Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Israel's goals were:
lol no. you listed the things they say publicly. Bombing refugee centers does not help with any of those goals. They are carrying out a genocide. They just pretend like they aren't. Israel wants the Palestinians gone, one way or another. A final solution if you will.
Remove Hamas ; then the wife, children and dog all survive.
ok, but the wife, children and dog are not in a position to do that. So you are murdering them because someone else exists. That still murder. Israel is carrying out a genocide. There is no hypothetical crime hamas could commit that would justify Israel's actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Hamas attacked Israel. Israel COUNTERATTACKED.
that's true. But it's like someone punches you in the face, so you go and get your gun and you murder them, and their wife, and their children, and their dog. It is true that they attacked 1st, but the actions of both sides are not even comparable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I find conservatives are far more likely to lose composure or "crack" than liberals because liberals stand steadfast on a pillar of humanity. And it amuses me.
Are we talking about prominent conservatives or just all people? If it's prominent ones, then im not sure this is true. Conservatives lie almost as often as the speak. It's second nature to them. They know their beliefs are unpopular and their goal is to force their beliefs on people against their will. Ideally without the people realizing what they are doing. If their real beliefs and thoughts were known, they would never win another election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Who says it cannot be done? Who!
the law as it currently stands is that they get citizenship. If that changes, it would affect new children born. It would not change the citizenship status of people who already have it.
For your edification:Legislative History:
yes, I know what legislative history means. I said what legislative history because you have shown no history of legislation that supports your position.
Repeated FIVE TIMES with each relevant statement of the FACTS of this case.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents. But you are misunderstanding. If I said the facts of a hypothetical case are "the defendant is 6 ft tall, red hair, and committed murder." That would be the facts of the case. But him having red hair isn't necesarily a requirement for him to be guilty of murder. The judges were listing things that were true, they were not listing the requirements of their decision.
Seriously, have you looked up any legal summaries of this case at all? Here is the one from wikipedia. I put a different summary for you last time. The ruling on this case was that you just had to be subject to laws of the US and not acting as a representative of a foreign government. This has been the law for over a century. You keep trying to make it about the legal status of the parents, but you are wrong and not understanding the ruling in this case.
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2]
Was he charged and convicted of being a traitor? Nope.
no, he was charged with trying to steal an election. His trial hasn't happened yet but the evidence is pretty clear. And if you try to overthrow an election, you're a traitor.
Democracy cannot be overthrown you knucklehead.
what? History has lots of examples of democracy being overthrown. Hitler and musilini being obvious examples.
No one person, no 10 persons are equipped to steal an entire federal election. You people parroting this idiotic nonsense just makes you all look loonier than the looney tunes.
I didn't say he did it alone. In fact, he is charged in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with a 17 other people. One of whom is trump.
What law did he break?
you can read about it here. His law license has also been suspended as he has been recommended for disbarment for his crimes.
What law was he convicted of?
none yet. The trial hasn't happened. But he has had his license to practice suspended before his disbarment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris.And they'd all be equally invalidated/fraudulent.
that's not how the law works. You can't unilaterally revoke millions of americans' citizenship.
Yes, there is as the legislative history has shown.
what legislative history? You have not shown any legislation that says that people born in the US shouldn't get citizenship.
Non-permanent residents who have kids do not get citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that
no, you did not understand the case. Here is a summation of the ruling. The ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that if you are born in the US and the parents were not in the US acting in an official capacity of the nation they represent, then the child is a citizen. United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirms that you are wrong.
Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens.
Not just "people," but [a] legal scholar. Singular. Not plural.
ok. There are tons of rightwing assholes that want to misuse the constitution to do bad things. Their opinions mean nothing without actual laws or court rulings to back them up.
