i am a transgendered woman that is also a heterosexual female.

it doesn't particularly matter to me so long as they keep to themselves, but my honest opinion is that gay people are gross. 

i have no remote interest in gay politics at all.

i don't enjoy the company of gay men or women, and i think they're unnatural and disgusting, but that's ultimately just my opinion. there's lots of categories of people i don't like: muslims, christians, capitalists, etc. i couldn't exist if i refused to interact with everybody that i hate. it is possible that their perversions may have some effect on their politics, but it strikes me as remote. it does follow that being homosexual might be a reason i'd vote against you, but it probably wouldn't be in most situations.

being gay certainly wouldn't be a reason i'd vote for you. not realizing that anal sex is disgusting isn't a political position.

i think straight marriage should be abolished, so my position on gay people getting married is kind of oblivious. i think the premise is abjectly stupid, to be blunt with you, but i don't really care. it's dumb, but it's a harmless, silly delusion. so long as straight people are getting married, i don't see any particular reason to tell gay people they can't, but my actual position is that all marriage should be abolished; i support marriage abolition, and not "marriage equality", but i'm not at all hung up on gays getting married in the mean time, i'm just not in support of it and wouldn't vote for it.

however, something that i do have an issue with is gay people (both men and women) raising children. i don't think that's something that society should ignore or accept. i would actually support congress and parliament enacting legislation to prevent gay "couples" from adopting. it's not an issue of the rights of the gays, it's an issue of the rights of the kids. kids should have the right to not be subjected to having gay parents, as that's a situation that you kind of can't get out of, if you get placed in it. the only arguments i've seen that address this have to do with socio-economic outcomes, but that's a red herring that doesn't address the emotional trauma involved with being placed in a gay family and having to deal with the social stigma of having gay parents. society can and should strive to do better for it's children than that. this is something that we have an ability to make a conscious choice to not do and should not be done.

at the very least, children placed with gay "couples" should have the ability to opt out some time around the age of 5 or 6, and continuing until the age of majority.

i mean, i can imagine how i'd react to having adopted gay parents, and it wouldn't be accepting or inclusive of them. i'd be out of there before i turned 15, even if it meant sleeping on the streets.

btw, we're at 1.5 degrees of warming now. that was the point we couldn't get to without it being irreversible.

not next decade. not next year. right now.

next up is tipping points, runaway methane release, coastal erosion, etc.

i am, however, going to present my opinion on who harris should pick as running mate.

first, drop the identity politics. politics is not consumer branding. people are sick and tired of this.

harris should realize that she has little experience in any substantive governing role and pick somebody older than her with a large amount of experience. the media is currently confused about the value of experience in the mind of voters. harris should not be confused with them; she should realize that an older candidate will give her legitimacy, and also that it will be a pragmatic necessity in helping her govern.

this is a list of mid-level senate seniority (the top two are republicans, chuck grassley and mitch mcconnell):

patty murray, ron wyden and dick durbin are reliable soft-left senators in safe seats. any of them would strengthen the ticket.

she wants experience and legislative know-how, not somebody that is flashy or camera friendly. her role is going to be the camera friendly one. she needs somebody competent that can actually govern.

he probably shouldn't have published this.

but, one thing you can say about manchin is that he's generally honest.

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/op-eds/because-of-the-ira-we-are-producing-fossil-fuels-at-record-levels

was joe biden terminating his campaign a selfless act?

no.

what would have been selfless would have been dropping out before the primaries to allow for a democratic process to unfold. trying to cling to power when it was clear five years ago that he was senile was incredibly self-centered and arrogant and delusional.

in the end, he got pushed out by donors (and probably the pentagon) and quit at the last minute because he was too unpopular to win, throwing a catastrophic situation into the lap of a woman who does not have the competency to deal with it, and who was irresponsibly put into a position of power in the first place.

joe biden is not a selfless hero, he is a selfish piece of shit and should be and will be remembered that way, as one of the worst presidents that the country has ever had.

did joe biden pass substantive climate legislation that will reduce emissions?

no.

what joe biden did was pass massive tax cuts for fossil fuel companies, and market it as a climate change strategy.

the political obituaries lionizing biden as a climate hero are going to be read in ten years and ridiculed. the "positive incentives" in the form of massive tax cuts and subsidies are largely tied to efficiency measures that the companies were in the process of advancing anyways and will have no effect at all, meaning the net result will be an increase rather than a decrease in emissions. analysts will look back at the biden administration as a failed opportunity.

in fact, these bills were written to receive and in fact did receive the support of joe manchin and moderate republicans and should be analyzed from that perspective. these were not "progressive" bills at all. not remotely.

i don't have time for it, but somebody needs to do the math on how many tax cuts and subsidies that biden sent to major polluters and emissions producers. turn it into a graphic. make it sobering.

this is what biden was very good at, smoke and mirrors. he was a master of spin. and, i can only tell him to go spin in his grave.

i'm a very white person and, as per the polling results, kamala harris is therefore a much less interesting candidate to me than joe biden was, even as i couldn't possibly endorse either of them, because they're both conservatives.

i don't consider the outcome of the election, in terms of popular support, to be unclear. trump is going to win the swing states, he's going to win the popular vote and he's going to win states that are not currently considered to be in play. this should be seen as a massive failure in democratic party strategy, given that they have an overwhelming structural advantage, but they continue to be hell bent on running horrifically weak and unelectable candidates (of which i include biden, clinton and harris) when all they need to do to win by substantive margins is run electable candidates, which they have, but won't support.

the narrative developing in this election is boring. the democrats want to run a black woman by claiming she's good enough, smart enough and goddammit people like her. like the people writing the narrative, the narrative had a best before date of about 1985. nobody cares.

i don't know what it means to be qualified to be president, but kamala harris has no executive experience and i'm not aware of any bills that she wrote while in the senate for ten minutes. she's been a career politician that has accomplished nothing of substance and survives by shaking hands and soliciting political donations. she is simply going to do what she's told.

i'm not interested in these candidates and the polling outcome is clear. this is consequently now boring to me and you should expect minimal commentary and analysis.

i frankly don't see a substantive difference between trump and harris on policy issues (which is why the election is going to be about personalities and not issues) and don't really care who wins. please vote for jill stein to help develop a viable third party, instead.

i want to say one thing about biden before i shut this down for the cycle.