fatjohn
Member

I think Executive Orders serve a function. Some make changes until another president, some get challenged by judges and smacked down. I think in this era any EO that get smacked down would be recognized as something on the agenda and might be considered for Congress. In some cases a smackdown of the EO might end up being more productive with Congress to cement it into law.

Wait for the SS spin.

Maybe Canadians are upset. It is possible that I can buy Canadian Maple Syrup here in USA cheaper than I could buy in Canada.

Maybe but I would say there are a lot of ugly biological females out there these days. And my guess would be that there are plenty of trans people that would go undetected. I am not arguing that many are not obvious. Many are. The ones that are not obvious you didn't know.

I don't know. Treatment ending does not translate to healthy individual. My daughters husband that was paralyzed in a car wreck almost a year ago and had shattered mush ribs and collapsed lung, spent a couple of months at Craig Hospital in Englewood, CO. He was released home but was far from healthy. A year later still very far from healthy even after considering the paralysis which will never heal.

Swordsmyth seems to think that no trans can pass as a woman. Do you think the person in the video could use a women's bathroom without suspicion?

The education model whether private or public has failed. The objective of educating children has been obfuscated. It is easy to teach children yet the school system has failed miserably. It needs total reform.

If money that was previously allocated for another purpose is redirected to education, then yes, the expense for education would effectively increase within that particular fiscal context. Here's how this would work: Redirection of Funds: If funds from programs like the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) or other non-education specific allocations are used for school choice or educational initiatives, then the amount of money going into education would increase compared to what it was before the redirection. Budgetary Impact: From a budgetary standpoint, this redirection would not increase the total federal budget but would shift existing allocations. However, for the education sector, this would represent an increase in funding because it's receiving money that was originally intended for other areas. Departmental or Programmatic Shifts: If, for example, the Department of Defense reallocates part of its budget for educational purposes for military families, this would increase the education expense within the DoD's budget, even though the overall budget for defense might remain the same. Perception vs. Reality: While the education expense increases in this scenario, it's important to note that this isn't an increase in total federal spending but rather a reallocation. However, from the perspective of those managing or benefiting from education programs, there's an increase in available resources for education. The caveat here is that such reallocations can sometimes lead to debates about whether this is the best use of funds, potentially at the expense of the original programs' objectives. Additionally, any significant or permanent shift in funding might require Congressional action to officially reallocate or increase budget lines, especially if it involves moving money across different departments or major programs.

Your own words, "Trump is taking federal money that is already being spent on other things and routing it to pay for children to go to private schools etc." Sounds like he could be taking money from anywhere. I do not know. You seem to know everything until you are asked and then only throw out insults.

You are fuching delusional. Where did I promote insanity or evil? I said people should be responsible and choose not to use public facilities and offered a solution for basic service with single stall or even porta potty, and option to pay for upgraded service. You have offered nothing.

Kinda how in the past someone in Government decided to take Social Security and use it for something else? It is ludicrous to think or say that there is no additional money being spent on education when you are diverting money that would be going someplace else and now allocating it to education.

So you are not against good looking Trans people using the ladies room. Only ugly ones? If you think that there are not Trans people that would pass, you are not realistic. So correct me if I am wrong, You say if they pass the cursory look test then it doesn't matter? So your ban on use of facilities in only based on looks and presentation and has nothing to do with keeping biological gender in their own bathroom. If there is no problem to solve, why is there a problem? All you like to do is smear and call names. This is about keeping trans out of opposite sex bathrooms. I suggested personal responsibility and other things. You mock. What is your suggestion? Is Michelle Obama a man or a woman? Which restroom would you assign her?

That is not possible. You cannot have a kid that is a block away from the local school move to a school 60 miles away and say it doesn't cost more money. Furthermore, if many people want to go to that school it creates an issue with not enough teachers or just too many kids. Do you have children?

I asked you for your solution and you answer with more nonsense. How do you keep this person out of the woman's bathroom?

Present schools fail on their primary objective to educate children. Spending more money is not the answer.

What is your immediate solution? You have men that are indistinguishable from women. You throw out the sarcasm. How do you propose implementing keeping genders separated? I simply said get to the objective of going to the bathroom. Provide basic service. Responsible people will naturally rarely use those services. Some will pay for premium service. No Sarcasm here. Real solution.

Obviously New Legislation is Necessary for all above ground moving objects.

It is going to come down to personal responsibility. People will go to the bathroom before leaving home and upon returning. They will choose to not go in public unless absolutely necessary. Overtime bathrooms will probably be single person not community like rooms. Point is if you are concerned, don't go into the public bathroom. Put a closed sign on all bathrooms and stick porta potties outside in an obscure place. Maybe we will see the return of the pay toilet. People want to drive in the express lane pay more. If you want to use the privy go into the dungeon or opt to fork out some cash for nicer facility. Either way people will learn to not rely on public restrooms. My wife goes out frequently with friends to formal gatherings. I think they wear one outfit and carry their gowns. Then once they arrive at the facility they change into the gowns. Seriously? I think that the expectation of a bathroom to be used for a major changing station of many women and makeup and.... changes the definition of bathroom. My guess is that many women get changed in bathrooms when going to formal events.

Sean does a good job with his videos. Presents himself as knowledgable to whatever he addresses.

Seems like the Democrats have found there 2028 Candidates.

According to the information available from the search results and posts on X, Bernie Sanders was indeed among the top recipients of campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health products industry during the 2020 election cycle. Here's a summary based on the provided context: Bernie Sanders received approximately $1,417,633 from the pharmaceutical industry during the 2020 election cycle, making him the top recipient among Senators from pharmaceutical companies in 2020. Elizabeth Warren was noted as the second-highest recipient, receiving around $822,573 from pharmaceutical companies in the same election cycle.

I know nothing about air traffic control but that helicopter looks like it was in a bad spot. Kinda like having your kid playing on the highway.

I am waiting for the video of the self exodus where we see massive lines of people lined up and leaving the country.

The way I read it, is the order now comes directly from Trump. So same EO just no question regarding who the author is.

A 30 year Respected Veteran of that Department has surely infected and compromised many coworkers over the years. If she did it, there is a high likelihood others did/do the same thing.

He want's to end FEMA and is letting Pro Life Protestors out of jail!

I don't know. What would happen if somebody was visiting USA and gave birth?