• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anyone notice how stable the Biden cabinet has been?

True, but we do have an administration that is telling us that a woman can also have a penis.

An unstable administration affects the nation. The Trans issue is minor by comparison, not to mention that not all dems agree on the woke view.

False equivalency.
 
It just boggles my mind that so many on the right seem to miss the daily/hourly chaos that was the Trump Administration. I sure as hell, do NOT!!! Stable mable works for me.
 
Of course, the Cabinet is "stable."

Like it or not, President Trump took an active, hands-on approach to his Cabinet.

Ah yes, with Trump it's the old 'appointing a fox to regulate the hen house', principle; many of his appointments were lobbyists in the same industry they were appointed to regulate or they were antagonists to the regulatory bodies.

For example, for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau he appointed the OMB director, Mick Mulvaney, a founding member of the Tea Party, who are CFPB antagonists.

Not only that, Trump appointed mainly 'acting' directors, to get around the Senate Approval process, allowing him the freedom to fire appointees at will. The big controversy in doing this is not only does it fly in the face of federal law establishing cabinets, how execs are approved, etc, it destroys morale in the rank and file of those affected cabinets, as acting directors command little respect and are seen as whimsical political operatives.

The point is, under Steve Bannon's "deconstructing the administrative state' bullshit narrative, Trump followed his advice and appointed people to undermine the departments, emasculate them, destroy them, leaving many important posts unfilled, which is what Trump did with the State Department. I will take years to restore the state department to it's full potential of it's former years. Many operatives in the state departments are trained for years, are lifers dedicated to the mission, many of whom left during Trump as they felt their services were no longer needed, and replacing them will take years. Hell, half the ambassadorships were left empty. Running a country without a well staffed state department is like flying a Boing 747 without an instrument panel, or half of the instruments on the panel are not working. Micromanaging the executive branch is impossible, but that is what Trump, someone who is used to running only a mom and pop operation, tried to do with the nation. He was wholly unfit to be president, not ot mention he couldn't hardly utter a compound sentence, who didn't read, refused to read his daily intel briefs, who spent much of his time watching TV and golfing, being more concerned with crowd sizes than anything important, etc.
 
An unstable administration affects the nation. The Trans issue is minor by comparison, not to mention that not all dems agree on the woke view.

False equivalency.
That comment was made not in regard to cabinet stability. I was replying to a post that implied it was only the right that tried to push unscientific concepts.
 
You mean he's not on his third chief of staff, second secretary of state, and several haven't been indicted?

Trump wanted loyalists.

Once the cabinet members began straying, Trump forced them to resign, then kept a rotating bunch of "acting", so he could circumvent the whole notion of having the Senate approval process.
In other words,Trump was the worst President this country has ever had.

Currently, Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President in 2024.

Go figure. The GOP is being led by fools.
 
In other words,Trump was the worst President this country has ever had.

Currently, Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President in 2024.

Go figure. The GOP is being led by fools.
And it's entirely possible your candidate may lose to a fool ... again.
 
Why is transphobia such catnip to righties these days?
It's not transphobic to demand that MtFs, who have an edge biologically, stop participating in Cis Female sports.
 
In another sign of stability returning to this country since Trump has gone: I just realized how stable and quiet Biden's cabinet has been. Despite saying "I only hire the best people", Trump's cabinet was just one big rotating door of people coming and going. No one could stick around for more than a few months, except his own family members. There was just so much movement and noise and commotion and cussing and hard feelings and backbiting, etc, etc... it was hard to figure out what was what. This did not give confidence we we were dealing with someone who had the first clue what they were doing.

It's a little like the difference between driving in a luxury car, where you don't even hear the engine or know that the car is gliding along the road at high speeds, vs riding in a crickety old wagon where you feel every single bump on the road and the wheels are coming off every 2 minutes.

I'd argue the cabinet is stable & quiet, because Biden himself is stable and quiet! (y)
 
It's anti-science.

Not really. It's anti-science as much as getting a nose or boob job. If it's not hurting you, it's none of your business. I thought you were a liberterian. So it's surprising you want to stick your nose in to so many places it doesn't belong.
 
Not really. It's anti-science as much as getting a nose or boob job. If it's not hurting you, it's none of your business. I thought you were a liberterian. So it's surprising you want to stick your nose in to so many places it doesn't belong.
I didn't say it hurt me, and it doesn't anymore than, say, Creationism does. And I'm not sticking my nose anywhere. I'm making an assertion about what is and what is not.

