Log in |
Register
> Is there a point when you guys declare victory? There's practically no trans athletes, half the states seemed to end gender affirming care, trans people lost their protected status, they're basically written out of mainstream media and movies. Hell I live in LA and a bunch of formerly woke hospitals jettisoned their trans patients so they wouldn't lose out on federal funding. >
Isn't the conservative side of this debate just that we want to agree to keep the status quo of the early 2000's? Where some men dressed up as women from time to time and society largely let them get on with it.
This conversation, in which progressives want to go beyond that state of affairs and oblige everyone else to not just politely let people live their own lives but to be legally obliged join in with pretending that men can actually turn into women, is one that only started in mainstream discourse sometime in the early 2010s. We are only talking about trans people at all because progressives came up with a bunch of novel new ideas for laws and rights that they wanted society to adopt (and we're talking about things like legally recognised self-ID, experimental surgery on minors, and men in the women's weightlifting).
By and large conservatives are just happy with those ideas being shelved as odd ones that don't make a lot of sense and which can come off of the list of things that are up for serious legislative debate (no extermination program required!).
The problem with progressive narratives is that there's a tendency to try to frame that as a rollback of longstanding rights or as an undoing of some state of affairs that has persisted since time immemorial. It isn't. The conversation ends when the weird ideas of the early 2010s come off the table and we go back to the very recent and long-settled position that "trans athletes" and experimental "gender-affirming care" on children are strange new ideas that society doesn't hold popular support for.
This conversation is only happening because progressives wants to engage in social engineering experiments and push for novel new rights/laws. Everyone else is happy to stop having it just as soon as those ideas are taken off the table. That's the only victory anyone is looking for.
I live in Los Angeles and I'm definitely a leftist/libertarian and I don't see anyone on my side bringing up trans rights. Certainly not to the extent that they did pre-Covid.
It's a distraction. That's why I brought up the economy, energy prices, housing, inflation, foreign policy, and the unbelievable humiliation of the Iran war. I'd love to speak about those things.
I mean, Trump literally just said - on record - that we have the best economy ever and $21 Trillion dollars is "pouring in." Want to engage on that?
It's obvious that the trans issue gets people emotional for many reasons. It's been enormously useful for the conservative side. And if your stated goals are that trans people are removed from popular culture and special protections are taken away, then yeah - it's honestly one of the few "victories" that the Trump admin can claim. They're a powerless group, and fighting them doesn't conflict with the goals of global capital growth. It's more useful than DEI and potentially migrants as a scare tactic, because the GOP would love to keep the share of black and Latino voters that they gained in the last cycle.
The trans issue is back in the news because the midterms are happening. It's reassuring to see that it's not working like before. I think the WNBA is the best example. Back when that stupidity was happening, I knew that the WNBA leadership simply needed to wait a month. The people who got worked up about non-existent trans athletes basically have the attention span of children. They need a new rage token every few weeks, and the world has already moved on from Royce White and whoever the other clown is.
You guys can pop off about trans people all you want, I'm not gonna argue about it. As I've said, it's ironic given that a facebook post of nearly any muscular woman on this site will garner hundreds of anti-trans comments, simply proving that most idiots out there think that most of the women we love already "look like men." But go ahead and do your thing.
Go ahead, read the comments written about our queen Vladislava. And consider that she's one of the most stereotypically feminine women in the scene:
https://www.dailymail.com/lifestyle/article-1...
@Muscles_Toez
If we're talking politics, then using "TDS" is such a bold move in September 2026.
Because we're not "talking politics". You're doing your usual thing of posting an unrelated, overly verbose anti-Trump screed, hyper-focusing on short-term material results to the exclusion of everything else, mostly ignoring what others say and carrying on to your next soapbox. Also, what's so special about September 2026?
Believe me bro, there's nothing strange about hating the world's most famously hateful man.
In LA and assorted TDS-afflicted circles, sure. Others have a more nuanced, less viscerally knee-jerk view.
You know what was beautiful? Every year I go to the Olympia in Vegas, and I always have to see many ...umm, individuals... wearing Trump gear. Regardless of my thoughts on him, it's just really pathetic to wear a bunch of merch for any politician. Sad, really.
