US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[MetalDestroyer]

vague but reasonable language

The past 8 years have shown me, without a shadow of a doubt, that when put forth by Republican lawmakers this is always malicious in intent. I am far beyond giving these people the benefit of the doubt, as I believe anyone familiar with DeSantis's rhetoric should be as well.

 

[TedEH]

Well first you have to show that it's actually the intent of that vague but reasonable language. Then we can talk about condemning it.

You can condemn an idea without it being implemented first. Otherwise, it gives a pass to any legislative language for which its intent is unprovable or unfalsifiable. Again, what is otherwise the point of "vague but reasonable" language? If you don't want legislation to be interpreted loosely, you don't use loose language.

 

[narad]

You can condemn an idea without it being implemented first. Otherwise, it gives a pass to any legislative language for which its intent is unprovable or unfalsifiable. Again, what is otherwise the point of "vague but reasonable" language? If you don't want legislation to be interpreted loosely, you don't use loose language.

You can of course talk about condemning it without it being implemented. It just runs the risk of being a waste of time. Especially in cases where you're talking about something where it's not even clear there is any intent to try to implement it. Again, I think there are websites that will take bets and hold funds from both parties. I'm much more inclined to discuss the unrealistic outcomes of these bills when I can get paid for the time. The general problem with making a huff about unrealistic outcomes is that we don't get to come back here and recalibrate years down the road when they don't pan out.

And before it gets swept under the rug with the posts on this page, the point of contention here is that this bill is going to be a net win for child abusers. I don't agree with this sort of government oversight, but if this bill was implemented and children weren't allowed to have social media accounts, I find it hard to believe that completely eliminating the possibility of pedos contacting or grooming children over social media is going to be overshadowed by harm caused by abused children not finding abuse-related knowledge online.

 

[TedEH]

if this bill was implemented and children weren't allowed to have social media accounts,

But that's not the part of the bill people are objecting to. Because, again, there's an extra sneaky bit in the bill about needing ID for any website that has potential "harmful sexual content", even outside of social networks. IMO putting both of them in the same bill deliberately justifies one under the banner of the other. The objection has nothing to do with social media. At least mind doesn't.

 

[narad]

But that's not the part of the bill people are objecting to. Because, again, there's an extra sneaky bit in the bill about needing ID for any website that has potential "harmful sexual content", even outside of social networks. IMO putting both of them in the same bill deliberately justifies one under the banner of the other. The objection has nothing to do with social media. At least mind doesn't.

I understand that. But you're assuming sex ed is going to fall into that category in the eyes of the local court, that the supreme court is not going to shoot it down on those grounds (or even the grounds of the majority of the bill regarding social media), or that it would be otherwise enforceable in a useful way. Anything short of all of these things happening means that nothing changes.

 

[TedEH]

But you're assuming sex ed is going to fall into that category in the eyes of the local court

I think a conservative-minded court that wants it to fall under that category will do so. And providing them the language is a tool to open that door. If it supposedly has no meaning or impact, why include it at all then? Should we just pass all language that doesn't appear to have an immediate intent?

Anything short of all of these things happening means that nothing changes.

Just because something doesn't have an immediate impact doesn't mean it's not a stepping stone towards something. What is vague language today can be expanded next year. And then expanded again. Or combined with another definition or some other premise elsewhere to reach another outcome.

I keep asking the question - what is its purpose? If it has a purpose, we should scrutinize that purpose. If it has no purpose, then it should not become law.

 

[Drew]

I understand that. But you're assuming sex ed is going to fall into that category in the eyes of the local court, that the supreme court is not going to shoot it down on those grounds (or even the grounds of the majority of the bill regarding social media), or that it would be otherwise enforceable in a useful way. Anything short of all of these things happening means that nothing changes.

I'm sorry, I know you haven't lived in the States in a long time, but, well... have you been paying attention to what conservative courts have been doing? Of COURSE they're going to interpret the language in the most ideologically restrictive manner possible. It's what they do.

And, ideology aside, if there's room to interpret a law that pushes it that far, it's a poorly written law. You don't even have to assume malicious intent, so much a sheer incompetence. I'm pretty sure Alabama didn't set out to ban IVF, they just accidentally gave their Supreme Court enough room to do so.

 

[narad]

I keep asking the question - what is its purpose? If it has a purpose, we should scrutinize that purpose. If it has no purpose, then it should not become law.

I mean, what are you asking me for? It's certainly one way of talking about pornographic content. I can imagine there are similarly sexual explicit non-education sites which do not strictly qualify as pornography?

 

[narad]

I'm sorry, I know you haven't lived in the States in a long time, but, well... have you been paying attention to what conservative courts have been doing? Of COURSE they're going to interpret the language in the most ideologically restrictive manner possible. It's what they do.

And, ideology aside, if there's room to interpret a law that pushes it that far, it's a poorly written law.

Well they do until it gets pushed to a higher court and completely shut down.

 

[Drew]

Well $1000 says we don't see a future in 2024 or 2025 where young people in Florida are unable to use the internet to access basic sites providing information about sexual education or abuse. Any takers?

I'd met you at $200, I think, that if by 2025 this isn't being used to age-restrict sex education in Florida, that it's only because DeSantis is gone, it didn't stand up to constitutional review, or it's been otherwise appealed. As long as you'll take papal or venmo or something.