Fallacy of irrelevance on your part. The fact you even try to discredit his valid point on the subject matter merely because of later (long after he provided that scholarly research on point) shows your desperation to be right when you are so clearly wrong.
lol, the man is literally a traitor. He tried to overthrow democracy. That is a very valid thing to keep in mind when reading his opinion on the law. He thought it was perfectly ok to try to steal an election and is likely to be disbarred for it. So his opinions on the law mean very little given that he is so willing to break the law for personal gain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Observing a legal argument =/= racism.
a legal argument, sure. But this is a legal argument in the same way that saying the sun is god smiling down on us is a scientific argument. There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris. There is no question about whether this is a valid way of gaining citizenship. It happens all the time. So making the argument that is so obviously false and is the same argument people used to try to discredit the last black presidential candidate makes it pretty obvious what the authors are doing. They have few, if any, legitimate criticisms of Harris so they just go to the racist argument they made last time. IE they aren't white, therefore they must not be from here.
You have to PROVE it is "stupid stuff," claiming it doesn't cut it.
What are you even talking about? There are millions of american citizens with citizenship who got it that way. Kamala harris was issued a birth certificate and american citizenship at birth. She's had it her whole life. The idea that she doesn't have it is just dumb.
I invite you to read my reply here to another user of the group:
I read it, it confirms you are wrong. It says the courts have never said that you have to be the child of a permanent resident in order to qualify for citizenship. If a court were ever to say that, it would be the 1st time in american history. And even if they did rule that, it wouldn't remove citizenship from anyone who already got it that way. It would prevent any new children from gaining citizenship that way. Thus, it has nothing to do with Kamala Harris.
I'm not sure why you directed me to this. What about this was supposed to support your argument?
At least I take the personal responsibility to do some personal research on the subject before sticking my foot in my mouth like you and IWRA.
Lol, you did research that proved that you are wrong and basically just repeated what me and IWRA said to you. The children of tourists and people on visas get citizenship. That's is what is happening today, and what was happening when Harris was born. You linked cases where the courts upheld similar things and confirmed they have never ruled that children of people on student visas shouldn't get citizenship. Then gave a quote of people saying the courts shouldn't have ruled that way. But I don't care what those people think, because what they think isn't law.
Also, is that quote about John C. Eastman, the lawyer who has been indicted and recommended for being disbarred due to his actions in committing election fraud? If so, using him as a source is hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is actually one of the things i love about debateart
umm, ok. I'm not really sure why you are drawing my attention to post 37 though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So Amber is a racist?
I haven't seen much she has said other than this, so it's hard to say. The argument is certainly based in racism, but she could have just been taking in by stupid stuff on facebook and not realize that.
And a MAGA MORON.
seems pretty pro-trump and the argument in this post is quite dumb....
That’s right, not all Trump supporters are racists, but all racists are big, big, MAGA MORON Trump supporters.
I wonder if there are any racists who don't support trump. I doubt it, but i suppose it's possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Although, if an immigrant wanted to run for POTUS, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
yeah, I'm not sure I can really think of a good reason why an immigrant couldn't be president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But actual anchor babies (not deragatory) are US Citizens.
yeah, I don't pretend to understand why she thinks this. Children being born in the US to non-american parents is a pretty common thing. I'm pretty sure it's just a racist conspiracy theory thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Harris' parents were both students on student visas. The argument amber is making is that since they weren't citizens, harris wouldn't get citizenship. But she is misunderstanding part of the 14th amendment intended to prevent the children of diplomats getting citizenship in the country they were posted in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That assumes there will be an open convention where delegates have actual choices, you know, that element that makes democracy possible (choices)
there's no such thing as a "closed" convention. Joe has released them from their obligation to vote for him. Each state's representatives now has the power to vote for whoever they want. Most have already confirmed it will be Kamala.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Random post on FB ≠ factually inaccurate information.
true. It equals information that is highly likely to be false or misleading, but not guarenteed. Therefore you should carefully research any claims you see on Face book. Even cursory investigation of these claims prove they are false.
The details are easily verifiable. I’ve looked already and nothing this person wrote of is wrong.
except literally all of it. Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen unless they are working for a foreign government, like a diplomat. 2 students in the US on VISAs are not that. Therefore their children are US citizens. It took me like 5 minutes to confirm this.
All you’re doing is regurgitating leftist demoKKKrsric talking.
lol, it is very telling that basic legal principles are "leftist demoKKKrsric talking Points".