And that is why you will continue to impotently roil and rage and foam at the mouth. You just cannot comprehend what goes beyond the material and what an individual like Trump represents in this particular juncture. I also don't wear politicians' merch (or any merch, for that matter), but the fact that, after almost ten years, you still don't understand that Trump and what he represents goes beyond politics is more an indictment on you than on those "chumps" you sneer at. Which brings us to:
But this year - I spent two days working on that expo floor and I saw ZERO Trump gear. No hats, no shirts. No funny graphics of his fat ass morphed into Rambo or whatever. Every single person who isn't a billionaire or an absolute moron knows that he's a senile failure.
I don't suppose you're assuming I'm a millionaire, so thank you for implying I'm an absolute moron in your anecdote. Par for the course for the TDS-afflicted, but still cute.
I live in Los Angeles and I'm definitely a leftist/libertarian and I don't see anyone on my side bringing up trans rights
Thank you for yet another anecdotal tale. Try using less outdated binaries in your worldview, and you might start making actual points with them.
The trans issue is back in the news because the midterms are happening.
You really don't get it, do you? You've either got cause and effect all mixed up, or you do it intentionally because seeing the world in more shades makes your head hurt.
That's why I brought up the economy, energy prices, housing, inflation, foreign policy, and the unbelievable humiliation of the Iran war. I'd love to speak about those things.
Maybe create a new thread, then? Otherwise, it's a bit of a "doth protest too much" case, if you just keep complaining that people are talking about Y when you want to talk about X in a discussion about Z.
it's ironic given that a facebook post of nearly any muscular woman on this site will garner hundreds of anti-trans comments, simply proving that most idiots out there think that most of the women we love already "look like men." But go ahead and do your thing.
You keep harping on about this, but what's the point you're trying to make? Is it another one of your "them vs us" tirades? An attempt at drawing some sort of parallelism? Are you trying to guilt-trip someone because of their wrongthink by flimsy association? And, most importantly, what would Sydney Sweeney do?
@byrdcf
This is why I keep bringing up extermination: it's the only practical way to arrive at this resolution you desire.
Again, no extermination was necessary up until now, nor will it be. Just give it a rest, man.
^^ Real quick, I reject the idea of "TDS" because Donald Trump has a legendarily low approval rating, even with the heavy support of conservative media. If TDS is real, then a lot of former Trump voters have it too. Here's a list of the lowest approval Presidents. Not all GOP to be fair. You don't hear much of "Carter Derangement Syndrome" though.
And what do I want?
1) All of us to focus on the billionaire & global capital class as the prime source of instability and lifestyle decline in he West.
2) Realize that Sydney Sweeney's advertisements and the sports betting industry behind them, are a strong part of this billionaire & global capital class. Her nudity is a distraction and an unimportant part of the issue. That's by design.
3) Have our own opinions and religious beliefs but stop taking the culture war bait sold to you by bad actors
4) Vote for Democrats in this midterm election because they demonstrably deliver better for the working and middle class. Maintain skepticism and put constant pressure on them, as there are plenty of corrupt and inept Democrats out there too. But given the two party system, they're logically the better choice unless you are a heavily invested multi-millionaire and only concerned with the growth of your personal wealth.
5) If you're a conservative and criticizing trans women, realize that many (possibly most) conservatives think that our "girls with muscle" are trans and they're criticizing them in the exact same way. So maybe that gives you some empathy for their situation. If you actually spoke with competitive female bodybuilders, you'd know that they get misgendered all the time and it's painful.
^^
5) If you're a conservative and criticizing trans women, realize that...
This is interesting. What do you actually mean by this? What do you mean when you say "criticizing" here?
Am I criticizing trans women when I say that I don't think that biological men should be allowed to compete in the women's weightlifting and the rules of competition shouldn't allow it?
What about when I say that I don't think that anybody should be legally compelled to adopt pronouns demanded by another, whatever they may be? Same question.
Are those things criticising? Would you accept that they are rational policy positions that you simply don't share and reserve your upset about "criticism" for some other kind of statements (and if so what)? Or do you see those statements as "criticism" that you think it is somehow wrong to even say?
