Better hang on to your MAGAT hats, Rightwingers!
Republicans feign outrage over Biden's recent comments?
It's enough to make you dizzy, isn't it? Here we have evidence of Republicans routinely calling Democrats fascists (and communists and even pedophiles etc.) yet they are, once again having a hissy fit over Biden using the same word to describe them, as if he's the one beyond the pale.
-------
Republicans are basically tyrannical at their core. And this sort of thing pisses me off.
So much for allowing the people to vote on the extent of abortion policies within their own state...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/09 … ot-measure
----------
Well, the description of SemiFascist is kind. What kind of people consistently deny the legitimacy of an election almost two years without a scintilla of proof? Following this fool of a man where ever he decides to lead them?
--------
Every tool in the Democratic Party tool box needs to be employed.
Keep the abortion issue front and center before the public well through November.
Continue the justified and legal pursuit on Trump and his illicit hold on classified documents.
Divide and conquer, pitting MAGA candidates against non MAGA Republicans. Such as what happened in Alaska, recently.
Extol on President Biden's recent political accomplishments and the abating of inflationary pressures within the economy.
Democrats needs to storm the polls like never before, to counter GOP vote supression strategies. Put the trans consistently in "D" for every candidate from city dog catcher on up.Cred, I post here pretty much daily. Both sides of this divide use divisive language. So, I must question your thought. Biden pointed his fingers at a segment of Americans. Americans that have a right to support an ex-president they have faith in. A president that has offered them an agenda they support --- MAGA - Make America Great Again.
In my view, it is outrageous for a president to seek to agitate, and anger Americans while we have such a divide. I must say, I took his words very seriously, and at this point, the divide has never been so clear. And it has never been so clear who has chosen to divide. The first shot was shot last night. This man is pure evil, and anyone that supports him is just as divisive.
I think your point is a bit skewed. Biden stood on a platform as the president of the United States and pointed a finger at part of our society.
He did the Republicans a huge favor last night. Because anyone that is a true American that watched this man, now knows where the
problem lies, and Biden's speech should work to scare the crap out of most Americans. Talk about fascism... OMG open your eyes.I post here, trying to keep up with you. Why excuse your attackers from your side while blaming Biden? It is at the height of hypocrisy.
My eyes are quite open and the only problem I see is YoUR side of the divide.
But we have always been at odds over this and there is nothing new there.
This example of hypocrisy is taking place in your home state, regarding the abortion matter, what is your take on that?
Your comment is appreciated, regardless..Please don't make the claim I defended any form of divisive language. I do not play that game. I have many times dug out the context on divisive statements in an attempt to not defend, but possibly clarify a statement, that may have sounded divisive Show another view for sake of conversation.
I will admit I set presidents in a different light, I did with Trump, and I will with Biden. I can say I have never witnessed such a divisive speech. His anger was palpable, the hate showed in his twisted facial gestures. I do think he nailed it, and did what he wanted to do --- make the final cut. I think the Democrats once again made a fatal mistake showing this form of divisiveness against a segment of Americans. You know, many of us appreciated what Trump did while president, and totally respect the term ]Make America Great. Biden alienated millions of us with his angry divisiveness words. I can no longer stomach this kind of rhetoric, I have lost respect for the Democratic party altogether. I see this party as a form of poison at this point. Hopefully, some democrats will realize what this new party represents.
In my state, we obtained over 700,000 signatures within a week to keep abortion legal. If for any reason it is not on the ballot we will protest once again, hit the streets, and get more signatures... In Michigan, we are very organized in regard to both parties. We the people often come together on issues as we have in regard to abortion. I can guarantee you abortion will remain legal in Michigan. At the moment one can obtain an abortion up to 24 to 26 weeks, just about six months. That fetus if born would be alive and kicking, and could even wink at you... The prospects of the fetus living long would be dim. So perhaps you can stop worrying about Michigan, we will kill babies up to 26 weeks. Hey, I don't approve of abortion this late, but it satisfies some. ( tons of ultrasounds that show a 24 -26 week fetus) Hopefully you are aware of what you are supporting.
It is clear many women on both sides in Michigan want to keep abortion legal. many of us feel this is a right but in no respect political.
I am a total realist. I just accept a situation as it is and deal with it accordingly, using simple common sense. It has become very obvious at the point our society needs an abortion. We have come to the point we can ignore the death part, and put whatever spin we need to justify abortion. I do hope states will not allow abortion after 10 weeks. But I can see this will not be the norm. Hopefully, some states will educate women beforehand on what they will be aborted, and that birth control is just a better opinion."It is clear many women on both sides in Michigan want to keep abortion legal. many of us feel this is a right but in no respect political."
Seems like Republicans interfering with the will of the people yet again. This looks like it will go to your state supreme court? If you have a conservative court, I predict the will of the people will certainly be squashed.Certainly, that will be the next step, asking the Supreme Court to have the board do its job, essentially, and put abortion on the ballot. We Republicans that hope to get an abortion on the ballot are depending on the SC to rule to put it on the ballot. Our SC gives Democrats a 4–3 majority. So, we feel that abortion will make it to the Nov ballot. Not a gimmie, but likely it will. At this point, we have a very liberal-minded court. We have three Democratic liberal women on the court.
But if for some reason it does not make the ballot, as I said if not it will be back to the drawing board.
Too few states are adding it to the Nov ballots. I am a proponent of voting on this issue. I had hoped to see more states let the voice of the people be heard.
In my view, it is outrageous for a president to seek to agitate, and anger Americans while we have such a divide. I must say, I took his words very seriously, and at this point, the divide has never been so clear. And it has never been so clear who has chosen to divide. The first shot was shot last night. This man is pure evil, and anyone that supports him is just as divisive.
A Trump supporters, of all people.
It looks like the Dems are going to follow your advice. It's gonna be a slugfest. But, they are going to screw-up the "extrolling" recent political achievements part. The rationalizations for naming the biggie—The Inflation Reduction Act, should be easy to debunk. Not that I could, but I'm hearing plenty of voices—from all sides, questioning it.
Who will Middle America believe?
"MAGAT Hats." That's cute, bless your heart. 'Cute' in puppies works. ;-)
GAhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … -families/
Well, GA, people tend to get past verbiage and focus on results. Will the middle class see the benefits to them of the legislation? After all, the most obvious indicator, the price of gas at the pump falling is the most obvious example of a change in the right direction. Saving me money in the cost of prescriptions is a result that I can see.
MAGAT hat, I thought that you would like that.......lYou are using the gas prices as validation? That takes balls. Wasn't it the administration and democrats that said—during the rise of gas prices—that the president couldn't really affect gas prices?
GAI know that this is true, but what do people see and relate to? The man in the catbird seat is always going to take the blame or get the credit regardless of the reality behind it.
Interesting to see the headlines regarding Biden's speech:
The Civil War is HERE Says Democrat Media, Biden Speech Celebrated As Pre-War Declaration By Dems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytCUqRSZi9g
Joe Biden: Trump and his extremist supporters enemies of democracy | World News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYB5VVVbQpY
Biden calls Trump, supporters “threat to this country”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vna8m-5Y2b0
This is not unexpected, in the recent past I have made several posts in various threads detailing how this would play out, how the more dedicated supporters of Trump will be made "enemies of the state" and supporting him in general will be villainized to the extreme after 2022.
As they gear up for 2024 they will make certain both Republican and Democrat nominees are toe-the-line types who will not make waves.
There will be no Trump nomination, there will be no DeSantis nomination, someone like Susan Collins or even Mitt Romney again would be acceptable.
Not that I think it will matter much, Biden will have America in such dire straights by 2024, between his war with Russia and open border policies we'll be facing some serious problems by then... did you know we are currently averaging 2 million KNOWN immigrants entering into America a year now? That's a lot of people.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/migran … -continues"There will be no Trump nomination, there will be no DeSantis nomination, someone like Susan Collins or even Mitt Romney again would be acceptable."
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are not too involved with Republican politics.
FYI Romney is hated and despised by the majority of Republicans. Those running for office in Utah demand he come nowhere near their campaign. I could go on, but Romney doesn't have much support beyond the RINO faction of the party.Mr Romney may be disliked by the MAGA party but he still has good support among Republicans.
Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll found 50% approve of his performance.
He has taken a centrist approach to the Senate where he has worked across party lines on major legislation.
That is something that moderate Democrats recognize and appreciate.
In fact, the new poll found 65% of Democrats approve of his performance.
There is a big difference these days in terms of who MAGA supports and who Republicans support. These are two separate parties now and I think should be viewed and discussed as so.
I believe that Republicans would support a centrist Democrat before they will get behind a MAGA candidate.You and I disagree about a lot of things but on this I believe you are pretty spot on.
That is why I say Susan Collins or Mitt Romney will be selected by the Republicans... or another just like them.
Someone that can pull a percentage of the Democrats that are tired of the extremism from their side and tired of Biden who between bumbling through speeches and declaring war on Trumpers and Putin just want to be DONE with him... not as much as they wanted to be rid of Trump... but he'll be running a close second.
I don't want Trump back, but I want Biden back even less, so I guess that puts me in the Republican column, and certainly Romney is much preferred to Biden or Harris.
So lets say Romney just for arguments sake is the nominee. He will pull almost everyone in the center, he will pull SOME Democrats that want to be done with Biden and he will pull the moderate Republicans.
For Biden to retain power he will have to pull some excuse to declare Martial law or delay the election or start WWIII with Russia (and China) I cannot see him winning an election, he will be so hated by the MAGA crowd that they would vote for anyone just to oust him.
I expect 70% of all votes cast to go against Biden in 2024. Same if its Harris and not Biden. So long as it isn't Trump running opposite them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPbZyzWnyrE
Thinking about it, Romney almost beat Obama, and he graciously bowed out despite some very questionable things occurring in that election that cost him a couple of states.
Romney's words in that interview were far more inspiring as to the reasons we should confront Russia's aggression than anything I've heard from Biden, of course he can articulate his thoughts and doesn't need to read them off a teleprompter or flash card, so maybe that's why.
It might be his Time.sorry, its not.
I really think there is nothing natural going on. We are being manipulated and Trump will run and Trump will win and then war will break out and then America's / The World's Handlers will be rubbing their hands together in such glee and you can almost hear their eerie laughter already.
It really does seem to be a "simulation" we are in, lovetherain... but that IS politics today! Oh, wrong thread.
https://www.wired.com/story/living-in-a-simulation/If Trump runs it will be as an Independent.
The Republican Party will not have him, the establishment side of the Republican house will not allow it, the Democrats will have Trump behind bars before 2024 if they feel it necessary to keep him from garnering enough support and the Republican Party will use that as excuse enough to go with someone other than Trump.
Trump will never be re-elected. The goal now is to get that deranged individual that is there out, if we have the opportunity to, not that I am sure we will, Martial Law or WWIII is entirely possible before then.
Ken, we rarely disagree --- Can't see how Trump could run with all the latest smoke surrounding him. I agree that Trump should not run. I want brand new, and Romney does not fit the bill for my liking.
I think Desantis will be our primary winner and win the White House. His ideologies resemble Trump's but he is very much more common sense. He will pull all of Trump's base as well as all that liked Trump's vision but could do without all the drama. The very conservative will come on board, yes, slightly holding their noses, but their common sense/capitalist side will say "we need to be in that White House". No matter what.
There will be no wringing of hands this time around or cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The party is at a true crossroads, and they will pull together, and take the right path. A path of unity.
The country is too messed up and is likely to get even worse. I don't think any conservative will pull a "high horse stance".
I think Trump planted a seed, and it is growing, not sure anyone wants to go back to the party of old at this juncture.First thing, we need to get to 2024, not be in WWIII, not have Martial Law, not have elections delayed.
If that is achieved then we need to decide if we are going to continue to divide the nation into two halves, or if we are going Middle of the Road, bury the hatchet (for a while) and be relatively united as a country.
DeSantis will not unite, he is firmly entrenched in the Right side of politics, Biden will not unite, he is firmly on the Left, and has alienated tens of millions of Americans by declaring war on Trump and all those who support him... he does not have the mental capacity or energy to unite the nation, that takes someone who doesn't have his liabilities.
If we are going to de-escalate the fracturing of the nation it will take someone like Romney. Someone who will toe-the-line in DC but will also hold high moral standards and be a responsible decent President.You forget that Romney has alienated the majority of members of the Republican party. Why do you think he hasn't announced if he's going to run again for the senate? His poll numbers in Utah a really low. Romney is a lot of things and one thing he is...is disliked by most people in his home state and around the country.
No, he upset them by contesting some of Trump's efforts, that is not the same as alienating Republicans.
I doubt when given the choice between Romney or Biden any sane individual not firmly planted on the Democrat plantation is going to choose Biden.Ken, I don't think Biden will run. This man has been a pure failure, the Democrats must have recognized he needs to go. He is a mess, and his polls although were up a bit for a week, are now headed back down. I hope he runs, this would be our dream come true. Anyone we put up would be a shoo-in.
no, I think Biden will run. It will be, dismally, a repeat as before, but only this time he might loose. It will be a real fight, however, and the rope could be pulled to either side, (depending on the legitimacy of the vote, of course.)
What did Trump do that makes so many LOVE him, despite his personality quirks?
The following list is thanks to Ken B., (repeating from elsewhere:)
"Renegotiate NAFTA to be more friendly to American interests.
Do away with non tariff favortism shown to China.
Push companies to remain in America and not take their businesses overseas.
Control the Border and build a Wall.
Give middle class Americans tax deductions, better rebates for families.
He never started a new war... or supported a new war effort... that he wasn't stuck inheriting. But he did try to create an alliance between India, Australia, Japan, etc. to ward off growing Chinese hostilities.
Refused to follow the Compact on Migration, the Paris Accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, essentially anything that did not favor America or Americans but put extra burdens and costs on them. Something that those Globalists (that don't exist) were determined to destroy him over."well, who then???? Our little Newso(cialis)m guy?
against this big burly Trump (for Freedom) BEAR?
https://www.notablebiographies.com/news … Gavin.html
vs.
https://www.trump.com/leadership/donald … -biographyDude, there are 335 million Americans, you really think they can't find ONE better than Joe?
Excuse me, Dude, your slip (up) is showing.
OMG yes, you said a mouth full... Is it not sad we can't come up with better candidates?
no, there is a THEY.
a very powerful THEY.
We are not sheeple, we are people who love peace and contentment.
Is there something wrong with enjoying life?
The Golden Age of America is over for now. I predict another one will return; we will find our drive with the urgent need to get back and keep what we are destined to have.
Give me Liberty (within appropriate and fair boundaries) or Death.
The Way I See It.It's all economics, it always was. You do not understand how things work.
I do not believe that. I cannot believe that. Trump is not about economics alone.
Go ahead if you want to.I meant politics in general. I meant everything in general. It's all economics, which means it's all resources,and how they are distributed. This is basic.
What they are feeding you,and you are lapping up, is bread and circuses. Not you only, everyone in this forum except for one or two like Wilderness.
Do not feel like I am picking on you, I think this way about 99 percent of the human population.DeSantis and many others understand the importance of freedom and justice. There is a motivating factor in freedom and Justice. Humans are not automatons.
Humans follow mathematical laws, such as how we arrange our cities by population. Like ants in colonies. How much choice do you have to chose between New York or Flint, Michigan when you decide to move? You think you have choices, but do you really? Google Zipf's law. If you want to go down a fun rabbit hole.
Many of us who yes, did not appreciate some of his antics still appreciated how he did his job and did put America first as he promised. His agenda was one I appreciated, and I don't want o return to what we saw before Trump. He was getting things done for America. I can honestly say, I never saw him angry, or streaming as Biden does frequently. He always remained calm, and most of the time smiling.
Kathryn put it best, many think of Romney as milk toast. He would be a wish come true for the Democrats. We need a candidate that will pull in Trump's base. They are really mad at this point, and I assume they would support someone Trump would back, and we know Trump really dislikes Romney. If we lose Trump's base we will lose the election.
And right now that's all I am worried about. The country is divided, and let's face it that will not subside any time soon. We need to take back the White House, and perhaps worry about the great divide down the road. This is what the Dems will run on as they did with crazy Joe. Joe pulled over Republicans with his 'I will heal the country crap. Republicans better keep that in mind. There is no real healing at this point, our ideologies are too far apart.
All you have said makes great sense. But Ken, have you considered how interested Trump's large base is? If a moderate runs, they may sit out, seeing it as going back to the status quo. These folks had a voice and felt it was taken away by the establishment. They will just say screw it.
We will not see the inside of the WH for four more. Ken, the cat is out of the bag. We without Trump's base are lost.
This time around we just need to pull together and do what we need to win. As I said your thoughts are great, it would be a good thing for the country if we could push through moderate. But, I don't think with things as they are now, we would stand a chance. Romney would be the Democrat's wish come true.
Not sure how you think we could de-escalate, these nut jobs are twisting the knife in Trump's supporter's side with a brand new investigation, they are being called racist, unAmerican, and more... Thes supporters are totally on board with Trump and his Make America great agenda. Do you really think they will come out for anyone that Trump would not support? He can't stand Romney.
