My Dear Friends, if you have already voted or are firm in your decisions, great! I won't try to change your mind.

However if anyone has not yet voted and is still considering, I'd like to suggest some reasons to vote for Democrats in this election.

1. Women's rights. We need to codify the right to choose or there will be more poverty and women will have less self-determination.

2. Climate change. The Democrats are at least starting to figure out that we need drastic action before we cross any more tipping points.

3. Preserving the vote. The combination of scapegoating the vulnerable, inciting armed militias, and attempting to overthrow the government are serious red flags for the rise of populist authoritarianism. There are hundreds of Republican election deniers on the ballot. If we want our votes to mean anything, we have to support candidates who will respect the will of the people, win or lose.

4. Biden has a plan for national revitalization. He is investing in green energy and chip manufacturing to make the U.S. a leader in the important technologies the world will need to go green. If we want to invest in our country in ways that work he will need enough support from Congress to continue.

This is what I think this election is about, and why it's important. Just something to consider! Respectfully yours, Sally.

Thanks for bringing up these important points. I happen to differ, and here's why.

On the economy - Biden's plans are not responsible for worldwide inflation. It's a global response to supply chain issues caused by the pandemic and by global warming, and it's also gouging by corporations to increase their profits. The only way to beat these high costs and give our nation some control over energy prices is to invest in green development and resist the power of corporations. These are Democratic planks.

The person most responsible for slowing the economy is Jerome Powell, appointed by Obama and elevated to chairman by Trump. I don't agree with his decision to raise interest rates to combat inflation. For one, it's too much, too fast, and he doesn't care that it will raise unemployment. For two, it's the wrong formula. Raising interest rates works when the cause of inflation is loose money supply, it doesn't work when the cause is actual shortages. So I agree that the economy should be handled better, but I don't agree that it's because of Biden, or that Republicans would handle it better. Historically, the United States economy has performed better under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents, and Democratic policies create more jobs and grow our economy at a higher annual average rate.

On the war in Ukraine - Biden is leading a credible coalition of world powers to hold together the current democratic order, with nations that have agreed to mutual support. The policy has been a success, preventing an easy Russian takeover of a democratic nation. To fail to respond to this aggression would be a dangerous appeasement. Biden is walking a fine line between helping where we can and invoking a NATO response which would be a dramatic escalation. I agree it's a volatile situation, but I don't disapprove of Biden's careful handling of it. I'm more concerned that his efforts could be be diminished by a flood of retaliatory impeachments. So I think continued Democratic control of Congress is the best hope of maintaining that balance.

That's my read on these issues. I'm glad we can discuss.

That's great! I think it's wonderful that we live in a system where we can speak our minds and vote our consciences. I hope it stays that way regardless of who is elected.

Are Biden's energy policies making inflation worse? This claim is being made by the head of the nation's top oil lobby group. He says the problem is that oil companies are confused by "mixed messaging" from the administration so cannot attract the investment they need to produce cheaper. However they are making record profits. Exxon alone reported a profit of $17.9 billion – the highest quarterly profit reported by any oil company in history, while charging exorbitantly at the pump. This is gouging.

House Democrats passed a bill in May called the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act. If we had more Democratic support in the Senate we could pass this bill and prevent oil companies from fueling inflation with profit-boosting price increases.

Is inflation global? Yes. Worldwide, countries are experiencing inflation due to the fallout of the pandemic and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

“High inflation in the U.S. has not been driven by any unique American policy — not the American Rescue Plan and other generous fiscal relief during the pandemic recession and recovery nor anything else U.S.-centric,” the researchers wrote. Economists also credit the plan with saving the country from a double-digit recession during the pandemic, and contributing to the fastest recovery and lowest unemployment in decades.

American Rescue Plan
Inflation

And, if we waited and did not get involved in Ukraine, we would have a much wider and worse war to fight. Russia has stated plans to retake the former communist block countries, many of whom are now NATO.

The diesel fuel shortage is mostly the result of the war in Ukraine and would be happening regardless of our domestic energy policies. We're already late developing green energy, and Republicans are not going to move us there faster. The greatest suffering is being caused by global warming and we can't keep kicking that can down the road. The fastest route to cheaper, independent energy is developing clean energy.

I agree with you that raising the unemployment rate is unconscionable. The Fed is doing this for the wrong reason and it won't work. It will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. But that is Jerome Powell's doing. I think Biden should replace him, but I don't think that electing Republicans to Congress would fix it. On the contrary, the economy tends to fare worse under Republicans, and the wealthy get even more favors.

If Putin continues to advance there will be a world war, so stopping him now is a far better option. And again, I don't think electing Republicans would fix this. World conflict is rising because the machinery of prosperity is breaking down. We have to shore it up quickly, with social policies that move to green energy, support workers and families, and invest in communities. These are Democratic policies.

I know we won't agree but thanks for the chance to discuss.

This is about Harpy and Viva equating liberalism with mental illness in order to denigrate it.

*links to previous examples*

Protesting is not mental illness either. Progressivism is not mental illness. Stop doing it. Stop liking it.

Thanks.

No, they are doing the same thing *you* would do if your basic humanity and your rights to make your own private decisions were being trampled, while being jeered at by people who hate you shoving a camera in your face. They are just people, like you.

