Dem Post Mortem

[Loren Pechtel]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection.

Really???

The legal definition of insurrection is a violent act of rebellion against a government or other political authority:

• Definition
  Insurrection is a violent uprising against a government's authority, including taking up arms or actively opposing the government's power.
  
  Penalties
  A conviction for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 can result in:
  • Up to 10 years in prison
  • A fine of up to $250,000
  • Permanent disqualification from holding any government office in the United States

This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

Perry Mason you are not.

But what body of adequate authority ever determined that it was an insurrection?? That's where I have a problem--if a suitable body declares that 1/6 was an insurrection then he should be yeeted on the 14th. But that didn't happen--remember the various red areas talking about yeeting Biden on "insurrection"?

 

[Bomb#20]

Right, which is a really good argument for blue-state secession. I don’t want to wait five years either. Nowhere is it set in stone that this nation must always be one nation. Also, almost one in four Americans, mostly in the red states, favor secession, according to a poll referenced by Counterpunch. The Civil War secessionists seceded for a despicable reason, but dating almost to the founding of the republic those favoring secession for any reason have pointed to the 10th amendment as justification for it, and I think regardless of the reason people invoke for secession, whether that reason is good or bad, the 10th amendment argument is a good one.

The 10th amendment argument is a bad one. We don't even have to hear it to know it's a bad one. 14 > 10.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."​

How do you figure a state could go about seceding without thereby abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States? Whatever 10th Amendment case there may once have been for the legality of secession, it's been overridden by a subsequent amendment. One might as well claim there's a valid case in the Constitution for black people counting 3/5 of white people.

 

[robnisch]

Back when I was in high school calculus was an elective. As it should be--most students aren't going to do well. And most people will simply not need calculus in their lives. Despite being in a field where I use a lot of the lower math I can't recall ever using calculus professionally and that part of my education has rusted into pretty much uselessness.

I did two years at a technical institute. Basic calculus was required. I just passed. But, the engineering teachers told us that we would not really need to good at it because all the formulas were plug and crank.

I disagree on plug and crank. You need to understand what you're working with or you'll fail to spot garbage.

Well, that was the reason I had to take basic calculus, so i would understand what I was working with, But, that was 50 years ago.

 

[Shadowy Man]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection.

Really???

The legal definition of insurrection is a violent act of rebellion against a government or other political authority:

• Definition
  Insurrection is a violent uprising against a government's authority, including taking up arms or actively opposing the government's power.
  
  Penalties
  A conviction for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 can result in:
  • Up to 10 years in prison
  • A fine of up to $250,000
  • Permanent disqualification from holding any government office in the United States

This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

Perry Mason you are not.

But what body of adequate authority ever determined that it was an insurrection?? That's where I have a problem--if a suitable body declares that 1/6 was an insurrection then he should be yeeted on the 14th. But that didn't happen--remember the various red areas talking about yeeting Biden on "insurrection"?

Did you read the ruling of the Colorado case? Would the Colorado Supreme Court be a “body of adequate authority”?

 

[Elixir]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

Yawn... at our PUBLIC pool, a remodel was done about 18 years ago. Prior, there was a men's locker room and a women's locker room plus a couple of bare-bones toilet/sink tiny bathrooms. I don't recall the config right after the remodel, but now we have men's and women's locker rooms, a couple of toilet/sink bathrooms and 2 clearly marked "all gender" changing/locker rooms/bathrooms. Those can be locked from the inside and are used mostly by families (e.g. dad comes in with two toddler daughters and isn't comfortable bringing them into the men's locker room.)
But ANYONE unsure of which locker rooms they belong in, or afraid that someone is in the locker room of their designated gender who they don't think belongs there, is FREE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS and use an "all gender" one instead.
I have never once heard a word of complaint about anyone being where they are not wanted or don't belong. In 28 years.
But that doesn't keep the neurotic right from making it a top-of-mind issue for their robotic voters.

That, of course, is the ideal solution. And going forward in new construction, we should be using that model for bathrooms in all buildings, wherever feasible. I don't think the "neurotic right" has a problem with that. The problem is for older construction that doesn't have a separate "all/any gender" bathroom. A lot of women don't feel safe or are self conscious about having a male strutting around and swinging his dick in their private space, and I don't blame them. Don't you care about their feelings in the matter?

