President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

[NCFisher]

I didn’t think you were in favor of abortion. I said that your argument is formulated the same way as the classic Roe/Casey defense: emotionally declaiming how bad the outcomes are and declaring that the individual has a right to be free from such bad outcomes.

Like the anbortion argument, the claim of an individual right is extremely thin. There’s no right to be free from all bad outcomes resulting from legislation, and the severity of the outcome doesn’t go into the formation of a right (and even if it were a right, it wouldn’t justify using a blunderbuss to lawlessly withhold funds from the entire state).

The things in bold aren’t that bold, unless they could be called a bold step back from what you were saying before, but I respect the tacit admission that you were wrong before and mostly agree with this new, non-authoritarian version of your argument. No rebuttal.

Well, let's hold up patting ourself on the back. Nothing I've said carries a tone of authoritarianism; I think you're again making an assumption without inquiry.

I've been under no impression that Trump can withhold all funding from Maine, and never been supportive of that possibility. I've not seen Trump define his "all funding" as that as all educational or all federal funding. I don't think he believes he could withhold all federal funding, being pretty damned sure he was advised of that early. Ed funding with a Title IX and ERA and EPC components however, is a different matter. May well be that we'll know when he - or DOJ - actually do something, rather than talk about something. The Friday statement from DCR is coming from the angle of anti-discrimination violations.

There seem to be a number of cases deciding both against and for males being able to play on female teams on EPA and EPC basis. Now that Title IX language is respecting of the intent of the law, I'm glad to see the challenge.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[n_huffhines]

They are certainly laying some groundwork

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Seriously.
I limit my interactions with the team posters from either side.
I prefer people like you that have a learning but put consistency of belief over party affiliation

Thanks and right back at you

 

[Orangeslice13]

Thanks and right back at you

 

[RockyTop85]

Well, let's hold up patting ourself on the back. Nothing I've said carries a tone of authoritarianism; I think you're again making an assumption without inquiry.

I've been under no impression that Trump can withhold all funding from Maine, and never been supportive of that possibility. I've not seen Trump define his "all funding" as that as all educational or all federal funding. I don't think he believes he could withhold all federal funding, being pretty damned sure he was advised of that early. Ed funding with a Title IX and ERA and EPC components however, is a different matter. May well be that we'll know when he - or DOJ - actually do something, rather than talk about something. The Friday statement from DCR is coming from the angle of anti-discrimination violations.

There seem to be a number of cases deciding both against and for males being able to play on female teams on EPA and EPC basis. Now that Title IX language is respecting of the intent of the law, I'm glad to see the challenge.

My guy…

I'm fine with the Fed doing it. It's somewhat expected as a citizen of the state and the republic.

The states - in this case, Maine - can make a choice to stand on continuing to allow abuse of females, or not. Perhaps they prefer funding their education so they can continue.

I love the fed no longer sanctioning abusive men in makeup, taking out their psychological distress on women.

Admittedly, I missed the first time you said it should handled in court, but gtfo with this “nothing I said was authoritarian.”

If Maine government's idea of self-determination is to allow it, then I'm against Maine having that self-determination.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

Oh my!

 

[BreatheUT]

Abrams is as crooked as they come. She was worth 100k when she first ran for Governor and now is worth over 3 million and that's probably low. Lots of shady companies and "groups" linked to her. Remember this gem?

Stacey Abrams received six-figure income from mysterious corporate entity

A dei grifter. These people come up with social constructs as ways to scam the public.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Oh my!

There are a few posters that will need an urgent mental health appointment tomorrow.

 

[85SugarVol]

He's not Ultra MAGA

He's MEGA MAGA

Lol I was gonna go with Maga Man, but Mega Maga just sounds even better.

 

[VOLLeeann]

 

[C-south]

View attachment 724143

This is pitiful.

 

[lawgator1]

Let's be honest. The name change was just Trump antagonizing people, which is why the MAGA resentment base supported him in the first place.

 

[NCFisher]

My guy…



Admittedly, I missed the first time you said it should handled in court, but gtfo with this “nothing I said was authoritarian.”

My dude,
screwed up the cut/paste so need to click to see responses.

I love the fed no longer sanctioning abusive men in makeup, taking out their psychological distress on women. My 1st comment, referring to nothing more/less than eliminating the Biden modifications to Title IX, and returning it to its intent of preventing sex discrimination in sports against women. And not gender dysphoric men.

More accurately, how dedicated to continue allowing males to abuse, invade privacy, and put at risk females, are Democrats; it is the plot they want to be seen planting their flag in? We'll see. I'm fine with calling their hand. 2nd: Referring to nothing more/less than the Fed taking an interest in what I stridently think Is wrong, M2F athletes competing with women.

I wouldn't ignore the neighbor beating his dog, on the chance he might then take it out on his kids. I can't control what he might decide to do, but what he's doing. 3rd - still no appeal to authoritarianism.

The states - in this case, Maine - can make a choice to stand on continuing to allow abuse of females, or not. Perhaps they prefer funding their education so they can continue.

I don't consider any state having a right to letting abusive men obliterate women on the field, any more that a state has right to transition a kid in school and hide it from the parents, remove the child from those parents, or medically/surgically - and psychologically - screw them up for life. If a state will not protect the weak, I'm fine with the Fed doing it. It's somewhat expected as a citizen of the state and the republic. 4th, and demonstrably true we've a history of the Fed rightfully protecting or establishing civil rights when states would not; another noting more/less appeal to do the same here.

Whether one likes it or not, federal funding is strings-attached regardless of state law. I think Federal court is the proper place to sort it. In the meantime, I'm glad that it is being publicized as the wrong it is, win or lose in court. And since these things slide under the radar often, perhaps Maine residents need that awareness, and petition their legislature.

If Maine had a state law against hunting children that the Fed wanted to strike because Fed $ were allocated, I'd side with Maine in federal court. 5th - Stating the obvious regarding conditional funding, federal court is the place to sort it, and (preferably) the citizens of Maine become more aware of the law (if not) and belabor Maine government to change it. Still no authoritarian appeal.

And yes, I do think it is a right to not be state-sanctioned victims of abusive men on the field, arena, rest room, or the locker room. If Maine government's idea of self-determination is to allow it, then I'm against Maine having that self-determination. We can both think of a litany of state-sanctioned evil and discrimination - "self-determination" - the Fed squashed. 6th - purple font you quoted but with no context; my context is green font. To flesh that out, depending upon the angle Trump lawyers or DOJ take, it could be withholding Ed. funds or a charge of violation of anti-discrimination law as the DCR sent Friday. Or both. I think those grants go out in June and October, so there's time for this to get to court.

You'd really have to discount everything up the self-determination quote, seize on that, and assume authoritarianism advocacy. You'd nearly have to want to see it to leap there.

Foremost, I'm glad the admin is taking this on. It was always going to be a court case. If they make a shite case, they'll lose; I obviously hope they make a sterling case because I think it simply wrong, from any angle. And I think a case - whether funds, a charge of violating IX rule or anti-discrimination law - a better prospect than you do with the intent of the rule restored. The Women's Sports Foundation has a number of examples: issues-related-to-girls-and-boys-competing-with-and-against-each-other-in-sports-and-physical-activity-settings-the-foundation-position.pdf.

What if the court ultimately finds against the WH or DOJ? Then I'll think the court is on the wrong side of the issue, and hope Mainers force revocation of their law. But pending that, or a better-presented case, it's dead. There's literally been no - and will be no - avenue for authoritarianism to travel. GTFO with claiming it. As stated earlier, like it or hate it, there are strings attached to Fed $.