Rogue Judges Contained
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.
Nationwide injunctions
In the most high-profile case of the day, the Supreme Court ended the practice of judges issuing sweeping injunctions that cover the whole country and not just parties involved in a case.
The injunctions, often known as "nationwide injunctions," have been a source of frustration for President Donald Trump as judges side with plaintiffs and block key parts of the president's agenda.
The case arose from several judges issuing injunctions that blocked Trump from carrying out his birthright citizenship plan. Rather than ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the merits of the plan, which has been uniformly rejected in courts, Trump asked the high court to put a stop to the injunction practice.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision left open the possibility that judges and plaintiffs could use other avenues, such as class action lawsuits, to seek broad relief now that the high court has curtailed nationwide injunctions.
Parental rights
The Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can opt their children out of a Maryland public school system's lessons when they contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the content conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the government "burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill."
he Trump administration celebrated the ruling as a victory for "parental rights," while Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a scathing dissent that the high court's decision would open floodgates for students to opt out of a wider range of lessons.
Age verification of explicit websites
The Supreme Court allowed Texas to require age verification for users of pornographic websites, dealing a win to those aiming to block children from accessing explicit material online.
A trade association for the porn industry brought the lawsuit, alleging the age requirement meant the state was unconstitutionally regulating free speech on the internet.
"This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures."
Voting rights
The Supreme Court punted its case about Louisiana's congressional maps, indicating it needed a few more questions answered during oral arguments in the fall.
The delay means that Louisiana's map of voting districts, including majority-Black districts, would not see any changes until the 2028 election cycle or later.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/final- … ng-rulingsFlip-flopping, pretzel twisting hypocrisy as per usual from maga. It's become the hallmark of the group.
How do you reconcile the fact that SCOTUS refused to limit nationwide injunctions under Biden but find a reason for the action now??
Funny how no one complained about nationwide injunctions when Biden was in office....
Total hypocrisy. Conservatives constantly filed for nationwide injunctions in the one judge circuit in Amarillo during Biden's administration. Dems agued against them, but the Supreme Court stayed silent then.... Easy for you folks to ignore.
But be careful what you wish for, maybe the next Democratic president can solve out gun violence epidemic by confiscating your weapons. No Nationwide injunction?, great! y'all can sue one by one over and over and over again to get your guns back LOL
MAGA'S flip-flopping for Trump yet again. The group has no core beliefs, just cult mentality and hate.
And the leader? His only principles are grift and power...
The irony of this just spills everywhere,
because of course, the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunction after nationwide injunction in cases that didn’t warrant it. And they repeatedly asked the Supreme Court for remedy... The Republican justices declined to do so.
And now, all of a sudden, five months into the Trump administration, they realize, “Oh, nationwide injunctions? Yeah, they’ve basically been legally suspect all along.”.
How convenient, and it is just gross in its obvious hypocrisy....
But please tell me more about how you've always been against universal injunction LMFAO
Maga has no consistent principles... It's whatever dear leader decides for the day.The practice of using injunctions to block presidential policies began with six injunctions during the two terms of President George W. Bush, then rapidly expanded, leading to 12 injunctions under Obama, 64 under Trump in his first term, and 14 under Biden. Even as their number has increased, the percentage of national injunctions imposed by federal judges appointed by a president of the party that opposes the sitting president’s party rose from 50 percent under Bush to 58.3 percent under Obama to 92.2 percent under Trump to 100 percent under Biden. While lawfare by injunction is disproportionately carried out by Democrats, conservative Republican judges have gotten in on the action as well. In Biden’s first three years as president, every single one of 14 nationwide injunctions, on topics ranging from halting vaccine mandates to immigration and climate change policies, was issued by a judge appointed by a Republican president. In total, 93.6 percent of the nationwide injunctions during the Trump and Biden administrations from 2017 to 2025 were issued by judges installed by a president of the rival party. Not only did Democrat-appointed judges issue 59 of the 64 nationwide injunctions in Trump’s first term, but also more than half of the injunctions were issued by Democratic judges on only three courts: the Northern District of California (23.4%), the District Court of the District of Columbia (15.6%), and the District of Maryland (12.5%).
The same pattern of partisan lawfare by Democrat-appointed federal judges exists in Trump’s second presidency. Three-fourths of the federal judges who have blocked Trump administration actions were appointed by Democratic presidents. According to RealClearInvestigations, Democratic presidents appointed more than 4 in 5 of the judges presiding in federal courts that have issued universal injunctions.
federal judges who issue nationwide injunctions themselves may be breaking the law. Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs federal courts, permits a court to issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order only if the party calling for it posts an “injunction bond” equal to any potential losses from the order. Although the mandatory requirement of an injunction bond was reaffirmed in 2007, federal courts routinely allow parties to sue without posting bond. This has contributed to the proliferation of partisan lawsuits against presidential actions and forum shopping. There is little cost to such litigation, and the payoff can be enormous if a carefully selected partisan judge issues an injunction against a president of the other party.Yes, an open invitation for the president to bypass the Constitution. An executive order to ban guns? An executive order to ban Muslims from gathering to pray? An executive order to ban mifipristone across state lines? An executive order to end daca?.... Oh yes, all are possible now. Relief granted only to those who can obtain and afford legal representation while the matters slowly crawl their way through our system...
My oh my ... This will prove to be a lot to live up to.
Will Amy Barrett keep this energy for the next democratic president? She said basically in the part I highlighted in yellow, while the executive branch has the duty to follow the law. The judicial branch can’t enforce them to follow the law. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
In this statement alone she is saying the executive branch CAN break the law and no one can do anything about it. And yes, coming from the least experienced Supreme Court member in 30 years...
Is there a reason that Maga cheered, praised and encouraged nationwide injunction during the Biden years but has turned against it under trump? There are many examples of previous posts showing the support for such.
Why the change of heart?Mike, I agree with your comment, and the Supreme Court’s decision to end the use of nationwide injunctions by individual federal district court judges is a major win for judicial restraint and the Constitution. These injunctions allowed a single judge to freeze a president’s entire national policy, even when that judge only had jurisdiction over one district. That was never how the judiciary was meant to function.
Importantly, President Trump was the first president to formally ask the Supreme Court to curtail this practice, and he was right to do so. No president before him, including President Biden, had ever directly petitioned the Court to stop federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions and to confine their rulings to their own jurisdictions. Trump made the bold and unprecedented move to protect the authority of the executive branch and restore the proper balance between the branches of government.
That said, President Biden did fight against three lower-court nationwide injunctions when they blocked his policies, though he never publicly challenged the practice as aggressively as Trump did. Biden took at least three such cases to the Supreme Court. In Department of Homeland Security v. Texas (2023), the Court ruled 8–1 in Biden’s favor, holding that the administration had discretion in immigration enforcement and that the states lacked standing to interfere. In Biden v. Nebraska (2023), the Court ruled against him 6–3, striking down his student loan forgiveness plan as an overreach of executive authority. In Murthy v. Missouri (2024), the Court again sided with Biden in a 6–3 ruling, stating that the plaintiffs lacked standing and vacating the nationwide injunction that had limited government contact with social media companies. So while Biden never asked for an end to nationwide injunctions outright, he did fight back when those rulings hampered his administration — and he won two out of three times.
The Supreme Court ruling represents a significant victory for the presidency. It does not prevent individuals or groups from pursuing legal challenges against the government, and all cases may still be appealed through the court system. However, federal district judges can no longer issue injunctions that block a president’s policies on a nationwide scale. Instead, any injunctions must generally apply only to the specific parties involved in the lawsuit, limiting the ability of a single judge to halt executive actions across the entire country.Their ruling represents the courts mushy mixed record, sometimes allowing injunctions to remain in effect and other times vacating them...all of a sudden they have clarity? Nah. And the majority of maga folks here, previously cheered Nationwide injunctions. Called them " necessary"
Nuff Said.