Yeah sure. … retrofits might be difficult, but not in places like airports (take out ONE Cinnabon store for crissakes) or malls.
Most high traffic public places should be able to handle it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Gender identity is fluid. If all the hillbillies in America believe otherwise, they are wrong, and no one should pander to their stupidity just to get their votes.

It's just as real as astrological cusps, who vary between Aries and Taurus day by day, and who present their personalities as inconsistent interpretations of how those signs rule their lives.

No, it not the same as astrology at all. Transgender and gender fluid are real people in the real world whether you like it or not.

Capricorns and Sagittarians are real people in the real world too.

What does science say about astrology? It’s bullshit.

What does science say about gender fluidity? It’s real.

So, out the window goes your likening gender fluidity to astrology. Duly defenestrated by science.

Did "science"(TM) tell you it was correct to switch in midstream from "Gender identity is fluid" to "What does science say about gender fluidity?"? Did "science"(TM) tell you it was correct to switch your link title from "What does the science say about gender identity?"* to "What does science say about gender fluidity?"? Your introduction of evidence about gender identity tells us jack squat about whether gender is fluid, unless you can also supply us with scientific evidence that gender identity is the same thing as gender. Can you? If not, you're just committing an elementary Fallacy of Equivocation.



(* The actual title of the article you linked to.)

 

[Swammerdami]

None of this is referring to what I am talking about. As I said at least twice now, my idea of secession is peaceful dissolution of the union, which would have to begin with ordinances of secession.

Secession, whether violent or peaceful, is not going to happen. Very few would find it plausible or helpful. While the billionaires running Britain pushed for Brexit, I think our Musk-Bezos-Koch overlords, however brazen, would have higher priorities than turning the USA into a broken laughing-stock.

In recent times most Civil Wars follow geographic lines, much as our own Civil War was North vs South. But the divide in post-rational Amerika is NOT North vs South, or even Coasts vs Flyover-land..

If you want to impose geography on our perverse chasm, it is Cities vs Rural. Nebraska overall is redder than South Carolina or Missouri, but Omaha City chose Kamala Harris. Until recently Hispanics and urban dwellers in Texas were very blue. Joe Biden got 65% of the vote in Dallas County.

I agree that things will get much worse before they get better. There will be riots, violence and political squabbles, but they will mostly feature neighborhood vs neighborhood rather than state vs state.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The trans movement is a symbol of just how out of touch the Democrats are, but it's not just that one thing. As my Trump voting cousin told me last night, "Dude, it's all that shit."

Sounds to me like you fell for the anti trans advertising the Trump campaign spent a million dollars on.

Keep willfully misinterpreting things people didn't say and clearly had no intent to say it. It's been working really well.

I will once again refer to the transactivists who relentlessly went after JK Rowling for the most innocuous answer to a stupid fucking question.

I'll be perfectly honest: I don't care about the miniscule trans demographic as it relates to political engagement. If one wants to permanently change themself, then they can go right ahead. It's their right and none of my business. But when such a tiny group with a horribly amplified voice impairs the judgment of an entire political party, then yeah, I'm going to have something to say about it.

So a few dumbass trans activists said stupid things to an author so we should just abandon democracy.

Courting miniscule margins while ignoring and making the largest demographics feel unwelcome, thereby helping to put an unqualified idiot in charge of nukes-----again? Yeah, I'm going to have something to say about that.

By and large, Trump supporters are reprehensible morons. Most of those people can't be saved. They're irredeemably ignorant and bad faith actors. We know that, and we've harped on it for so long and to such a degree that it's not only tiresome, it's detrimental because rather than find a viable solution, liberals have instead failed to recognize their own detachment from reality by disregarding the problems that everyone faces.

Out of touch ideals have taken precedence over practicality and IMO, it's played an important role in potentially ending our democracy.

Where were the out of touch ideals display by Harris/Biden. Blaming people for doing what someone else did is stupid.

