[KurtFF8]

Are you drunk? This cult is anti-societal and anti-family ideology. It deserves to be in the dustbin of history. it affects everyone, most especially women(adult human females), who are being mocked and attacked. Men who ACT like women, are not women, but engaging in misogyny.

Oh you're just going on a really immature anti-trans rant I see.

Beside your absurd transphobia that isn't worth taking seriously or addressing, you've failed to explain how feminine products in a bathroom in any way negatively affect anyone who doesn't use them.

My apologies if you're actually just making a parody post of what far-right people say, because some people actually do say this stuff.

Canadian Bill C-16 became law, enforcing compelled use of preferred gender pronouns. In other words, you lose freedom of speech and can be charged if someone is "offended". That is as anti-Democracy and Anti-Freedom of speech as you can get, simply to check off some DEI boxes with the gender identity cult.

The loss of freedom to misgender people? Okay well thanks for letting us all know to not take your commentary on this topic seriously.

[Godstud]

I am not transphobic. You're full of shit, @KurtFF8. The people expecting this are NOT Trans people, but activists who are simply doing it for attention and self-gratification.

The reasons for it have been made clear but people like yourself probably think a 50 year old man should change with teenaged girls simply because he feels like he's a teenaged girl.

Misgendering people? That's nonsense. This was never a thing until activists like yourself made it something. Don't talk to me about maturity, dipshit.

@Rugoz Thailand does not have activists demanding pronoun usage, despite having many people who identify as Trans. Of course, you aren't interested in that. You are only interested in the gender identity ideology that is all about controlling what others say, and self-gratification. Trans people in Thailand don't seem to need others to use the right pronouns because they don't base their identity on what other people say or think.

[Rich]

It would be great to see Ramaswamy on the ticket with Trump. Probably a lot of Hindu hating liberal and leftie racists wouldn't like it, but Trump shouldn't pander to those people.

[late]

Appointing federal officers and judges requires Senate confirmation, where the old GOP is still strong. Moreover, Trump cannot fire judges.

If Trump ignores the courts, including the SCOTUS, and the GOP is unwilling to impeach Trump, a lot can happen. The question is why anyone would still follow Trump's orders.

If he becomes prez, a lot will happen, all of it bad.

[Fasces]

the single parent family and identity politics is destroying Western society

What's destroying Western society is the no-parent family because Mom and Dad have to each work 50-80 hours a week to afford the basis necessities of life as countries self-cannibalize in the name of the shareholders - and nothing in Trump's platform is going to reverse that, even if all of the effectively 0% of the population trans individuals don't transition or get called by he instead of she.

[late]

What's destroying Western society is the no-parent family because Mom and Dad have to each work 50-80 hours a week to afford the basis necessities of life as countries self-cannibalize in the name of the shareholders - and nothing in Trump's platform is going to reverse that, even if all of the effectively 0% of the population trans individuals don't transition or get called by he instead of she.

You are talking about income inequality, which also plays a big role in ripping families apart, which is his pet whine.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1IMGGZL7RIJVL&keywords=price+of+inequality&qid=1705509650&sprefix=price+of+in%2Caps%2C118&sr=8-1

[wat0n]

The average hours worked in the US is around 35/week, not 50-80.

And this is not driven by multiple job holders, who are less than 10% of employed individuals.

[ingliz]

Every cloud has a silver lining, @Godstud.

With any luck, if the worst comes to pass and Trump is not elected, America will eat itself. All those guns will find a use, and the US will be too busy killing its own to bother us with menstrual products in public restrooms.

[KurtFF8]

I am not transphobic. You're full of shit, @KurtFF8. The people expecting this are NOT Trans people, but activists who are simply doing it for attention and self-gratification.

The reasons for it have been made clear but people like yourself probably think a 50 year old man should change with teenaged girls simply because he feels like he's a teenaged girl.

Misgendering people? That's nonsense. This was never a thing until activists like yourself made it something. Don't talk to me about maturity, dipshit.

@Rugoz Thailand does not have activists demanding pronoun usage, despite having many people who identify as Trans. Of course, you aren't interested in that. You are only interested in the gender identity ideology that is all about controlling what others say, and self-gratification. Trans people in Thailand don't seem to need others to use the right pronouns because they don't base their identity on what other people say or think.

This seems like more of a temper tantrum than a response to a political point.

[Deutschmania]

@Godstud enjoy your ahistorical sanctimonious bollocks.

One-parent families have always been with us; women who would rather be men and men who would rather be women, the same. Society has never been up for your ideals, save for a few boring old farts.

I give you a lot more breath was wasted on Sunday sermons then. Sermons that were ignored by rich and poor alike.

But was society any less morally degenerate?

I think not.

Yes , transgender persons had been known of , since at least the 1920's , such as was the case with Lili Elbe . And had been referred to in such songs as Lola . It was the forcible shutting down of the Hirschfeld Institute , by the Nazi regime that set back research in such matters as transgender identity .
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/

[Deutschmania]

And now to try to get this thread back on topic , here is an opinion piece I just this evening read .

Over the decades, several US supreme court justices have warned that the US constitution is not a suicide pact – in other words, that the constitution shouldn’t be interpreted in ways that jeopardize the survival of our nation and our democracy.

Right now, however, I worry that the supreme court’s rightwing supermajority, in its anticipated rush to prohibit states from kicking Donald Trump off the ballot, will turn the constitution into a suicide pact. By letting an insurrectionist like Trump remain on the ballot – a man who spurned centuries of constitutional tradition by refusing to peacefully turn over the reins of power to the man who defeated him – the supreme court would be putting out a welcome mat to a candidate who has made no secret of his plans to trample all over the constitution and trash our democratic traditions.

Many legal experts worry that the rightwing justices will focus on the wrong issue when the high court takes up the historic Colorado case about whether a state can kick Trump off the ballot – a case in which the court might also decide whether Trump should be disqualified from the ballot in all 50 states.

When the court considers that case, the six conservative justices might focus on their concerns about infuriating rightwing voters, their political soulmates, if they rule that the constitution requires that Trump be disqualified as an insurrectionist. The justices will also no doubt worry that they’ll be seen as taking a high-handed, anti-democratic step if they deny voters the opportunity to vote for Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee. But the justices’ job is not to worry about angering the Maga crowd. Their job is to focus on enforcing the text of the constitution and, along with it, preserving our democracy. An insurrectionist candidate who stands a good chance of winning the presidency in November could drive a stake through the heart of America’s democracy.

The Colorado case centers on the 14th amendment, a post-civil war measure that aimed to ensure all citizens – especially formerly enslaved people – the equal protection of the law. Section 3 of that amendment aimed to bar supporters of the Confederacy who had rebelled against the United States and its constitution from holding office: “No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

One can’t honestly deny that Trump promoted and aided an insurrection. He unarguably gave “aid or comfort” to the January 6 assault on the Capitol, which was essentially a coup attempt that sought to prevent the rightfully elected president, Joe Biden, from taking office. In disqualifying Trump, the Colorado supreme court wrote: “The record amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the US government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection.”

The House select committee on January 6 provided a mountain of evidence showing that Trump had planned and backed that insurrection. Trump not only “summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for Jan. 6”, the committee established, but also urged them to march to the Capitol to “take back” the country. Even as rioters stormed the Capitol and assaulted the police, Trump tweeted messages that whipped up the violent crowd’s animus against the then vice-president, Mike Pence.

Trump, the committee wrote, also “refused repeated requests over a multiple-hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol”. Trump also refused to call in the national guard or any federal law enforcement to stop the assault on the Capitol.

The Court’s job is to uphold and enforce the Constitution without fear or favor, and it shouldn’t be cowed by anyone, not by Trump’s supporters and certainly not by Trump, who dangerously warned of “big, big trouble” if the justices rule against him in this case.

Constitutional scholars say the Supreme Court might engage in some legal legerdemain and search for some escape clause to keep Trump on the ballot and prohibit states from disqualifying him. Some scholars predict the justices will rule that Trump must first be convicted in court as an insurrectionist before he can be disqualified – even though many supporters of the Confederacy were disqualified from holding office without being convicted in court and even though Section 3 says nothing about requiring convictions.

Some constitutional experts contend that Section 3 doesn’t apply to presidents and that Trump therefore shouldn’t be disqualified under it. Section 3 specifically mentions disqualifying Senators and House members, but it doesn’t mention the presidency. But that’s undoubtedly because Section 3’s authors never dreamed that a past insurrectionist would ever be running for president. There can’t be any doubt that Section 3’s authors would have insisted on disqualifying Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, if he had become a candidate for the presidency of the United States.

If the supreme court’s six rightwing justices allow Trump to stay on the ballot, they can do so only by turning their backs on the methods of constitutional interpretation that they have repeatedly trumpeted: textualism and originalism. Not only is the text of Section 3 crystal clear about barring insurrectionists, but the Radical Republicans who wrote the 14th amendment would have been repulsed by the idea of letting an insurrectionist like Trump run for the highest office of the land.

Trump of course complains that the push to disqualify him is a leftist plot. But the two constitutional scholars who led the way in arguing that Trump should be disqualified – William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen – are highly regarded conservative members of the Federalist Society. Moreover, one of the jurists most respected by conservatives, former federal judge J Michael Luttig, has lauded the Colorado supreme court’s decision as “unassailable”.

In decades past, the US supreme court did not shrink from issuing decisions that offended and angered millions of Americans, whether it was enraging many white southerners by barring school segregation in Brown v Board of Education, or infuriating millions of women by overturning Roe v Wade, or angering a wide swath of Democrats by cutting short the vote count to deliver victory to George W Bush over Al Gore. In the Colorado disqualification case, the justices should not shrink from angering Trump supporters. The justices should do what they’ve taken an oath to do: enforce the letter of the law. Notwithstanding what Trump’s defenders say, those who seek to disqualify Trump are not suppressing democracy. They are seeking to enforce the constitution’s clear language against the nation’s most prominent insurrectionist. The person who is seeking to suppress democracy is Trump (along with many of his Maga supporters).