Common Sense.
Rational, logical, and supported by the Constitution.
If anything, the Supreme Court did not go far enough.
I seem to remember a Trump appointed federal judge in North Texas issuing a nationwide injunction on Bidens student loan forgiveness and Republicans cheered it on...
This Supreme court ruling is gonna bite yall in the ass when a Democrat is president again.LOL That's pretty much how it works, good for goose....
Shar,
This ruling is important because it means that President Donald Trump will be able to fulfill his campaign promises to the American People. The voters of the United States voted for mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship and more. President Donald Trump was very open about what he would do if elected. He now gets to do what he promised.
The democrats don't seem to comprehend they lost the election. This means their political agenda does not get implemented. The American people have spoken.
This ruling by the SCOTUS was necessary because rogue federal judges were issuing nationwide injunctions at levels never before seen. President Donald Trump had 64 such injunctions during his entire first term. He has now had 44 in the first six months of his presidency. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Now, a federal district court judge can only rule on matters that impact their district.
It is the way it was designed.
This didn't have to happen should the democrats have not attempted to stop a political agenda voted for by the American people.Lol what makes you think Trump can violate the constitution with attempting to end birthright citizenship?
And again, maga folks have shown themselves to be hypocrites over and over and over again.... Praising Nationwide injunction during the Biden administration, seeking Nationwide injunction during that time.... Yes, but please tell me more about how it's such a terrible thing now...does maga have ANY principles they actually stand firmly on?
Hypocrisy has become the hallmark of magaMike, I completely agree, this Supreme Court decision is a major win for the rule of law and for the constitutional balance of power. It rightly reins in the out-of-control trend of district judges issuing nationwide injunctions that stretch far beyond their jurisdiction. The ruling doesn’t strip away due process or limit a person’s right to appeal, in fact, it preserves the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring appeals still go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. What it does do is protect the ability of states to function democratically, without being overridden by the personal ideology of a single judge in one corner of the country. I’m overjoyed to see President Trump win these cases in the high court, not just for his sake, but because he’s setting legal precedents this country has needed for decades. No other president has had the courage to step up like this and challenge the imbalance. This ruling keeps ideologies in check and restores power to the people and the officials they elected, exactly how it was meant to work.
No one’s going to stand in Trump’s way when it comes to pushing forward with his agenda, I think even the Democrats are starting to accept that reality. Honestly, in my view, they’ve set themselves up for political ruin for decades to come. Their obsession with far-left ideologies has completely alienated everyday Americans, and now they’re facing the consequences.
I was a bit disappointed that the Court didn’t issue a ruling on birthright citizenship yet, but it looks like we’ll get one in October. That said, I actually appreciate that they’re taking their time with it, that tells me they’re approaching it seriously and carefully. I have a strong feeling Trump will get at least a partial win here. I expect the Supreme Court to refine the interpretation of birthright citizenship in a way that prevents migrants who are in the country awaiting asylum hearings from automatically granting citizenship to children born here. This is a long-overdue issue that absolutely needs to be addressed, and thank God Trump had the courage to push it forward.
I truly believe that before Trump’s term is over, he’s going to deliver a lot of the changes this country has needed for years, and he’ll do it strategically, often through the back door if that’s what it takes. That’s the difference between a seasoned businessman and a lifelong politician. Trump knows how to navigate obstacles, adapt, and get results without playing the same tired political games.
I mean, was this past week not great?Literally everything Trump does is tone deaf.... As evidenced by the lack of support in the polls for ANY of his policies and and his own approval rating being underwater in every poll. The man and his agenda are deeply unpopular....and on top of it, you have Republican sycophants in Congress pushing a bill that Americans are overwhelmingly against. I think Democrats are excited to sweep a lot of these people away in the midterm.
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts.
So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion....
Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith....My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.
Correct? Does SCOTUS show I can fight to keep kids from learning about Trump?
I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are “radical left thugs that live like vermin” and describing a female vice president of the United States as “mentally impaired” and “a weak and foolish woman” are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a president.
As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some “Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classrooms"
Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like “I moved on her like a bitch” and “she’s now got the big phony tits and everything” and “Grab ’em by the pussy,” that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency.
Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito’s words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”
I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump’s behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Right?
Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: “The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.”
Amen to that. I object to the subject Trump... Let the chaos ensue.
Supreme Court just saved kids from reading about Trump | Opinion https://share.google/E2mCdHxFwVVD6hYpnTrump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a very real thing.
One of the may symptoms seems to be a total inability to discuss political subjects in a rational way without obsessing about President Donald Trump.
There HAS to be a way to treat this conditions affecting millions of individuals in the United States.We discuss political subjects in a rational way, recognizing that Trump is at the core of stark disagreement between the parties.
It is not rational to declare or insinuate that Trump is evil incarnate, the devil walking among us, the worst person every to inhabit the earth. Same thing for anyone remotely connected to MAGA. Same thing for any "right winger" conservatives.
Yet that is exactly what those with TDS do. It is so seldom about disagreements - it is about how evil the Great Liar Trump and his followers are.Did you read the link? Did you find any form of logic in this author's analogy when read in full context?
They tried to compare teaching children about the existence and presidency of Donald Trump (a historical and civic fact) with parents opting out of LGBTQ-themed lessons based on deeply held religious beliefs. These are fundamentally different in purpose and content. Teaching about a U.S. president, even one some people find objectionable, is part of standard, fact-based education. LGBTQ-themed lessons often include moral or value-laden content that may directly contradict specific religious teachings. The Supreme Court ruling was about accommodating religious beliefs in such cases, not about shielding kids from learning unpleasant truths or facts.There are those on the left who obsess about President Donald Trump and let their obsession blind them from facts, truth, and reality.
It used to be funny, then is was sad, now it's getting upsetting.Well you are going to be lot more upset, because until I bring that man down, I remain on the warpath.
A liar, a thief and a felon, how much more is there to be obsessed about?"until I bring that man down"
Sorry, that's funny.
dems have tried everything legal, illegal, and more and failed at every turn.
He STILL became the 47th president willing the popular vote as well as electoral college.
Good luck with that dream.
Yes, TDS is real. And the person who wrote that article has it bad. OMG
The article reflects a skewed mindset and makes little practical sense. It's built on a deliberately exaggerated analogy that, while trying to be clever or satirical, ends up distorting both the intent and the scope of the Supreme Court ruling.
The author essentially equates teaching a factual civic reality (that Trump is or was president) with indoctrination, which is not only illogical but reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how public education and the First Amendment work. The comment suggests that political dislike can be elevated to the level of a religious objection, which is both unserious and unworkable if applied consistently.
In my view, it shows a mindset more interested in scoring a rhetorical point than engaging with the actual legal and educational implications of the ruling. I see it as upside-down reasoning; it blurs the line between moral values and factual education in a way that simply doesn't hold up.
I mean, she can teach her offspring anything she pleases about pretty much anything. But she has no right to dictate her skewed views to other children.Does anyone on the left realize that President Donald Trump lives rent free in their heads in a big way?
LGBTQ people and families exist in real life. Maga folks believe they represent depravity and therefore the mention of their existence could possibly harm or influence school children....Trump exists in reality as president, unfortunately. He, to MANY, represents actual depravity and immorality but that's just dandy subject material?