If u actually looked behind those fallacious talking points and did a little legal research on point you’d see that which I posted from the anonymous source is 100% correct.
lol no, what you've said is easily disproven. You are misunderstanding the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It relates to representitives of a foreign government. It has nothing to do with tourists or students on VISAs. Unless you only go to ridiculous conspiracy websites, it takes like 5 minutes to confirm this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
New York is the left.
an entire state is "the left"? You know Trump is from new york right? MY GOD!!!! you've uncovered the secret!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just don't pretend that is democracy.
you don't have to like it but it is still democracy. If the democratic party didn't want kamela, they could still reject her. All polling for months has shown that the majority of democrats and independents wanted joe to not run. The democratic party is almost universally happy about this and unifying behind her. I wish biden had made this decision a long time ago, but this is still democracy. I know it may be hard to tell since your candidate tried to violently overthrow the government, so it must be very hard to tell what democracy means.
Bernie Sanders would be president today under mob rule. (democracy)
1) that is not what the word democracy means.
2) maybe. He was ahead but there was no guarantees. We'd all be better off if he were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the left can make a quick books accounting error a felony
"the left" didn't do that. The state of new york did years ago.
then the right can have its own creative political interpretation of the law as well.
it's thinking like this that destroys democracy. You try so hard to find some "leftist" conspiracy to justify your own crimes and shitty behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
Thanks for demonstrating that single digit IQ you’re sporting there HB.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to do. You're quoting some random post on facebook and pretending like this is a legitimate topic of debate. It's not. The law is clear. If you are born in the US, you are a US citizen. This is a thing that happens regularly. The exception you are talking about is a carve out for diplomats since they spend so much time in foreign countries and you don't necessarily want your diplomats being foreign citizens.
this whole post is dumb. The fact that you're bringing it up when it is so obviously nonsensical absolutely screams racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amber
good lord we've circled back to birtherism? Man republicans are racist.
She was born on US soil. Therefore she was born a US citizen. There is no question about that other than stupid people on facebook.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But let's not pretend like you actually care about democracy.I don't, but there is a party that most definitely pretends.
so you are acknowledging that you are fine with violent overthrows of democracy and that your criticism of the Democrats in this case is just that it makes it harder for dictator trump to return to power?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Regardless, the public got the worst kind of bait and switch, and that is far from democratic. But nothing unexpected from the party that politically censored Bernie Sanders for being too popular.
I don't disagree with that. But the US system is designed to be undemocratic. The electoral college, the senate having a 2 party system. All of it is designed to suppress the voices of some groups and massively amplify the voices of others.
But let's not pretend like you actually care about democracy. Republicans do undemocratic stuff all the time. Like gerrymandering, voter restrictions to suppress turnout, purging voter rolls. Oh, and a violent coup to overthrow election results. Let's not forget that.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It's pretty obvious which direction he is going with his administration
yes it is obvious. He's going to spend all his time abusing his office to take revenge on all those he perceives as having wronged him (which is anyone with any actual backbone or integrity) and let his cabinet picks make actual policy. And you know where all his cabinet picks went? They wrote project 2025.
Also if he bans porn like all you gooners are crying about, just use a vpn
1) that's really stupid. If I said "the dems will ban all guns, but just use something else" would you be ok with that? You are talking about recinding basic rights but just do something illegal to get around the law...
2) banning porn is bad, but it isn't even in the top half of the terrible shit in project 2025.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
And Trump is saving democracy.
oh yes, the only way to save democracy is to seize power by force and prevent the winner of the election from taking office. That's the trump way.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
This is like claiming Kamala Harris is a threat to democracy because shareblue has a dangerous platform.
if shareblue was full of Kamala's friends and allies. And their entire platform was written by people she put in her government. And the leader of shareblue said on a call that he understands why kamala has to pretend not to know about it....