I am genuinely interested to understand which parts of this conversation you think it is legitimate for people to have, so this is a genuine good faith enquiry.
This is interesting. What do you actually mean by this? What do you mean when you say "criticizing" here?
Am I criticizing trans women when I say that I don't think that biological men should be allowed to compete in the women's weightlifting and the rules of competition shouldn't allow it?
What about when I say that I don't think that anybody should be legally compelled to adopt pronouns demanded by another, whatever they may be? Same question.
Are those things criticising? Would you accept that they are rational policy positions that you simply don't share and reserve your upset about "criticism" for some other kind of statements (and if so what)? Or do you see those statements as "criticism" that you think it is somehow wrong to even say?
I am genuinely interested to understand which parts of this conversation you think it is legitimate for people to have, so this is a genuine good faith enquiry.
Fair question. And I don't want to enter my 100th GWM debate on trans people, so I'm only answering your question and I'm not getting into my take on trans rights and whatnot. My main point in regards to this whole debate is that trans rights are a tiny issue for a vanishingly small minority which is weaponized so that the Epstein class and the current GOP government can further destroy our economy and enrich themselves. You can feel however you want about it, but it's foolish to give it more power than it has.
I'd say criticism is the general attitude of being disrespectful to them, calling them mentally ill, calling them "men in a dress." Looking down upon them as a group. Trying to invalidate their presence in society.
How does this relate to buff women? It's worth nothing that a huge swatch of society looks at Hunter Henderson or Chelsea Dion or Andrew Shaw and thinks "look at that freaking tr-nny." These women get misgendered all the time, and probably quite a bit more than the usual trans person who's putting effort into their look.
And that's not crazy. It's very possible that I've met trans female bodybuilders at the Olympia. I don't think that I have, but there would be absolutely no way to tell. Professional FBB's have deep voices and thick skin and beard stubble and receding hairlines. I've met trans women who are WAY more traditionally feminine than female bodybuilders. How the hell would I ever know?
My main point in regards to this whole debate is that trans rights are a tiny issue for a vanishingly small minority which is weaponized so that the Epstein class and the current GOP government can further destroy our economy and enrich themselves.
See this is the bit of your opinion that I just cannot understand. I genuinely do not see that it makes logical sense.
We don't talk about trans rights because they've been "weaponized by a billionaire class", we talk about them because progressive groups have actively tried to introduce new laws that put into place social policies that the vast majority of the population don't agree with.
Jeffrey Epstein didn't do that. Donald Trump didn't do that. It was the college educated social engineers who vote Democrat every time who pushed for this stuff and now cannot let it go. Billionaires didn't push them into doing it, it was all their own idea.
If you worry that the niche obsession with novel new 'trans rights' that a small but vocal segment of Western progressive movements cannot let go of is sucking attention away from more important issues, then why not tell them to let it go?
Surely that would make more sense than trying to conceptualise the general public's lack of enthusiasm for various new rules that effectively ask them to pretend to believe that men can turn into women to avoid offending those who have bought into that concept as being some kind of billionaire plot?
To my mind the general public are even less likely to be convinced of the idea that they only object to biological men competing in the women's weightlifting because billionaires have engaged in a psyop to hijack their thoughts, than they are to agree with the original proposition that, say, men should be allowed to compete in women's athletics at all.
Put it this way: do you genuinely believe that the principle reason that the majority of the public object to men in the women's weightlifting and keep saying so whenever progressives try to push the idea is because billionaires told them to object to it, rather than because they consider it to be genuinely unfair?
How does this relate to buff women? It's worth nothing that a huge swatch of society looks at Hunter Henderson or Chelsea Dion or Andrew Shaw and thinks "look at that freaking tr-nny." These women get misgendered all the time, and probably quite a bit more than the usual trans person who's putting effort into their look.
And that's not crazy. It's very possible that I've met trans female bodybuilders at the Olympia. I don't think that I have, but there would be absolutely no way to tell. Professional FBB's have deep voices and thick skin and beard stubble and receding hairlines. I've met trans women who are WAY more traditionally feminine than female bodybuilders. How the hell would I ever know?