Nice try. I never said that it was only transactivists harassing the shit out Rowling that caused the loss. I've clearly used it as a microsmic example of where the Dems have lost the thread. I've also clearly stated my disdain for the Trump movement, but also said that wallowing in my/our disgust for them is unproductive and has been for a long time now.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Great thing about EuroChristians colonialism.
When they steal stuff it remains theirs forever. Because they stole it according to the Christian culture of the day!
Tom

People have been conquering each other's territories since time immemorial. That's neither unique to European societies nor to Christian ones.
Including various Amerindian tribes and societies. You don't think Mexica/Aztec empire was just dropped in place from above, do you?

Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453. Are they "EuroChristian" too? Should they give it back to the rightful owners?

This is yet another thing people are sick of hearing.

America bad!!!

Yes, we've got serious issues that need addressing, but for Christ's sake, complaining about shit that was done 150* years ago and using it to insult the nation you live in now turns off tens of millions of people.

You can't have a discussion about e.g. the Tiananmen Square Massacre without some tedious blowhard saying, "But America did this Other Thing!"

*Yes, I know it didn't all happen 150 years ago, but I'm not going to make a list of it all. The point is that it's long in the past and consistently bringing it up does nothing to help us now.

If "they" are willing to instigate the next national disaster specifically because they didn't want children to learn about a previous national disaster of a similar kind, that seems to me like a very literal demonstration of a certain old aphorism concerning history.

You know, I get why a six year old might be distressed by a nuanced discussion of history. How could the president have ordered something "bad" to happen, isn't the president "good"? How can a "hero" hurt someone? This sounds like a good discussion to have with your pre-operational phase child after watching Captain America 5: The Villains Are Back and They Are Us.

But the role of adults ought to be to help guide them toward a more nuanced understanding of good and bad, right and wrong. Pretending to be unable to distinguish between "Some Americans did a very bad and controversial thing in 1848" and "America bad!!!" is childish and unattractive in anyone over the age of fourteen or so. Don't feign greater ignorance than you actually harbor. Actually being stupid is a disability. Pretending to be stupid for rhetorical gain is peevish at best.

I never said history shouldn't be taught. Kids need to learn about it, but at some point using the U.S. as a punching bag now for things that happened long ago needs to ease the fuck up. There's no critical thinking skills involved in the lightweight white knighting self-hatred that so many liberals just can't seem to get enough of.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection. This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

What we do have are quite useable rules for what constitutes incitement.

Trump's violent rhetoric leading up to and following the 2020 election so clearly constitutes incitement to violence that it would be difficult to find a clearer example that doesn't include super specific language like, "Now go and spread shit on the walls of Congress!" There are no so called "magic words" that constitute incitement.

 

[TV and credit cards]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection. This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

Seems like this would fall under the "reasonable person" standard courts use.

 

[thebeave]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection. This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

Seems like this would fall under the "reasonable person" standard courts use.

People can be reasonable when it comes to politics?

 

[Shadowy Man]

or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" except if Congress declares an action insurrection or rebellion, or else if an individual gets convicted of a relevant federal crime, passed by Congress?

It would be a bad precedent indeed to give state courts power to declare presidential candidates ineligible, and indeed, the Amendment does not seem to do that. It is also curious that the Amendment specifies "elector of President and Vice-President", but not "President and Vice-President" themselves. Strange omission.

Horse crap. We all know what he did and who he had helping him. The fake electors scheme goes straight back to the Oval Office. The fact that he let the insurrection go on for three hours definietly shows aid and comfort. His promise to pardon those convicted of associated crimes also shows it.

Trump should have been immediately arrested the morning of January 21st.

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection. This has a I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature. And that doesn't belong in law.

Seems like this would fall under the "reasonable person" standard courts use.

People can be reasonable when it comes to politics?

The Colorado Supreme Court seemed to address this reasonably in Their decision. Loren acts like this wasn’t addressed at all.