I could keep going. But bottom line, Trump has connections to virtually everyone involved in project 2025. He publicly praised the authors of it a few years ago and said they were making a plan for "our movement". Pretending he doesn't know about it and support it is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then the Democrat party will officially be the the cause of the end of democracy
let me get this straight, if the democrats put up a candidate for an election, that's the end of democracy? The republican candidate tried to overthrow an election through violence, but it's kamela harris that is ending democracy? That is straight up delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Consensus in a self-selected group of people combined with their ability to produce extensive dialogue is unrelated to verity.
the problem is that you are comparing people who actually study data and look for evidence with people who study a fictional book and talk about it. There is no comparison.
Of two different clerics in two different states at on the same day out of 365 possible days?
I have no idea what you mean. You didn't provide any details beyond the same name being registered twice in the same day.
There are reasons, but they are very low probability events. Anyone who doesn't admit this is stupid or deceptive.
Low probability events happen every day. There are hundreds of millions of people in America. That's alot of people registering to vote on any given day. If there had never been a day where the same name was registered twice, that would be extremely unlikely.
Mail is not traceable, faces can be remembered even if they are not recorded. <- wow so hard
mail is tracible. I don't know why you would think it isn't. Faces can be remembered, but when you are looking at thousands of faces the odds you would remember or even care if you saw the same one twice is pretty low. So no, that is not proving anything. That is you "feeling" like it must be true, so you assume it is without any evidence to support it.
If there were cameras on the polling centers it would be more risky to try and vote twice in person, true or false?why would it?A review of the footage could show someone casting a ballot twice in the same election.... <- duhhhhh?
and? 1) the only way it could matter is if someone already suspected their votes were fraudelent and reviewed the tapes, which is highly unlikely to happen.
2) if they used fake IDs, then you wouldn't know who they are anyway. So it still wouldn't be riskier.
Do you think there are people examining everyone who shows up to vote to make sure they didn't vote twice?rofl, if there aren't I think I found the reason people are concerned.
so you don't even know how elections work? They check to make sure you are the person on the ID. That's it. They are looking at thousands of faces. The odds they remember someone coming back multiple times is pretty low.
No, I think it is possible to review records without knowing fraud (or any other crime) took place. They call this an "audit". It's a term 'experts' use which means investigation done to prove there was no crime, deception, or error.
1) the costs with reviewing video footage of every election site to try to spot this would be HUGE. millions of man hours. That's not going to happen. And the odds of it even working if you did do it are negligible. If you don't know exactly who and when you are looking for, it would be pointless.
2) and you think people committing fraud are just going to stare up into the camera, you're an idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So has theology, most theologians agree god exists.
theologians don't "study" anything. They read fictional accounts made up by previous theologians.
Benefit of the doubt now expired. Moving on.
There are reasonable reasons why 2 registrations could happen on the same day. Like a clerical error. So you see them saying something obviously true and decide to check out and not read further.
Even if they did make some kind of compelling case giving an upper limit to the amount of fraud (which they most certainly did not) one could simply argue that the fraud was not highly motivated before the deep state propaganda campaign created derangement syndromes. In simpler terms nobody thought Bush or John Kerry were racist nascent Hitlers that need to be strangled in their crib.
you're not really making any sense or disputing anything. You're just looking for paper thin reasons to hand wave away studies. "Well that study was done in a specific state!!!" "This study was done by one person!!!!"
That's enough spot checking. Your false pretense of academic rigor and eye-witness testimony is wearing thin very quickly. In fact it's totally debunked if the first three examples of a supposedly rigorously researched article fail the test.
you didn't debunk anything at all. You failed to provide a single valid reason those studies aren't accurate.
I didn't disprove anything. In those places where cameras are illegal and poll watchers are marginalized it is still safer and more practical to commit mail fraud.
prove it. You "feel" like it is safer. I don't care about your feelings.
The common denominator is left-tribers following propaganda and making it easy to commit election fraud in more than one way.
there is 0 evidence that election fraud in any meaningful numbers has ever happened. Yet you continue to repeat ad nauseum about how the left is making this fictional event happen.