Perhaps you feel Trump has less of a base, or that they will just fold? I think they are out there in large numbers and are hoping he runs or supports another with the MAGA agenda.He just may, they have pushed him into a corner, and Trump is not a man that gives up. He certainly has a cause and will fight for it. I have never seen anyone take so much and keepfighting.
- oh no! My crystal ball says the MAGAs are becoming more United, more Determined and more Bold.
We actually need a non-milktoast candidate. Trump is the poked bear, remember?
- and they are poking him to ...
not death, but
LIFE!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MilquetoastTrump has unfinished business.
The election was rigged and the election was an anomalie just like these times.
He will come back. Its his and our karma.
or else it will be armageddon for sure.
Can you imagine DeSantis vs Newsom?
... talk about Yawn-City!
We are a ROCK n ROLL Nation!
Let Trump Rock and Roll!
NO ONE Is PERFECT!
... not yelling just using capital letters/exclamation point for VISUAL effect.Trust me, Biden will take care of that, "enemies of the state" and all that.
It will only make them come back harder. For instance, Steve Bannon is willing to be jailed to stand for his principles. That, (his being jailed for up to two years for NOTHING,) in itself will piss off the MAGAs big time. MAGAs have Guns and tempers, yet are restrained with by The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule.
They will defend.
The problem will be those pesky Ghosty Globalists who will infiltrate the MAGAs.
(- new term: The G. G. s)That will start the revolution.
You think they will be shut down?
I do Not.I do.
I think we have a populace that likes to talk the talk but is not willing to walk the walk.
I am not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing. I am just saying that as an observation.
Its the same observation I make (made) about Jan 6th, that was a joke, or tragedy, or stupidity, but it was not an insurrection, it was not a revolution.
In order to have that, you have to use weapons, you have to kill people, you have to be willing to die for what you believe in.
I don't see that in Americans, I see a domesticated, divided, too well off to do anything serious about it population.
I don't see a people willing to sacrifice all they have, when all they have is more than any population in history has ever had.
I see a population sacrificing freedoms for security... security from hunger, security from harm, security from boredom even, name your pleasure you can find it in America (legal or illegal) if you have the means.
We are the Roman Empire at its height, give the people bread and circuses and enough of them will be happy with that to keep a revolt from happening.
What they will do to ensure that the revolution never happens, is jail Trump, Bannon, and anyone else that is a serious threat.
Yes, they are, and he will not stop fighting. His base is loyal in my opinion. Trump literally can't stand Romney, his base would not come out for this man.
"So lets say Romney just for arguments sake is the nominee. He will pull almost everyone in the center"
Could not disagree with you more. I feel confident he will never be the nominee of the Republican party.
"Romney almost beat Obama, and he graciously bowed out despite some very questionable things occurring in that election that cost him a couple of states"
He is remembered as a weak candidate who bowed down to obama and refused to confront him or challenge him on many issues. Romney is considered a HUGE disappointment to the Republican party.
He is viewed as a lap dog for the democrat party. He's too weak to take on the tough job of winning a major election. Trust me when I tell you most Republicans do NOT like him at all.
Trust me, he won't get the necessary support from the Republican party.
People ignored me when I told you that Liz Cheney was hated and dislike by Republicans. Guess what? I was right. She got spanked in her last election.
Romney's polling in his home state of Utah is so low right now it is doubtful he will run for Senate again.
He is not liked by the majority of the Republican party. I don't care what polls tell you, I know what goes on in Republican circles.
He doesn't have the support for a national election. I know many people would dedicate themselves to working to make certain he gets elected to nothing.
Just came across this; what does MAGAT mean or is it a typo?
The MAGA cult has been chanting "F**k Joe Biden!" ever since he took office.
...but when Biden says "F**k you, too," it's "WHAAAAT? How can he SAY that? What a terrible person he is!"Here is Florida we have half wits in big pickup trucks, the ones that you need a ladder for to access the cab, flying flags with "Lets Go Brandon".
I see it on flag poles, I see it on people's caps. So when we speak of disrespect, whose "zoomin" who?
Just to help out a bemused Brit - What and when does MAGA refer to?
You are bemused? The MAGA people really cannot tell you of the "again" time that they endlessly pine for. It is more about a time period in their figment of imagination that exists only within their gray matter that has never really actually ever existed.
Let me help you.
When President Donald Trump ran for president, his motto was "Make America Great Again. MAGA.
Those who refer to MAGA are referring the those who support President Donald Trump. It consists of more than 75 million people and is growing.
Mr. Trump siezed on "us versus them" rhetoric. And his incendiary political language, insulting speech and mocking of others was completely divisive.
With his daily Twitter/Truth rants and press conferences, he encouraged Americans to take sides against one another. Every single day, in nearly every statement he made, he reiterated to his followers that they have enemies. And who are those enemies? Why, their fellow Americans.
Remember his Mount Rushmore speech for an Independence Day celebration? He delivered a very dark and divisive speech that cast his struggling effort to win a second term as a battle against a “new far-left fascism” He also frequently labeled all Democrats as communists and socialists.
We could fill pages of Mr Trump's inflammatory language. He effectively divided this country like no other.WOW deflect much. You won't even touch old Joe's hate fest from last night. Let's get right to Trump. Hate to tell ya, ya got your own worst nightmare.
Sharlee,
You have to ask yourself why biden did such a thing. If you look at recent polls, the democrats are in a bad way. This speech was nothing less than a sign of their desperation. It looks more likely that Republicans will take the Congress and the Senate in the upcoming elections.
Then, things will begin to get straightened out.I see your point, and yes I do feel there will be light at the end of this tunnel.
However, I was very shocked at this display of un-American behavior.
This administration clearly needs to go.
The specifics of the speech?
"This is a nation that respects free and fair elections. We honor the will of the people. We do not deny it ... and yet history tells us that blind loyalty to a single leader and a willingness to engage in political violence is fatal to democracy."
Agreed 100%
All the Pearl clutching being done by Mr Trump's supporters is a bit hypocritical considering the speeches he's made. He's responsible for taking a crack in this country and busting It wide Open.
How can you hate someone in Biden's position?
You can't ...
but you sure can hate the policies and the tone he is setting!He has no urge except to please his handlers.
- might be his political habit all these long years in the WH ... which is why he is where he is:
Head of the country doing the "bidding" of others.
Rather than his own SELF, poor Lad.Kathryn, You hit the nail on the head. When I did my research pre- 2020 election on Biden. I found he was always grasping onto coat tails. Always the guy outside looking in, and wanting to be somebody, that just never made it. I mean Obama referred to Biden as Uncle Joe. Biden was always the guy in the room but never heard.
You know, I never gave that nickname much thought.
I wonder if that was meant in similar fashion to how Uncle Tom is used?
Anyone concerned that over 40 folders marked "classified" were found empty in Mr Trump's country club office?
Also, whose on board with Mr Trump's offer of pardons and apologies (should he find himself in the oval office again) for those convicted in beating the heck out of law enforcement among other crimes on January 6th? A needed move?Just want to point out the obvious in my view, not a defense of Trump's thought, but the obvious -- Context matters --- Note Trump used the word "many" when referring to pardons.
"Donald Trump said he would pardon and apologize to the hundreds of people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riots if elected to a second presidential term in 2024.
The former president made the remarks to a conservative radio host Thursday morning as he weighs a third consecutive run for the White House while under dueling investigations by the feds for his role in the riots and classified materials seized from his Florida home.
“I mean full pardons with an apology to many,” he told Wendy Bell"
https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/trump-wou … f-elected/
Do you feel all 800 that were arrested were destructive and violent? I am not going to list the many criminal's other presidents pardoned over the years. Pardoning law breaks is a privilege presidents have. Not sure who Trump would pardon, I certainly hope he would weigh the crimes. At this point, I could only speculate on who, and how many might pardon.
It is very possible many made the mistake of being caught up in the hysteria of the day and did little more than being in the capital when they were told not to enter. Perhaps, you should have a look at some of the persons that have been pardoned by presidents. Is it really fair-minded to come down on Trump so harshly before even knowing who he would pardon? You have no idea if Trump would pardon those that as you say "for those convicted in beating the heck out of law enforcement".-- Do you? You have taken a few of Trump's words, and put your own form of truth to them. Context should matter, waiting for facts should matter...
But your comment reflects, to be fair your view, that neither really matters. Is this fair?
In regard to the folders, it would seem fair to wait and see if the DOJ indites Trump. If they do, and if these folders in some respect become part of their case, I am sure they will be entered as evidence in the trial.
So, to say whether the folders are concerning seems moot, it would seem presumptuous to comment on them at this point.
Romney vs Sanders?
Romney is a has been, lets face it.
well, so is Sanders, but the millennials like him for some strange reason.
It may no longer be about who is actually running. Rather, about getting rid of the other.
Lol!Now that all you Rightwinger types are done pleasurin' each other, let me explain what I see and hope for as a Democrat.
I think that I am seeing a certain amount of Trump fatigue in the electorate. Trump's picks are often not shoe-ins.
Mike is right when he says that Romney and any Trump adversary (RINO) would likely receive little support in a MAGA universe.
Then, there is the Sharlee faction that recognizes Trump's baggage and liabilities and believes that DeSantis would be a good substitute for Trump, having a relatively clean record.
Then, there are Republicans that are republicans in the classic sense but do not have affinity for Donald Trump. The same fatigue is expressed for Alaska's Trump approved Sarah Palin, which is the only explanation why in a red state like Alaska a Democrat could win its only House Seat for the first time in almost 50 years. So, the sure thing is not always so sure, after all.
I am content to have all these factions battling one another for their party's nomination. I know that Trump's ego will never sit aside for any competitor. I can think of many adjectives to describe Donald Trump, but "selfless" is not one of them. That is going to pit DeSantis and Trump against one another. We Dems welcome the division. The RINO candidates could prove to be great spoilers.
That pathetic old crow, AKA, Mitch McConnell is right. It is a mistake to let untested candidates run for important seats, just because they are blessed by Trump. So, I am anxious to have our candidates run against the "bonehead" Herschel Walker, the Lizard of Oz or the Grand Wizard of the White Knights, Blake Edwards. We say bring on your most extreme and while that might get the Trumpers hearts thumping, how would they perform before a statewide electorate?
So, we don't want you to consider moderates but your hard-core, over the top, rightwinged Trumpers to compete in a general election. So, bring them on.....
No Republican will ever do, not even a moderate. We will support our own candidates true to our ideals and agenda without dilution.
All conservative states are not the same, some lean more toward libertarianism. Montana and Alaska are different compared to classic conservatism that we see in other red states. I lived in Montana and I know a little about it. They are more concerned about federal government involvement in their affairs over classic social issues.
Thanks for your attention.Cred
I love this. I think you will be surprised, but I think you got it! Well thought out, and in my view pegged well.
When I contemplate the next presidential election, I am seeing a true possible sh** storm. hitting the Republican party.
We have split, and the split may be deep at this point.
We have three factions, the biggest is the Trump base, which includes those that maybe did not care for Trump's character, but liked his agenda, and where pleased with it. Second, you have those that want a true moderate, third, the old school conservative, that will be more than willing to cut their noses off to keep their ideals alive.
Nothing worse than a conservative upon their high horse. So, I think we will have a real problem due to all the different boxes we need to fill.
Me, I am just out to win, I just think we are at a real crossroads. We could win with a candidate that Trump would be willing to bring on his base, and the people that are just on board with Trump's agenda would fall in place. If the country has not solved the many problems we are currently in the midst of, the high horses will hold their turned-up noses, for the sake of America. If Biden gives many more speeches like his Democracy speech of the other night, well this will bode well for my side. Gotta keep your guy somewhere eating ice cream Cred...
We have very few options with this very split party. I think if Desantis ends up our guy, we have a good chance. If we end up with a stuffed shirt, ya got it. Trump's base will sit out with their middle fingers held high to the Republican party. At this point, I got to keep it real.
Always such a pleasure --- SharThanks, your comment below is also an astute observation, particularly explaining the "old school conservatives" that pinch their noses but see in Trump the only way to keep their ideals alive. No one would deny that he did far better than I expected that he would in 2020
"We have three factions, the biggest is the Trump base, which includes those that maybe did not care for Trump's character, but liked his agenda, and where pleased with it. Second, you have those that want a true moderate, third, the old school conservative, that will be more than willing to cut their noses off to keep their ideals alive."He did do pretty well in 2020. I think a lot will teeter about how the country is doing in 2024. You know the list of things that people consider problems, won't bore you. And who knows what is to come with lots brewing with foreign affairs? Joe has a lot on his plate.
I have shared this before but bares repeating, we need brand new blood in Washington.
Well that goes the other way too... there is divide in the Democratic party and many are as sick of Biden as there were old hardliner Republicans that were sick of 4 years of Trump.
That is my take, Biden will do more harm to the Democrats and will do more to galvanize the Republicans & Independents before 2024 arrives, his little speech the other night will not be the last thing he does to stir people against him.Yes, there is a split in the Democratic party. But don't you think history shows they pull together more frequently than Republicans do, for the good of their party? Although we have a stronger backbone in my view than we have ever had. I really feel we need to pull together and do it quickly. I had hoped Trump would announce he would not run, we could then get organized, and work on pulling Republicans into a tight circle.
I think so much will depend on what's going on in the country, have things gotten worse or better? Especially the economy. I think all Joe's guests to "perhaps" buy votes will be a long-lost memory, as will be the abortion issue. The Democrats don't have a strong candidate either. They can run Biden, he has such a problem with likeability. It would be an answer to Republicans' prayers if they go with Biden.
However, the split in the Republican party is the biggest problem at this point.Not true, Biden has raised his capital with Democrats and has come back from being considered a cadaver by those of us anxious to get things moving before the midterms. If anything, Biden looks better to us than he has ever since his inauguration. He is not willing to sit by and absorb all the rightwing mumbo jumbo without a response.
That is coming from a TRUE Democrat. And that is my take... the only people against him are the Rightwingers and since when have I been terribly concerned about their displeasure?Credence, you are further to the Left than Mike is to the Right.
I don't think you have any clue what the Center, the Independents, the normal people who don't eat up politics every day want.
You are the extreme Left whether you realize it or not, Biden is not that appealing to anyone else other than those on the Democrat plantation.
The rest of America is hoping for something better than the mumbling bumbling occasionally seemingly psychopathic Biden.I am not extreme, your view is wrong and the result of the midterms will prove me correct.
-----
"don't think you have any clue what the Center, the Independents, the normal people who don't eat up politics every day want."
-------
How are you the expert? So, You define yourself as normal and those that disagree as otherwise? Perhaps you should check yourself?
I have problems with Rightwingers who disguise themselves as moderate and reasonable people.
We all have our take on things, do not belittle mine because it would not be your choice. I am all out to see the Right and Republicans take a resounding defeat this fall, I am counting on it.
Again, there is this arrogance in being so confident as to your OWN world view. It will make you vulnerable in so many ways. "Democratic plantation" is just another code word, not clever. That "plantation" may be enough to get Biden reelected.
is it possible that you don't know as much as you let on, all the time? Just because I support Biden does not make me a wide eyed radical leftist. From your side, anyone not supporting MAGA is leftist.That is how I see it, from years of reading your posts.
You do not have to agree with it, then again, I am sure you characterize me as a Trumper and Right Winger.
Biden is everything I said he would be when you and I debated who should be the Democrat Nominee, before he was chosen. He is an establishment puppet that will play to the Left, but in truth is more likely a racist, rapist and pedophile than Trump... he is a frontman overseeing a very dangerous moment in history.
How bad is the Left currently?
One only has to look at California.
California for the first time in its history had net negative migration, meaning more people left the state than relocated to it.
Businesses and middle-class families are getting out while they still can.
That’s why the cost of rental trucks out of the state are several multiples higher than the cost coming into the state.
The top marginal tax rate in the United States is 37%, but California pulls an additional 13.3% in state income taxes.
And Democrats in California want tax rates to go even higher.
Democrats in the state are flirting with universal healthcare, which would require doubling state tax receipts, and the program would still be underfunded.
The Democrats in California enjoy a supermajority, so there is no blaming Republicans for any of their problems.
California is inventing new ways to tax people.
For example, California is now taxing people for having solar panels, which undercuts the cost-saving incentive to go “green.”
California Democrats decided that the entire state should ignore federal immigration law.
California driver’s licenses have three options for sex: male, female, and nonbinary.
California is the direction Democrats want to take America, much higher taxes, open borders with no deportation and no recording, no sex or choose your sex, some people look at California and see freedom... I see insanity and taxation.
I could not survive in CA because of their taxation, just like I could not survive in NY because of its taxation. I am doing OK in Florida, same as you, that is why you are here, economics... I am sure you would much prefer CA laws and policies... problem is they come at an unsustainable price to all those who work for a living.