 

[thebeave]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

Yawn... at our PUBLIC pool, a remodel was done about 18 years ago. Prior, there was a men's locker room and a women's locker room plus a couple of bare-bones toilet/sink tiny bathrooms. I don't recall the config right after the remodel, but now we have men's and women's locker rooms, a couple of toilet/sink bathrooms and 2 clearly marked "all gender" changing/locker rooms/bathrooms. Those can be locked from the inside and are used mostly by families (e.g. dad comes in with two toddler daughters and isn't comfortable bringing them into the men's locker room.)
But ANYONE unsure of which locker rooms they belong in, or afraid that someone is in the locker room of their designated gender who they don't think belongs there, is FREE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS and use an "all gender" one instead.
I have never once heard a word of complaint about anyone being where they are not wanted or don't belong. In 28 years.
But that doesn't keep the neurotic right from making it a top-of-mind issue for their robotic voters.

That, of course, is the ideal solution. And going forward in new construction, we should be using that model for bathrooms in all buildings, wherever feasible. I don't think the "neurotic right" has a problem with that. The problem is for older construction that doesn't have a separate "all/any gender" bathroom. A lot of women don't feel safe or are self conscious about having a male strutting around and swinging his dick in their private space, and I don't blame them. Don't you care about their feelings in the matter?

Yeah sure. … retrofits might be difficult, but not in places like airports (take out ONE Cinnabon store for crissakes) or malls.
Most high traffic public places should be able to handle it.

Please, god, no...not Cinnabon! I could see sacrificing a Hot Dog on a Stick though. And what is this thing you call..."mall"?

Its almost never easy or inexpensive adding a bathroom after the fact. You have to tap into a hot and cold water source from somewhere nearby, and that means tearing up floors, walls and/or ceilings and patching and painting them back up again. Drains too, which can be even more of a problem, as you have to have the drain slope towards its destination at 1/4" per foot. If you're a small business having to add an extra bathroom, the cost is likely prohibitive.

 

[robnisch]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

Yawn... at our PUBLIC pool, a remodel was done about 18 years ago. Prior, there was a men's locker room and a women's locker room plus a couple of bare-bones toilet/sink tiny bathrooms. I don't recall the config right after the remodel, but now we have men's and women's locker rooms, a couple of toilet/sink bathrooms and 2 clearly marked "all gender" changing/locker rooms/bathrooms. Those can be locked from the inside and are used mostly by families (e.g. dad comes in with two toddler daughters and isn't comfortable bringing them into the men's locker room.)
But ANYONE unsure of which locker rooms they belong in, or afraid that someone is in the locker room of their designated gender who they don't think belongs there, is FREE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS and use an "all gender" one instead.
I have never once heard a word of complaint about anyone being where they are not wanted or don't belong. In 28 years.
But that doesn't keep the neurotic right from making it a top-of-mind issue for their robotic voters.

That, of course, is the ideal solution. And going forward in new construction, we should be using that model for bathrooms in all buildings, wherever feasible. I don't think the "neurotic right" has a problem with that. The problem is for older construction that doesn't have a separate "all/any gender" bathroom. A lot of women don't feel safe or are self conscious about having a male strutting around and swinging his dick in their private space, and I don't blame them. Don't you care about their feelings in the matter?

Yeah sure. … retrofits might be difficult, but not in places like airports (take out ONE Cinnabon store for crissakes) or malls.
Most high traffic public places should be able to handle it.

Please, god, no...not Cinnabon! I could see sacrificing a Hot Dog on a Stick though. And what is this thing you call..."mall"?

Its almost never easy or inexpensive adding a bathroom after the fact. You have to tap into a hot and cold water source from somewhere nearby, and that means tearing up floors, walls and/or ceilings and patching and painting them back up again. Drains too, which can be even more of a problem, as you have to have the drain slope towards its destination at 1/4" per foot. If you're a small business having to add an extra bathroom, the cost is likely prohibitive.

Um, last time I ate out the place had one bathroom. It had a lock that said occupied/ open. It seemed like it worked just fine. Minimal cost to owner.

 

[Swammerdami]

Its almost never easy or inexpensive adding a bathroom after the fact. You have to tap into a hot and cold water source from somewhere nearby, and that means tearing up floors, walls and/or ceilings and patching and painting them back up again. Drains too, which can be even more of a problem, as you have to have the drain slope towards its destination at 1/4" per foot. If you're a small business having to add an extra bathroom, the cost is likely prohibitive.

A small water heater, if necessary at all, can be purchased for less than $200. And a few public restrooms would be enough; no need for every small business to have one. (There's a number-of-employees threshold for applying rules to small businesses. Perhaps some of those thresholds should be raised anyway.)

 

[Elixir]

papers like the NY Times that were around for both periods hated/loved Hitler just as much and in the same way that they hate/love Trump.

We can only hope that Trump does as much for America as Hitler did for Germany.

 

[Politesse]

I never said history shouldn't be taught. Kids need to learn about it, but at some point using the U.S. as a punching bag now for things that happened long ago needs to ease the fuck up. There's no critical thinking skills involved in the lightweight white knighting self-hatred that so many liberals just can't seem to get enough of.

That's some bullshit. Conservatives want history erased, not discussed. Having classroom discussions about race, slavery, and genocide is exactly what upsets them, you see it on tv every night, scare stories about liberal teachers or seminars that committed the sin of encouraging conversation.

 

[thebeave]

Its almost never easy or inexpensive adding a bathroom after the fact. You have to tap into a hot and cold water source from somewhere nearby, and that means tearing up floors, walls and/or ceilings and patching and painting them back up again. Drains too, which can be even more of a problem, as you have to have the drain slope towards its destination at 1/4" per foot. If you're a small business having to add an extra bathroom, the cost is likely prohibitive.

A small water heater, if necessary at all, can be purchased for less than $200. And a few public restrooms would be enough; no need for every small business to have one. (There's a number-of-employees threshold for applying rules to small businesses. Perhaps some of those thresholds should be raised anyway.)

Well, sure that would work. But you will need a new electric circuit added in (possibly 220V) or a gas line, both of which could be as much, if not more, trouble than adding a hot water pipe. In a mall or airport you can have centrally located bathrooms, but that won't work for a standalone building.

 

[thebeave]

Trans people can integrate into society without a problem, about 95% of the time. Its the 5% that are the issue. Namely, getting a free pass into women's spaces, like sports, restrooms/gyms, prisons and the like. Its not trivial to dismiss those concerns, as some people keep insisting.

And what are they supposed to do about the bathroom? If you say you can't be trans in the bathroom what are they supposed to do?

Yawn... at our PUBLIC pool, a remodel was done about 18 years ago. Prior, there was a men's locker room and a women's locker room plus a couple of bare-bones toilet/sink tiny bathrooms. I don't recall the config right after the remodel, but now we have men's and women's locker rooms, a couple of toilet/sink bathrooms and 2 clearly marked "all gender" changing/locker rooms/bathrooms. Those can be locked from the inside and are used mostly by families (e.g. dad comes in with two toddler daughters and isn't comfortable bringing them into the men's locker room.)
But ANYONE unsure of which locker rooms they belong in, or afraid that someone is in the locker room of their designated gender who they don't think belongs there, is FREE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEN'S OR WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOMS and use an "all gender" one instead.
I have never once heard a word of complaint about anyone being where they are not wanted or don't belong. In 28 years.
But that doesn't keep the neurotic right from making it a top-of-mind issue for their robotic voters.

That, of course, is the ideal solution. And going forward in new construction, we should be using that model for bathrooms in all buildings, wherever feasible. I don't think the "neurotic right" has a problem with that. The problem is for older construction that doesn't have a separate "all/any gender" bathroom. A lot of women don't feel safe or are self conscious about having a male strutting around and swinging his dick in their private space, and I don't blame them. Don't you care about their feelings in the matter?

Yeah sure. … retrofits might be difficult, but not in places like airports (take out ONE Cinnabon store for crissakes) or malls.
Most high traffic public places should be able to handle it.

Please, god, no...not Cinnabon! I could see sacrificing a Hot Dog on a Stick though. And what is this thing you call..."mall"?

Its almost never easy or inexpensive adding a bathroom after the fact. You have to tap into a hot and cold water source from somewhere nearby, and that means tearing up floors, walls and/or ceilings and patching and painting them back up again. Drains too, which can be even more of a problem, as you have to have the drain slope towards its destination at 1/4" per foot. If you're a small business having to add an extra bathroom, the cost is likely prohibitive.

Um, last time I ate out the place had one bathroom. It had a lock that said occupied/ open. It seemed like it worked just fine. Minimal cost to owner.

Yes, that works fine for a small business with few customers.