If there were cameras on the polling centers it would be more risky to try and vote twice in person, true or false?
why would it? Do you think there are people examining everyone who shows up to vote to make sure they didn't vote twice? There aren't. They check ID's, they aren't memorizing faces. The only reason a camera would do anything is if someone already suspected you were voting twice and reviewed it as evidence later. But for that to happen, you have to already know the fraud took place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You assume, you have no first hand knowledge.
the topic has been extensively studied. All studies agree that voter fraud is very rare. Here's a link to a list of studies by people who have extensive 1st hand knowledge.
If you weren't afraid of being caught on camera voting twice. Then again there are "polcies" and laws in many places preventing the recording of voting places.
ok, so you raise a point, then immediately disprove your own point. Why did bother saying it when you already know it's wrong?
Left-tribe loves early voting (or are told to).
two things.
1) no, the left loves voter turnout. The left wants as many people to vote as possible because the higher the turnout, the less likely the right is to win. This is because right wing ideas are unpopular. If everyone voted, the right would find it extremely difficult to win elections.
2) Early voting is most heavily used by the elderly. Statistically, the older people get the more right leaning they become. So no, your point is wrong. It has been true in the last few years only because trump keeps lying and telling his followers that early voting can't be trusted.
Yet another example of the left-tribe coincidentally favoring policies that make cheating easier.
you haven't shown it makes cheating easier. That is a claim people on the right keep making, but fail to actually prove. They "feel" it makes it easier, so things like facts or reality don't matter.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
A never Trump-Republican.
we still don't know his motive. All we know for sure (or at least all I have heard for sure) is he was right wing and his family were trump supporters. There's conspiracy theories flying around that the intention was to shoot at and miss trump to help him win. It could be that he had some personal grudge against trump. Maybe he got ripped off by trump university or one of trump's other scams.
Not the jilted Trump lover IWRA initially said
I'm pretty sure he was joking. We all know that trump rapes women and little girls. (please note that him being a rapist is a legal fact and that he was a friend of epstein with dozens of trips on his jet)
Anyway I got no beef with you HB- I can actually look past political disagreements when evaluating someone.
fair enough. I can respect someone with differing views who is willing to actually discuss them and accept if they may have been wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So does every electronic credit check.That's why you can buy as many valid SSNs as you want.
There are other security checks too. But if you are able to fake enough ID and get past security checks to register to vote fraudulently, then you could do it in person too. So voting by mail poses no greater threat than regular voting does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I am aware of this and am involved with the industry that uses the labor, but the amount has been extraordinary in this administration. Does it justify the amounts that are coming?
your statements presume that Biden is doing something to cause or allow this to happen. But he largely continued most of the trump era border policies. Also, the republicans recently refused to pass a border protection bill because they want the problem to get worse so they can use it as an election issue. So there's no evidence that biden is at fault.
I just looked up the voter registration for AZ and all they need is a SSN or even a driver's license.
a VALID SSN. You can't use a fake SSN to register to vote. The government knows which numbers are real. You think a government agency, with databases of all valid driver's licenses and SSNs can't tell a fake one? seriously?
All they have to do is fill out a voter registration and can vote in federal elections, but not local.
I'm not sure you read that very thoroughly. did you miss "(and is otherwise an eligible registrant)"? That means they have to prove they are eligible to vote. The section you are quoting is just about whether they provide proof of citizenship when registering. They still need to prove they are eligible to vote in order to register, which involves providing ID.
So yes, it is already illegal to have non-US citizens to vote, but I just found a loop hole.
no you didn't. You just read the wrong document and misunderstood it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I said that the fact that nearly all of the mail ballots went to Biden was suspicious.
why? Trump repeatedly told his supporters not to vote by mail. so most of them didn't. Why would it be suspicious that his supporters did what he said?
Nobody got the chance to investigate it.
again, why? It's been years. There's been lots of time to investigate.
All the recounts came out the same, but if the mail in ballots were fake, how can we find it out if we are not allowed to inspect them?
why would they be fake? Mail in ballots also have security measures to ensure they are not. They don't just accept random mail in ballots. And there would be lots of things you could do to check, comparing who voted and who is registered. You don't need to inspect the physical ballot to check voter rolls and stuff.