The issue is whether the left ever resorts to thinking that could be considered anti-science, and it certainly does. The idea that a genetic man is somehow a woman merely because he, the man, thinks he is - i.e. a faith-based standard of gender -- is manifestly anti-science, which is my point.
 
I didn't say it hurt me, and it doesn't anymore than, say, Creationism does. And I'm not sticking my nose anywhere. I'm making an assertion about what is and what is not.

The issue is whether the left ever resorts to thinking that could be considered anti-science, and it certainly does. The idea that a genetic man is somehow a woman merely because he, the man, thinks he is - i.e. a faith-based standard of gender -- is manifestly anti-science, which is my point.

The shape of one's nose is also largely genetic. Is it anti-science to get a nose job?

Whether one is near or farsighted is also largely genetic. Is it anti-science to get LASIK?

Heck, in the last few years, we are even doing gene therapy for when we don't like our genes. The first cases were in babies born blind. After insertion of the new gene into their eyes using a viral vector, many of these babies started recovering vision:


Is this also anti-science?

We humans have been using our knowledge of science to mess with mother nature for a long time now- perhaps since we first cleaned and bandaged a wound. According to your line of thinking, this is all anti-science. If God wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings, right?
 
Last edited:
Why is transphobia such catnip to righties these days?
Because all their other gripes are being stomped out. They just move from one to another and then eventually, they start over. You can bet your mortgage on it.
 
Why is transphobia such catnip to righties these days?

Well- there’s also pedophilia and communism. Everything is pedophilia and communist. Don’t like the new traffic light at your intersection? Communism! Don’t like broccoli? Communism! Don’t like your new boss? Must be a pedophile!
 
The shape of one's nose is also largely genetic. Is it anti-science to get a nose job?

Whether one is near or farsighted is also largely genetic. Is it anti-science to get LASIK?

Heck, in the last few years, we are even doing gene therapy for when we don't like our genes. The first cases were in babies born blind. After insertion of the new gene into their eyes using a viral vector, many of these babies started recovering vision:


Is this also anti-science?

We humans have been using our knowledge of science to mess with mother nature for a long time now- perhaps since we first cleaned and bandaged a wound. According to your line of thinking, this is all anti-science. If God wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings, right?
The procedures you describe may be scientific, but the willful ignorance of genetics is not. A woman is more than breast implants and a newly carved body cavity.
 
In another sign of stability returning to this country since Trump has gone: I just realized how stable and quiet Biden's cabinet has been. Despite saying "I only hire the best people", Trump's cabinet was just one big rotating door of people coming and going. No one could stick around for more than a few months, except his own family members. There was just so much movement and noise and commotion and cussing and hard feelings and backbiting, etc, etc... it was hard to figure out what was what. This did not give confidence we we were dealing with someone who had the first clue what they were doing.

It's a little like the difference between driving in a luxury car, where you don't even hear the engine or know that the car is gliding along the road at high speeds, vs riding in a crickety old wagon where you feel every single bump on the road and the wheels are coming off every 2 minutes.
Yeah the behind the scenes establishment is fully in charge of the White House and the country. Biden just shows up and does what they tell him to do. It's very harmonious and a well oiled machine.
 
Just making a point about the selective application of scientific principles. It's by no means from only one side.
There is no selective application of scientific principles. A woman can have a penis. A female can't. Not all women are female. Some women are male. The only contradiction here is the one introduced by transphobic conservatives by using a more restrictive definition of the word "woman" and assuming that this definition contradicts broader definitions of the "woman." It doesn't. That isn't how definitions work.
 
The procedures you describe may be scientific, but the willful ignorance of genetics is not. A woman is more than breast implants and a newly carved body cavity.

Medicine and engineering are the use of science to manipulate and change what nature has given us, if we don’t like it. Is that wrong?
 
Grown-ups are running the country now.
 
The procedures you describe may be scientific, but the willful ignorance of genetics is not. A woman is more than breast implants and a newly carved body cavity.
Gender is not decided by genes. Biological sex is decided by genes. Gender often matches biological sex, but it is not inextricable from it as gender can be changed. Sex can't be.
 
Back
Top Bottom