Elizabeth Warren Promises to Have a Trans Student Approve Her Education Secretary Pick

[Jimmy Higgins]

where does it say that the 9 year old picks the candidate? It says that the 9 year old gets to interview the candidate and if they believe the person will be welcoming to diversity, then Warren would advance the candidate.

You do see the difference between picking something out and approving something that someone else picked out, right?

Here's a hint... if something sounds too incredibly stupid to be real, then it probably isn't and you might serve yourself well to take another look and adjust your bias to allow the real information in past your "us versus them" filters.

But the thing is, even with all that clarification, it is still incredibly stupid to give a 9 year old veto power over who will be hired for this position.

Silly is a better word. Even sillier thinking that Warren would hold herself beholden to this child's opinion. Betsy Devos might make this child tear up, but no one Warren would select would be incapable of passing this silly vetting process.

 

[Metaphor]

The op is just another example of histrionic hyperbole as is typical for its author.

Start the response with a personal attack, check.

Note the phrase "to pick," no. Apparently, if the story is true, the trans person would take part in vetting the candidate for Secretary same as others, having a sort of veto role.

It wouldn't be "sort of" a veto role. It's an actual veto role. And it's more than that. She said the child would interview her nominee.

Again, a trans kid would be participating in a process. Not replacing Warren at all.

Oy gevalt, I did not say the kid would be replacing Warren.

So, let's say Warren does a thorough job selecting person A, person B, and person C. She shows person A to the trans child. Trans child asks questions, i.e. vets the candidate for Sec and says she is too transphobic. So, Elizabeth then moves to candidate B, another seemingly qualified candidate. The trans child then asks some more questions and finds that in addition to regular qualifiications Elizabeth has found, that the candidate is also not going to be a jerk re:trans rights.

I understand how vetoing works.

But is it the kind of hyperbole and misconstruing histrionics from the op author calls it?

You need help.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Start the response with a personal attack, check.

Boo fucking hoo. You personally attack people in your posts all the time. You think it is different because you do it to people that can't defend themselves here?

 

[Metaphor]

where does it say that the 9 year old picks the candidate? It says that the 9 year old gets to interview the candidate and if they believe the person will be welcoming to diversity, then Warren would advance the candidate.

You do see the difference between picking something out and approving something that someone else picked out, right?

Here's a hint... if something sounds too incredibly stupid to be real, then it probably isn't and you might serve yourself well to take another look and adjust your bias to allow the real information in past your "us versus them" filters.

Oy gevalt, the amount of hysteria and hyperbole turning on the words 'to pick'.

My last paragraph was mocking Warren's promise. I ought have made it more obvious (even though it was already called 'histrionic'). I ought have said the trans child was going to BE the Secretary of Education.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Start the response with a personal attack, check.

Boo fucking hoo. You personally attack people in your posts all the time. You think it is different because you do it to people that can't defend themselves here?

Funny enough, I've been told directly from the board moderators that it is OK to do it to people who are not here to defend themselves, but not ok to do it to board members.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Start the response with a personal attack, check.



It wouldn't be "sort of" a veto role. It's an actual veto role. And it's more than that. She said the child would interview her nominee.

Again, a trans kid would be participating in a process. Not replacing Warren at all.

Oy gevalt, I did not say the kid would be replacing Warren.

So, let's say Warren does a thorough job selecting person A, person B, and person C. She shows person A to the trans child. Trans child asks questions, i.e. vets the candidate for Sec and says she is too transphobic. So, Elizabeth then moves to candidate B, another seemingly qualified candidate. The trans child then asks some more questions and finds that in addition to regular qualifiications Elizabeth has found, that the candidate is also not going to be a jerk re:trans rights.

I understand how vetoing works.

But is it the kind of hyperbole and misconstruing histrionics from the op author calls it?

You need help.

Democracy has been undermined in my country and you are exaggerating about our politics. You begin by saying I made a personal attack; I didn't. I stated a fact about your posts. I didn't say you have green hair or are dumb, but you did end saying I need psychiatric help. What a histrionic hyperbolic hypocritical post about shit that doesn't matter. Please post about something important and logically do so or back on ignore!

 

[Metaphor]

Start the response with a personal attack, check.

Boo fucking hoo. You personally attack people in your posts all the time. You think it is different because you do it to people that can't defend themselves here?

Who can't defend herself? Are you talking about Elizabeth Warren?

But if that is who you mean, yes, the board does take a quite different opinion of attacking public figures versus attacking board members.