See the circular problem here?
no, not really. There are lots of security measures in place. There's no evidence that there is a problem.
Why is the southern border wide open with MILLIONS of illegals pouring in?
because they want a better life? You know the exact same thing happens under republicans and democrats right?
What would be the reason that the current Administration would allow this?
1) they don't "allow this". It is a complicated and difficult issue
2) both parties to some extent "allow" it because the economy is, in many ways, tied to illegal immigrants. There are entire industries that would collapse without them. Especially in farming and service industries. Not alot of people want to be cleaning toilets and picking fruit in the scorching heat for very little pay.
but illegal immigration has nothing to do with getting votes. They can't vote. The only way they could is if they were registered to vote, which they can't do if they are an illegal.
Seriously, how do you think they are voting? How would that work?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
If you hate rich people, why do you like the Bidens, Obamas, and Pelosis?
I didn't say I hate rich people. I also didn't say I like the Bidens, Obamas, or Pelosis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
If you recount bad ballots, then of course you will get the same result.
Let me get this straight. There is absolutely no evidence of any significant amount of fraud, so you choose to take that as evidence of fraud? You know that's stupid right?
Why didn't democrats vote for the bill that passed through the house about illegals not able to vote?
because it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's already illegal for an illegal to vote. That's like saying "the dem's won't vote for my new bill outlawing murder, they must love murder!!!".
All they did was write a bill banning something that is already illegal, then whine about how the dems didn't vote for their pointless pandering to idiots. It's no different than all the other bullshit they've been doing for the past few years. It's pointless theater meant to get right wing idiots to think they're doing something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This is not the information I have about him. You either are lying or don't know what you're talking about.
what information do you have about him? His daddy was Uber rich. He got all his money and his company from daddy. He was on the verge of running it into the ground until the apprentice. No actually skilled rich guy would do the show because they were busy actually making money. so they went to trump. Trump leveraged his appearance on the apprentice to make people think he was actually a skilled businessman. And leveraged that reputation to make money, despite being stupid and not very good at business.
He's never had to work. He inherited a butt load of money and a company. He has rubbed shoulders with the rich and powerful from the moment he was born.
His policies as president can be broken into 3 categories. Standard republican stuff, which was the overwhelming majority of it (ie sell out the poor, make the rich richer), hate filled bullshit (like trying to ban muslims from entering the country), and stupid bullshit (things like telling people to take horse dewormer and injecting bleach to fight covid, or asking why they don't nuke hurricanes).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Because his supporters are MAGA MORONS
Morons doesn't even explain it. Even a stupid person can see lies right to their face. Trump lies about almost literally everything, so the lies are hard to miss. It isn't stupidity that makes them not see it, it's willful blindness. They see the lies and just block them out. They're cultists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Correct please ignore the fact that every mainstream republican and Democrat tried to stop him
and? he was born filthy rich. He went to all the same parties (including the ones where he raped children) as all the other elites. He's just painfully stupid, unqualified to lead anything, and EXTREMELY divisive and destructive in his lust for power. But once he had power, he did the exact same shit all of the republicans poor. IE screwing over poor people and helping the rich get richer.
all of Hollywood and media has come out against him.
again, and? He spews hate and division. That's literally his only quality the makes him different than other republicans. I guess he's dumber than alot of elected republicans. And that is a low bar to crawl under.
He is definitely part of the ruling class and they love him
he is absolutely part of the ruling class. They hate his style. But his policies are no different than any other evil republican leader.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I think that is Underdog's point. Why did all the mail in ballots turn out so much for Biden when the graph climbs for both candidates at a consistent level?
because the republicans, and trump in particular, constantly said that mail in balloting couldn't be trusted. They said it over and over and over during the election. So democrats voted by mail in ballot at much higher numbers because republicans chose to vote in person.
There was no "evidence" because they could not get their hands on the ballots.
what are you talking about? There were tons of recounts all over the country. What does "they could not get their hands on the ballots" even mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Do you really think the base supports Trump because of his impulsiveness?
no, they love him because he spews the hate and fear they thrive on.
