...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago

You don't know what you're talking about and you're projecting, as usual.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago
I doubt all of them are "thumpers"

If they don't support the idiocy of the left then they are "thumpers".  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    one month ago

it's funny when thumpers write laws that make their handbook ineligible for public schools and libraries...

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
3.3.2  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @3.3.1    one month ago

Isn't that separation?....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.3  devangelical  replied to  GregTx @3.3.2    one month ago

... not when their skulls are that hopelessly lodged in their anal cavities.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
3.3.4  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @3.3.3    one month ago

Mmmm, I see. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the polls that indicate that Trump is going to beat Biden?  .

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.5  devangelical  replied to  GregTx @3.3.4    one month ago

what does that have to do with a bunch of thumpers that are too stupid to comprehend the 1st amendment? besides being trump's largest segment of loyal voters, I mean ...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @3.3.5    one month ago
stupid to comprehend the 1st amendment?

Would that be the equivelant of leftist idiots changing the text of a book?  You know like they did with Huckleberry Finn?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.7  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.6    one month ago

I think it's hilarious when sheet wearing, cross burning goobers get marginalized in 21st century america.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
3.3.8  George  replied to  devangelical @3.3.7    one month ago
sheet wearing, cross burning goobers

You could have simply shortened that to democrats. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @3.3.7    one month ago

It is funny when Democrats and their lemmings get treated as they treat others.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.10  devangelical  replied to  George @3.3.8    one month ago

and it only took 100+ years for goober racists to transform the party that was putting mini-balls in them 160+ years ago.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @3.3.10    one month ago

I'd say the Democrats are still pretty racist.  Look at the POTUS they put in office.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.12  devangelical  replied to  George @3.3.8    one month ago

sorry to hear about the political amnesia you suffered from 1964 to 1974.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.5  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago

fortunately for us we have the self appointed defenders of the constitution to decide for others what should or shouldn't be read in america.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

I guess the GoP has determined that the advantage in keeping people ignorant is that it betters their chances for re-election.  

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
4.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    one month ago

igknorantzrulz, unfortunately

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Igknorantzruls @4.1    one month ago

that's their 2024 campaign platform...

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
5  George    one month ago

DeSantis is out, Haley better strike now while she can still have a chance. 

unfortunately the moron endorsed trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  George @5    one month ago
unfortunately the moron endorsed trump.

Agreed

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.1  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one month ago

he had to, the florida primary would have humiliated him and rendered his GOP future highly questionable. all his bros in the statehouse are turning on him.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6  devangelical    one month ago

... too short to be king of the mountain.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7  author  Kavika     one month ago

Bombastic Bill O'Reilly is now complaining since a couple of his books got banned. He was a supporter of the bill until then...LOL

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @7    one month ago

billy o'really needs to get the number of trump's comb over consultant.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  author  Kavika     one month ago

Florida Republicans have decided to ban all books, yes every single book in Florida will be banned and all libraries will be closed and turned into Evangelical centers. 

They, the Republicans have decided that anyone that can read is someone they do not want in their party. They may ask a question or gasp, disagree with the morality of the leaders of the pack.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago

don't give them any ideas or they'll be outlawing the alphabet next.

 
 

Who is online

George
Hallux
Just Jim NC TttH
Ed-NavDoc
JohnRussell
Ozzwald
Outis


43 visitors