If it is now considered fine and appropriate to hurl slurs at transgender people and drag queens, then hurling slurs at muscle girls is a predictable and obvious outcome. Treating "those bad people" like garbage leads to everyone treating each other like garbage. Especially when there are no consequences.
See this is the bit of your opinion that I just cannot understand. I genuinely do not see that it makes logical sense.
We don't talk about trans rights because they've been "weaponized by a billionaire class", we talk about them because progressive groups have actively tried to introduce new laws that put into place social policies that the vast majority of the population don't agree with.
Jeffrey Epstein didn't do that. Donald Trump didn't do that. It was the college educated social engineers who vote Democrat every time who pushed for this stuff and now cannot let it go. Billionaires didn't push them into doing it, it was all their own idea.
If you worry that the niche obsession with novel new 'trans rights' that a small but vocal segment of Western progressive movements cannot let go of is sucking attention away from more important issues, then why not tell them to let it go?
Surely that would make more sense than trying to conceptualise the general public's lack of enthusiasm for various new rules that effectively ask them to pretend to believe that men can turn into women to avoid offending those who have bought into that concept as being some kind of billionaire plot?
To my mind the general public are even less likely to be convinced of the idea that they only object to biological men competing in the women's weightlifting because billionaires have engaged in a psyop to hijack their thoughts, than they are to agree with the original proposition that, say, men should be allowed to compete in women's athletics at all.
Put it this way: do you genuinely believe that the principle reason that the majority of the public object to men in the women's weightlifting and keep saying so whenever progressives try to push the idea is because billionaires told them to object to it, rather than because they consider it to be genuinely unfair?
Okay so you've got a few things going here. From my side:
1) I'm not debating trans athletes. As far as I'm concerned, individual sports can decide what they want to do, many have decided to ban trans women, and I'm fine with that. They're effectively out of most sports - especially women's weightlifting - so no need to keep trotting out that canard. It's simply not significant, especially now.
2) Did you notice how Donald Trump used "Kamala is for They/Them" and then won and has been steadily destroying the economy for the working class and enriching the top 0.1% beyond their wild dreams? Even outside of his crypto grifting and insider trading? Do you think that's a happy accident or a lucky coincidence? Hell no. The billionaire class that funds Trump & Co and directly benefits them are smart enough to realize that weaponizing a bunch of culture issues is a smart way to get their guys into power.
3) I don't know if you're happy with the state of the USA right now or unhappy. According to polling, most Americans are quite unhappy about it. So - if a magic wand could literally remove every trans person tomorrow - would these people exhale a huge sigh of relief and cheer up? Or would they be just as economically challenged and miserable as before?
4) It's interesting to see the midterms coming up because - I have to say - many of your arguments feel kind of vintage. I don't know where all of these unreasonable and vocal trans advocates are, but we don't even have them in LA. Probably why the WNBA thing kind of fizzled out. At least here in the USA, the culture war channel got flipped to the whole Israel/Gaza/Zionism/Palestine fight. That's supposed to be the new dividing line for all of us.
2) Did you notice how Donald Trump used "Kamala is for They/Them" and then won and has been steadily destroying the economy for the working class and enriching the top 0.1% beyond their wild dreams? ... Trump & Co and directly benefits them are smart enough to realize that weaponizing a bunch of culture issues is a smart way to get their guys into power.
Well that's sort of my point, isn't it?
Democrats can't let the push for trans rights that the general public don't support go. They know that the average person doesn't want to be obliged to act like men can turn into women, but they keep pushing for policies to make them.
It's not a billionaire plot when Trump (and whoever else) then makes those efforts an election issue. It's an unforced error on the part of progressives.
A political grouping that actively pushes for new policies on an issue can't complain about that issue being 'weaponized' when their political opponents use widespread opposition to those policies as a vote winner. The issue is a live one because of the policies they keep pushing for.
If you think Trump is a bad president and want people to vote for you and not for him then don't push policies that those people have been clear they do not want when you present yourself as an alternative, if you do then they are unlikely to vote for you as the better option.