For example, I've been suspended twice for calling someone (on the board) a liar. I assume nobody's been suspended for commenting on and calling public figures liars.

 

[Metaphor]

Democracy has been undermined in my country and you are exaggerating about our politics. You begin by saying I made a personal attack; I didn't. I stated a fact about your posts.

It is not a fact that my posts are histrionic, nor is it a fact that I used hyperbole in the OP. That is your opinion. You appear to have based this on the usage of a single verb "to pick", in the final paragraph mocking Warren for her idea.

I didn't say you have green hair or are dumb, but you did end saying I need psychiatric help.

Oh, I see. Being labelled histrionic isn't a personal attack, but being labelled 'green hair' is.

What a hisyrionic hyperbolic hypocritical post about shit that doesn't matter. Please post about something important and logically do so or back on ignore!

Don2, of all the things you get to do, controlling my topic choice is not among them.

Whether you put me on 'ignore' is your own affair. I don't get to control you, either.

 

[Axulus]

Whether there is any merit to the idea itself or not, it is really dumb politically. It is dumb shit like this that will have undecided voters tune her out.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's see...

It is not a fact that my posts are histrionic, ...

And then later in the same post:

Oh, I see. Being labelled histrionic isn't a personal attack, but being labelled 'green hair' is.

So you admitted it was the post being labeled histrionic and midway through the post falsely claimed it was YOU being labeled...but AFTER admitting it was the post.

And after and in response to saying I need psychiatric help.

Yes, your posts are histrionic. I have just proved it.

Q.E.D.

 

[Metaphor]

So you admitted it was the post being labeled histrionic and midway through the post falsely claimed it was YOU being labeled...but AFTER admitting it was the post.

No, I did no such thing.

You said:

The op is just another example of histrionic hyperbole as is typical for its author.

That sentence is labelling me histrionic. It says that not only was my OP histrionic, but that the hysteria is typical and habitual.

I've told you before Don2, if you don't like what I post about, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to respond or even read.

 

[Gun Nut]

where does it say that the 9 year old picks the candidate? It says that the 9 year old gets to interview the candidate and if they believe the person will be welcoming to diversity, then Warren would advance the candidate.

You do see the difference between picking something out and approving something that someone else picked out, right?

Here's a hint... if something sounds too incredibly stupid to be real, then it probably isn't and you might serve yourself well to take another look and adjust your bias to allow the real information in past your "us versus them" filters.

What do you want for dinner Gun Nut? The options are infinity provided by me, but the ultimate choice is yours no?

no. What do you want for dinner? If you pick cold diarrhea on a paper plate, I may suggest you make a smarter selection.

 

[Gun Nut]

where does it say that the 9 year old picks the candidate? It says that the 9 year old gets to interview the candidate and if they believe the person will be welcoming to diversity, then Warren would advance the candidate.

You do see the difference between picking something out and approving something that someone else picked out, right?

Here's a hint... if something sounds too incredibly stupid to be real, then it probably isn't and you might serve yourself well to take another look and adjust your bias to allow the real information in past your "us versus them" filters.

Oy gevalt, the amount of hysteria and hyperbole turning on the words 'to pick'.

My last paragraph was mocking Warren's promise. I ought have made it more obvious (even though it was already called 'histrionic'). I ought have said the trans child was going to BE the Secretary of Education.

oh yea, me too. .that thing I was wrong about the other day... I was just kidding.

 

[Metaphor]

where does it say that the 9 year old picks the candidate? It says that the 9 year old gets to interview the candidate and if they believe the person will be welcoming to diversity, then Warren would advance the candidate.

You do see the difference between picking something out and approving something that someone else picked out, right?

Here's a hint... if something sounds too incredibly stupid to be real, then it probably isn't and you might serve yourself well to take another look and adjust your bias to allow the real information in past your "us versus them" filters.

Oy gevalt, the amount of hysteria and hyperbole turning on the words 'to pick'.

My last paragraph was mocking Warren's promise. I ought have made it more obvious (even though it was already called 'histrionic'). I ought have said the trans child was going to BE the Secretary of Education.

oh yea, me too. .that thing I was wrong about the other day... I was just kidding.

I did not say the kid was actually scouting, interviewing, and preparing the shortlist. I quoted the entire article, including headline, without changing anything. Anybody with an honest reading of my last paragraph would see it was meant to mock Warren, and not an essay on who is doing the scouting, preparing the shortlist, conducting background checks, and signing off against the final appointment.