They are NOT "the faces of mental illness." I'm sorry you can't see the basic humanity of the people you are scapegoating, but at least you could leave the mentally ill out of it.

It's not an order, fer fuck's sake, it's a description of what to do to make the world a better place.

No, their parents, and their doctors, who are full adults, have the right to decide what kind of treatments are necessary to save their lives.

Absolutely when it comes to mutilation of a child. Parents get to decide to have their sons circumcised. Parents get to decide if kids can get their ears pierced. Parents get to decide if doctors can "mutilate" a child to remove an appendix, or an extra digit, or any other procedure that has been deemed safe and in their best interest.

No, it has been studied and found to have no beneficial effects and a lot of harmful ones. Research demonstrates that gender-affirming care improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse children and adolescents.

Gender Affirming Care Works

No, I am supporting Jenny who was 100% correct to call this out. It's wrong to conflate political opposition with mental illness. I'm pretty sure you'd agree if I hadn't repeated it.

Well I think people can read and see it's no different. STOP! doing this. And stop supporting people who do it. Simple.

It's not my opinion. Researchers and scientists have figured out what works and what doesn't. That is where the doctors and therapists who recommend gender affirming care are getting the information.

Parents are utterly free - if misguided and doomed to failure - to try to "convert" their gay kids. But there is no such thing as "conversion therapy." It's a scam with no science to support it.

Really? All of them, just walking around, every minute of their lives, hateful, ugly people? Screaming and flipping everyone off because they are just so hateful and ugly? No. They go back to their families and jobs and have good and bad days like everyone because they are people just like us.

That is just as much of a mischaracterization as claiming they are mentally ill. Anyone can be driven to hysteria, especially in groups, especially when they have been traditionally marginalized and see their gains at risk of slipping away.

I'm sure you can understand how ordinary, feeling people could get heated in a clash between counter-protesters. That doesn't make them mentally ill OR bad human beings.

That is exactly the argument for allowing doctors to provide gender affirming care. So that families have that choice instead of the government.

We should be very careful, for sure. But we don't need new laws getting in between doctors and parents and treatments that have been shown to be very helpful in many, many cases.

Well, here we are in agreement then. Current medical guidelines say children should not undergo gender-affirming surgery before they turn 18, and so surgical intervention before then is rare.

That's why these new laws look less like an attempt to save children from fads or over-zealous parents and much more like an effort to prevent normalizing gender transitioning.

Thanks for speaking with me about it.

What do you think is happening in classrooms? They are not "teaching marriage" to kids. They are teaching reading. They read about topics kids can relate to, like families. They do not teach what a "normal family" is - they show it, by the families they read about. Until recently, that was very exclusive.

Heather's Two Mommies is just one of the families kids should be reading about in class, so kids who have that kind of family, and everyone else, can see that it's accepted. It doesn't dictate one kind of normal - it shows that normal can be many things. That's how kids grow into accepting adults.

This legislation would prohibit “any topic involving gender identity,” including in the library. How are kids supposed to learn that differences are accepted if they can't see accepted examples in their learning environment?

Yes it is absolutely morality police to authorize bounty lawsuits over "decency." We don't have to be as bad as the Taliban to be oppressive, harmful and dangerous.

This legislation would take it out of the library, hospitals, or any place that receives federal funds where children under 10 are "exposed" to it.

This is not what happens. Schools are not teaching that marriage in general is the normal way. Material for kids also depicts single parents, and adults without children, etc. Remember Mr. Hooper from Sesame Street? These are the people in your neighborhood.

No one in school is suggesting that marriage is the only way. This isn't the fifties. People today are already depicted in many ways. Adding gay couples to the neighborhood means fewer kids feel bad. Adding openly aroace people to the neighborhood would not be a problem either, I'm sure it will happen.

Forbidding depictions of couples and family life would *also* put an image in kids heads about what is not normal - one that is very abnormal.

The people who know are the researchers and educators who study childhood education. They have shown that what children need to be healthy and grow into accepting adults is exposure.

Educational material for children contains both "windows" and "mirrors." Windows allow them to see what life is like for other people, while mirrors allow them to see representations they can identify with themselves. Both windows and mirrors are a necessary part of childhood education. Closing the windows and smashing the mirrors is not the answer.

I watched the "Bodies are Private" video. I can see why some might feel this is TMI, but I don't see how anyone can claim that it's bad or wrong to make this film or show it to children. There is not one thing in this video that is the least obscene, or lurid, or pornographic, or in any way harmful. It's the truth, it was handled as sensibly as possible, and it's important information kids need to be healthy.

There is almost always a way for individual parents to opt their kids out of things like this. That should be enough. We don't need a national law making sure no child ever sees it. And we really don't need this to be equated with "sexually explicit content" just to make educators sound like groomers.

That film has nothing at all to do with child molesting, and making that false connection is what is wrong with this legislation and this entire moral panic.

Kids ask about it. No law will ever change that. They want to know. Telling them it's okay but private is really important for their health and safety.

Kids ask adults they trust, and there does not need to be a *federal law* preventing them from answering. Sheesh.

I agree, the extreme cases are not helpful. But this is a solution in search of a problem. The drag queens and the health videos are not actually hurting children.