 

[Drew]

DrewH, as you continue bring up how much money you make at every opportunity without care for relevance, I'm starting to think the lady doth protest too much. I'm going to need receipts. Until I see them, I'm going to assume you're a middle-manager making a barely-livable wage and you come to this forum to pretend otherwise because it assuages some of the disappointment you read in the eyes of everyone around you. Let's see it, coward.

Yeah, @DrewH, I was thinking the same reading this thread. I think you're gonna need to put up or shut up here.

 

[Drew]

Well they do until it gets pushed to a higher court and completely shut down.

but what if it doesn't? The entire point of sending these up to higher courts is for the chance for the court to make a precedent-setting decision that invalidates a previous ruling the conservative side doesn't like. See: Roe vs. Wade.

 

[narad]

I'd met you at $200, I think, that if by 2025 this isn't being used to age-restrict sex education in Florida, that it's only because DeSantis is gone, it didn't stand up to constitutional review, or it's been otherwise appealed. As long as you'll take papal or venmo or something.

But those are all checks I'm expecting to prevent it from being used. Kind of neutering the bet. While I don't think the intent of the bill is to prevent access to sex education sites, I have no reason to wager that someone wouldn't try to make it so. What I'm wagering is that it, in that instance, it will be ruled that they have no power to do so, and thus, make no difference at all.

Then there are also practical concerns. They can't even get proper age verification implemented on proper pornographic sites, let alone to all sites serving general sex education content. I've been clicking "Yes I'm 18 or over" since I was probably 13.

 

[Xaios]

As long as you'll take papal or venmo or something.

Official digital payment processing platform of the Vatican.

 

[TedEH]

It's certainly one way of talking about pornographic content

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF

The text of the bill doesn't identify pornographic content, it says "Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" according to some other reference to another document somewhere. The word porn is not in the document. That is very loose language that could easily be stretched over sex-ed content, if someone decides that it's describing conduct in an offensive way.

 

[Drew]

But those are all checks I'm expecting to prevent it from being used. Kind of neutering the bet. While I don't think the intent of the bill is to prevent access to sex education sites, I have no reason to wager that someone wouldn't try to make it so. What I'm wagering is that it, in that instance, it will be ruled that they have no power to do so, and thus, make no difference at all.

Then there are also practical concerns. They can't even get proper age verification implemented on proper pornographic sites, let alone to all sites serving general sex education content. I've been clicking "Yes I'm 18 or over" since I was probably 13.

Ok, but what everyone in this thread is telling you, and you seem to disagree with, is Florida is about to do their damndest to make it so, and that given this was their strategy on overturning Roe vs. Wade too, it would be a mistake to assume that this wasn't the plan here.

And I'm pretty comfortable laying money on the fact that Florida is now going to try to do exactly what everyone in this thread is telling you they will, immediately decide that sex ed IS within the purview of this law. Are you still comfortable taking the bet you'd offered?

 

[MetalDestroyer]

Remember when Florida passed a bill making pedophilia punishable by death, and then immediately tried to pass a bill classifying trans people as pedophiles?

There's always the "innocent" step you just can't argue with, followed by the malicious use case. If this were somewhere more moderate I can see the debate, but not Florida in 2024 unless you're deliberately ignoring their past actions.

 

[RevDrucifer]

As a Floridian, I feel pretty comfortable saying that if there’s anything being passed by our current government, it’s not in the best interest of the people.

Once something passes the “not in the best interest for The People” line, IDGAF about the merits of it.

 

[USMarine75]

State constituency elect their representatives to govern and pass legislation according to their beliefs and morals. Desantis was re-elected by a large margin by its constituents to do just what he is doing. That’s how representative democracy works.
The beauty of it all is that if you do not agree with the ideals and morals of the majority of a state’s population, you can move. The people of Florida spoke, and this is what we voted for.

Curious, how do you square that with:
- A Republican presidential candidate has only won one popular vote in over 31 years.
- Gun reform has between 60-90% support (depending on the poll and how the question is phrased). e.g., most have background checks enjoying 90% support.
- 61% of the people say abortion should be legal in all or most cases (Pew). Gallup had 85% saying legal in either all or certain cases. And this is true in nearly every state where abortion was banned all or partially (i.e., whenever it has been put to a referendum it did not pass, yet state legislatures passed it anyway without popular support).
- Pew shows that 56% in FL say abortion should be legal in some or all cases. The lowest I found was 48/48 margin of error split.

 

[Glades]

Curious, how do you square that with:
- A Republican presidential candidate has only won one popular vote in over 31 years.
- Gun reform has between 60-90% support (depending on the poll and how the question is phrased). e.g., most have background checks enjoying 90% support.
- 61% of the people say abortion should be legal in all or most cases (Pew). Gallup had 85% saying legal in either all or certain cases. And this is true in nearly every state where abortion was banned all or partially (i.e., whenever it has been put to a referendum it did not pass, yet state legislatures passed it anyway without popular support).
- Pew shows that 56% in FL say abortion should be legal in some or all cases. The lowest I found was 48/48 margin of error split.

- Desantis won re-election with 59.4% of the vote in a “purple” state. What he is doing must be resonating with a lot of people.
-Background checks are mandatory in Florida to purchase a firearm from an FFL. There is not a single FFL dealer that will let you walk out without the ATF form
- Desantis is not pro-life. He thinks it’s ok to kill babies younger than 15 weeks