The Supremes, as usual, open the door to endless chaos through opt- outs. Legitimate cases can be made to object / opt out of virtually anything and everything in a public school...Trump is just ONE example.I’m a Republican and a supporter of President Trump’s agenda. In my religion, homosexuality is considered a sin, but it also teaches tolerance, not to condone it, but not to encourage it either. Sexual preference is just that, a personal preference. It has no place in the classroom, especially when it conflicts with the religious beliefs held by many families. Most major religions view same-sex relationships as incompatible with their teachings, and introducing such topics in schools can be confusing or even distressing to children who are being raised with those values.
Education should focus on academics, not personal identity or lifestyle discussions that may contradict what children are being taught at home. People are absolutely free to live how they choose, including in matters of sexual preference, but no one has the right to impose those personal choices on others or on other people’s children through the school system.
Offering information on a president’s character, no matter how adverse, is very different from promoting a sexual lifestyle that conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs. It seems some believe religion should no longer be considered or respected in these matters, but I am safe to say that those people are in the minority.
America was founded within a strong Christian cultural framework, but it was not officially established as a Christian nation in the legal or constitutional sense. The Founders built a system that protects religious freedom for everyone, and while many of them came from Christian backgrounds, they made sure no one religion was imposed on the country.
As a Christian, I want my beliefs to be respected just as I respect the right of any individual to choose their sexual preference. But that respect needs to go both ways. My values matter too, and it’s simple common sense that mutual respect should apply in both directions. Unfortunately, some people don’t seem willing to see it that way.
I think I went to great lengths to critique the article, explaining why her analogy was very skewed and why it doesn’t hold up when you consider the broader context.Most of what Trump represents, his actions, display immorality and depravity. Why shouldn't I have my views respected within the school system?
What if I'm a Christian scientist? My view is that ailments are a symptom of mental deficiency not a physical problem. Thus, to heal ailments, one usually must rely on prayer rather than medical care.... Why should my view be disrespected within the public school system by the mention of "doctors" ? My values matter too don't they?"What if I'm a Christian scientist? My view is that ailments are a symptom of mental deficiency not a physical problem. Thus, to heal ailments, one usually must rely on prayer rather than medical care.... Why should my view be disrespected within the public school system by the mention of "doctors"
Then you should have the right to opt out of teachings that don't agree with your beliefs.Where does the opt-out end? To the point that a classroom full of 40 kids is each being separated out due to objection over something? Taught individually because their parent believes they can't handle the reality of the world? Lol when did we become so soft?
Many, "became soft," at the same time the most vicious among the left made it a social crime to explore anything but what they deem to be worthy of exploration.
No one is saying don't participate, nor to adopt select-participation as a wide practice, only to give people the right to choose.
Being one of those vicious actors on the left, it seems counterintuitive for you not to support freedom of choice as it concerns religion and education.
Personally, it isn't even a religious motivation for me not to want my son to be taught about LGBTQIA+ matters until high school. I think it is a young adult-adult issue, not something that needs to be institutionalized for the overwhelming majority, if at all.
At most, LGBTQIA+ studies should be a separate elective available to everyone. At least, it can have a small module in health class that does not teach social/political ideology, but physical sciences (which already occurs as a compulsory practice in all mandatory high school health courses).
The main problem here is adults grooming children into parasitic, pathologized ideologies they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to, not taking a fat dump on the necessary facet of society that is LGBTQIA+ health and wellness.I think it's a misrepresentation by the right-wing that children are being "taught". LGBTQ issues/curriculum. Reading a story book that includes these folks in some manner isn't "teaching" it's the simple reality of the world and that of likely several students in any given classroom..let's be real. Opt outs for any and every reason have been a part of the public schools for decades. Why this narrow focus on LGBTQ issues now?
Where do the opt outs end?I agree, modern education is a joke and I doubt even a notable number of these young children care about the plight of LGBTQIA+ individuals organically anyways. However, it isn't the curricula that is truly the concern, it is the teachers themselves with their personal ideologies injected into the classroom.
A parent should have the option to de-prioritize such teachings for their children if it offers the chance for a teacher(s) to expose the child to unfavorable ideologies. We can't sit here and deny that the LGBTQIA+ social movement is more often volatile and manipulative, preferring subterfuge and social castration as their main means of spreading their social influence.
If your ideology and desires must be spread by way of force, like an adult threatening a child with a belt when they won't clean their room, then perhaps your ideologies are skewed.
LGBTQIA+ issues are a personal dealing for everyone, and no institution should make the normalization and acceptance of it compulsory. Focus on the individuals who actively and observably struggle with the concept, and let kids explore the notions on their own as they organically discover them.
If we must pander to less than 8% of the population as a compulsory practice, a population with zero coherent identity and views as what is meant to be an organized social movement, then I'd be concerned just how much farther the majority would be willing to go to make that as difficult as possible. We already see that the majority of parents are ready and willing to cause uproars whether it be publicly or privately.Likely several students in any given classroom have suffered genital mutilation and now pretend to be the sex they are not? It's the reality of the world now?!?
I want some of what you're smoking!Wait, you better have some of mine instead.
GA ;-)Im glad you recognize that the (by your definition) transgender hysteria is a non issue.
But you do know the definition of the other letters, right?
It's a huge issue for women's sports.
Males should not be permitted to play in women's sports.
The left doesn't see it that way.By no stretch of the imagination is it a "huge issue" lol.... It's an issue that doesn't even poll as being on the radar for the majority of American voters...
"The poll, conducted by The New York Times/Ipsos, found that 79% of Americans believe men should be barred from competing in women’s sports including 94% of Republican respondents, 64% of Independent voters and 67% of Democrats.
This is even more striking given that The Times referred to biological men as “transgender female athletes” when polling respondents.
The poll asked, “Thinking about transgender female athletes – meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female – do you think they should or should not be allowed to complete in women’s sports?”
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.c … ns-sports/
But...not on the radar, right? And that doesn't even address that it is illegal according to title IX.When pollsters ask folks to rank the issues in order of importance to them....this issue is generally at the bottom or non existent. But please go ahead and show a poll where it is top of mind versus other issues
Oh, it is definitely an issue - just look at the girls being beaten out of their position in sports, and having to share a locker room/bathroom with them.
In addition to that, I highly doubt that very many are happy after mutilating themselves and finding out it didn't magically change their sex somehow.
But other letters? The ones in LGBTQ+++ or whatever it is? I assume the G is for gay men and the L is for gay women (who now have their own letter to distinguish them from men). Other than that I haven't a clue and don't much care. Nor do I care that some are wanting (demanding) that their personal, made up, meanings for some pronouns in the English language be used instead of the dictionary definition. If they want a different language, go for it but don't ask (or require) that I learn it too.
I'm not even sure how this post remotely relates to mine? "mutilation" has nothing to do with this...
From your post: "I think it's a misrepresentation by the right-wing that children are being "taught". Followed by "it's the simple reality of the world and that of likely several students in any given classroom..". LGBTQ issues/curriculum. ". Are you not referring to (perhaps among others) the trans crowd that mutilates either their physical appearance and/or their hormone balance? Did I misunderstand (again) your intended meaning?
"The main problem here is adults grooming children into parasitic, pathologized ideologies they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to, not taking a fat dump on the necessary facet of society that is LGBTQIA+ health and wellness."
I agree.
The premise of the opinion article??
Folks believe that LGBTQ lifestyles represent immorality or depravity and therefore should not be acknowledged regardless of the fact that these lifestyles are a reality.
Trump's actions and history of actions, his speech and so forth represent immorality and depravity to many regardless of the fact that he is POTUS....but his mention is ok.