Quoting one of your threads from not so long ago:
Biden's administration may well constitute democracy's last gasp in America. The rise of Trump and the anti-democratic idea of Trumpism that will take over if Biden fails will insure that the Right will lock down tyranny and despotism well into the future.
To keep the coming GOP despotism away like a bad cold, Biden needs to hit the ball out of the park. Anything in the way should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.
I am unapologetically blue, period. The GOP is a source of tyranny and despotism and it irritates me to no end that conservatives try to cajole us all to see otherwise.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/352 … blic-redux"California is the direction Democrats want to take America, much higher taxes, open borders with no deportation and no recording, no sex or choose your sex, some people look at California and see freedom... I see insanity and taxation.
If I follow this line of reasoning, it would be safe to assume that Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia are examples of the direction Republicans would take the country as a whole?
What do you see when you look at these states?Don't know about them, don't care.
The focus is on major States and where policies and taxation has taken them.
I know CA, NY, FL well enough to comment on them.
I have seen firsthand how easy it is to live in Florida vs. NY and CA where taxation and restrictions are concerned. Or should I say where politics has taken those taxations, laws and restrictions.
However, if I were to delve into the reasons why those States you listed suffer whatever it is you feel they suffer from, I would suspect it has much to do with those states having low GDP/State Revenue.
For example a quick search shows that:
Arkansas GDP was $130,954,000,000 in 2019 according to BEA data. Arkansas GDP represents 0.61% of US GDP which made it the 35th largest state economy in the nation in 2019.
In other words, if States were neighborhoods based on GDP, CA would be the elite rich gated community and Arkansas the ghetto.Well certainly the United States is more than just the interests or circumstances of California, New York or Florida. You've got the rest of us and our baggage like it or not.
And as far as GDP, politics certainly influences economic growth. How do you separate that out. How much influence does the governor/legislature in any state have on its economic situation?
I suppose I should be grateful that California has enough to contribute to subsidize my ghetto.California benefits from being the primary port of the nation.
Just as NY once benefited from that many decades ago.
CA happens to be the primary gateway to Asia and the primary route north for produce grown in western Mexico.
It is interesting to see what has happened to both States that were/are the primary port and trade hubs of the nation. They should be near utopian states considering the wealth and commerce passing through.
Intellectual honesty requires that you take your hypothesis and theory regarding Democrat run states and demonstrate their relevance based upon Faye's inquiry as to how you explain the existence of poverty and destitution in the example ruby red states. Why is Republican governance any better?
The poorest, most ignorant states to live in within the Union are all tainted red. How do you correlate "superior" Republican governance with that?How do you determine poverty and destitution?
California has hundreds of thousands of homeless people, what State has anything that compares to that?The five states with the highest poverty rates are:
Mississippi - 19.6%
Louisiana - 19.0%
Kentucky - 16.3%
Arkansas - 16.2%
If these places including, my own home state, were located elsewhere in the world we would almost call them third world sh***holes.
At least these are resourceful people though, they're able to get some sort of ramshackle shanty around themselves that probably qualifies as a house.It well appears most of the states you mentioned were headed to lower poverty rates under Obama, and Trump until COVID struck.
The charts give a good picture of the ups and downs through the years. and a definite improvement in the rates under the last two presidents.
Most states represent the same improvements.in poverty rates until COVID set in. Hopefully, we will see some improvement in the poverty rate now that many are back to work.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205 … ssissippi/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205 … louisiana/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205 … -kentucky/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205 … -arkansas/I completely agree that the pandemic did have an effect on poverty. But at the same time these states have never been a beacon of prosperity. One only has to look to the consecutive examples of horrendous mismanagement in Mississippi. I think if we go back to the original assertion that was made about the successes of red or blue run cities/states we can clearly see that there is much more that goes into that equation than simply partisan government.
The current sh**hole conditions of Mississippi and/or San Francisco can be attributed to a multitude of factors, not simply just the party affiliation of their governance.I agree Faye the states you listed have not been beacons of prosperity. Just wanted to show that they were starting to have a bit of a "rally in the last maybe 10 years. Just jumped in to point out that the US poverty rate was not doing as bad as some may feel. The charts truely show progress in the majority of states. I hope to see our poverty rate fall even lower over the next 10 years. I am even more hopeful for the south, some tech and some manufacturing are headed south. This is long past due.
I am sure there are several problems that kept many of the southern states from thriving. The states you mentioned have pretty much always had poverty problems.
Unfortunately, you are right, California has about 35 percent of its population near or at the poverty level. That is attributed to the exorbitant cost of living there. But, I could say the same thing about either Miami or Austin, Texas.
My late mother indicated more than four decades ago that in the future, there will be ONLY TWO classes- the very rich & the very poor. I now have thought of yet another forum thread.
Your Mom may be right, but that will mean the end of America as we know it.
The America we knew is already dead, as the saying goes, CA is ten years ahead of the rest of the country... well this is CA:
Oakland Homeless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRWmKh13b50
Venice Beach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2ht_eeSTt4
San Fran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_um3a8r3qbM
LA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2RvooEI0YE
I remember seeing things like that becoming the norm in NY as well, ten years ago, I have no idea how bad it is there today.It used to be that California was ahead of the country. However, it is now in THE PITS.
The scary part, if you watch some of those, is that there are normal people who have jobs living in those conditions.
Those aren't all drug users and mental ward types. Plenty of normal Americans mixed in there that cannot afford CA despite a job/income.
And its not just big cities anymore, in NY and CA especially its every small city as well.Could the higher poverty numbers we see that were calculated in 2020 be due to what was going on with the pandemic? And now yes, all from top to bottom especially the less fortunate, and middle class are feeling the crunch due to inflation.
Note stats are compared from 2019 to 2020 --- I would assume the next set of figures (not yet documented)
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories … month.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U … verty_rate
America has clearly been hit hard by the pandemic, and our poverty rates in most states have gotten a bit worse.
However
This site is a great site to check poverty rates per state.
It may surprise all poverty rates have been coming down since about 2009 - 2010. to present. Yes, we have seen an increase from 2019 to 2020. (perhaps due to COVID)
But have a look at your own state, and see the progress that was made over the past maybe 12 years. We can hope that now that COVID is under some control, and people are back to work poverty stats could get back to the lows of 2019.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205 … n-florida/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/205 … alifornia/
Most states show that poverty was going in a downward spiral under Obama, and Trump until COVID hit. We may see the rate continue to go down in the years to come if inflation is curbed.
High cost of living, particularly in the housing sphere can and does lead to this result. What makes you think that Florida and its fast growing larger cities will escape that trend? Its has been happening here in Brevard County and has been accelerating over the last 3 to 4 years.
How does the Rightwinger answer? De Santis is not exactly Moses with his staff.
With advanced computerization, this is coming into fruition. Those w/the prerequisite education & skillset will become the new wealthy while those without the prerequisite education & skillset will be the new poor. Society is advancing & changing. The STEM skillset is in while soft subjects are out. Even those w/advanced degrees in the soft subjects are catching hell. America is changing & we had better get used to it. I advise everyone to watch Dr. Zhivago, the 1965 version in which one soldier told Lara that people had better adapt themselves to the new regime. I find that statement very poignant. America now isn't the America of the 1960s, 1970s, even 1990s. America is becoming a super-computerized, technical society. Any young person who wants to succeed had better be highly computer literate. That is why I stated that the future of America will belong to the upper middle & upper classes while those in the lower classes will be the new slave classes because they oftentimes do not have the computer skills that those in the more affluent classes have. Facts.
But the rule of " the people" democracy cannot be sacrificed in favor of rule by the plutocrat or oligarch. Economics can not be allowed sully that basic national foundation.
The replacement of democracy with something less desirable will amount to the country and its ideals receiving a mortal wound.This is true and it is telling for America's future.
China produces 7 times the number of STEM graduates that America does and has been producing at least 6 times the amount America graduates in those fields for over a decade now.
Greater than 60% of American college graduates today are women, for whatever reason, women prefer humanities and business-related fields.
The data shows that men are more likely to pursue STEM, more likely to pursue engineering specifically, and more likely to graduate from STEM majors. That is a problem when men in America seem to be phasing out of higher education.
This is why I believe America will be stepping aside and handing the reigns of control and power over to China by 2030. All of China's flaws aside, their population has been educated to dominate the future of technology and industry, and therefore they will control the world much like America did post WWII... when America had all the industrial capability and all the top engineers and scientists (even if many of them had been bought over from Germany).
Are Miami or Austin (or Houston, etc) on this list?
https://ofhsoupkitchen.org/cities-with- … populationWell, sometimes Doc, the simplistic observations and easy answers do not always get to the root of the problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/us/h … rison.html
The correlation between the high cost of housing/living and homelessness is made clear. Those conditions will not be limited, and I believe that it will visit large urban areas of the "red states" that point accusatory fingers at California for this problem over specious ideas regarding progressive policies as the cause. I see the expense of housing as a problem that will not be limited to California or Washington State.
California now may led the pack, but who will be next?That is the point, CA is ten years ahead of where the rest of the country is going, save for NY, which is usually right on CA's heels and doesn't require ten years to get there.
Take a good look at the looting, homelessness, taxation, power outages, pollution, and lack of water. Take a good look at CA and you see where a State or Nation ends up when there is no balance in politics, when there is a super majority of one party that can do as it wishes without concern for consequences and that party is driven by illogical ideologies.
The saving grace of America, what has kept most states and most of the country from falling into disarray, until now, is that there was the ability to swing to the other side, the other party, the other extreme.
The two problems the country has, that I do not believe can be fixed, therefore the system, the nation is heading to a breaking point:
1) CA which is totally controlled by one party with no hope of being rebalanced and having their trajectory corrected is going to become a major liability to the rest of the nation.
2) The dysfunction within DC, the inability to allow the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction.
If Trump is not a fluke, by that I mean, the lengths with which the Democrats and DC went to "resist" and "remove" him... and this tact continues for any and all Republican President or Nominee... then we really no longer have a two party system.
I believe we may be in the end days of the pendulum swinging.
I recall how they compared Mitt Romney to Hitler, to evil incarnate, as he ran for President. I remember how they villainized Bush and did the same with him, especially when the economy tanked, boy did the wolves come a howling then.
Mitt Romney... that anyone made the effort to compare him to Hitler is astounding, but it was carried in print, and on news networks.
HBO host Bill Maher said the other day that “liberals made a big mistake” when they attacked George W. Bush “like he was the end of the world,” and did the same to Mitt Romney.
Maher himself was a prime offender, with no hesitation about resorting to Nazi analogies (he compared Romney’s aides to Hitler’s dead-end loyalists and Laura Bush to Hitler’s dog).
https://nypost.com/2016/11/07/democrats … ose-years/
I think we are about to go from villainizing those who have opposing views, to arresting them, making them "enemies of the state" and ensuring that any change in power is in name, appearance, only.
Whether its Mitt Romney or Tulsi Gabbard, none of them are acceptable to hold power, to those in power, and that means there is no swinging pendulum."Take a good look at CA and you see where a State or Nation ends up when there is no balance in politics,
Again, what of the states that have been consistently and predominantly under control of the Republican Party? Have we suffered the imbalance also? Our Governor, Mr. Asa Hutchinson will likely launch a presidential bid for 2024. Would you support him?Ken, the only balance I see for you is one where only hard right Republicans are in charge and for me that simply won't do.
I consider right wing ideologies not only useless but dangerous.
Time and population growth, supply and demand are the only things that keep other states from experiencing the same as what is happening throughout California, and New York City. Who wants to live in West Virginia? So, of course there is no crisis, because no one wants to live there and it has nothing to do with it being under the Republican thumb.
BTW, you said that you are from New York, does your complaint about homelessness apply to Buffalo, Albany or Schenectady?
Just like Mississippi is controlled by one party that allows its state capital, Jackson, the seat of its government to continue to suffer without potable water supplies. Republicans and Right deserve no praise.
Trump has been and always will be a right winger, my natural nemesis. He is only capable of making bad, worse, IMHO.
Let's not talk about Republican Presidents being given uncomplimentary names. The attacks on Barack Obama exceeded any of those. So, once again, the Rightwinger's armor is tarnished.
I support progressive candidates and progressive agendas. I vote for the candidates closer to my ideal that is available, always have."I consider right-wing ideologies not only useless but dangerous."
Take Trump out of the picture, let's talk pre-Trump. We all realize many on the left are very disgusted, with Trump, that is a gimmie.
Could you give an example of one ideology that is in your view useless, and dangerous? Just a sample, no need to write a book. I would like to make this a simple learning experience. This is not baiting or a "let's compare"... My Google tennies are off."I consider right-wing ideologies not only useless but dangerous."
Take Trump out of the picture, let's talk pre-Trump. We all realize many on the left are very disgusted, with Trump, that is a gimmie.
Could you give an example of one ideology that is in your view useless, and dangerous? Just a sample, no need to write a book. I would like to make this a simple learning exserence. This is not baiting or a "let's compare"...Alright, fair question
To be honest, my opposition to conservatives has intensified under Trump, although I did not support them generally in the pre Trump era.
Watering down, privatizing social security
Protecting zygotes in their anti-choice abortion issue crusades.
Promoting the interests of corporate and wealthy America over those having fewer resources, (corporations are people) rulings. A general direction and attitude.
That may be enough for starters but there is always more.Many citizens' opposition to conservatives has clearly intensified under Trump. He is clearly
disliked by many, and many are fearful of him running for president in 2024.
Thank you for a few examples,, it does give me an idea of why you feel as you do about Republicans. All your examples are relevant.
Do you think with Republicans becoming so splintered that all would go for
watering down, privatizing social security today?
I think your other two examples are pretty much correct. Many are pushing new abortion laws, some have already banned abortion.
And yes the party does favor corporations.
You often have shared your dislike of the Republican party. I think I now have a bit of information that explains your position, and I have gained some insight into your opinion. You pointed out some important issues.
Thanks for sharingAgain, good questions.
I think that the privatize Social Security question is much like the going hard core on antichoice. I think that this is a party initiative that would prove extremely unpopular with most voters even those that are registered Republicans. Why they would consider such an idea is beyond me.
Again, on abortion, Kansas is a bellwether that should notify Republicans that total bans are not supported even by their constituents.
I believe that the corporate and wealthy have an inordinate amount of influence in Washington and if they were allowed to would run the rest of us into the ground in their pursuit of greater profits, more advantages with less accountability.
As always, a pleasure.The moderate Republican candidates over the years have certainly bought up Privatiing Social Security like Romney did when he ran. But those that moved to the right are opposed to it. You do know Trump ran on preserving Social Security benefits and felt he could work for stronger economic growth to help pay for it. Not sure that many that are up for election in Nov are bringing it up, other than Masters, in Arizona. I think it would be unpopular with most today.
Yes, it is obvious to me that corporate and the wealthy have an inordinate amount of influence in Washington, one only needs to look at campaign contributions and the many tax incentives. However, this is not attributed to only the Republican party. It's a fact that is not new.
The payoff is jobs, and taxes into the US coffers from the workers that hold those jobs. Which in itself may not satisfy us, the general public. It does help keep the wheels and gears up and running. Just consider if you will a country without large corporations, and few opportunities to work at a job. In my view, we need fairer tax laws. I think the majority of Americans would like to see fairer tax laws.
I hope you might keep an open mind, I am a Republican, I am dissatisfied with Trump, I am dissatisfied with our unfair tax laws, and I am for the right to choose with some minor changes to abortion laws that promote education on contraception.
If we continue to not look at each other as individuals we are doing one another a disservice.
Yes, I agree, there are a lot of bad agendas the Republicans want to pursue.
The anti-abortion issue is one that always stirs more voters away from them than it ever will garner.
Privatizing Social Security is not something I am in favor of, but I would agree there should be some tweaks, like those who have a certain income/wealth not recieve it.
Promoting corporate interests... sorry that is not the realm of Republicans anymore, that time is long past, many Democrat politicians have taken the lead away from Republicans when it comes to selling their souls for corporate or even foreign interests.
Yeah, there are things you don't like about Republicans and I agree those reasons have merit.
And there are equally as many things I don't like about positions Democrats are championing today, children being allowed to have sex changes rather than being protected from making rash youthful decisions and having no comprehension of the finality and severity those decisions will have on their lives, open borders, and punishing middle class success with higher taxation being my top three at the moment.
That is why for a Democratic Republic to survive, if not thrive, it is an absolute NECESSITY for the pendulum to swing, this brings balance and tempers the pace at which change occurs, this has been the reason why America thrived for most of its history, always getting better for all its citizens... so that today, it is surely one of the freest nations on the planet.
But that can change, and we are closer than ever in my lifetime to it doing so, irrevocably.
I do not advocate for Trump's return, but I do advocate that Biden and Harris be shown the door out, we need someone who is mentally sharp and willing to follow a centrist path for a few years, someone who will return dignity to the Presidency.While I understand and respect your points of contention regarding the Democrats, I disagree.
Yet, The pendulum does need to swing to a certain extent and not be stuck on any one side.