Trump was anti-democratic in seeking to overturn Biden’s legitimate, 51-47% victory in 2020. Trump was anti-democratic when he called for terminating the constitution. Trump has threatened to be a dictator on day one, and someone who threatens to be dictator on his first day in office might not stop there. Moreover, whenever Trump loses – for instance, when he lost the 2016 Iowa caucuses to Ted Cruz – he claims that he was cheated and demands that legitimate democratic results be discarded. Trump’s philosophy is to accept election results only when he wins and never when he loses. What can be more anti-democratic than that? That anti-democratic philosophy fueled the January 6 insurrection.

There’s no denying that on a certain level it would be anti-democratic to bar a popular candidate like Trump from the ballot, and, yes, that could stir up an ugly and perhaps violent and illegal response from the Maga crowd. Yet let’s not forget that much of the constitution is anti-democratic and counter-majoritarian; it, for instance, prohibits a majority of lawmakers from restricting your freedom of speech or your freedom to practice your religion.

Those who warn that it would be anti-democratic to kick Trump off the ballot should realize that Trump’s election as president would be a far graver and longer-lasting risk to our democracy. This is a man who has talked of being a dictator, of terminating the constitution, of using his second presidential term to exact vengeance against his enemies and critics. This is a man who even floated the idea of executing Mark Milley, the general who was chairman of Trump’s joint chiefs of staff.

If the supreme court lets Trump remain on the ballot, history may remember John Roberts and company as the court that gave a bright green light to the election of an insurrectionist who would end our democracy as we know it.

For the nine justices, the bottom line should be not only that Trump was an insurrectionist, but that Trump has loudly signaled that if he’s elected to a second term, he will trample all over our constitutional and democratic norms. If the justices interpret the constitution to let insurrectionist Trump remain on the ballot, the Roberts court may be taking a giant, highly regrettable step toward turning our constitution into a suicide pact for our democracy. The Guardian

[Godstud]

This seems like more of a temper tantrum than a response to a political point.

You are the one making emotional arguments all day long, and attacking me. Look in a mirror and stop projecting.

@Deutschmania, Yes, Trans people(people with gender dysphoria) make up less than 0.03% of the population. This well known. The rest, however, are not actually trans people, but activists latching onto a trend of gender identity ideology, victimization and self-delusion.

[ingliz]

@Godstud

Why are you scared of trans women?

Were you trans-curious when you went to Thailand?

Why did you jump on the transphobia bandwagon?

Transphobic people - People with an irrational hatred/fear of people with gender dysphoria - make up less than 10% of the population (66% of Americans have a broadly positive view on transexuals). This is well known. The rest, however, are not transphobic people but activists latching onto a trend of gender identity ideology, victimization, and self-delusion.

Are you one of the rest, or did you have a pissed encounter with a 'lady' of the night in some seedy bar in Phuket that shocked, shamed, and scarred you for life?

[Fasces]

RIP Trump legal case thread

2023-2024

[Godstud]

@ingliz If you question or criticize anything in your cult's ideology you are labelled Transphobe, so I really don't give a shit what you think. You don't know what Transphobia is, because everything is Transphobia, to your ilk.

You are obviously trans-curious and dreamed of ladyboys, so stop projecting your fantasies and degeneracy.

[ingliz]

@Godstud

Diddums.

It was obviously the latter.





Edits in my last post: I was bored and looked up the numbers

[ingliz]

@Godstud

Why does the Right always have to find scapegoats for the ills of society when it's their policies that fuck it up.

Why not own it? Be loud and proud, tell Americans, We started the wars, we poisoned your water, we fucked up your healthcare, we underfunded your schools, we turned prisons into sweatshops for our corporate friends, etc., etc., etc.

[noemon]

Testing

[Deutschmania]

@Godstud

Why are you scared of trans women?

Were you trans-curious when you went to Thailand?

Why did you jump on the transphobia bandwagon?

Transphobic people - People with an irrational hatred/fear of people with gender dysphoria - make up less than 10% of the population (66% of Americans have a broadly positive view on transexuals). This is well known. The rest, however, are not transphobic people but activists latching onto a trend of gender identity ideology, victimization, and self-delusion.

Are you one of the rest, or did you have a pissed encounter with a 'lady' of the night in some seedy bar in Phuket that shocked, shamed, and scarred you for life?

Hey , you know what they say ...

One night in Bangkok and the world's your oyster
The bars are temples but their pearls ain't free
You'll find a god in every golden cloister
And if you're lucky, then the god's a she. One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
Not much between despair and ecstasy
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
Can't be too careful with your company.

Of course , unlike both @Godstud , or for that matter Donald Trump , I am an asexual. So, I don't ever run the risk of getting mixed up in such predicaments. ( Hey , I had to try to get the thread back on topic some how . )

[Godstud]

@Deutschmania, unlike your ilk and Hitler, I don't have anything in common with Trump.

@ingliz's delusions and fantasies, are his own.