Maga wants me to accept one reality but ignore another...Both arguments invoke morality as a basis for exclusion from educational environments.
The logical connection between these two arguments rests on the principle of applying a consistent moral standard.
If the premise for excluding the existence or acknowledgment of LGBTQ families from schools is their perceived immorality, then the same standard would logically necessitate the exclusion of topics or figures associated with widely documented immoral actions of Trump.
The core of the argument is that if a subject is deemed inappropriate for discussion in schools due to its perceived negative moral implications, then other subjects with documented ethical transgressions should be treated similarly.
The standard must be applied equally and consistently.I shared my view, could not be clearer. I will adamantly agree to disagree. The subject goes against my own Christian beliefs.
"The subject goes against my own Christian beliefs".
Well using that same premise.... Trump's words and actions should just about burn Christian beliefs down to the ground....lying, adultery...let us count the ways.The subject or at least the sentence you selected, is perfect." The subject goes against my own Christiam Beliefs"
Perhaps you did not read all my words, which indicate my thoughts on sin --- "I’m a Republican and a supporter of President Trump’s agenda. In my religion, homosexuality is considered a sin, but it also teaches tolerance, not to condone it, but not to encourage it either. " Shar
Goes for any sins Trump might have committed. I don't weigh sin, I show tolerance to sin and sinners.
You may have missed this too --- "As a Christian, I want my beliefs to be respected just as I respect the right of any individual to choose their sexual preference. But that respect needs to go both ways. My values matter too, and it’s simple common sense that mutual respect should apply in both directions. Unfortunately, some people don’t seem willing to see it that way."
It seems you can't understand my thoughts on this subject, or just feel you need to beat a dead horse.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
MAGA morality.
Yep, again with the hypocrisy...LGBTQ = BAD AND IMMORAL. AGAINST MY BELIEFS. but Trump....good and aligned with my "Christianity".
Could you quote anyone here who made that type of claim or even close to it? That kind of comment needs some true evidence.
How does the reading of books that include lgbtq families offend the Christianity or morality of maga folks but trumps heinous words and actions don't ? Logic? If you support the SCOTUS decision then you'd certainly support an opt out of any mention of trump due to the offenses against Christianity he represents...
"Apples? APPLES?! WHAT ABOUT ORANGES!?"
You're well aware that the silent majority on all sides frowns upon Trump's rhetoric, and even more aware of how disingenuous this argument is.This was your comment that I asked for you to offer a quote. Who said that, or implied that in that form of context?
Willowarbor wrote:
Yep, again with the hypocrisy...LGBTQ = BAD AND IMMORAL. AGAINST MY BELIEFS. but Trump....good and aligned with my "Christianity".
Could you quote anyone here who made that type of claim or even close to it? That kind of comment needs some true evidence.
Maybe those who condemn President Donald Trump should look at their own lives.
Mathew Chapter 7 vs 1 & 2
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Romans 3:23
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.Lol then why would you ban children from hearing stories about families just like their own?
Better than a morality that puts children on hormone blockers and chops off sex organs.
One that allows them to eat poisonous chemicals as "food", that tells them they are to blame for the world's end (climate change and carbon) or the myriad of other things pushed by the 'progressive' movements of today in America... to include hating themselves for being American... or white... or male...
Nothing to worry about... a nation filled with men that have no purpose... no hope... no beliefs... no attachments... what could go wrong?Ken,
Doesn't it make sense that democrats would have serious issues with the Ten Commandments?
I'm sure thou shalt not lie is one they will never accept. Thou shalt not commit adultery is another they probably have serious issue with.
Each and every one of the ten commandments go against every belief held by democrats.
It makes sense they would not want to see these or have them taught to their children.Deleted
Huh? I honesty have no idea what you're talking about. I think Ive been banned once, years ago and had nothing to do with white anything. And I dont think you were here, or maybe you were? I have no idea who you are. Im sorry I didnt notice you before? But whatever.
Fisrt time a hear that term, but cool. LOLI'd post the screenshot, but your content would get me temporarily removed as well. It's all good, your digital footprint remembers.
Interesting... you have put me on a new path of discovery...
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
— Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade
I hadn't considered that... I was thinking more in terms of 4th, 5th wave feminism and the goal of destroying the society/system and flipping the roles so that women have the power and the men are powerless against them... pretty much what we have in America today in many States...From what I observe, the more pathogenic presentation of the feminist movement that we saw come about in the '60s onward is a symptom of the government's effort to develop and maintain a disconcertingly deep involvement in social infrastructure post-WWII. It's a symptom of a concerted effort to destabilize and reshape identity, and control the way information is first perceived and then disseminated. Some argue that 1948 was a tangibly concerning turning point in the feminist culture, as if it were contrived/engineered away from its original purpose, but the roots of that shift aren't any clearer to me than the actual timeline because I wasn't there to participate.
The sought outcome of these government/powerful influences seeking to shape social infrastructure continues to elude me unless I want to settle on societal collapse as the goal. I've found a little respite in studying the tactics and key figures of accelerationism, because their efforts (the left and accelerationists) and the outcomes align and intersect more often than not. It's an interesting rabbit hole to jump into at the very least.
Marx, despite being a known militant racist, charlatan, rapist, [insert the rest of his historical repertoire] continues to shape many of the views the left holds. I just don't get it.
Look into John Money and the David Reimer case if you want a leftist hero often touted in colleges as some kind of savior for the trans movements. A dark tale indeed with many people afraid to dig into horrendous allegations against him in any official capacity. He coined the term, "gender identity."
Some other figures for you if ya wanna look into it:
Alfred Kinsey
Lawrence E. King Jr.
Richard Green
Harry Benjamin
Fred Berlin
Ray Blanchard
Magnus Hirschfield
All of these men were beyond ethically questionable, and focused on the same line of science and schools of thought that Money did. Each one was embroiled in endless controversy. Be wary of the more conspiratorial information."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
And that's why some people follow Marx. They can legally and morally steal from someone that has more than they do until they are "equal".Something within me wants to believe it isn't that simple, and that's due to my studies of Marx and his ardent love of Mephistophelean philosophy. He had a deep love of death and destruction, romanticized it in his own writings and musings. There is no question in my mind that Marx is a perfect example to point to within his personal life, as a sort of physical embodiment of evil.
It's argued about whether or not his love of the character itself can be correlated with his political and economic views, but I would say that if I was in Marx's inner circle, I would've quickly found myself finding ways to undermine his every effort. He is, by any definition, the scum of the earth.
That strange, ever-present, nearly-intangible evil permeates through many individuals in society. I'm not convinced there isn't some sort of psychological, almost mystical root to all of it ingrained in the human race.I think that the people loving Marxism don't do out of a like for deeper philosophy. It's because they don't want to be responsible for their own needs and wants.
When I look at those promoting marxism (the socialism of today's world) they just don't seem to be the type to study philosophy. Or economics!Do you feel like those who tend to support Marx, also tend to either tacitly or outright support/gain feelings of validation/joy from destruction and death?
Cosmetic abortions, drastic gender affirming treatments, riots, racially-targeted deconstruction movements, identity/ego death, economic downturn, etc. all seem to be a common practice among the overwhelming majority who support Marxist ideas.
This is why I play with the idea of some sort of as-of-yet unidentified evil, an almost mystical presence within the human race. Many of these things are so off the wall, out of left field, nonsensical, that supporting them just doesn't make sense. The support is to such a degree that even when a movement is calling for the active killing of targeted groups, people go along with it in en masse even when they're part of the targeted group.