The base supports him because he's against the status quo.
lol he's a billionaire. He has never actually worked a day in his life. His father handed him a business empire and other people mostly ran it for him. He is part of the ruling elite. Most of his policies from his 1st term were fear mongering bullshit, or standard cookie cutter republican terrible policy. Other than the fear and hate he spreads, he is the status quo.
People want a radical change and Trump is promising that.
Well, he does lie alot. But he already had one term and brought no real change at all. So I don't know why anyone would believe him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Well, there it is, then. You are so completely convinced of how factually right you are that it isn’t up for debate. This proves that further conversation on this matter with you is futile. It’s actually a relief, as I might actually need to lie down for a bit after reading your latest responses… like yeesh…
I don't se how you could dispute it. Is there not a social construct where we put certain attributes based on our perception of gender? Do we not think men should be strong and silent. Do we not think women should be beautiful, or that they are fragile?
If you think that society has those expectations of people we perceive to be male and female, then you accept that gender exists as a separate identity to sex. And if you think those don't exist, then I don't know how to help you. They are everywhere in our and all other societies and always have been.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
“gender is a social construct” ideology gains widespread acceptance in western societies,
this doesn't make sense. Gender IS a construct. That isn't up for dispute. Like girls like flowers and horses and are weak. While men are strong and tough and don't cry etc. Those are aspects of gender that have little to nothing to do with biology. So saying if it gains acceptance is dumb. Because it isn't even disputed. That is what the word gender means.
So, “dude looks like a lady”— actually MAKES that person a woman?
i'm not even sure what your point is. Gender is decided by society. So if we as a society say anyone with nipples is a woman, then we're all women. If we say anyone who looks feminine is a woman, then yeah. Gender is a construct and it is fluid. It changes over time and by culture.
Ah, yes, the old “use the exception to disprove the rule” gambit. How many arms and legs do humans have? Two of each? Well, there are babies born with one arm or one leg. Do they then cease to be human?
of course not, they prove that not all humans have 2 legs. So if you were to argue that all humans have 2 legs, you would be wrong. Just like anyone who says there are only 2 sexes is wrong.
Also, some studies have shown that as many as 1 in 60 people are intersex, IE not entirely male or female. That isn't "the exception", that is a measurable portion of the population. enough they could swing an election.
From Wikipedia:“The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[24]”
My apologies, I think I phrased my point badly. Societies have always had gender and sex. They often chose not to differentiate between the two. But you can see the difference was always there as the gender changed over time, but the sex didn't. For example look at how greek men were expected to behave in classical greece vs later periods. They were biologically the same, but what a real "man" was had changed drastically. Not alot of naked man on man wrestling these days.
I perceive three sexes: male, female, and intersex. However, intersex is a rarity, an aberration, akin to being born with one arm.
red hair is also an aberration. that doesn't make it any less valid.
Again, what I am saying is that claiming that gender and sex are completely distinct is an opinion, a school of thought, not necessarily a fact as you declare without doubt.
that is silly. If sex and gender were the same then you would still have the same gender traits as your ancestors. I don't know your ancestry, but if you were greek you'd be wrestling other men naked alot more than you probably do. Gender identities have changed drastically over time and in different places. Sex has not.
There is another school of thought: that gender and sex are synonymous, if not EXACTLY the same, exact thing.
That's stupid. If they were the same thing, then we would just need an entirely new word to describe gender. Why would you make the 2 mean the same thing and just make a new word?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This would be believable accept the fact that in modern times women who marry young experience less abuse than ones in unstable lifestyles
no, women who marry young report less abuse because they never had any life experience and don't run away from their abuser and don't report the abuse. Women who actually get to date and experience life are much more likely to report the abuse. And dating is not an "unstable lifestyle"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You think Lee Zeldin is racist (with his Latina wife)?
I don't even know who that is. So no, I don't think some random person you mentioned is racist. Should I?
Or do you believe if you are republican, then you are racist?
the republican party oozes racism. If you vote republican, you are showing approval for that. I'm sure there are some republicans who vote for small government or something and don't like or approve of the racism. But I'm guessing they are a minority of the party these days.