As far as I am concerned, Biden is centrist. Anything much further to Right of him would be defined as a Republican."And there are equally as many things I don't like about positions Democrats are championing today, children being allowed to have sex changes rather than being protected from making rash youthful decisions and having no comprehension of the finality and severity those decisions will have on their lives, open borders, and punishing middle class success with higher taxation being my top three at the moment."
Would it not be productive to come to the middle and discuss Ken's concerns? He certainly was more than willing to share his thoughts.
I have noted that not many here want to address Republican concerns here on the forum. Our concerns are glossed. Can you see the problem? There is no middle without the other side at least recognizing the other side's concerns.
What are your thoughts when it comes to our border crisis, the higher taxes that the middle class surely will face with all this administration spending? Are you concerned about the far-left championing children being allowed to have sex changes?"Are you concerned about the far-left championing children being allowed to have sex changes?
Just poking my nose in. I see this issue as very similar to the abortion issue. Personally I may not agree with either but do not want to see government making a decision that should be a personal one between a family and a medical professional rather than unskilled politicians.
It's an issue of personal freedom and individualism above all. What decision will they want to make for me next? No thanks. The framers of the Constitution never envisioned the government having such power.
I'm flying the "Don't Tread On Me" flag on this one.Faye, we can agree completely on this one. So, glad you shared your thoughts. This subject has been discussed and is an important issue. I am with you, I feel the gender issues should be between the person, and their loved ones, friends, and medical pros.
Yeah, because a six year old fully understands the consequences of their actions and how permanent they are.
I should have added the word adult in the place of "person". I Don't feel children should be making such a decision that would impact their lives.
And how often do you actually think that that's the case? In any event it's not the government's role to position itself within a family and make decisions for them. Like I said it's an issue for the families and the professionals. Come on now, a 6-year-old isn't bringing him or herself to a doctor to initiate any sort of procedure. And you want the government to act as parent in this situation? What else would you like government to substitute their decision making process, as faulty as it is, for a parent's? That's a hard no for me.
Democrats support it, sane people don't:
Joe Biden Tells Mom He Supports Transgendering Eight-Year-Old Kids
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/jo … -old-kids/
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politic … nder-youth
Transgender Interventions for Kids Can Include “Genital Mutilation”
https://www.heritage.org/gender/comment … mutilationSorry, still not for any government intervention within individuals rights. I think you are mistaking a blessing of a procedure by democrats for them
simply assuring that the long arm of the government stays out of your personal business. Regardless of what my personal opinion is in this matter, I still don't want government making these decisions. I don't understand why Republicans do? Government has no business legislating morality or an individual's personal decisions relating to their own body.Do they have any business intervening/protecting that 8 year old child, Faye, if he is being abused in other ways? Maiming the human body, a child's body (short of saving his or her life) is abuse of the highest degree and anyone involved in it, is beyond sick!!
This is warped, that it's even being discussed as if it's any kind of normal!
What about when that 8 year old was in his mother's womb, Faye, did he have a say then about "personal decisions relating TO HIS OWN BODY"?!?You are projecting your own moral judgment upon the situation. It is something to be left to a parent, an individual and medical professionals who actually know something about the situation unlike most of our ill-informed, uneducated and unskilled politicians. I'm sorry, I know that many Republicans today or Trump supporters want government to control every aspect of family life and morality as they see it but this is very much against the Constitution. I am for free will, individualism. Sorry, the less government control the better.
You haven't read anything I've ever written, have you?
You can call looking out for the most innocent and vulnerable among us as "projecting my own moral judgment", I will refer to it as decency in its most basic and purest form. I will refer to it as utilizing what some of us recognize and refer to as common sense or our sixth sense.
It is what sets humanity apart from everything else on this planet!
If we don't recognize this separation and participate...and function...as human beings, and all which that entails, we are no different than the lowliest amoeba and therefore should get just as much say as they do.
If that's where you wish to exist, so be it.
Hence my reference to sane. Your comment speaks worlds to me.
Its up to adults, its up to government, to protect children.
Any rational sane adult is going to protect that child from themselves as well as others. Until that child is legally an adult it should not be allowed to mutilate itself.
Whether that child wakes up one day wanting to be a Cyclops and wishes to have one of their eyes removed, or whether that child wakes up one day wanting to be a girl and have its genitals removed... until that child is an adult it doesn't get to make those life altering decisions.
Those who advocate for it, well, I feel about them the same way I feel about pedophiles."until that child is an adult it doesn't get to make those life altering decisions."
So that family gets to have an uninformed, unskilled uneducated politician looking for another term off of a culture war issue make the decision for them rather than it be a consultation between a family and actual medical professionals? Nah. I'd say keep your grubby government out of my household.'Those who advocate for it, well, I feel about them the same way I feel about pedophiles."
The advocacy is to let Doctors and mental health professionals work with families through their scientifically based guidelines for best practices.
I've never said this should be free for all. It's a serious matter that should be handled by competent professionals not politicians only looking to score points off of the real life suffering of others.So if some "competent" professional decides it is okay to cut off the penis of an 8 year old child it is going to be correct? The reason we have laws in this world is that not all people, whether they are professionals or not, are going to do what is right.
Yes, it is a serious matter. Not all mental health professionals should be allowed to do anything they feel like at the moment.But there are medical reasons to support the need for this sort of amputation as for many others. Who is qualified to say which is the case?
Not necessarily the "culture warriors".You are calling the education, training and ethics of entire groups of professionals into question.
They are guided by their own professional organizations that delineate available care models and outline guidelines for care, criteria for treatments and approaches to decision-making.
"Currently, the most widely adopted care model is the Standards of Care 7 (SoC7) offered by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) (Coleman et al. 2012).5 Criteria for medical treatment consist of a minimum age; persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria; capacity to make a fully informed decision; and the absence of uncontrolled co-occurring medical or mental concerns."
The recent movement a foot to have the government substitute its decision making over that of professionals is disconcerting to say the least. First teachers and now Doctors.
Soon we won't need professionals of any sort as the all power government can make all of our decisions for us.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3088386/Yes, I guess if you had asked Dr. Mengel he would have told you that it is not okay to question any medical professional. You are assuming that just because a person is a member of an organization they will no longer do no wrong?
Why do you have a problem if a legislator passes a law stating that a person has to be over 18 before they can have gender reassignment surgery? Do you think it is okay to have a person decide that for himself?The Endocrine Society does not recommend genital surgery for minors.
Before puberty, gender-affirming care is about supporting the process of gender development rather than directing children through a specific course of gender transition.
Also, Data suggest the effects of denying that care can be severe with studies showing high levels of depression, anxiety and suicidality.
Comparing doctors to a Nazi monster is quite extreme.
I have a great deal more faith in our medical professionals and their standards of care to guide families in these decisions. Much more so than our poorly educated politicians.
I also believe They also believe that any such law would violates parents’ right to autonomy protected by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
Several states, I believe four, one of which is my own have already tried to ban gender affirming care. All have been blocked and I'm sure we will see this issue move to the Supreme Court eventually.
God forbid that Herschel Walker should ever become a senator. I can't imagine such an individual having input on such consequential decisions for families when the man doesn't even know how many states we have.Go Arkansas! Never tire, never stop, never succumb to such horrifically evil practices.
There is no end to this slippery slope Faye, can't you recognize that? If we keep going there; killing full term healthy babies, removing penises, slicing off breasts.....what stands between anything goes and the elimination of an incorrigible 2 year old child or of a feeble Grandmother from being seen as obsolete and of little value or importance?Slippery slope or "I was only following orders" defense. I can hear it now:
"Yes, I performed surgery to change the childs sex. But I was only doing what the parents wanted."Oh my. Yes because doctors always do exactly what the patient wants them to do even if it's against their standards of care or guidelines. This is pretty degrading to the medical profession
I did not say every doctor, but It sounds like you think No doctor would do what a pateint wants. Pretty unrealistic.
I never said that, there you go again making assumptions
Folks make a lot of assumptions but no that's not what I think at all.
I think the great majority of doctors are ethical and abide by their standards just like teachers. Are there bad apples in every bunch yes there sure are but it doesn't upset the whole cart. Seems to me that quite a lot of politicians these days want to turn people against professions. Or at least make them highly suspicious to the point that a government takeover is needed.Okay I agree the majority, but even if you assume that 99.999% of doctors are never going to do a surgery like this on a minor, that does not excuse that other person that thinks it is okay (despite what some professional group recommends, and he already knows that the current administration is not going to allow him to be accused of a crime).
Sorry, it's an issue that should be between a family and the professionals who are trained and educated to handle the matter through their own protocol. It doesn't matter what you say, the government doesn't need its dirty uneducated hand in everything. There really is just a small number of politicians who are using this non-existent "problem" to stoke fear and try to get votes. It's just another culture war issue. But that's your opinion and you're right if you would like to invite government into your personal life. I'm quite certain they'll find other ways to weasel their way in. Why do we need to train professionals in any area if the government can just put their stamp of approval on it or not?
I equate protecting children from this Transgender movement the same as protecting them from pronography.
There are laws to protect children from pornography as they are not mentally or emotionally developed enough and can be damaged by it.
The same with the "affirmative care" movement.
Children are too young, and it could give them permanent physical or emotional damage that could have a negative impact on their lives.
Do you realize historically people let Eugenics up to physicians to decide?I think that it's time that far right politicians should probably start focusing on issues that affect more than .001% of the population.
Where are the ideas on inflation? Immigration, healthcare, crime and so on? I'm growing very tired and frustrated with the culture wars.
Making a Federal law for 100% of a population for an act that might be, possibly, committed by .001% of that population is a governmental intrusion to me.
It's like the reverse side of the gun control debate: new gun laws spring from the actions of less than .001% of the population of gun owners, yet conservatives fight them. Now comes a new .001% issue and conservatives promote it. Make a choice folks, more power to the Feds, or less?
GAHallelujah praise for a voice of reason. Folks can't have it both ways. But I suppose when you feel like you need to line up behind your party's flag then you do so, a hypocritical or not
There is nothing reasonable about it.
It is UNREASONABLE to even consider having a child suffer such inhumane treatment, because there are enough wacked out people in the country today that such irreversible harm can be done to a child.
There is only one 'side' of the political spectrum advocating for this lunacy.I'm advocating for less government intrusion, smaller government.
But it does appear that these types of surgery certainly do not take place on preschoolers and that it is in the doctor's standard of care that these procedures wait until the patient is 18 or older.
No its not.
Is it OK to have sex with a 3 year old?
No its not.
Is it OK to mutilate a 3 year old's genitalia?
No its not.
You don't make exceptions for it, you make it illegal.
That is sane.
Anything else is not.
We don't have a lot of black and white issues in the world anymore, there is a whole lot of grey. But in this, its simple. Hands off children.
I don't give a F__k what bat s__t crazy parent out there says otherwise, or what degenerate doctor says otherwise. Hands off children."Is it OK to mutilate a 3 year old's genitalia?"
And where exactly is this happening?See my post on this thread (page 11) the Biden Administration not only supports it, it is fighting State Attorneys General who are trying to make these procedures illegal.
Warning to State Attorneys General
President Joe Biden’s Justice Department has sent a letter to all state attorneys general warning that they could be violating civil rights laws if they keep minors from receiving “gender-affirming care.”
Biden released a video message reinforcing the point. “To parents of transgender children,” he insisted, “affirming your child’s identity is one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe and healthy.”
Gender-affirming … consists of an array of services that may include medical, surgical , mental health, and nonmedical services for transgender and nonbinary people.
That’s vague and bureaucratic. But the guide then spells things out:
Social Affirmation: Adopting gender-affirming hairstyles, clothing, name, gender pronouns, and restrooms and other facilities. When: At any age or stage. Reversible.
Puberty Blockers: Using certain types of hormones to pause pubertal development. When: During puberty. Reversible.
Hormone Therapy: Testosterone hormones for those who were assigned female at birth; Estrogen hormones for those who were assigned male at birth. When: Early adolescence onward. Partially reversible.
Gender-Affirming Surgeries: “Top” surgery—to create male-typical chest shape or enhance breasts. “Bottom” surgery—surgery on genitals or reproductive organs.
All supported by Biden for children.Gender affirming care is quite different than a surgery to change one's gender. It would seem as though doctors have sorted this out amongst themselves and as we can see these procedures aren't performed on minors.
The American Medical Association calls gender-affirming care “medically necessary” and “evidence-based.”The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and other medical associations have published detailed guidelines for physicians and care teams.
These guidelines do not include surgery for minors.
I would rather see this left to the families and professionals, not the government.
The answer is, no it's not okay, not ever!!!
No it is not okay for a 5 year old, an 8 year old, a 14 year old, a 17 year old...make it illegal up to age 18, when considered an adult. If at the age of 18 they still wish to voluntarily go under the knife, that's between them and their doctor. I would just hope that their doctor would have them do their homework first, because many of the people that do follow through on it, regret it, almost instantly. There are support groups for it.
That person was a doctor too. Not comparing them is wrong.
"Comparing doctors to a Nazi monster is quite extreme."
You do realize that the US Army never has any shortage of doctors when they decide to torture prisoners, right?Is this your argument for doctors being under the government's control?
No, that is me telling you why I think that there should be laws and not just letting each doctor decide what he or she feels is right. Not everyone decides to live by "above all, do no harm" even if they swear they are going to live the rest of their life like that.
Doctors aren't making decisions based on personal whims. They have criteria, they have standards of care that guide to them through their professional organizations that are based on science and data.
You're calling for complete government control of doctors based on the small percent of rogue individuals who might step outside the lines. You sure as heck could see that extending to a lot of different professionals.Some doctors do makes decisions on personal whims. Do you think we should let electricians do what they want too? How about architects?
The professions that you mentioned have associated training and education along with organizations that guide their practice as well. Do you say we have the government take charge of them also?? I mean faulty electrical work probably harms far more people... But since it's not a culture war issue don't hold your breath
Not sure this is a reasonable comparison at all. Most electricians work in pairs; it would take at least two (maybe many more) to do shoddy work. In addition, most poor quality work is found within the warranty period and what isn't should absolutely be found by the required inspection.
Whereas a doctor generally works alone and without govt. supervision (as in an inspector checking his/her work).Ah, yes so maybe government overseers for doctors to ensure they're following guidelines. Just like for our teachers.
Geez, a whole lot of unwarranted fear and suspicion is being ginned up. We can create lots and lots more arms of the government to reach into literally every profession and every aspect of our lives. Father know best?? Nah, government knows best. Lol
Guess you don't know much about electricians. They are highly regulated by the government. They have to pass tests and often when they are done with their work, a government official will have to inspect it to make certain it was done within the standards for the local code. Electricians I know don't mind this because this type of government oversight saves lives. Still, there are electricians who try to cut corners and have caused serious problems, and in some cases, death.
The point here is that the government does monitor them. (No breath holding necessary here.) They have standards they need to follow, and when an owner says "lets do it this way because I want to" they can say "no, it is against the law."
A lot of professions have this type of oversight. Why do you feel that it is wrong that a legislator would prevent a physician from removing a childs sex organs before they are an adult?As I've already stated this surgery does not take place on minors. Just a quick check of the standards of care in this area will show you that.
"They have standards they need to follow, and when an owner says "lets do it this way because I want to" they can say "no, it is against the law."
And doctors don't?? Like I said earlier if I feel like I'd like a partial lobotomy because I read on some internet forum it may help with an ailment, do you think I could get a doctor to do that if it's against their standard of care or protocol?? I'm sure if I had enough money and searched enough I could find someone unscrupulous but I believe that would be more of a needle and a haystack type of situation.
This issue actually is a whole lot of nothing. It again is the far right ginning up fear over something that's not even happening. Solving a problem that doesn't exist.
"Genital reassignment surgery should be reserved for those 18 and older, according to guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients developed by the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH."
But if it makes you more comfortable to believe that young children are indiscriminately having their private parts chopped off by doctors who are giddy to do so then go ahead.
Advocate for any doctor who sees children to have a government babysitter in their office..Even with liberal bloated government no one is going to be sending a person to sit in a doctors office all day. Now you are just being ridiculous.
Perfect reasoning.
Logical, Common sense.
You can see a certain portion of the citizenry are advocating for such surgery to be allowed, to become the norm even. These people should not be confused with sane, rational, well-meaning people.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton:
“There is no doubt that these procedures are ‘abuse’ under Texas law, and thus must be halted,” Paxton said in a news release. “The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has a responsibility to act accordingly. I’ll do everything I can to protect those who take advantage of and harm young Texans.”
Sex-change operations and puberty blockers prescribed to kids is “child abuse” under Texas law.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic … -is-abuse/
Warning to State Attorneys General
You might have missed a related White House announcement. It plans to make trouble for states that protect kids from ghoulish interventions based on the myth that they are “born in the wrong body.”
OK, that’s putting it bluntly. More precisely, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department has sent a letter to all state attorneys general warning that they could be violating civil rights laws if they keep minors from receiving “gender-affirming care.”
Biden released a video message reinforcing the point. “To parents of transgender children,” he insisted, “affirming your child’s identity is one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe and healthy.”
That’s a fog of cliches and euphemisms. After all, what is “gender-affirming care”? Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, points to a guide just issued by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs. It explains what the Biden administration means:
Gender-affirming … consists of an array of services that may include medical, surgical , mental health, and nonmedical services for transgender and nonbinary people. For transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents, early gender-affirming care is crucial to overall health and well-being as it allows the child or adolescent to focus on social transitions and can increase their confidence while navigating the health care system.
That’s vague and bureaucratic. But the guide then spells things out:
Social Affirmation: Adopting gender-affirming hairstyles, clothing, name, gender pronouns, and restrooms and other facilities. When: At any age or stage. Reversible.
Puberty Blockers: Using certain types of hormones to pause pubertal development. When: During puberty. Reversible.
Hormone Therapy: Testosterone hormones for those who were assigned female at birth; Estrogen hormones for those who were assigned male at birth. When: Early adolescence onward. Partially reversible.
Gender-Affirming Surgeries: “Top” surgery—to create male-typical chest shape or enhance breasts. “Bottom” surgery—surgery on genitals or reproductive organs.
https://www.heritage.org/gender/comment … -care-kids"You can see a certain portion of the citizenry are advocating for such surgery to be allowed, to become the norm even."
What? Who? I think folks would like to make their own decisions between their family and their doctor not an ill informed, uneducated politician.
I've stated repeatedly that the position of the endocrinologists professional association does not call for or recommend surgery for minors. Surgery is not happening on minors.
And how are you to know what a child feels about being born in the wrong body and calling it a myth?
Read the actual protocol and standards of care that have been developed for the very handful of doctors that even deal with this.
This is actually ridiculous that this is being blown up into some kind of National emergency that the government must put their grubby hand in to prevent.
I'm going to stick with the professionals and science who know much better on this one than do pandering politicians ginning up fear and looking like they're solving a problem that doesn't exist to get a vote.As a very intelligent person once said "Your psychological fantasy does not trump biological reality. He went on to say "Men can't become women and women can't become men. The only thing they can do is chemically and/or surgically alter their bodies and then dress to provide the illusion they are the opposite sex. This is all that can be done, and this is all that is done. These are facts and they are indisputable."
I tend to agree with these statements. Children need to be treated in the realm of reality.'Children need to be treated in the realm of reality."
And the government is the one to determine what that reality is inside of that individuals head??
That's a hard no for me.Would it just not be more prudent to protect children to a certain age to prevent gender surgeries? It is very clear in our society, that parents make mistakes, and doctors make mistakes. Until a child has matured, it seems very sensible to just have some laws to protect them from a mistake that could ultimately destroy their lives.
I really can't comprehend why anyone would object to protecting a child from having this form of surgery at a young age.
In my view, the decision would be made by parents, and a doctor, a child lacks the maturity to make such a decision. They are impressionable and could be influenced by adults.
My God, what in the world have we come to... This kind of surgery should not even be an option for children in my view
In my view, this is once again a new soapbox fad of the left --- let's protect children's right to maim themselves.
In this case, we need Federal laws to protect children, no child should slip through the cracks. The science of psychology gives us facts about how children mature, and developed in regard to decision-making. Let's follow those parameters.According to every source I've looked at, these surgeries are not performed on minors. Again, those in government creating an issue to solve a problem that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of ginning up suspicion and fear. Honestly making it seem like parents are gleefully bringing their 5-year-olds by the thousands to unethical doctors who joyously whack off body parts. Oh yeah and also probably after a teacher convinced them to do it LOL.
Does anyone have an example of this happening on a regular basis?
Enough to take the decisions of gender affirming care that do not include surgery out of a family in consultation with their chosen doctor?If it is only one, and not thousands, does that make it okay in your view?
I feel it would be a good idea to make some laws on the surgeries that are involved with Gender change, especially the age one could seek changing their gender via surgery.
My point is, that I can agree it is prudent to make some laws that protect children. Some on the left have taken up the gender issue as a "cause". Not sure how far some would go. I have no evidence or examples of the surgery being done on young children. Just my fear is that many that have little sense may push the issue to extend gender surgeries for the very young.
Maybe some well-thought-out laws would be a good safety net for children that might fall through the cracks.More laws to legislate morality isn't a good idea in my view. And this 'but it's about the children' mantra is double-edged. I remember Pelosi getting crucified for her 'children will die . . ." claims, (maybe it was just me, but I crucified her for it), and rationalizations. It seems, however, that it's a valid claim when it's about something one supports. Kinda like wearing a reversible jacket.
Consider the lures of the issue; it's about parents' rights, it's about a very core and sensitive biological issue, (the gender question thing), it's about protecting children from evil, and it's about government legislation in our lives. All hot button and passionately held points and positions. I agree with those views, but I think this issue has been hijacked by politicians.
Starting with the extremes, who is doing these horrible surgeries now, or advocating for them for minors? I have seen claims that it is not happening to minors, and have not seen any refutations of that claim. Is it being done, or not?
What recent law or executive action facilitates these surgeries on minors? This sounds like one of those mentioned 'divide and conquer' tactics.
GAGA
This is quickly becoming a political issue, there is no doubt about that. One side vaguely promotes it, the other using the issue as a moral sword.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ientation/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/0 … e-00022738
I do not believe that thus far gender surgery is being performed on young children, I have seen cases of young teens transitioning, most having surgery after they reach 18.
I have checked several Children's Hospitals and yes some of the best do offer care in transition. However, they have very well-placed Conditions and Procedures to proceed with treatment.
I will admit I have concerns, and views, due to my feelings about what I see as a decline in the common sense of our general society.
In the US one can obtain an abortion for up to 6 months in most states. It does not seem that some at some point won't consider it suitable to provide gender reassignment for children.
At one point abortion was illegal, now we can take the life of a 6-month-old baby. So can you say at some point we will be more than willing to change the sex of a child? I can't say that. Perhaps, I have little confidence in our society at this point. I think a well-thought-out law to protect children would be a good thing, just to prevent even one small child from having gender reassignment surgery.
I am conservative, but when it comes to children and animals, count me out.8 states have no gestational limits on abortion: Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, along with Washington, D.C.
Despite this, there are only five clinics nationwide that perform late-term abortions.
Among the states that have no abortion limits, so far only Colorado and New Mexico have clinics that will perform abortions up to 32 weeks and later, barring those states allowing for medical emergencies.Yes, I am with you. My concern is at some point our society may see no problem or age limit to changing one's sex. Just as at one time the majority of our society felt abortion was not acceptable, and kept it illegal with laws. I would like to see some laws on this issue. In my view, we have a society that is deteriorating morally and show a true lack of common sense. I am unafraid at this point to share that view.
Let's keep in mind when women typically get abortions:
About 93% of reported abortions in 2019 were performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, 6% were conducted between 14 and 20 weeks and 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
People who tend to have abortions later in a pregnancy do so because of "medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment.
I do not want to see, in any case an uneducated, self-serving politician forcing a woman to carry to term and deliver a catastrophically damaged baby. No woman should have to deliver a child with half a skull who will arrive dead.
This is sickening, it's cruel and unusual punishment.
I think it's ridiculous to promote the idea that women are just carelessly aborting full term pregnancies and doctors are casting ethics aside and performing these procedures. This is just a bunch of nonsense again.
This far right feigned moral fervor is driving teachers out of the profession in droves, doctors are next.
Boston study of 180 transsexual youth who had undergone SRS (106 female-to-male; 74 male-to-female), these youth had a twofold to threefold increased risk of psychiatric disorders, including depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, self-harm without lethal intent, and both inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment compared to a control group of youth.
Since the mean age at which youth presented for consideration for SRS surgery in the Boston study was age 9, providing this information in a way that the children would understand would be challenging but nonetheless could be done in regard to discussing suicide risks and successful alternative treatments for gender dysphoria.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771004/
The final phase is “sex reassignment” surgeries, in which healthy breasts are removed from females and healthy genitals from males, along with a variety of additional surgical procedures to construct artificial male or female genitalia to “reshape” the body to artificially resemble the body of an opposite sex individual.
The unregulated nature of these experimental processes and the growing number of unregulated venues where these procedures are available make it impossible to know at what age, in what number, or to what degree gender conversion therapies are taking place in Utah.
https://le.utah.gov/interim/2021/pdf/00002306.pdf
The most permanent medical options available are gender-affirming surgeries. These operations can include changes to genitals, chest or breasts and facial structure. Surgeries are not easily reversible, so my colleagues and I always make sure that patients fully understand this decision. Some people think gender-affirming surgeries go too far and that minors are too young to make such a big decision. But based on available research and my own experience, patients who get these surgeries experience improvements in their quality of life through a reduction in dysphoria. I have been told by patients that gender-affirming surgery “literally saved my life. I was free [from dysphoria].”
https://theconversation.com/im-a-pediat … uth-157285That's a lot of reading Ken, I only made it to the start of the second link when I hit this bit: ". . . however, a growing number of pre-teen and early teen females (primarily) are experiencing what has come to be called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)."
The only appropriate response to this is, 'Really, you invent a new name for it? Why don't you just say it's contagious?'
Beyond saying I agreed with the conservative view of the challenges behind the resistance to this issue, I'm leaving the 'right or wrong' question in the box with the abortion question. I am talking about the need for more government intrusion. This isn't a place for it.
GAWhether or not you want to accept it, the government intrudes in all sorts of things. You cannot legally drive until you are 16, vote until you are 18, drink until you are 21, etc.
So a life-altering surgical procedure is less important than those things? If this is not the place for them to be involved, what is?Republicans have conjured a new existential threat, targeting trans people, a tiny segment of the population. nevertheless they are building it up to full-blown panic.
Anti-transgender legislative proposals are one of the weapons of choice in the Republican culture wars, dividing to conquer. A solution in search of a problem. This is nothing more than a wedge issue being used by opportunistic politicians, fear-mongering to their right-wing base.
What are Republican issues for the midterm? Any that the public actually care about? No, it's all culture war.To me, your thought boils down to something like: 'they already do it, so . . . *shrug'
The promotion of this issue is framed as 'about the children', (not minors, children), when the reality is that, apparently, this 'horror' is not being done on anyone before their 'official' adulthood. The Right's pulpits are pounding this issue from a hypothetical foundation that is no more than speculations.
Evidence that 'children' are receiving SRS operations could change my mind, maybe.
GA
I think, due to its nature of being irreversible, there needs to be in law an age limit. That limit should certainly be north of age 16 IMO.
The big difference between abortion and this, is that the child must live with the consequences of that surgery for the rest of their lives, and they may very well have been coerced or guided to such a decision by parents (lets admit that there are some bad ones out there).
We have laws in place to protect children from physical abuse by parents, that is an area that IMO is far more dubious than this.I'm feeling like a broken record.
Where is the evidence that minors, (children is inaccurate and emotionally charged), are having sex change surgeries before they are 18?
What administration action has, or would authorize, (or legalize), minors' access to SRS?
What is the basis for this argument?
GAWe fear a slippery slope ... naturally.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 … elines-sayPlease be honest, simply, yes or no.
Could you see this issue of providing this gender reassignment surgery ever becoming a problem, considering the decline of morals in our society?Ever? That's such an open-ended question it's impossible to frame. However, in the time frame of our lifetime, no, I do not believe gender reassignment will be a serious problem.
The N.C. example in Kathryn's link was from six years ago. How many surgeries on minors have happened since then? I wouldn't project zero, but I would predict they are as rare as this one instance from six years ago.
I am with you are the thought of our nation's changing morality, I think its direction is harmful. Too many of the prescriptions and traditions that have served us so well in our past are being tossed aside as 'outdated' because our 'we' is becoming 'me.'
This issue isn't a worry to me for its moral implications, it's a worry because it is a political 'red meat' move and folks are falling for it. As some have noted, (you), the important stuff: inflation, the border, et al, is being ignored while we blindly rage against this immorality being done to 'the children.'
We have daily instances, examples, and reminders of the real problems that should top our list, yet politicians make an issue like this one a hill to die on. Too many folks are believing those politicians.
[EDITED]
GAI appreciate your view. I feel about 10 years back, it would have been my identical view.
However now, I feel many more are morally deficient, and yes, are willing to take up causes that make little common sense. Many more are able and willing to ignore problems that are very pressing.
I do truely feel this issue could take the same path as abortion. Some parents may feel it is a right to seek Gender surgery for their child.
No, this is not apparent today. It is overly clear to you, and me that this is a political ploy, red meat. My fear we have many more now in America that are eating up red meat.
This issue could be pushed to the forefront by the progressive left. I guess I have learned to be proactive. Abortion certainly has become more acceptable by what appears the majority. As I said it was illegal now, we kill babies 6 months old in many states.
So, are you sure the day won't come when children could obtain gender reassignment? I don't feel we have the morality in America we once had.
I do thank you for your thoughts.
It is somewhat hard to discuss the current problem here at HP's. Most here will not deep dive into current problems, and that's their prerogative.
So much being ignored, really makes one think.
Tragic, not for everyone, but you asked:
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reim … njoan-case
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2 … ent-76004/
That is some history, where we are today:
"Boston Children’s Hospital performed 204 “gender affirmation” surgeries from 2017 to 2020, including 65 chest surgeries performed on minors, according to data published by the National Institutes of Health. The average chest surgery patient was 18, and the youngest was 15."
https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/18/doct … -hospital/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/u … -children/
I am sure you can do a search and find more if you like.
I think whenever these issues become a political hot topic we usually see the shift to a more "progressive" society.
A few years back it was about transgender men being allowed in women's showers and bathrooms, today there are places allowing that, and silencing those that complain:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-8 … ave-locker
What was once unthinkable is now norming into society.
Sex change operations on minors will culturally norm as well, without laws to ensure it is never forced on children with deranged parents.Why would you think that parents are forcing this upon their children? Don't you think that it is children who are bringing these issues to their parents? That they are feeling something different, something uncomfortable? Something they are struggling with?
This is an example of where we are today:
https://4w.pub/mother-claims-transgender-5-year-old/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … cters.html
There is no doubt in my mind, that this will progress into our culture with fad like popularity, that some parents will push their child into being trans, that some parents would coerce their child into a sex change.
There are some parents out there that shouldn't be parents. They can be abusive, or they can project onto the child, or they can treat them like a possession.The first link dealt with a mother reacting to choices that were being made by her child. She seemed to be accepting and not coercive.
But put yourself in that position and how would you react? if your 3-year-old daughter is choosing to dress like a boy and and make other choices that are viewed as boyish. Would you intervene and force more "gender congruent" choices upon the child? No more choice of clothing or toys. Frills & Barbies only.?
For some children, I would think that they are merely exploring with different clothing and toys but for some it looks as though it sticks. They identify more comfortably as the opposite sex.
At some point, I would think that all a parent could responsibly do is seek mental health help if needed for the child to deal with the situation.
I think I have a lot of empathy for parents who find themselves in this situation. I don't think anyone expects it let alone tries to coerce it.
Well, buggers. This is going to take some thought. I still think this issue is just as I have been describing, and is no place for more government intervention. But, I can see where the kernel of truth in this issue came from.
GA
"The only appropriate response" for me is, can you believe the topics of discussion these days?
It's okay to stop the beating heart of an individual, if they are still in the womb, where they definitely don't get a say about what happens to their own body! If they are little fighters and survive the murder attempt, let's sit down and talk about how to make them "comfortable", as we determine what becomes of them!?!
In the meantime, let us closely monitor the behavior and tendencies of little boys and little girls, determine if we, in all our infinite wisdom.....believe there was some big mix-up somewhere along the way, put a bug in the kid's ear {in their parents ear} get them questioning it themselves, am I a mistake?
The earth has a fever alright, caused by mad wickedness.
Exactly.
That it is even debated today in America is clear sign we, for lack of a better term, have gone insane as a society.
You could point to other things, allowing full grown men to compete in women's sports because they feel like a woman, are transgender, is another.
These are just two of the latest things, its been a long road to where we are today, decades, many 'Progressive' states have made what was common sense and fundamentally right into crimes over the years, for example, you are expected to flee rather than to protect yourself from an invader in your own home, in NY.
NY's "retreat doctrine" requires you to flee from an invader, let them steal your possessions, or face criminal charges for not doing so. YOU essentially become the criminal as soon as someone invades your home. YOU will be held responsible for whatever harm comes to the robber/rapist/murderer that invaded your home.
That is insane. It is also the Law in NY.Ken -- I am all for quickly making make some laws on the surgeries that are involved with Gender change that involve children.
It would be the prudent thing to do to protect children. We have many in our society that have gone over the edge, and clearly in my view have very skewed ideologies, and lack values and morals altogether. Many lack common sense, and can't even recognize common sense at this point.
I have watched the left take up the gender issue as a "cause". I don't need examples of this surgery being done on the young --- My fears are all about the crazy adults that could promote this crap to children.
My fear is that many with the propensity to have little common sense have little sense may push the issue to the very young. I don't want any children falling through the cracks --- we need some laws to protect children from becoming a fluffy liberal "cause"... Like turning out criminals with no bond, and protecting a house invader over the homeowner. Or not referring to mom as a mom, but a birthing person. Yeah, we need laws, and we needed them, let's say like yesterday.Who would be promoting this to children really?? You really think we need laws to solve a problem that doesn't exist? For government to be further involved in people's personal lives? All because politicians want to make certain groups fearful and suspicious of the other "side" for absolutely no reason at all? Do you ever feel like you're political affiliation is simply trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Focusing on an issue that really hardly exists? It's just stoking fear hatred and division.
Where is the platform on inflation, immigration, healthcare and so on. You know the issues that the polls tell us are at the top of Americans concerns. Doctors mutilating the genitals of 3-year-olds is just ridiculous and really not on the radar of most voters. Talk about common sense LOL.First -- I can understand your view, and I think your view shares your logic. If only we were all wired the same way. My logic tells me at this time there is no problem, but at some point, this could become a problem. Just feel it could be beneficial for us to be proactive.
"Who would be promoting this to children really?? "
Faye, I think my views have severally changed over the past maybe 10 years. I have a deep concern that at some point our society may see no problem or age limit to changing one's gender. As I have shared at one time the majority of our society felt abortion was not acceptable, and kept it illegal with laws. Now some are on board with very lenient abortion laws. Many state laws permit abortion for any reason up to 6 months of gestation. So my point In my view, we have a society that is deteriorating morally and shows a true lack of common sense. Just time to say --- the buck stops here... So, yes, I feel we need some well-thought-out laws on this issue. Just a safety net to protect children from some in our society that have deteriorating morals.
It is obvious this issue has become political, as I have mentioned in my comments here on this thread, as has the abortion issue. Both my book has issues that have a moral element. Politicians commonly pit right against left with moral issues. It is very obvious that conservatives value morals and use them as shields. While the left is willing to tweak morals to suit a purpose.
So yes, I am aware that political affiliations simply try to pull the wool over their follower's eyes. It is blatantly clear like no time in our history that this is being done by both parties.
As I shared with GA, I am aware that our most respected institutions that do perform gender reassignment surgery have very well-documented conditions and procedures to proceed with gender reassignment treatment. My concern is that we do have a very liberal segment of our American society that is seemingly promoting the procedure
for children.
I can agree somewhat that many physicians would not perform the surgery on the young. However, I have always found the docs that perform late Abortions abhorrent. So, yes as a nurse I could see some physicians would find it acceptable to do the surgery. One must consider we have liberal physicians do we not? Many physicians would never even consider performing a legal abortion. And look down on those that do...
So we truly need to bring ideologies to the table when considering if some physicians would perform gender surgery on a child. We live in a very diverse society, with all kinds of old and new ideologies. I think we need to think about that and consider the future that could affect this issue.
I wish I could just say, no physician would perform gender reassignment surgery on a child. I can't I have little faith that someday this could
occur.
"Where is the platform on inflation, immigration, healthcare, and so on. You know the issues that the polls tell us are at the top of Americans concerns. "
You said a mouthful --- Faye you answered your own question. Politicians have reverted many Americans on both sides to become fearful and suspicious of the other and concentrate on off-the-wall subjects, such as gender reassignment. However, we on the right do have concerns about many of the left's ideologies. We have become mindful of some of what we look at as crazy ideologies. We hear it from the media, we read it on social media.
I have brought up all the issues such as inflation, the border, crime, and more. Crickets much of the time. All that truely affect Americans is pretty much ignored.
So, do you think some are easily diverted from, what I feel are some very big problems, problems that are historic in many cases?
Pretty clear they are... In my view, the country is in trouble. And much of our society has been diverted not even to see what is in front of them.
Most like dirty laundry... And will take it every time over ugly reality."My concern is that we do have a very liberal segment of our American society that is seemingly promoting the procedure
for children."
From my point of view, I don't feel it is being promoted. I do feel there is an attempt to protect the right for families to deal with this personal situation without government intervention.
"So, do you think some are easily diverted from, what I feel are some very big problems, problems that are historic in many cases?
Oh absolutely. It's much easier to talk about so-called "problems" that involve a miniscule percentage of people rather than tackle the meat and potatoes issues that affect all of us. I'm waiting to hear some real ideas, solutions. I sort of doubt much will be forthcoming. I actually do see room for compromise and agreement when you mute the fringes. Much of America is in that space. The power of the fringes is way overblown and many times each party tries to present the face of the Fringe as that of the party in totality, we all know that it is not.
It's a big concern that such fury can be whipped up over the culture war issues. The focus on CRT, gender issues, book banning, election police and the like give short shrift to the real issues facing this country.
I appreciate your earnest well thought response.
"I really can't comprehend why anyone would object to protecting a child from having this form of surgery at a young age.
Everyone keeps assigning this assumption to me and it could not be further from the truth and really just seems like another example of people continually having to divide people up left /right , this side or that side. It's growing really tiresome. If I'm opposed to something Republican support that I must be a leftist? Right? No, maybe I have a different opinion all together. There's really no room for that anymore is there?
Never once have I said I am all for gender surgery for minors even though it seems this is rarely if ever happening.
I am not for government involvement in families and personal, private decisions that should be made between them and the professionals that they seek out. Plain and simple. It's a slippery slope. A certain faction of politicians in our country today are looking to infringe upon personal freedoms.
Again, I don't want to see our ill informed, uneducated politicians imposing their will above and beyond the professionals in the field. Have you watched some of the hearings on the various abortion bans? Some of these members of Congress really need just a basic education in biology. They really embarrass themselves with a stunning lack of knowledge on the very issues they vote upon.
Reality inside one persons skull is the exact same as it outside that skull.
One may pretend there is a different reality but there is not. Only a difference in want, in desire and in perception of the outside reality.
I am confused... has the government made any move in regard to laws that protect and stop young children from having Gender surgery, or have they made a move to protect parents and physicians from helping a child get gender surgery?
I have not done any research on this subject. Are Docs performing gender surgery on the very young?
Faye, let's leave the Government out for a minute. What are your feelings on the very young getting gender surgery? Simply, do you feel they are mature enough to make such a decision? Do you feel parents should make such a decision for a young child of let's say 3 - 12? Is this a decision that a parent should make for a young child?
I think people are missing the point that the decision process runs through the guidelines that are imposed by our doctors and mental health professionals and the organizations that help to set their standards of care based on science.
I think that when we try to boil this down to a situation where a child somehow comes up with a decision and then that decision is blindly carried out by those in the profession is not realistic.
I may have convinced myself somehow that a partial lobotomy will help cure some ailment in which I suffer but that doesn't mean I can go to a doctor and have that carried out.
I am guessing that most doctors don't take too kindly to patients coming in demanding services and substituting their own ideas for that of the doctor's expertise.
Whatever my uneducated opinion maybe of gender affirming care is irrelevant. I would not want it substituted for that of professionals. And I certainly don't want some of the uneducated fools we have in our government substituting their ill informed ideas.You did not answer any of my questions, my questions were very direct, and asked for your personal thoughts.
So, It sound's like you feel in the end physicians should be the deciding factor if a 6-year-old gets a gender change.
Boy, being a nurse, I could tell you some stories about the field of medicine... Do you feel Physicians don't have individual ideologies?
An example, At one point I wanted to get a script for Keflex to have on hand when I traveled. I asked a good friend for a prescription. He refused, telling me the drug had some bad side effects on the kidneys. Later that day I asked another Doc, and he gave me the script.
Physicians are very human and have individual thoughts and ideologies, not to mention values.
Physicians should not be blanketed under one roof.I would hope that the greater majority of doctors operate in an ethical manner by the guidelines established. I actually believe that they do but we can all have our stories of what went wrong with a particular doctor in our own experience.
I suppose if I try to put myself in the situation of ever having a child who at a young age expressed gender dysphoria I would seek the direction of physicians and mental health professionals. They already have a protocol to deal with such situations. If I found myself in front of an unscrupulous doctor or other professional who seemed to be acting outside of the protocol or guidelines I would most likely move on and seek other professionals.
I do find it pretty dangerous that every time one of these culture war issues arises, politicians turn folks against the experts, the educated in the field.
A bad apple doesn't upset the whole cart in my opinion.
Also, if you look at the protocol and steps that are taken throughout this process, it is quite long and at no point recommends surgery for the very young. I think I quoted earlier that the board of endocrinologists recommends against such a procedure.
Who other than an educated physician, mental health professionals and a family should make this decision? I may think various aspects of gender affirming care are wrong seven ways to Sunday but I still don't want it in the hands of government. My views are impacted by long held ideals of libertarianism.
To be honest, I don't care for all this gender bender stuff. Yet, as a progressive, I let adults and reasonable people come to own their judgement and conclusions. Just because I don't approve of something does not mean that I should deny someone else's right to it.
Of course, I don't want open borders and desire that all immigration be orderly. But Republicans always exaggerate as if people climbing over the fence to get a better life is a form of invasion.
Republicans are hardly the example fiscal conservatism. The spending is problematic from either side, but the difference is simply where the Republicans waste verses where they accuse the Democrats of waste.
The things that they value are simply of less significance to me.
I personally go along with Ken on this sex change stuff that the idea of such a draconian life choice is not one that belongs to children. I do question as to how much I want the Government to stick its nose in."But Republicans always exaggerate as if people climbing over the fence to get a better life is a form of invasion."
... as they do exaggerate most things, right?"Of course, I don't want open borders and desire that all immigration be orderly. But Republicans always exaggerate as if people climbing over the fence to get a better life is a form of invasion."
The numbers are not exaggerated, they are just not reported on left media
Aug 15, 2022 - WSJ "Border Patrol agents have made about 1.82 million arrests at the southern border so far in the government’s fiscal year, which runs from October to the end of September. The number beats the record set last fiscal year, which was 1.66 million apprehensions in the year ending September 2021."
It has been estimated with the "got aways" we have had 5 million walks across our southern border. This concerns me due to this number.
Encounters with unaccompanied children rose from 30,557 in fiscal 2020 to 144,834 in fiscal 2021, and I 2022 has added even more children. These numbers are outrageous, yet not newsworthy on many media networks.
Drugs are pouring in. The number of fentanyl deaths in the U.S. doubled from around 32,000 to 64,000 between April 2019 and April 2021. The drug has taken just shy of 80,000 people's lives between January 2020 and December 2021.
So, I have shared why I feel our borders are a true problem. I want to see someone do something about this. We were seeing some progress under our last administration not only in the number of migrants walking in, and fewer drugs passing over the border. Just want to see some progress from 2021, but all have gotten worse.
Do you feel Biden is doing anything to work on these problems?
I have no problem with anyone coming into America, just coming in using our laws. We actually have a cap on how many asylum cases we take per year. Maybe even enforce that law.
"The Trump administration set the FY 2021 refugee admissions ceiling at 15,000. Initially, the Biden administration maintained that ceiling, but later raised it to 62,500"
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … 062%2C500.
Yes, I am a Republican, I do not think I have exaggerated the border problem. I think many have ignored this problem. So, please tell me why all that I shared is not a problem.You made your point about the border. But how much of it is a supply problem than one of demand? How stringent are the laws to prevent people from hiring undocumented people? It is not encouraging to go to another country and not find work. How many of the rich would acknowledge their Mexican Gardeners or how many are being hired in sweatshop industries with substandard wages with the threat always there of the INS?
You were right, it is a big problem. Do we build the Great Wall of China or militarize the border? Immigration does not frighten me, I would be concerned about mobbing at the border and having resources overwhelmed to point that things are not being conducted in an orderly fashion.Our immigration laws could work to bring needed workers in and actually has for years. However, we need to really have a handle o who is coming in and their intentions. We also need the borders better monitored to stop the drug smugglers that just walk in various areas.
I would think right now we need the military along the border until we can get things under some control. Two days ago we had 2,700 hundred processed in 24 hours. The border agents claim all is getting worse.
I almost tripped. Ken's in favor of a means test to receive money that has been coerced from folks for 3 or 4 decades? A 'you don't get your money because you don't need it' rationale?
I need to sit down.
GA
The definition of poverty & destitution is when one has little money, even for the necessities. Poverty is a "living" standard which requires some type of outside assistance to stay socioeconomically afloat. Destitution is the state of being penurious which is one step below poverty. Sad to say, most people in America are 1 to 1 1/2 paychecks away from being either impoverished or homeless. A destitute person would be described as homeless or near it.
It is true, Ken, Biden wasn't my first choice, only because I saw him as too moderate in pursuit of our agenda. But he was the best choice relative to likes of Donald Trump that was available.
As a Black man, I beg to differ from you as to which man is the more racist. We have learned to accept a certain amount of it from all of you that varies in extent and yet some are worse than others and Trump is amongst the worse.
Careful, California was my launch point, as I am a Bay Area baby.
Am I defending California and its going over the top? No.
But, I won't live there only because of economics, certainly not because of their politics. All things being equal I would prefer to live there rather than here in Florida, the land of the big pick-up truck. But, the Missus has an affinity for warm climates, but if it were up to me, I would rather live in Vermont.
I will except excesses from the Left more readily than I would those from the Right. The Right from my point of view has always been more dangerous.
I still stand by that quote, Ken. I appreciate the fact that you refer to it and were able to find it.There-in lies the biggest problem I have with those such as yourself that advocate for Progressive Left Democrat policies.
You don't want to live in the very places they are prevalent.
I have too many in-laws that are at least as liberal as you, one is staff at Harvard and has been for a long time. They either live in neighborhoods that are totally free from Progressive ideologies and diverse ethnicity or they have moved to other parts of the country to be free from the rising taxes and crime their ideology brought to the region.
If you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk, don't complain about the pick-up trucks and rednecks living in your area, move to the place that champions your politics and beliefs... and pay the price for them.
You have Colorado, California and so many other places that are far more aligned with your beliefs, no reason to live amongst the truck driving rednecks and then complain about it.Well, Ken, it not that I don't want to live there, but can't afford to. Ever been to San Diego, a lovely city with perfect weather? Decent homes there are nearing 7 figures and rents of basic apartments over $2,500.00. I earn a very generous pension, but I cannot afford that.
Rising numbers of people raises common expenses and exposure to more crime. It is all coming to both Florida and Texas soon if it is not already here in a sense.
I would like to live on the Island of Bali in the Pacific, but all things are not always possible. I, like most people can live only where our means permit. So, I live in Florida with the good and the bad. So, if I find people driving aroun with Brandon flags flying from their Trucks as a rude form of expression, I guess that is just me.... and I give myself the option to complain about the bad only to make it better.
There is your explanation as to why I don't "walk the talk".In order to LIVE WELL, one has to have an income of AT LEAST $100,000-$382,000 per annum. That is the reality. Six figures is required to live well in America. With AT LEAST a six figure income, one isn't in a financially tenuous situation.
Grace, I think that we were both wrong about the $100-382K living standards.
After checking random counties across America, beginning with my beloved California, rents, for example, vary within the state widely depending on where in the state you choose to live.
No one but a wealthy individual could rent in the San Francisco market, but then there is Modoc County California, where the average rent is low enough that one could almost live there on the average Social Security outlay.
It depends on what it is that you want,verses what you don't need. Putting aside the Big Apple bias, what would it cost to live in Rochester, for example?
I am retired, so I can live anywhere within reason,with the assurance that the check is always in the mail. I look for clean, safe, inexpensive and there are any number of counties in the US that can provide that. More people = more problems, more competition for resources, etc. If I want the glitter of the big city, I will go visit, but don't desire to live there.
If one is not entangled, it is more than possible to live comfortably with an income under 100k
Just another little factoid of interest
https://www.rentdata.org/baca-county-co/2022
Can you elucidate, (if it pleases you to do so ...)?
"We will support our own candidates true to our ideals and agenda without dilution."
What is the Motivation Factor for Democrats vs Republicans, I'm wondering.Yes, I will elucidate.
We are two clearly differing camps. I prefer the Democrats and ideals over that of the Republican. The more of these ideals that I can see come to fruition with the support of majority of the electorate, the better. I can and do compromise, but the less I forego, the better.
We both have the same motivation faction, we would prefer our side to prevail in a f air political contest.That vague response is not an example of good elucidating.
Perhaps a definition of the word would help.
Elucidate:
'What does it mean to elucidate something?
to make lucid.
transitive verb. : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis elucidate a text. intransitive verb. : to give a clarifying explanation."Maybe you need to be more specific in your question if you want a direct answer.
---> what turns on a Democrat ...
politically speaking????Meanwhile at Mr Trump's Pennsylvania rally.. he made baseless claims that Senate candidate John Fetterman uses illegal drugs.
I suggest you go to Braddock, Pennsylvania where he was mayor and speak with the locals. You will get an interesting story about him and illegal drug usage.
Well, Mike, Oz is a quack, pushing phony nostrums. The Missus got caught on his AcAi berry supplements a few years ago, which was a scam. His company made it almost impossible to get a refund.
There is absolutely no credible evidence of this. The statement was quite slanderous on the part of Mr Trump.
Do you think Trump said that to get journalists searching? I have not read or heard that claim before. I do know he is an advocate for legal weed.
My first thought was that MAGAT must mean, "Make America Great Again Twice", but then I realized Cred's behind it.
Perfect article as it describes the truth behind the political Right and Trumpism to a "T", and you have better have a "chaser" along to get it all down. This says it all while being somewhat long.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … -exceptionThe American Medical Association calls gender-affirming care “medically necessary” and “evidence-based.”The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and other medical associations have published detailed guidelines for physicians and care teams.
Before a child hits puberty, gender-affirming care is non-medical and non-surgical. It includes counseling and support with a social transition — when a child changes their hairstyle or clothes or pronouns to more closely match the gender they identify with.
Surgeries involving reproductive organs are not carried out on people under the age of 18.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/po … ng%20care.But why are these mix-ups occurring?
More research needs to be done to determine WHY, (a small minority of,) boys and girls are not getting the gender they wanted.
Or are mix-ups occurring at a higher rate in this modern age, say due to pollution or maybe even ultra-sound use in producing images of the fetus in the womb?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/scie … urvey.htmlThat's a very good point. I'm sure that individuals have always felt that way through time but are probably just more vocal about it now.
How can you be sure?
You are surmising.
The human population is very hard to track ... but track we should, going forward.
American Academy of Pediatrics Accused of Censoring Concerns about ‘Gender-Affirmative Care’
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is facing pushback from medical professionals over its formal endorsement of “gender-affirmative care” for minors and accusations that it silenced internal dissent.
In 2018, the AAP issued a formal policy statement endorsing gender-affirmative care and recommended that “youth who identify as TGD [transgender and gender diverse] have access to comprehensive, gender-affirming, and developmentally appropriate health care that is provided in a safe and inclusive clinical space.” The AAP statement has since been cited by prominent medical organizations and public officials, including the Biden administration, as justification for providing minors with so-called gender-affirming care.
AAP pediatricians are challenging the 2018 policy statement. On March 31, five pediatricians — whose names were redacted from the document — submitted Resolution 27 to the AAP and formally requested that the organization “undertake a rigorous systematic review of available evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and risks of childhood social transition, puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery” and then “update the 2018 guidelines for the care of gender dysphoric youth, based on the results of this evidence review.”
Resolution 27 points to similar measures taken by the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Australia, and other countries, where medical guidance has been updated to discourage gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers, for minors. The resolution cites concerns about gender-affirming care impairing sexual function and fertility, as well as the “increasing evidence of regret and detransition” among those who have undergone such treatments.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/ … tive-care/The author of this article is an undergraduate student at Princeton University studying politics and linguistics. So I'm still going to stick with the physicians and professionals on this one.
Gender-reassignment surgery is only done by a handful of U.S. doctors, on patients at least 18 years old.
I am with the Republican ideal on this one, government doesn't need their hand in controlling one more thing."Gender-reassignment surgery is only done by a handful of U.S. doctors, on patients at least 18 years old." Faye v
Versus
"The resolution cites concerns about gender-affirming care impairing sexual function and fertility, as well as the 'increasing evidence of regret and de transition' among those who have undergone such treatments."
Readmikenow
"There are about 9000 transgender surgeries being performed annually across the United States (US). The latest statistics indicate that 0.6% of the US population identifies as transgender. About 10.9% of medical encounters of transsexualism result in gender-affirming surgeries. There is a steady rise in the number of sex change surgeries being performed annually, with a total 8304 in 2017 to a total of 9576 in 2018, with 2885 of male to female surgeries and 6691 of female to male surgeries. The reported complications based on the limited available literature are variable, with certain procedures like double flap phalloplasty in transgender men as high as 53%."
From:
https://journals.lww.com/cur/fulltext/2 … ng.12.aspxThe thing is, they aren't being done on minors. At least that is the stance of the medical associations.
These aren't statistics for children though. These are not statistics for minors.
It doesn't matter who wrote it or if they are an undergraduate at the University of Arkansas.
The facts check out. Did you happen to click on the links provided and review the source material?
The point is there are many, many pediatricians and medical professionals who are pushing back against "gender affirmative care." Are you going to stick with them?
Have you ever watched the documentary "What is a Woman" by Matt Walsh? It is an incredible piece of work.
There are quite a few physicians who have problems with the concept of "gender affirmative care."
Here is a good article on the subject.
"However, many researchers acknowledge the phenomenon that it describes: A huge increase in the Western world of teenagers and young adults suddenly expressing a transgender identity seemingly out of the blue, when previously there had been no indication that they were uncomfortable with their biological sex.
This phenomenon has also been called late- or adolescent-onset gender dysphoria. It is different from earlier descriptions of gender dysphoria, which was primarily observed in younger children.
Bowers and Anderson (both of whom are transgender themselves) criticize the quality of assessments and care for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria.
Anderson, a clinical psychologist, said that "due to some of the -- I'll call it just 'sloppy' health care work -- that we're going to have more young adults who will regret having gone through this process."
https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships … care-youthSo that means that this should be one more area that the government should reach their ill-equipped hands into? If there are doctors who agree with it or doctors who don't agree with it, this is best decided within the realm of doctors expertise and their professional organizations. The government, with its unskilled and uneducated members in the area of gender dysphoria really have no business inserting themselves into a family's situation.
It has absolutely nothing to do if I think these procedures are right or wrong or which professionals believe in them or not. It's of no consequence, we are inviting way too much government control into our lives. Where do you think it really will end?
What will some of our bumbling buffoons in Congress think they need to control next? Like I said before, let's pray that Herschel Walker is not elected, I don't want a man in government having input on such important issues when he doesn't even know how many states we have.
I do also just find it very disconcerting that so many these days really welcome government intervention and interference so quickly and easily.
Government doesn't always know best and this is certainly one situation where that holds true."So that means that this should be one more area that the government should reach their ill-equipped hands into?"
You sound like me talking about gun control.
"What will some of our bumbling buffoons in Congress think they need to control next?"
Sounds like me talking about vaccine mandates.
"let's pray that Herschel Walker is not elected"
Boy, are you going to be upset in November. His lead recently increased.
"Government doesn't always know best and this is certainly one situation where that holds true."
Again, sounds like me talking about vaccine mandates. The government that closed down businesses, closed schools, etc.
I don't have a problem with a federal law that states sex change care can't even be discussed until a person is a legal adult. To me, that makes sense. Nobody dies from not having sex change treatment. It is not a life endangering condition. Let it only happen when someone is an adult and can make such a huge decision on their own.
You know how children drastically change as they grow older. The mind isn't even finished developing until a person is in their 20s.
There are many members of the medical profession who agree with me. I think this makes sense."You sound like me talking about gun control."
I thought the same thing LOL
The founding Fathers understood you cannot legislate morality. You can't make laws upon laws regarding that which should be common / good sense.
However, if we have parents and doctors who are from some evil realm in the universe and do encourage gender switch-ups at young ages or any age, then I guess we have to protect children, teens and young adults from them (and even themselves?) ... through laws.
Government intrusion, it is not when it benefits the citizenry.Good lord, since when have we learned to call doctors and parents as being from some evil realm? I don't think any of us can begin to understand the situation that these folks find themselves in. I highly doubt that any of them expected it or wanted it. I don't think any of them are evil. I think it would be nice if some had a little more empathy for what these people may be going through. The judgment that is occurring is just unbelievable and unwarranted.
You worked in education and never saw an evil parent?
Who gets to decide if it benefits folks? I surely don't want the government to be the arbiter of its own actions.
Consider the stretch you needed to make: "parents and doctors who are from some evil realm in the universe and do encourage gender switch-ups at young ages or any age. . ."
GARepeating:
If we have parents and doctors who are from some evil realm in the universe and do encourage gender switch-ups at young ages or any age, then I guess we have to protect children, teens and young adults from them (and even themselves?) ... through laws.How do I know IF certain people ARE, indeed, encouraging gender confusion? Apparently, they are! and IF they are, they need to be stopped.
"... Protect Children's Innocence Act ... would create a law that would cause it to be a class C felony for any person involved in so-called gender-affirming care... anything involving any youth under the age of 18."
From:
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylo … ds-1735044
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 … elines-say
There is a role for government involvement, parent or no parent, pornography is kept from kids. I ought to know as I always tried to sneak in to theaters with a phony moustache at 15 to learn a little bit about " art films" as they were once called.
There are many arcane religions that have as a tenet of their belief prohibition on the application of medicine. Do we allow kids to die of pneumonia because the parents have arcane religious beliefs? Where is intervention appropriate?
This gender identity issue seems so relatively recent as a topic of concern. Yet, It is not fair to assume that every physician is the equivalent of Dr. Mengele, who we all know was in fact a war criminal. I believe that what issues that there are in this matter need to be resolved between family and physician. The physician being aware that they will be held responsible for frivolous diagnoses and amputations, that are outside the boundaries of their professional practice."The World Professional Assn. for Transgender Health said hormones could be started at age 14, two years earlier than the group’s previous advice, and some surgeries done at age 15 or 17, a year or so earlier than previous guidance. The group acknowledged potential risks..."
"The new guidelines include starting medication called puberty blockers in the early stages of puberty, which for girls is around ages 8 to 13 and typically two years later for boys."
"The blockers can weaken bones, and starting them too young in children assigned males at birth might impair sexual function in adulthood ..."
"The update also recommends:
• Sex hormones — estrogen or testosterone — starting at age 14. This is often lifelong treatment. Long-term risks may include infertility and weight gain, along with strokes in trans women and high blood pressure in trans men, the guidelines say.
• Breast removal for trans boys at age 15. Previous guidance suggested this could be done at least a year after hormones, around age 17, although a specific minimum age wasn’t listed.
• Most genital surgeries starting at age 17, including womb and testicle removal, a year earlier than previous guidance.
The Endocrine Society, another group that offers guidance on transgender treatment, generally recommends starting a year or two later, although it recently moved to start updating its own guidelines. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Assn. support allowing kids to seek transgender medical treatment, but they don’t offer age-specific guidance.
Dr. Joel Frader, a Northwestern University pediatrician and medical ethicist who advises a gender treatment program at Chicago’s Lurie Children’s Hospital, said guidelines should rely on psychological readiness, not age.
Frader said brain science shows that kids are able to make logical decisions by around age 14, but they’re prone to risk-taking and they take into account long-term consequences of their actions only when they’re much older."
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 … elines-sayJust came across this story, the story of Jazz!
It is heart-wrenching, it is heartbreaking and it is tragic!
This young person should have never been put through such horrific abuse!!
Jazz is a victim!
I pray that Jazz can get the help and the healing so desperately needed, can begin to enjoy as normal a life as is possible and can become a voice {at the very least, an example} for other victims.
https://fb.watch/ftHKVzlGGf/So your link is not from the actual perspective of Jazz but from that of some hyperbolic commentator? How is Jazz actually feeling these days?
I find it tough to follow when the commentator is shouting and her rage seems more of an act. I haven't seen the story of Jazz except for the brief snippets presented by this commentator. I suppose I would rather see some of the series and come to my own conclusion. The commentator has the right to express her own outrage and opinions.
Arizona's Latino voters and political independents could spell midterm defeats for MAGA candidates
----------
https://news.yahoo.com/arizonas-latino- … 42881.html
I continue to invite the Rightwingers to keep on adding fuel to fires that they themselves have started.
--------
Interesting, even the Canadians are keen to the dangers of allowing Rightwingers to run amok among a civilized citizenry.
https://theconversation.com/candice-ber … -us-176785Just more proof of the argument I was making in the other thread regarding the Hispanic population.
They are the salvation this nation needs.
Free from the Black vs. White, racist politics. As they are neither.
They will bring a new direction, they no longer will be a minority, they will be the majority voting block.
A definition for authoritarianism:
Karen stenner, a political psychologist and the author of the groundbreaking "The Authoritarian Dynamic", argues that about a third of people across 29 liberal democracies seem to have a psychological predisposition toward authoritarianism. The tendency exists on both ends of the political spectrum, though it’s more prevalent on the right.
Stenner defines authoritarianism, which she believes is about 50 percent heritable, as a deep-seated psychological predisposition to demand obedience and conformity—what she calls “oneness and sameness”—over freedom and diversity. Authoritarians have an aversion to complexity and diversity. They tend to be intolerant on matters of race, politics, and morals; to glorify the in-group and denigrate the out-group; and to “reward or punish others according to their conformity to this ‘normative order.’”
So how about it Rightwingers, how much classic authoritarianism is in your DNA?Virtually none. It is interesting to note that it is the liberal faction, not conservative, that seeks to control people with more and more laws. It is the liberal faction that demands conformity to their philosophy, as in the education system denying conservative speakers. It is the liberal faction that cannot seem to exist alongside different thoughts - witness the "safe zones" universities had to provide because of sidewalk messages. As the country shifts ever further towards modern socialism and marxism, trademarks of liberals that demand conformity to authorities decisions, it is the liberal faction that is happy with it.
Of course, far right conservatives demand that you follow the edicts of their god (at least as they interpret them - you are not allowed your own interpretation). Perhaps that one factor makes up for all of those from liberals.
How much classic authoritianism is in your own DNA?Perhaps, but the lady in her publication was correct when we speak in terms of magnitude and extent, and that points clearly toward the right wing of the political spectrum.
If it is the case that liberal educators that do not want conservative speakers in college, you have the conservative educators that do not want liberal books being read at the scholastic level.
Liberals want to pass equality laws while conservatives want to pass laws that forbid talking about alternative lifestyles.
Liberals want to provide opportunities for the trans community while conservatives seek to limit them.
Liberals want laws that allow more people the opportunity to vote. Conservatives only want people with certain ID's to vote and no one to mail a ballot in.
There are plenty of more examples outside of religious doctrine if you take a moment to ponder the topic. Both sides seem to want to assert their will on the American people.I remind myself of Texas, where conservatives prefer that truck drivers write history books for K-12 schools instead of those with college degrees as historians. I am reminded of the conservatives distrust of academia and associated scholarship.
Here in Florida DeSanis wants to address the teacher shortage by allowing military veterans teacher certificates without any formal training or scholarly training in the disciplines that they are supposed to teach.
So,they chase away qualified instructors and replace them with "Beetle Bailey"?
While both side has its preferences, one side is more determined to have its preferences brought to fruition through undemocratic means.
I think the liberal and the conservative of old are now totally different birds. Both still have some of the DNA but it has been somewhat denatured. We now have a couple of new birds. I am old enough to remember both. I remember the liberal of old, a fair open-minded, kind human being, concerned about where our society was headed. And conservatives were all about family tradition, respect, and keeping government out of their lives.
And now -- In my experience, I have established that both right and left-wingers possess authoritarian attitudes or traits. Intriguingly, I have found some common traits between left-wing and right-wingers, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to brandish group authority to compel behavior. More traits, both have cognitive rigidity and can exhibit aggression and deal out punishment towards others that are perceived enemies, outsized concern for pecking order, and moral absolutism. Hence, we have come to butt heads because in some ways we have become a bit alike.
I am not seeking to condemn or insult one side or the other. Because, as you see I think we share some unattractive traits.
These are my thoughts, no study to provide, only my long life experience.I am listening, Sharlee, it just appears that in our current political climate, the right demonstrates more of these tendency than Left. At least, that is what I see through my blue tinted spectacles.
Anencephalic Herschel Walker has taken the lead in the georgia senate race.
https://news.yahoo.com/herschel-walker- … p_catchall
Says a lot about Republicans and what they think of the African American community. I guess that they think that Republicans would vote for a corpse as long as it were not a Democrat and it allowed McConnell to regain Senate control. And they believed that they could draw a few of our more informationally challenged Black voters in Georgia, that swoon over this Heisman Trophy, super jock stuff, to vote for a man with NO qualifications for the job.
I can only hope that wiser minds would come to prevail in the coming weeks.
This says a lot to me about Republicans, white Georgians, Black Georgians that it would consider a lying, brain dead man as a viable candidate. The Black community is being used in a way, where I can NEVER support Republicans.I am shocked you would not realize that we will vote Republican this time around. We see the total need to do so. We need to have a majority to continue our conservative agenda and create a Congress that will represent our ideologies. Just as you would hope all goes well for the Democrats in Nov. As I said in another comment here --- liberals and conservatives have evolved, and both sides have become warriors. Walker is running on " to keep that dream alive for you". He certainly represents my hopes to put America first.
Walker has shared his America First agenda and is backed by Trump. I would think after Republicans heard the bag of Bones Biden call us "fascists", not many Republican need to think about what party they will vote for. No pros and cons are needed this time around. In my case, this administration has scared me. but good.
Republicans at this point are ready to fight fire with fire. No more sitting high on a pedestal. ending up without noses.
Can't really say much about Walker, I will have a look-see and listen to a few of his interviews. Republicans are out to win, we are fighting for an agenda we believe in, and what we see as stopping ideologies we feel would be harmful to America.