The Mephistophelean philosophy isn't something I think the majority are actually aware nor conscious of, but it permeates through their movements and actions.My experience with Marxists is pretty much limited to those that espouse socialism, not realizing that their brand of socialism consists of little more than "I want what HE has, but don't want to pay for it". This is much closer to the Marxist idea of "to each according...".
They are not true Marxists any more than they are true socialists. Only people that want more than they are willing to work for.
I read, many years ago, a brilliant in-depth analysis done for a University assignment on feminism, who backed it, what the goals were, what other influences co-mingled with its efforts...
I actually posted a link to it here on a forum thread, years ago... it was chock full of details and very thorough with its references.
Its moments like these, when I go looking for something that a few years back was easy to find... and today cannot be found... that I realize the rumors that information on the internet is being scrubbed by/for AI Search Engines is most likely true.
So, trying to remember...
A perusal of the works of women such as Susan B. Anthony and Emma Goldman shows that they believed that being a wife meant a life of servitude and oppression, a life of drudgery and mistreatment.
If that was the belief... what do you think they intended for the institution of Marriage and family?
Intersectionality iwas born from a feminist Critical Theorist.
Intersectionality is the idea that we all exist under different layers of oppression based on what social identities we can claim (IE - DEI).
In Intersectionality it is understood that women as a group experience a sort of oppression that men don’t.
But if you are also a woman of color, you experience oppression that white women won’t experience.
So, if you imagine that each of the identities you can claim experience a certain kind of oppression simply by their nature... where these identities overlap, you experience an “intersection” of oppression that someone who doesn’t share the same identities could not experience.
The more identity groups you belong to, the more intersections, and therefore oppression, you experience.
Welcome back to the reality that was being brought into existence by the Progressive Biden Administration.
Ultimately, intersectionality is the ideology of me, who I am, and why I’m more imbued with understanding than you... why I am more oppressed than you... and why you should be catering to my wants and needs.
In this topsy turvy perception of the world... in this ideology... the worst of all oppressors, the ones that deserve the least rights or opportunity is cis white males... followed by cis males in general...
This is racism and sexism brought to heights you'd have to go back more than a hundred years to see worse trying to be brought to action... back to the Woodrow Wilson days of demanding black workers be put in cages and separated from whites if working in a government office/position.
https://www.history.com/articles/woodro … -klux-klan
Push this individualism/intersectionality far enough and you get to the point where you are saying what right do any of us have to insist that biological males abstain from competing in women’s sports?
After all, the lived experience of a person who was born male but feels like he is a female cannot be questioned by those of us who have not lived the same experience.
What right do we have then, to say to that man who is a minor-attracted-person (MAP) shouldn't be able to act upon his desires?
Contemporary feminism is not a liberation from sexism. It does not advocate gender-blind standards... it does not reject reducing people to their sex/gender.
Feminism is a movement that sees people as defined by their gender, and lobbies for the interests of females. In short, feminism does not reject sexism but advocates anti-male sexism.
Feminism claims women are oppressed... but in our society today that is a farce, the laws, schools, everything in society/western civ today bends to meet women's needs over that of men... hence why more than 60% of students in colleges today are women... not because they are oppressed, rather quite the opposite.
Men are framed as arrogant and insensitive, oppressive, and brutal. The systematic vilification and demonization of males is part of the feminist strategy of raising women by lowering men... compounded by a victimhood culture, as described above.
"“No, we haven’t gone too far, nor far enough. Male privilege, male hegemony and male chauvinism has been around for millennia all the while women and girls carrying the burden and paying the price for doing nothing but being female. The only way to change the equation is for men to begin paying that price, guilty or not.”
~ Margaret Atwood, feminist iconI feel like due to my late taking of interest in the feminist movement (didn't care anything about it until college, and being born in an era where it was promoted heavily) most of the information I find about it is very doctored to give feminism an alluring face. Conversely, the negative information I find about it seems amplified solely for its inconsistencies, or tailored to target specific times that hearken back to specific periods like the '60s. Even the speakers I've listened to on college campuses really go no further back than the '20s, and typically hone in on the '90s onward.
Everything you have said resonates deeply, though. If you are able to find the content again, I'd love to peruse it.
The only movements I've ran into more immediately volatile in my personal life than the feminist movement were trans rights activists and BLM social movement supporters. I typically hold those three in equal contempt.Marxist feminism theorizes revolutionary subjectivity and possibilities for an anti-capitalist future.
Particularly important to Marxist feminism are its theories of imperialism and primitive accumulation, or theft, of land, resources and women’s unpaid labor to the reproduction of lives and generations.
From the 1930s, Marxist feminism in the US demanded greater attention to the political and economic dimensions of systemic racism alongside sexism and class exploitation.
Marxist feminism in anticolonial movements centered imperialism and its mobilization of feudal relations of gender oppression to capture populations, land and markets.
In the US and Western Europe, socialist feminism emphasized “patriarchy” as a power role that oppressively shaped women’s lives.
America would be considered the highest example of imperialism today, what Lenin famously called the highest stage of capitalism.
As a system based on profit over people’s needs, capitalism constantly seeks new markets for its goods, what Marx calls commodities, due to the crisis of overproduction... making more things than people can buy.
Imperialism refers to the aggressive solution to this crisis that creates new markets and new pools of waged workers to increase the profitability for
the owning classes of capitalism (today our Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates types).
Marxist feminists argue that imperialism in the twenty-first century relies not simply on women to solve the crisis of overproduction (as workers and consumers both), but also on oppressive ideologies of gender.
Friedrich Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and
the State (1884) elaborated the evolving social relations of production and reproduction.
Under capitalism, Engels argued, “household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service:
the wife became head servant, excluded from all participation in social production”.
The sum of the argument: Women’s subordination was neither biologically natural nor God-given; instead, the class relations of capitalism enforced the gender hierarchies that anchored women’s oppression.
Marxist feminists viewed this patriarchal family as integral to capitalism, and thus a site of oppression that must be destroyed.
So... now we begin to see how Socialism (Communism), Feminism, and the fight against Racism has been coalesced not just to become equal, but to bring down 'The Patriarchy'... to bring down civilization itself to usher in a new one.
This in turn, is IMO, exactly what today's Democratic Party strives to achieve, and moved the Nation one giant step closer to that end during Biden's Administration.
What is so interesting is this is not new... In the early 1900s, socialist feminists demanded the end to monogamous marriage and objectification in the family.
Feminism at its core finds the family as the site of women’s oppression, used for the further extraction of women’s unpaid reproductive labor by capitalism.
It also targets marriage as a religious and state institution that enforced women’s subordination to men and to capital.I'm going to take everything you've said here and use it to expand my studies on feminist history. It has offered perspectives for research I have not been presented previously. I'd like to read up on it before commenting further.
I am curious, however, how'd you end up jumping down this rabbit hole?As I have often noted on here, I have detached myself from MSM as much as possible, without becoming a hermit or totally disconnected to the current events going on around us.
In that, when I choose to research something... I go sites that are off the beaten path as much as possible, they may be excerpts of books from hundreds of years ago... or they may be the works of University students that I come across, which are often some of the best material to read, because they are not couching their information for a captured audience, nor are they trying to brainwash their audience, they show their references used for their work... and then when I find similar works that come to similar (or near same) perspectives of facts, using different references to come up with their work, it solidifies (for me anyways) the legitimacy of the points or perspectives they arrive at.
Essentially, I rely on people who do far more research on the matter and who have spent years learning and researching to come to their conclusions... or... for example:
Typically I would start with an off the beaten path article like this:
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024 … nism-ends/
Which leads to this:
https://www.pacificu.edu/magazine/four-waves-feminism
And then I peruse this:
https://ijses.com/wp-content/uploads/20 … S-V7N8.pdf
And then I find this:
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/view … wg_facpubs
https://case.fiu.edu/faculty-sites/sros … hology.pdf
...
Learn how to use Search Engines, and you would get results like this... and not stuff from the NY Times or CNN and their ilk... which is nothing if not propaganda for those that want to be fed answers, rather than the truth.I was more so curious why you, personally, invested time into the topic?
I know for me, personally, it was because I was forced into taking an interest in college courses, and many of my female professors found some way to work the feminist and anti-right narratives into their lessons even if it made no sense. From there I wanted to figure out from a psychological standpoint why this was occurring, so I embedded myself among the feminist activists on my campuses and tried to absorb as much as I could from their actions and efforts.
Outside of exploring within real-life interactions that bothered me and didn't seem to make sense, I was more focused on the philosophical paths people were taking when ingesting, processing, and regurgitating information. I wanted to know the, "Why," as it concerns the discrepancies between people's personal thoughts, the way they spoke about it, actions they chose to take, and finally the consequences of their actions amounting to nothing more than subjugating people and/or destroying social infrastructure among both individual and broader social groups.
Of course, I fell down conspiracy holes along the way, and those were more fun than the actual answers I was getting otherwise LMAOI think it is because I was interested in understanding why our social norms were being attacked... radically so during the Biden era... but long before that as well.
Why was there irresistible pressure to get women into combat arms?
Why were they willing to forego the standards, regulations, reasons behind those standards just so they could pass women in fields such as Firefighters or Army Rangers?
Why were they determined to destroy the role of men in society... to destroy the Boy Scouts... to destroy the family model...?
Why has Disney for the last 15 years created Mary-Sue after Mary-Sue characters that have no character arc, that do not go on the 'Hero's Journey'... the story told... again and again... be it Ray in the last Star Wars Trilogy or Captain Marvel in the MCU... the story they repeat is that evil men keep them down, and when they break free of those shackles they are Super Powered unstoppable women that can defeat any foe?
Why do they recreate every movie that has been popular the last 50 years... from Ghost Busters to Ocean's Elleven to Terminator to... with female characters in place of what was once male characters?
So... yeah... when I see the deliberate deconstruction (destruction) of social norms and the roles of Men throughout society... I go look for the reasons why... and I go look for the hoped for outcomes of those pushing these efforts.
If a person digs deep enough... it will be discovered how it ties into the efforts of Globalization, Socialism/Communism...
Feminism, Racism and sexual preferences (LGBTQ+) are used to divide and conquer.
Those groups have all been primed and programmed to see the same 'oppressor'.
They are united by a common enemy... and a common goal.
You know, Kyler, it is absolutely tiresome to be actually discussing ideas that were dismissed as hysteria over 70 years ago.
A rightwinger would label someone sitting to their left on a park bench a Communist or Marxist.
Yes, I am a left leaning person politically, who says that we embrace Karl Marx or Engels?
Communism is a theory and always have been, nothing more than a label. It has never found practical application anywhere. Communism is defined as a society with no private property, while Socialism is arranged where true main means of production is owned by the state, neither of those define America. Can the state really own your toothbrush?
Communism speaks of a classless society, that is fantasy. In the former, Soviet Union, the bourgeoisie and proletariat were pretty well defined when people were standing in lines to get what was left of a paucity of consumer products while the members of the Party had their access to western goods and the best the world could offer.
Russia and China carefully spent years concealing it, but a command economy never really worked. The needed reforms move them toward a more capitalist free market, that is what we see today.
Communism in the classic definition is simply contrary to human nature and never really worked.
So why do rightwingers call people “Communist/Marxists”
In the late 1940s and 1950’s the House of UnAmerican Activities was busy ruining the careers of Actors and Actors in Hollywood based on rumor, unsubstantiated suspicion and hearsay accusing them of being Communists or Communist sympathizers.
Those that supported organized labor were called Communists. Were they really or were they attempted to balance the needs of working people, being sure that their employers were not allowed to exploit them. I guess assisting working people to resist capitalist exploitation is unAmerican, yes?
Those that supported Civil Rights and Civil liberties were defined as subversive and suspected Communists. Is the pursuit of civil rights and civil liberties unAmerican? They called Dr. King, who had to dismiss a member of his staff suspected of Communist ties, himself a Communist? The actor and playwright, Paul Robeson, was blacklisted for being woke and challenging America regarding its failings and shortcomings, was he a Communist?
So, why do we return to mire to gather muck that was dismissed from what I consider a savage period of American history.
It is like I have told Ken often, no one is going to offer their hands willingly to accept the manacles so many rightwingers are pushing, in their tiresome advocacy of “traditional roles”I am not going to accept it and you can expect conflict that even Trump will not be able to stop. If that turmoil and societal dissection is what you mean by acceleration, you can bet that you will have it. And what lies on the other side? Who can guess….."So why do rightwingers call people “Communist/Marxists”
Because one of the main tenets of the left is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"? As the left continues their fight to take from the rich to give to the poor, is that not exactly what Marx was proposing with his famous statement?"Because one of the main tenets of the left is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"?
Where do you get this from??
My observation was less that the left embraces Marx and other prominent accelerationist figures. More so that their actions and consequences intersect and run parallel to one another more often than not. It isn't to say that the right's rigidity doesn't contribute to the accelerationist mindset in its own shitty ways, only to say that the left seems much more susceptible to it as a practice. As I stated to wilderness, it's this near-mystical, almost intangible evil that I observe permeating through the human race as a whole.
The only profound and open supporters of Marxism, modern-day self-proclaimed Marxists, that I've interacted with and been affected by are the co-founder of the social movement behind BLM and many of the followers in the social movement behind BLM. Of course, there have been many smaller figures unworthy of naming who identify the same among other movements, but most often I find them to be well poisoners as opposed to representations of the movements they're taking part in.
It saddens me that anyone would want to identify with Marx, especially the BLM cofounder because BLM as an institution does so much good for so many people while the social movement shits all over its public image.
Ken brought up Marx and Marxists, I deviated to a more philosophical and correlative perspective as opposed to labeling people outright.
Your idea of what constitutes traditional roles is extreme, most people don't want to return to the wife-beating/baby factory/get in the kitchen era, and Ken and I have yet to discuss the nuances of his own beliefs on the matter so I can't truly comment. His views of Marxist feminism are new to me, I've never studied feminism from this perspective and what I have studied is tailored to make feminism appeal to a broad audience on moral grounds. I'll need more conversation and exploration to make any further educated comments.
As for why it is so easy for the right to return to wallowing in the past and using right-derived buzzphrases, I'd assume it is to counter the left with their own flavor of preferred discourse. I wouldn't attribute this to Ken, though, more to the performative nature of posting on public forums. I know Ken could expand on everything he claims in an even more scholarly way, and that he would do so outright if whoever is on the other side sought the roots of his claims and observations in earnest.
Trying to address everything else: I believe the struggles of the past and today are incomparable outside of the spirit behind them, and I believe that same spiritedness we all have has a contrived effort behind it pulling strings to steer it in nonsensical ways if the goal is unity. The sentiments are those of progress on both sides, but the actions are divisive and the only ones I see gaining ground as a majority are the elites.
You already know I lean heavily right, but I maintain the revolutionary spirit of the left. I'll never be able to give you one solid answer, and my answers will change drastically as I take more time to evolve and adapt them to new information. I will never be able to accurately represent hardline partisan sentiments on a personal level.That is part of the reason they have been so successful...
They were 'dismissed' because they infiltrated the Universities... they made the teachings part of the curriculum... Social Justice Theory... Feminism... Socialism... indoctrination and programming to the point where speaking ordinary truth became considered sexist or hate speech on campuses.
Then those graduates slowly filled the Media Departments, the Government Agencies, Congress, the CIA, FBI, etc. etc. until they were so invasive into the highest points of society... they would come up with ideas like:
Lets have an LGBTQ+ person become the spokesperson for Bud Light.
and
Lets make it legal for 'Transgender' Men to compete with Women in their sports and go and do anything previously reserved for Women only... heck, lets not just make it legal, lets make them the most protected Minority in America... guys... freaks... sexual predators given absolute Carte Blanche.
Their perspectives so warped... that they actually believed the ideology they had been taught was acceptable to the 'uneducated' 'deplorable' masses that they addressed.
And if women tried to speak out against it, they were villainized or worse.
The obviousness of the effort to destroy our Society is plain to see... our social and economic norms... this is not an effort to reach equality... it is to instill a new system of subjugation and oppression... the target today by these groups simply happens to be men... white men are the primary target... and you, my brother, are right behind them only by a hair as target #2.
Welcome back Credence, to being considered a Second Class citizen... the emancipation you enjoyed after the 60's were over is being replaced by another form of oppression.
Just as Kyler said... "forced" ... force fed in Media in Education in every aspect of life they can reach. And still, after decades of effort, they can't convince those people who have Common Sense that 5'2 220 pound Suzie is just as capable as 6'5 220 pound Jack is of being a Firefighter, or a Paratrooper... some things just fail the test of reality. But they are FORCED anyways... to continue to support the lies they preach.Well, Ken, happy 4th, as it may well be the last celebration of Independence that we will have.
What is “ordinary truth”, who gets to define that?
Are you saying the Social Justice theory, feminism and socialist ideas have no place in the debate over differing ideas found on college campuses?
Somehow these indoctrinated students spend the rest of their lives incapable of thinking for themselves?
So, leave it to conservatives to make a fuss about what and who represents a brand of beer.
You heard Trump, the uneducated is his most desired audience. What virtue is there in being uneducated and relatively ignorant except as plaint tool for Trump and his propaganda.
I have more concern about Trump his blatant racist style and his policies that reflect a turning back of the clock which is clear and evident. In face of that, I will take my chances with the Left. If the white man if the first target, I can find comfort that I will remain a distant second…..
As for the paratrooper or firefighter what is the minimum standard that has to be attained to? Susie either meets it or does not. I don’t look at the candidate but the standard which should objectify the required skills and physical ability of ANY candidate regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation."As for the paratrooper or firefighter what is the minimum standard that has to be attained to? Susie either meets it or does not. "
You know better. If Susie doesn't meet the standards then the those standards will be lowered until she does meet them. It has been done over and over, from military to first responders. After all, we are all equal, right (the eternal liberal chant)? And standards must show that to be true even if it isn't?I do know better, Wilderness and that is pure conjecture on your part. It is a complaint/excuse the Right speciously brings to discriminate against otherwise qualified people.
Yet we have first hand reports right here in these forums of standards for Rangers and Seals being lowered to accommodate women. Can't speak for Florida, but I've see firefighter standards lowered for the same reason.
So take your conjecture and go home with it. It is happening whether you see it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not. It is happening all over the country, and it is 100% due to idiocy from the left, trying to pretend that all people are "equal" in the fact of undeniable evidence to the contrary and must hold jobs in "equal" numbers regardless of ability.Where are your first hand reports? Objective evidence not right wing babble is what is needed.
It happens merely because you say so? That is not particularly authoritative.
It is dumb, of course we are not all equal in each and every aspect, but that needs to supported by qualification standards and tests, not just your say so.
Here is what I mean by “proof” and not just mumbo-jumbo. Are you going to argue with the Navy Times?
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav … iral-says/
https://www.ksby.com/politics/truth-be- … mbat-roles
Regardless of what Hegseth says, he is nothing more than a useless drunk in a job he is hopelessly unqualified for.Women aren't suited to combat roles as an overwhelming majority. They don't belong there, and any man who wants women in combat roles as a general practice is a psycho. I don't care if they can meet every physical requirement either, they're a greater statistical liability for every reason in the book compared to their male counterparts.
-Higher PTSD rates
-More "section 8" occurrences
-Lowered physical fitness standards in general (not in all cases, just most)
-They're an absolute nightmare with constant sexual harassment and assault claims (not attempting to invalidate claims, they just shouldn't be in the environment to begin with)
-Cannot match even the most average male in most categories outside of some marginal examples
-Higher failure rates in all fields than males
-Higher casualty rates
If that's not enough, let's just consider the cost for failure in training for each person:
Recruit training alone: ~$20k
AIT: ~$100k
Wanna be an officer: $100k+
Special forces: ~$400k
Post-Separation maintenance (not dishonorable): $200k+
Women have a more than 85% failure rate than men in OTS. They have a more than 70% failure rate within the different special forces. About 50% of women fail their fitness tests compared to less than ten percent of men. About 50% of women do not reenlist after their initial contract expires. Their serious injury casualties in training alone are about 3x that of the males.
We can sit here and piss and moan about, "Oh no, the girls don't get fair treatment.They don't have privileges like the males do.They're having to be around a bunch of vicious men who treat them bad and don't understand their struggles. They aren't getting a fair shot at success because of gender practices."
You're either combat material and acting on these thoughts never come into your mind, or you're better off somewhere else in life.
I've met three servicewomen in my life who could compete with most men they ran into, and two of them were insufferable and made it their entire personality. No one wanted to be around them unless we were all drinking. They earned their place, could dish it out as good as they got, and that deserves respect, but they made everything more stressful because their gender had to be considered at every turn, and they wouldn't let anyone forget it.
The military should continue to actively discriminate against women, though. It saves us time and money, and keeps us from sending broken women home where they'll most likely never function properly again. That is a man's duty, a male space, and women should not need nor seek to endure it.
Keep women out of combat roles. At most I'd support specialized units made up entirely of females who serve directly in combat roles, but they tend to be more trouble than they're worth.Did you serve in the military, Kyler?
As for women in combat roles, who says that they can’t? They did it in Russia, during WWII, 800,000 strong and did very well as pilots, snipers, infantry persons, etc contributing to turning the tide against Germany on its Eastern Front.
The overwhelming majority still is not EVERY woman.
I was an Air Force officer and there were then and there are now plenty of women in the officer ranks. But those that don’t fail OTS, and I question the percentage that you state, and Special Forces are entitled to participate, right? The women are grown ups and are capable acknowledging the risk of combat service before going in.
Regardless of gender, every service member has to handle their end of the log or they are out.
Are we going to judge options for females in the armed services based your assessment of their personalities? Because so many men undermine them and dismiss their potential and capabilities, the women go on the offensive.
My great uncle served in WWI as a navy steward at a time when blacks were not considered for the Officer corps, who says that they were unqualified?
That is why I don’t care for conservatives generally, they allow their personal peccadilloes , biases and stereotypes to replace the principle of giving everyone a fair shot.
I am reminded of the US on the eve of the Pearl Harbor attack, indicating that the Japanese racially did not have the ability to execute such an attack. For a group of people that Americans thought were incapable, they certainly kicked our ass. Without the colorful language, that is basically what FDR said to our Navy, During WWII blacks had to struggle with the Government to be allowed to be fighter pilots, but in the end, we understand and appreciate the success of the Tuskegee Airman.