In that case, there would be nothing wrong with being racist just like there is nothing immoral about being republican.
There isn't anything inherently immoral about being a republican. But if you support their horrible, horrible policies, then there is. If you are a republican who hates their policies and is working to stop them from doing such terrible things, then sure you're good. But again, that would be a tiny minority.
It's not the label that's immoral. It's their policies and their hate. You're only immoral if you push the policies and the hate. Or if you back the policies and hate without thinking about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Point taken. YOU were not talking about biology. What I was seeking to introduce is the fact that there are people in the transgender movement who do, indeed, argue that biology is very much a part of the debate, and this fact does not seem to be generally acknowledged.
fair enough. But that doesn't really mean much. There are people talking about the world being flat and all sorts of things. So there being someone, somewhere in the world talking about a thing isn't saying alot.
That sex and gender are two different things. That is an opinion rather than a fact.
no, it really isn't. Sex is the biology of a person. Gender is the cultural perception we have of people. And these are absolutely separate things and always have been. You can see proof of this because there are people who don't fully fall into the definition of male or female. There are people who are both, or neither. But we only have 2 genders that society recognizes. This proves that gender and sex differ.
There was a time in society when sex and gender were synonymous words and this view was devoid of controversy.
no, there was not. An example is that there are more than male and female sexes. But I'm not aware of any societies having really accepted that.
You perceive there being only 2 sexes and 2 genders. Therefore you assume that a society that sticks to a rigid definition of what those 2 genders/sexes are to be correct. But that isn't the case. But you could go deeper too. There is no biological basis for women being dumber, but societies often have this as part of being a woman. The "fairer sex" and all that. That is gender norm that is not really connected to Sex. Or that women love shopping etc. That is a gender role that has nothing to do with biology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Perhaps you need to clarify your point in rhetorically asking (as if the answer were “absolutely no one”) “Who’s talking about biology?”
perhaps you didn't notice that message was a reply to someone else. So obviously the reply was talking about this conversation. IE neither he nor I were discussing biology, we were discussing gender. So you bringing up someone completely separate and saying "that guy's talking about biology" is a little strange.
you are establishing certain concepts and claims as factual when they are not necessarily factual.
what factual claims have I made that are not factual?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
who is talking about biology?Apparently, this biologist is:
could you clarify your point? I'm not certain I understand what you are trying to argue. The article seems to be talking about how we used some information about biology to make completely social constructs. And that was kind of my point as well. That I was discussing the social construct of gender and that this social construct is not decided by biology. Although biology is certainly a factor. Sort of like saying you are talking about cars, doesn't mean you are talking about mufflers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
The only thing real is your denial of biology.
who is talking about biology? Sex and gender are not the same thing. you know that right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
Fake pronouns.
you think pronouns are fake? You really should go back to primary school. Pronouns are real and they can't hurt you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just like on the flip side, Wylted thinks I'm a crazy communist (I lean more libetarian on social issues), and I don't really care.
I get where you are coming from. If they want to say mean things or make jokes, that is their right. But we both know it doesn't end there. The republicans HATE gay people, trans people and minorities. They are getting more and more rabid about it every year. It isn't just nasty things they say, they are coming after people's rights.
- They whine about being oppressed. Ex: Stereotypical SJW femenist. The 1st way to respond is leftist
LMAO. oh no no no no. There is no one who whines louder than a right wing white guy. Muhh Freedom!!!
They calmly, but firmly say, "You are being transphobic". the 2nd is conservative
ok, so virtually no one in the republican party is conservative then? Because no republicans are ever saying that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I find Caitlyn hilarious. He keeps sucking up to the right, and the right fucking hate him guts for who he is.I corrected that for you.
Thank you for proving my point. No matter what she says or does, the right will despise who she is. She is pretty pathetic to fight for people who despise her. Especially when the things she's pushing for are terrible in and of themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I find Caitlyn hilarious. She keeps sucking up to the right, and the right fucking hate her guts for who she is. I have no idea why anyone would debase themselves like that. I can't imagine how anyone gay, trans or even minorities could support republicans.
Created: