Bond slashed to 175 million while Trump appeals

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2024, 01:55 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Because it's not. As I stated, if it were only adults, most people wouldn't care. But children are a different story. Plus, I think you are putting too much trust that your scenario is full proof and that people won't be people and do bad things. I know that sounds like a weak explanation, but I don't know any better way at the moment to explain without it sounding offensive. 

I know most people wouldn't care if it were just about adults, or at least there would be less ammunition for them to work with. However, I reject the premise that it being about children actually does create a greater problem. Predators are going to do predator things and allowing people to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender is not going to increase the risks. When we have seen people try to take advantage of those policies they have been called out for it, and rightfully so.

(04-09-2024, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I might not have YOUR credentials, but i do have the ability to think ahead. It's a requirement for my job and is very much in line with my nature anyways. 

With the option that is currently on the table, I see lawsuits going this route, on top of keeping everyone divided and the hate increasing.

With Single Use br's, I don't see all of those problems arising, everyone has the exact same option and society would be free to grow at their own pace. 
Have you see any issues arise from outdoor events that use portable single use commodes (other than they can stink and sometimes a line)? 

Put that in your pipe and tell me which route would be the cheapest and best way to get Society where you want it for the long run. 

I might be an R, but i'm not against spending money for something I deem as a the right reasons. Frivolous sending? Yes, i will argue that.  

Oh, you mistake me for someone who disagree with unisex bathrooms being the solution. I am currently working on a team to implement such an infrastructure at a Scout camp. I just also know that it isn't an inexpensive proposition. There will be special interest groups lobbying against government spending on the efforts when it comes to updating public property. Say something was passed similar to the ADA which required public serving businesses to implement this in their accommodations there would be a fervent lobby against it on the premise of it being additional regulations on businesses and so forth. The largest special interest group in this country is the Chamber of Commerce. Knowing what I know about their positions and how they approach legislation I would not see them being in favor of these actions. I also don't foresee the GOP position being one of embracing this sort of thing. So with all of that, the political feasibility of such a position just isn't there. Maybe in a few years, but there are a lot of things that would have to change for that. Maybe it will be lawsuits, but right now with the current SCOTUS makeup those against these moves will have an advantage judicially as well.