That kid will have the same power that the US Senate does in appointing Supreme Court justices. Doesn't determine the candidate up for appraisal but can approve or veto it. I mean, that's a good idea, right?

Does any single person here actually think it's a good idea for a child with veto power over the Secretary of Education nominee? Are you too busy to say so because you're getting hysterical over the words 'to pick', in a paragraph that was mocking Warren's idea, and in a paragraph where the entire preceding body of the article could not put any doubt in anybody's mind what would be occurring?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/julio...udent-approve-her-pick-for-education-n2560425

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) vowed she will have the person she picks to be the Secretary of Education to be interviewed by a trans student and will only proceed with the nomination if they approve of her choice.

Warren said she came up with the idea when she was asked about the issue by 9-year-old trans student Jacob Lemay during CNN's "Equality Town Hall" in October.

"It came from a young trans person who asked about welcoming community, and I said, 'It starts with a Secretary of Education who has a lot to do with where we spend our money, with what gets advanced in our public schools, with what the standards are.' And I said, 'I’m going to have a Secretary of Education that this young trans person interviews, on my behalf, and only if this person believes that our Secretary of Education nominee is truly as committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone, will that person be actually advanced to be Secretary of Education,'" Warren explained.

Still, a 9 year old with gender dysphoria, or coached to believe he has it, is probably no more or less qualified to pick the Secretary of Education than Warren is. In fact, the fact that she thinks a 9 year old has better judgment than her....is a sign that a 9 year old has better judgment than her.

where does it say that the 9 year old picks the candidate? It says that the 9 year old gets to interview the candidate and if they believe the person will be welcoming to diversity, then Warren would advance the candidate.

You do see the difference between picking something out and approving something that someone else picked out, right?

Here's a hint... if something sounds too incredibly stupid to be real, then it probably isn't and you might serve yourself well to take another look and adjust your bias to allow the real information in past your "us versus them" filters.

You're right. I made the same observation.

 

[laughing dog]

So you admitted it was the post being labeled histrionic and midway through the post falsely claimed it was YOU being labeled...but AFTER admitting it was the post.

No, I did no such thing.

You said:

The op is just another example of histrionic hyperbole as is typical for its author.

That sentence is labelling me histrionic.

No, it says the OP is histrionic hyperbole. You are not the OP.

I've told you before Don2, if you don't like what I post about, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to respond or even read.

If you don't like what people think of your OPS, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to respond or even read their posts.


Now, I happen to think Ms. Warren's promise is pretty stupid.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it says the OP is histrionic hyperbole. You are not the OP.

No. I am the "author" for whom "histrionic hyperbole" is typical. Let me highlight that for you.

The op is just another example of histrionic hyperbole as is typical for its author.

Now perhaps you think "you are stupid" and "you said a stupid thing" are materially different, and you'd be right.

But "you said a stupid thing" is also materially different from "you said a stupid thing here and you routinely say stupid things".

Now, perhaps you think there is a material difference between "you routinely say stupid things" and "you are stupid", but that isn't the point. "You routinely say stupid things" is already an attack, even if in your own world it isn't an attack on my character.

Some responses to my OP have been sophomoric, moronic, petty and dishonest.

The responses that tried to discredit me that turned on the words 'to pick' are stupid or dishonest. They are stupid because any person above moron level would have to be able to see I did not imagine or imply that the trans child in question would be responsible for every substantive step along the way to picking a Secretary of Education. But I don't think these people thought that. I don't think they are stupid. I think they are being dishonest.

Another driveby response accused me of misogyny and of dishonestly playing dumb about the difference between necessary and sufficient. I asked that particular poster to show me her receipts, but she's chosen to remain silent. She did not offer an opinion on whether Warren's idea was a good one.

Another poster thought that I had implied Warren was going to pick just any random trans child. I didn't imply that so I don't know what to say to that. If the objection is the OP title, the OP title is not wrong and anybody reading beyond it could see what it means unambiguously.

I thought Don2 had developed some restraint as he hadn't been dropping into my topics just to attack me and then leave. But now I can't even credit him with that, as he had just put me on ignore. I hope he does it again.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, I did no such thing.

You said:



That sentence is labelling me histrionic.

No, it says the OP is histrionic hyperbole. You are not the OP.

I've told you before Don2, if you don't like what I post about, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to respond or even read.

If you don't like what people think of your OPS, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to respond or even read their posts.


Now, I happen to think Ms. Warren's promise is pretty stupid.

Lol so cute how LD has to get his snide pedantics in before actually agreeing with you Metaphor.