Blacks have a large voice in Georgia, and it will be up to them to choose someone they feel will represent an agenda they can get on board with. Could some black people be looking for something Democrats just don't offer or have some just considered Democrats are using them for votes, and never deliver all their promises?
Georgia polls certainly should make some black Democrats think long and hard.Sharlee, ANY conservative is hated by Cred's side, we may not know exactly what it is, they are for {don't think they even know} but we absolutely know who they are threatened by!
I've seen Herschel interviewed a couple of times, he adores this Country and he knows what's up!!
He is on the side of America, where all conservatives are.
I don't question anyone on America's side, I question those who aren't! They are the real threat, not us.I agree with every word. I was pointing out that in my opinion Republicans are ready to fight to put Republicans back in Washington to save our America first agenda. To remind him we are truely serious and committed to winning in Nov.
I know little about Walker other than he supports MY MAGA agenda, and Trump is supporting him. This is all I need to know at this point. I am for saving the progress we have made, and restoring what this administration has torn down. I will be voting Republican no matter what, my stance will remain we need to take the House and Senate. If the Democrats take the majority we will see true socialism take hold in a very short time. Hopefully, other Americans see the dangers I see.
My point, we need to hold our noses in some cases. , I should not take creds opinion that Walker is "consider a lying, brain dead man as a viable candidate". My point I am ready to fight and would vote for a Republican over a Democrat, no matter what.
I will edit my comment, I can see my thought was not what I hoped to really share.At the risk of sounding like an elitist, I would like our elected politicians to have a good working knowledge of government. That includes knowing how many states we have. The man is clearly and painfully unqualified for the position he seeks. Not to mention he is a fire hose of lies.
https://newrepublic.com/article/166832/ … mbest-liar Republicans seem to be aiming simply for quantity not quality of candidate.Those of you on the left may want to reconsider the words, "quality of candidate", when your standard is Joe and Kamala. Just sayin'
A pair of former Senators. I would expect that they fit the definition of 'good working knowledge of government' compared to Walker. And there's a slight difference between quality and qualified.
My gosh, should I go there? Let's start with Joe raping a woman in his office. Oh forgot we support believing all women, but not any women that make sexual claims against Democrats. AB this conversation has now become bait. Walk away.
Do you really want to continue to compare the sexual assault accusations between Joe and the latest, and likely 2024, option for the right? Many have been investigated and people have looked at the statements for themselves to determine the validity.
Only one is currently active in the courts, to my knowledge, and that is the E. Joan Carroll allegation.
I can't agree that it is positive for an elected politician to have a good working knowledge of government. Because the good old boy element in Washington, in my view, is what keeps us from getting what we need to be done. I consider most politicians are in it for themselves, not their constituents. I like problem solvers and transparency. No longer interested in flaky speeches or a dramatic stick figure coached on what to do and say... "Joe jog out and whisper on this line point across, clench your fists on this line" end --turn to walk out
Just not any longer up for the status quo. I will as I promised AB to do some research on Walker. I like to watch interviews. I thought you claimed you are not a true liberal... The Soapbox, sorry a liberal rag Faye. Where one goes to sink into all that is left-biased.
I have admitted I would vote for a poodle dog over a Democrat this time. The country is to messed up, to mess around.The facts are pretty well documented on Mr Walker no matter the source reporting. And as far as where I get my news from, I still stand by the statement I've made that I consume news from across the spectrum. I refuse to be pegged into a group. My vote will always be cast for the party at the time who seems to present the lesser of two evils. I'm not looking to be part of the group. I want a candidate to win my vote to gain my vote not just expect it because I may have a D or an R by my name. I find that people try so hard to put others in a box because that box determines how you will interact with them, view them and sadly, judge them. I see it on this forum frequently. It reminds me of monitoring the playground during recess. The peer groups that would hold their posts around various apparatus, rarely blending groups. "Us" versus "them"
As far as the news on Mr. Walker it's all over the place.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … -face-scr/
https://www.newsweek.com/herschel-walke … ie-1715498
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … -fbi-agent
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/h … -rcna23667"The facts are pretty well documented on Mr Walker no matter the source reporting."
" And as far as where I get my news from, I still stand by the statement I've made that I consume news from across the spectrum. " (just never appears so).
Washington Post, Newsweek, NBC... All very left-leaning outlets.
I have attributed your sources and your comments to being left-leaning. I apologize for bringing this up, just what I surmised.
Yes, I will be voting this time around by party. Yes, one could say the lesser of two evils. I am considering the state of the country, and feel the Democrats have truely hurt America. I want them out of Congress, and out of the White House. I am in hope of seeing a Republican American first administration. I have come to judge this current administration as dangerous. It is not Republicans here insulting others' views and opinions, it is those that seem to try to hammer home their ideologies over others. You have a right to your feelings, and your beliefs, we all do. And it is obvious that every user here shares strong political affiliations, in my view.
Take note that some here very rarely point out Democrats that are running in Nov. We could, but it is well apparent those that lean left here, won't touch on anything negative in regard to Democrats. They prefer to just bash all that is Republican, and naturally Trump.
In my view, it's all one-sided with those that do lean left, a lot of projecting and being indigent when one does not agree with their thoughts.
It would seem more would recognize the right and the left ideologies are very far apart, and each is satisfied with their own.
I do not intend to discuss Walker, if he were in my state, he would be the man I would be voting for. I simply want the Democrats in the minority, it is as simple as that. I want all Biden and his crazy ill equipt bunch out of Washington. So, you can understand why I say, hopefully, Walker can beat the Dem in Georgia.Those sources are Washington times and Washington examiner which are quite conservative. I do not pay to read Washington Post therefore I never quote it.
I'd like to see the most qualified people win office. Not just those who may affiliate with a particular group. I think this kind of herd mentality is harmful for the country. It's also belittling to the intelligence of Americans. It undermines critical thinking. It enables politicians to run on mere personality or culture issues rather than have to speak intelligently on issues of substance to actually win votes. Why would you when all you have to do is put a D or an R after your name? Mr Walker and Dr Oz know that they will get blind Republican votes regardless of all of their incoherent blather. I think that's disappointing to all of us who want and expect more.I made my point clear. I myself would vote for Walker, even not knowing a thing about him... I want Democrats out of the majority.
You have your view I have mine. There are a few that post here that you have more in common with, and your might enjoy conversing with them.Classic case of an omission of fact that does not support the conclusion already formed. You list two very right-leaning sources and it's like they didn't even exist while being accused of only reading left-leaning sourcing.
You are suggesting she support the Democratic candidate? I was curious when the last time was you voted for a Republican?
I am not suggesting she's supports a Democratic candidate at all. I'm suggesting that she and anyone else make an informed choice on a candidate by candidate base rather than voting strictly by party regardless of candidate quality. I don't support the herd mentality of stick with the group no matter what.
In terms of my own life, yes I have voted for both parties and several times for no one. I'll share that I was raised libertarian (if I were to give it a name). My folks were staunchly anti-government in any form. It's curious because they were the original California liberals who one day just decided to drop out of mainstream life. We lived on a self sustaining homestead in Missouri. Eventually I chose a different path but several of my siblings still maintain the lifestyle. But I'd say I've been shaped to be fiercely independent and value the concept of individual freedom.What I think you are not understanding about my thoughts on voting this time around is that I feel there is more to consider than ever before, when choosing candidates. In my view, the country is drowning in problems. I lean at this point Republican due to the fact is their ideologies are very close to mine. I have little to nothing in common with today's liberals, this is just a fact.
I feel we as a country are at a crossroads, I have selected the path I hope we proceed down. I have no respect for what the Democrats offer at this juncture.
" But I'd say I've been shaped to be fiercely independent and value the concept of individual freedom."
Above all, I covet individual freedom. I would guess that's why we but heads.
" I am not suggesting she's supports a Democratic candidate at all. I'm suggesting that she and anyone else make an informed choice on a candidate by candidate base rather than voting strictly by party regardless of candidate quality."
My decisions are made on several variables. At this point, I consider the party over the candidate for the reasons I have shared with you, time and time again. At one point your view in regard to voting for a candidate, not just a party, made wonderful sense to me. At this point in our history, this no longer makes sense to me.
In your comment, you speak of going down a different road than some in your family. You decided this suited you. I go with the flow, I voted for Obama, and I voted for Trump due to being disappointed with Obama... I was more than satisfied. I am looking for an administration that has a similar agenda as Trump offered.
Do any Democrats offer Trumpisum? Not here in Michigan, and Michigan is where I vote.
"I can't agree that it is positive for an elected politician to have a good working knowledge of government."
You don't believe that our elected officials should understand all that encompasses government? Our history as a country, our constitution, our laws, the structure of government and how it functions?
How is one to entrust an individual with the duties of a Senator when he doesn't know how many states we have? How will he deal with the complexities of the issues put before him should he be elected? He really has made several statements that raise questions about his intellect.I am not sure how much clear I can be. I want to change. I do not in any respect stick with the status quo. I don't think our Government is working with status quo politicians. The country is suffering on so many levels.
I think common sense is the new name of the game. The Democrats are and have been hell-bent on canning the Constitution.
OMG intellect we have a man in the White House that has maybe two brain cells working. And his cabinet, a bunch of do-nothing fools.
I could not even tell you what any of his administration is doing... That includes the VP.
"I can't agree that it is positive for an elected politician to have a good working knowledge of government"
Cmon, Sharlee, do want people ignorant of their duties under the Constitution to be in charge? Especially, regarding an important political position like a United States Senator. How is that so?
That is the point, your side promotes undemocratic methods to get things done. A social construct where professed ignorance is preferable over knowledge and education, but has that not been a hallmark of rightwing thought, generally?
I respect only those that pursue change within Constitutionally accepted parameters.I think we need to look for representatives that present more common sense, I think we need something new, the common politician just won't do it for me. The country is in my view in trouble, it has swung too far left, and needs to be dragged back to the middle. I want a Congress that can get things done for America, things that make sense for the people. I want to start with education. America is falling behind due to a lack of leadership in Washington.
The Constitution and adherence to it is the foundation for any change to begin. But, first you have to know what its tenets are.
My beliefs are such that I want the Rightwinger kept at bay and hardly agree that the nation's politics are excessive in regard to the left side of the political spectrum.Which is also odd since education is left to the states, and not really a federal mandate.
Reality: the federal government uses a complex system of funding mechanisms, policy directives, and the soft but considerable power of the presidential bully pulpit to shape what, how, and where students learn.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/17/ … ge-um-what
Example: New Biden administration rule will tie federal education funding to LGBT mandates
https://www.thecentersquare.com/nationa … e1f58.htmlYes, the federal government could have some influence for around the 8% they provide in funding, while the other 92% comes from the state and local sources.
So which entity would have the greater influence, the one supplying 8% or the one supplying 92% of funds?
https://educationdata.org/public-educat … statistics
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ … ot/2022/05That 8% could account for a good chunk of a school system's budget, couldn't it?
I can tell you from experience 8% of a budget can be substantial, I save just over that in State Income Tax every year since leaving that deplorable state of NY for wonderful sunny Florida.Yes, substantial. But if the 92% is telling you what to teach, and the 8% is saying something different - and both are threating your funding - who really controls things?
I do not miss the smelly algae blooms and unbearable summer heat of Florida, that's for sure.Summer heat is tough, not going to lie about it, Jul - Sep are a tough three months, and I live right on the coast where its coolest (I don't know how they survive the humidity inland).
But there is no way I would ever again deal with NY's 6 months of dreary grey weather, multiple feet of snow, below freezing temperatures and ticks and mosquitoes that put to shame anything we have in Florida.Pros and cons to each state. One man's deplorable is another man's Graceland.
"I want a Congress that can get things done for America, things that make sense for the people. I want to start with education. America is falling behind due to a lack of leadership in Washington."
Yes! Very well said. But we the people need to send this message to our elected representatives. They need to understand they've been elected to work for us and they need to start working together. The two party system is killing us here.Yes, I agree the two-party system is killing us here.
What is killing us here, more than anything, is no term limits on Senators and Representatives.
Ultimately Pelosi, Schumer, McConnel, wield a lot of power... an unbalanced amount that has too much influence and too little consequences for selling out Americans and America's best interests.I was being a bit sarcastic --- I was sharing that I want one party at this point in Congress and the WH --- Republican. I truely feel Democrats are not an option, and this administration has taken America into the mud.
I think it's the best option at this point. I am also on board with term limits for Congress.That's one of those common ground issues, term limits. I also like the idea of giving states representation based on how many citizens are registered per party to eliminate gerrymandering.
So if a state gets 50 reps to the US House of Reps, and 30% are Republican let's say, 30% democrat and 40% independent - that would be 15 reps for GOP, 15 for dems, and 20 set aside for independent candidates.
Then the parties could have their own elections and figure out who is going to represent each part of the state among their own caucus once they elect their 15-20 reps.
That's a little more fair than some states with representation that's not even close to registration - and few representative for independents.
Cred's side respects many conservatives. Just not the one's trying to convince us to live in alternate reality where either conservatives win elections or there was fraud (that they cannot prove, but assert), not the one's attacking their own Capitol based on those lies about fraud, and not the one's attacking the FBI when the FBI is trying to protect national security.
If attacking their own country and it's law enforcement agencies is what conservatives think puts them on the side of America, then that's where the disagreement lies.Jury's back. They issued a unanimous verdict against the claim that all conservatives are on the side of America - when the evidence was considered that there are hundreds in jail for attacking America and making domestic terror threats.
But...but...those were primarily liberals that were burning down our cities, demanding there be no cops and destroying federal buildings! Thousands upon thousands attacking America and Americans but ignored by the jury?!?
But, Walker is dummy and hypocrite who would or should be an embarrassment to either side of the political divide.
I know what I am for, and it is simply different than what it is you are for.
Hate is a strong word, let's just say that I simply don't trust "your side" to govern fairly or effectively.
Based on his comments in interviews, Walker is not smart enough to know what side he is on. He is Trump's ventriloquist's puppet, that is all.
Walker is just a seat to fill an empty chair, no brains required.
But Herschel can always go see the Wizard of OZ and ask for a brain.
----------
"This week, a video went viral of Walker at a campaign speech on Saturday. In it, he hypothesizes that China is responsible for the climate crisis and is contaminating the United States. “When China gets our good air, their bad air got to move,” Walker said, and claimed that that “bad air” then “moves over to our good air space.”
-----------
Now, this is deep, a most profound observation. Why didn't I think of that?
WEll, Sharlee, you have provided the proof for my hypothesis.
"I guess that they think that Republicans would vote for a corpse as long as it were not a Democrat and it allowed McConnell to regain Senate control"
Yours is a "pull all stops" attitude and we have to encourage that approach for the Left as well, as I consider the need to be just as ruthless and without scruples to win. I just afraid that we will shirk from doing what necessary out of some nostalgic ideas of reasonable people coming together, which simply is not working anymore.
My oh my, hold on to your wigs.
THE STORM IS COMING
Mr Trump is not even trying to pretend he doesn't embrace QAnon anymore.
He "retruthed" a QAnon meme on his social media site featuring his image, wearing a Q pin on his lapel, over the messages “the storm is coming” and “WWG1WGA.”
This logo "Where we go one, we go all.” is very fitting for MAGA. No need to think, just follow the leader.Is this really new? It is well known QAnon are Trump supporters. Not sure why Trump posted this at TS, and not about to guess. He certainly has a knack for freaking people out. I would assume he knew the post would trend, and really piss off anyone on the left.
Love it, in their heads and under their skin...
Ya know I was not going to go into what I feel was the context of the "whisper" I belong to TS. Trump had a bit of a back and forth before the comment Faye posted. It was a cheek and tongue back and forth. Anyone reading it knew this. It all started after Biden's racist remark. "The deep state whispered to President Trump 'You cannot withstand the storm," Trump whispered back, 'I am the storm."
TS is a very well-run social media site, where one can find interesting posts. And users keep their cool as a rule. I was waiting for someone to try to attack the site.
Related Discussions
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 7 months ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...
- 138
What do you think about Joe Biden's "Soul of the Nation" speech?
by savvydating 2 years ago
Did you find it inspirational?
- 1121
Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
- 92
Kamala Harris will win 2024 Election
by Ken Burgess 4 weeks ago
Prior to the Debate... and then Assassination attempt... and then Biden stepping down...My evaluation of how things were trending weeks ago led me to believe that (fair election or not) the Democrats were going to win the election... as I have often noted on here before:Women make up 52% or more of...
- 31
Biden, Blah Blah Blah --- But What About Senator Tim Scott?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
I have little to say about Biden's speech to the Nation, other than it was a typical political speech. Filled to the brim with half-truths, and fluffy BS plans that will not make it to see the light of day. . He made an effort to point out what he felt were accomplishments that he seems to feel he...
- 90
Trump Has Won, ACCEPT IT
by Grace Marguerite Williams 13 days ago
Trump has become the 47th President. Now, the hatred has escalated to full force. There are those who has an unfounded, phobic fear that Trump will turn America into a dictatorship. There are some who even believe, baited by MSNBC, CNN, & other left leaning media outlets, that Trump...