My point is that I just don't understand why progressives can't come to terms with that and keep trying to present the issue as one that it's illegitimate for there to even be a discussion about and which is on the table because of wicked billionaires. It isn't. It's because progressives just cannot stop pushing a dud policy on a niche social obsession where the public have no desire to abandon the status quo.
3) I don't know if you're happy with the state of the USA right now or unhappy. According to polling, most Americans are quite unhappy about it. So - if a magic wand could literally remove every trans person tomorrow ...
There's that odd idea about eliminating all the trans people again.
Why do progressives keep talking about exterminating them all whenever we have this discussion? Why is it all about death camps for you?
(I thought I had been super clear in my earlier post that I just wanted a 'live and let live' situation like we had in the early 2000's).
I don't know where all of these unreasonable and vocal trans advocates are, but we don't even have them in LA.
Hey! Stop that.
You leave the tall tales designed to wind people up to me.
Why do progressives keep talking about exterminating them all whenever we have this discussion? Why is it all about death camps for you?
(I thought I had been super clear in my earlier post that I just wanted a 'live and let live' situation like we had in the early 2000's).
Oh yes, I should be more clear. I'm not implying that you want to eliminate trans people.
It's more the fact that trans people have little to zero direct effect on the average GOP voter. They might find them distressing or objectionable, but they also probably have no direct contact with them. So if they didn't exist, their lives would not materially change.
Whilst the items that I listed as the real issues... well they would give a demonstrable and very badly needed improvement in the lives of those same voters. Here's the list:
Economy, energy prices, housing, inflation, foreign policy, and the unbelievable humiliation of the Iran war.
Thing is: these issues which are harming so many Americans are making a very small portion of Americans very wealthy, and in the last case - very actively assisting a foreign country that has called for it for decades. So it's difficult and uncomfortable to address them.
Trans people have very little power and their limited visibility just ignites a perpetual sh*tstorm of hand-wringing and emotions (as shown here), so they're immensely useful as a political tool.
Have whatever opinions you want on them, but if they're a super important factor in your voting or a regular point of significant anger, then yes, you're being manipulated. It's been a very successful op.
I reject the idea of "TDS" because Donald Trump has a legendarily low approval rating, even with the heavy support of conservative media.
TDS has been around from the beginning and will be around for many years to come. That's your problem, and it percolates across your worldview: You focus too much on the now to the exclusion of everything else.
If TDS is real, then a lot of former Trump voters have it too. Here's a list of the lowest approval Presidents. Not all GOP to be fair. You don't hear much of "Carter Derangement Syndrome" though.
You misunderstand. It's not and never has been about approval numbers. You can disapprove of someone without being deranged.
And what do I want? 1) All of us to focus on the billionaire & global capital class as the prime source of instability and lifestyle decline in he West.
Wealth concentration and lifestyle decline co-occur, but co-occurrence doesn't establish primacy. Real wages for median workers in the US stagnated from roughly 1973 onward, but billionaire wealth exploded later, especially post-2000. Billionaires are not the initiating cause of wage stagnation, even if they've amplified its consequences. If you eliminated every billionaire tomorrow, would that reverse deindustrialization, housing supply constraints, demographic aging, or the collapse of institutional trust? Those mechanisms driving instability operate through policy regimes, monetary systems, technological change, and geopolitical shifts that persist regardless of who holds the largest personal fortunes.
Also, "global capital class" is an abstraction. Sovereign wealth funds, pension fund managers, private equity firms, tech founders, legacy industrial families, and rentier landlords often have directly conflicting interests. Attributing coordinated agency to them is a stretch comparable to the conspiracy theories you mock others for. And countries like Denmark, Norway, and Germany have high tax-to-GDP ratios, strong labor institutions, and comparatively stable middle-class outcomes despite being embedded in the same global capital system. If global capital were the prime driver, variation within the West should be minimal. But it isn't. The problem goes much deeper than that, and you've got cause and effect backwards once again.
2) Realize that Sydney Sweeney's advertisements and the sports betting industry behind them, are a strong part of this billionaire & global capital class. Her nudity is a distraction and an unimportant part of the issue. That's by design.
Again with the good/bad conspiracy theory bit. Sex sells, and women are catty with each other. That's all there is to this particular Sydney Sweeney "controversy".