Conservatives do by nature tend toward discriminatory behavior and try to rationalize it with all kinds of BS, and none of us having been on the wrong end of it are going buy it any longer.
The future leans toward inclusion, not exclusion. You certainly have a right to an opinion, but rest assured, it is not shared.Women, as an overwhelming majority, do not belong in combat roles. That's it. They aren't built for it.
As for my claims, all sourced from military and DoD numbers taken no earlier than 2020. I didn't include links because there were over 20 of them.
Yes, the future will be more inclusive of women in these roles. It will be a dark future. They'll be bearing a burden that was never theirs to bear for the sake of this inclusion, and they'll be broken.
Women do not carry their share, because they have no equal share nor expectations to carry to begin with. We see this no clearer than in all of the special initiatives and standards adjustments we must do to specifically cater to their success and their success alone. We could afford to modernize training regimens and standards, better include physically average humans with higher intelligence, but to specifically target women for more inclusion in combat is psychotic.
Hell, to even allow in many of the men we do currently for combat roles is wild. Standards need to modernize and increase, not revolutionize and decrease.
I'm a marine.
Kyler... there is no woman I ever ran into that could match my savagery when I lost it (back then, now I'm just a crotchety old man like Credence) ... when thought disappears and it is just all instinct, training and raw vicious rage intent on killing everyone in front of me.
There is no Navy Seal... Army Ranger... who has thrived being in that dark, savage state of mind who thinks for one second a woman could match them... none.
(I keep Special Forces Training out of this... because I considered that school a joke even back in my time, not as easy as Air Assault school, but a lot closer to that than Ranger School)
I know of someone who shot one of his own soldiers, because he was a liability, an idiot, that was going to get the rest of the team killed... he was one of the few people I came across even more psychotic than myself... and my nickname was 'psyhco' back then...
Testosterone is a real thing... inner savagery in some guys is a real thing...
I mean... how many women do you think could have lasted a round against Mike Tyson when he was in his prime?
That is how many women could get through Ranger School or Navy Seals... straight shot, meeting all the standards that existed in the 90s, no breaks, no recycles... no days off because they were on their period.
But now they push a handful thru... so they can keep the lie alive... that is all it is... a lie.
I understand why many can believe it... they themselves have never been thru a school like that... not when the standards were what they should be, and they were that way to weed out the weak... so that they weren't a liability that brought the whole unit down in real combat.Deleted
Deleted
This case was not about exclusion, but the rights of parents to not have their children exposed to material they don't agree with.
So, I say, if any topic offends your religion, parents should have the right to opt out of it.
Forcing others to accept your beliefs is wrong, is it not?
Is that not the rational that was used to remove prayer from schools?
LGBTQ+ Pedophilia, transgenderism, 72 different sexes... at best is this nothing more than an individual belief...
At worst isn't it some form of deviant insanity that can bring irreparable harm to children?
While teaching children to believe in a God is offensive to some... it is slightly less harmful than convincing them that changing their sex, at a young age, is good.
You can recover from being taught about a faith a heck of a lot easier than you can recover from being exposed to hormone blockers or having sex organs removed.
It is far closer to evil to expose children to the ideology (faith) of LGBTQ+ than it is any of the Bible based faiths I am aware of, IMO.
Personally, I think many of children between the ages of 5 and 21 in America are screwed up royally... probably more than 50%... and will have little ability to navigate the real world... between 1 out of 7 boys being autistic, 1 out of 4 being obese... its not looking pretty when you add in how many were brainwashed by the LGBTQ+ idiocy of today.
Pride Month... yeah...
'As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some “Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”....
"Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like “I moved on her like a bitch” and “she’s now got the big phony tits and everything” and “Grab ’em by the pussy,” that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency....
How is the "moral message" that LGBTQ folks exist and everything the right-wing believes they represent differ from the message of Trump and his ACTUAL depraved morality?
Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito’s words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”..... lol there is nothing in Trump's life or behavior to be celebrated?
Lol .. a man who is a liar, a man who demeans people? A man who represents the worst in human behavior? This doesn't coincide with my faith or that of the majority.
Yep, it's a fact that Trump is President just as it is a fact that LGBTQ folks and families exist. If you can object to the mention of these people in books because of the morality you believe they represent....I can absolutely apply the same logic to an endless number of things/issues, including dear leader....he certainly doesn't present the "moral message" upon which Alito bases his opinion LOLThere are topics that should be discussed in a family's home. It is not a subject that should be taught in a public school.
It is not teaching, it is indoctrination to a particular view point. A view point not held by everyone with children attending a public school. A view point that is counter to the religious beliefs of many people.
Now, parents are not going to be forced to have their children read materials that go against their beliefs. They are going to be able to opt out of such things.
This is the right of every parent.
I looked over some of the materials that were part of this lawsuit. I would NEVER want any of my children to have seen such gross filth in their elementary and middle school years. Transgender, anal sex, molestation are topics that need to be handled by families. Not forced to be read about, at such a young age, at school.
Parents still have a right to raise their children as they see fit. It's not the job of the state to teach children such things, it are the parents who are responsible for discussing it with their children.
I'm glad families are now free from attempts at public school indoctrination into lifestyles parents may not agree with. It is good to be able to follow a religion and not have a parent's children exposed to things that many people find unacceptable.By no stretch of the imagination is it a subject that is "being taught". Reading a book that acknowledges the existence of families with two mothers or two fathers is no different than reading a book that acknowledges trump, with all of his reprehensible words and actions, is POTUS....
Books about two mothers, two fathers goes against Christian beliefs.
I don't think there are specific books teaching about President Donald Trump. Again, can't discuss a topic without obsessing about the 47th president. TDS getting in the way again.
I am against LGBTQ indoctrination. This part of our world is something that needs to be taught and discussed in a home by the parents.
Wondering which pillar of Christian virtue this would be?
https://x.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1677681202969419783From Fox News (Opinion) July 1, 2025 (Today)
Marijuana is not harmless. The opposite is true and the evidence keeps growing
As cannabis legalization spreads, mounting research reveals alarming health impacts while promised benefits fail to materialize
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marijua … nag1rpwwma
Excerpt:
"The science is clear.
Even for adults, cannabis isn’t safe, especially for daily use. For teens, whose brains are still developing, it is highly risky – and at worst can lead to lifelong psychiatric problems. It is addictive."
Related Discussions
- 40
How much power to stop the President should federal judges have?
by Credence2 2 months ago
This was an interesting topic and as usual I will weigh in with my opinion.I am for universal injunction as initiated by a federal judges. As these judges are there to interpret the law.The Trump administration wants through an executive order to blatantly change the explicit words and meaning of...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 8 days ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 22
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision
by ga anderson 4 years ago
If it is possible, take off your partisan hats and consider the possible considerations of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruling.Some of the, seemingly incontrovertible, facts are;The state's Constitution puts the power of mandating their state's election rules solely...
- 150
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
by pmccray 15 years ago
I like to read the opinion of my fellow hubbers regarding the ruling struck down by the Supreme Court today. It seems that the all Republican appointees struck down a ruling regarding regulation of corporations' influence on election and public policy. Bottom line; Huge corporations...
- 61
Trump Ignoring the Facts in His ‘Meet the Press’ Interview
by Willowarbor 7 months ago
In an interview that aired on Sunday’s Meet the Press, Trump gave his usual bluster and ignored some important facts...13,099 Murderers...Trump claimed that the U.S. had “13,099 murderers released into our country over the last three years” who were undocumented immigrants. That claim is...
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 5 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...