3) Have our own opinions and religious beliefs but stop taking the culture war bait sold to you by bad actors
That's good advice. You might consider taking it.
4) Vote for Democrats in this midterm election because they demonstrably deliver better for the working and middle class [...] they're logically the better choice unless you are a heavily invested multi-millionaire and only concerned with the growth of your personal wealth.
You'll never get anywhere if you persist with this outdated, blinkered, manichaeistic worldview.
5) If you're a conservative and criticizing trans women, realize that many (possibly most) conservatives think that our "girls with muscle" are trans and they're criticizing them in the exact same way.
Is it really that difficult for you to see the world without that dusty, dualistic lens of yours? But I'll play along and say I'm a "conservative". What point are you trying to make? Because I belong to a club, I have to police my language because other members of my club might use similar terms on an unrelated subject? Wrongthink by flimsy association? And then you pivot, saying you don't want to talk about trans issues and whatnot, and that we should focus on eating the rich instead.
Have whatever opinions you want on them, but if they're a super important factor in your voting or a regular point of significant anger, then yes, you're being manipulated. It's been a very successful op.
Since you seem to have ignored Trools' reply, I'll just quote him here: It's an unforced error on the part of progressives. A political grouping that actively pushes for new policies on an issue can't complain about that issue being 'weaponized' when their political opponents use widespread opposition to those policies as a vote winner. The issue is a live one because of the policies they keep pushing for.
I mean, if you choose a hill to die on, don't be surprised if your opponent facilitates your death upon it.
There's been a lot of advocacy for the Democratic Party in this thread, and complaints that the Republican Party simply uses fringe issues (like trans) to distract from the true issues, like billionaires, high prices, wage stagnation, etc? That's a pretty fair summary, right?
So I went to Google and asked to see the official Democrat Party platform, which exists as a PDF and was apparently last updated at their National Convention in 2024. I used the screenshot so other people won't have to bother downloading. You'll just have to take my word that these are the first two pages..
Do you see anything on there about wage stagnation, rising prices, or any of those so-called kitchen table issues that Midwestern Farm families theoretically sit around the dinner table and discuss?
Or does it come off just as kooky and pandering as anything Republicans say about trans athlete scholarships, drag queen story time, and so forth?
For those of us thoughtful enough to look outside of our borders and notice a successful monoculture that does not welcome foreigners, does not tear down its history, invests in its own industries without any fear of being labeled protectionist, doesn't respect intellectual property or patent rights, operates actual reprogramming camps, and spreads its influence throughout the world...
An opening monologue that deals with who occupied a particular piece of land literally 15 generations ago sounds astoundingly oblivious to the real world. And although occupier guilt or"trans" by themselves aren't existential threats, a tremendous focus on these subjects does help a society weaken and tear itself apart from the inside.
If you recognize these simple truths, and have any knowledge and respect for history you cannot possibly take the Democrat Party seriously. And I will say you can't take a pre-Trump Republican Party that looked no further than the next quarters annual earnings seriously either.
While it's true that both sides need to feed their infantry troops some red meat to generate voter turnout, I am at least fighting for the side I perceive as taking the threat of a superpower with no history of god-given civil and human rights seriously.
We're partially in agreement, I hated the Democratic presentation in 2024 and I thought Kamala was a pretty awful candidate. They spent too much time on nonsense like Drag Queens (lol, remember when they were the pedos and not our elected president?) and not enough time on their legitimately disastrous immigration crisis.
I mean, she would have been better than the obese convicted rapist / Epstein best friend / Crypto Bought and Paid For / Netanyahu lap dog that we have now, but I get that things are tribal and some folks really did believe that "they're eating the dogs and they're eating the cats." Remember that one?
Anyway, it was the Democrats' race to lose and they shamefully lost it against a proven failure so IMO that's entirely on them.
I'll ask you to qualify this statement though:
I am at least fighting for the side I perceive as taking the threat of a superpower with no history of god-given civil and human rights seriously.
Do you mean China? Look I don't want to get too granular here, but I'd encourage you guys to look into it yourself. There is an American dream legacy of building things here and crafting a good life for the next generation. China is presently the one getting that.
We've grown more in GDP since COVID, that's true. But our growth is largely AI (which most sane economists contest is radically overvalued), housing market inflation and speculation (not great for the American dream) and healthcare (extracting wealth from the aging boomer generation.
China's growth is overwhelmingly manufacturing. They are making more things than anyone else and making them better. Their middle class is quickly expanding and it basically barely existed a few decades ago. What direction do you think our middle class is going in?
Which model do you think is more sustainable? Note that China has radically caught up on the AI front and is already shamefully cleaning our clocks with EV manufacturing.
Our military can't even defeat the drones from Iran. Think we could take on the drone forces of China? Serious question. They are wielding 40,000 indivdual craft controlled by a single operator and we're putting human beings into individual billion dollar planes.
And note: I'm not celebrating this. I'm mad as hell about it. If I supported one thing about Donald Trump, it was his sales pitch of "no new wars." It's enraging how that worked out. For all of China's problems, they invest in their domestic industries and education while we extort our citizens with predatory loans and piss away trillions of dollars in the Middle East for no discernable benefit to Americans. Much of our country is in decline and the government shoulders all of that blame.
And can we also add abortion Palestine Ukraine and immigrants to this discussion
Let's discuss the end of masking at the Last Ditch lesbian bar in Greenfield, MA while we're at it.
Let's discuss the end of masking at the Last Ditch lesbian bar in Greenfield, MA while we're at it.
Not sure if you're serious or not, but responding to facts about China absolutely kicking our ass with this would be perfectly on brand.
I wonder if Ken Paxton is going to make a press release about the lesbian bar to distract from his multiple felony indictments and over 20 years of fraud. I guess it's worked in the past. You can sell some idiots sand at the beach.
Sidney Sweeney will become the dictator of the us and kill trillions of lgbt and other non aryan people
Actually she's just getting rich beyond belief and laughing at all the poor idiots doing gig work deliveries for Amazon and betting with Novig sports.
perfectly on brand.
I was being sarcastic but wait this would be on brand for who? Me? lol do you think I'm MAGA?
We're partially in agreement, I hated the Democratic presentation in 2024 and I thought Kamala was a pretty awful candidate. They spent too much time on nonsense like Drag Queens (lol, remember when they were the pedos and not our elected president?) and not enough time on their legitimately disastrous immigration crisis.
This is why you're not taken seriously. You present broad brush strokes with no room for nuance, make a pretense at conceding when confronted with evidence, downplay it and keep obliviously hammering in your talking points.
I get that things are tribal and some folks really did believe that "they're eating the dogs and they're eating the cats." Remember that one?
I remember it well. Did you also believe the inversion "protect trans kids" and the multiple variants of "people are going to die"? in response to a slew of policies? Or does your TDS make you any less tribal because you're in some imaginary right side of history?
There is an American dream legacy of building things here and crafting a good life for the next generation. China is presently the one getting that.
Indeed. And have you asked yourself how that came to be? And, upon asking why, can you conceive that it might have been one of the things that led to Trump's rise?
Much of our country is in decline and the government shoulders all of that blame.
Your country is indeed in decline. But blaming the government for that is disingenuously passing the buck. America as a nation lost its way a long time ago, and the chickens are coming home to roost. Pray that Trump is the shot in the arm you needed, inelegant and crude as it may feel.
In the meantime, at least you have Sydney Sweeney giving the example and getting her hands dirty, as seen above. And one pair of dirty hands can accomplish more than a million dirty minds.
I was prepared to sit down and write some type of response to the posts that came after mine, but I don't really see a need to reinvent the wheel. What was posted above is more or less exactly what I would have said. The rest of it was just a bunch of anti-trump blather.
This idea that trans rights are somehow equivalent to civil rights is also a new idea. A person's sex, race and in some cases disability is in their DNA. Sexual preference is not something that can be discerned from a strand of their hair. But if we believe in the science of evolution, we know heterosexual to be a default.
The fact that the last two statements are true doesn't mean I must pursue the extinction of a trans person any more than someone who is genetically tall... but I am also not required to use 8 ft doors in new construction, and especially not those who simply identify as tall.