Are moderate politics dead?

[OddBeMe]

Or are Repubs so far right that Democrats are now the moderates?

[loveslongnails]

I agree with your statement. Most of the Republican Party "leadership", and I use the term very loosely, has moved SO far right that it actually forces some Democrats to go equally far left in an effort to combat it. Granted, a few of them are there permanently. LOL This is true of both sides. It's unlikely you'll ever get a reasonable stance out of Marjorie Greene any more than you would AOC. But these tactics put anyone who actually IS a moderate on either side in "no man's land" because you'll be shunned by BOTH parties.

The irony of it all is that Republicans like to called the Dems "communists", when they themselves are moving towards authoritarianism at a rapid pace. Whatever "Communism" claims to be on paper, the reality is that so far on planet Earth, it's been a euphemism for totalitarianism. They combat this explanation by saying "It wasn't our Party who mandated masks or vaccines", as if the world pandemic issue could be so simply boiled down to your personal freedom rights? But that's another topic.

The Republican extremists have this idea that if 150,000,001 people want something, but 150 million people do NOT want it, the majority should rule because they know better. They have zero concept these days that "a government by and for the people" is not meant to work that way.

Compromise went down the toilet in the late 90's when Gingrich was Speaker and he labeled it weak and meaning you're unwilling to stand up for your principles. His alternative - ? - get control of Congress and hopefully the Presidency and do whatever you want. He's such a fucking ass wipe! Unfortunately, there's a slew of others like him today. Equally as unfortunate, I don't see much from the Dems either, but at least they're ready to negotiate.

[Cubus]

So, if you consider extremist bad, you still believe that going extreme as well is the way to solve it?

[goaded]

AOC isn't willing to break the economy for her beliefs, MTG is. AOC was hiding in fear of rioters, MTG wanted them there. AOC likes democracy, MTG doesn't.

They are not equally extreme.

[Cubus]

@goaded "AOC isn't willing to break the economy for her beliefs"

Yeah, you seem to be very into the topic

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus No, going extreme doesn't usually solve anything. That's the point, but the Republican idea is that once they control all branches of government, anything we do will be touted as "mainstream" no matter how extreme it really is. That's how they want to govern, and that is how the Orwellian dystopia will blossom.

[loveslongnails]

@goaded I agree... at least AOC understands the concepts of freedom and governing, and if I had to choose between the two, I'd take AOC and toss MTG to the lions. MTG thinks freedom means doing whatever "I" want "TO" anybody that's too weak to defend themselves. She's a half step away from being a Nazi.

[Cubus]

Which party wants everything to be decided on a federal level and not statewide level?

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus Stop reading us Republican talking points without using your brain.

No party wants "EVERYTHING" to be decided on the Federal level, but I have little doubt the Republicans would be fine with everything being decided on the State level, and what a fucking disaster that would be!!

Some things SHOULD clearly be decided on the Federal level and no state should be able to abridge certain laws just because a ruling party "feels like it". For example, if state "X" wants to lower the drinking age to the same as the age of consent, they can't do it because it's a Federally mandated law. If state "Z" decides that a landlord doesn't have to rent to you because you're not Caucasian, they can't do it. Use your brain, man.

[Cubus]

Well, Democrats are that that want less power to be given to states. Bot Republicans

[Cubus]

*not

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus *eyeroll* More talking points, dude. Certain issues, yes. Others no. Like I said, it would be a total fucking disaster if the Republicans reduced everything to states only control.

[Cubus]

Nobody says about giving everything to states. Except Democrats want almost everything to be decided on the federal level.

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus And I'm telling you that's a bullshit statement. It's just propaganda that Republicans repeat again and again, and you parrot without any knowledge or examples that would amount to "almost everything". ALMOST everything?

[Cubus]

Who wants abortion to be fully legal in all states?
Who wanted gays to have tax benefits in all states.
Who wants the insurabce to be decided on a federal level?
Who wants to restrict second amendment on a federal level?

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus You really have to get off talking points, dude.

Who wants abortion to be fully legal in all states? "Fully legal" - a term that means nothing, so why do you use it? The Dems want there to be access up to a certain period, and not be restricted in the way the Repubs do. "Fully legal" means nothing.

Who wanted gays to have tax benefits in all states. - I think you're talking about same sex marriage. There's no TAX benefit simply for "being gay". LOL If you're going to allow same sex marriage, they should get the same TAX benefits as a HETERO marriage - that's their platform.

Who wants the insurance to be decided on a federal level? WHICH insurance? Health? The Dems want everybody to HAVE insurance, which is why you get subsidized premiums if your income is low. Don't even start with that - it's my S. O.'s field and you don't have the band with to discuss its complexities.

Who wants to restrict second amendment on a federal level? The 2nd amendment was never, EVER meant to give anyone free reign to own anything you want. It was written 231 years ago, when the most serious weapon was a single shot rifle with a musket. Grow up. "A well-regulated militia" means an orderly one, dude.

[Cubus]

1. Yes they do want
That's a law they introduced in California. I don't know if it passed ginally, but there was such a bill introduced.

2. Gays should not have benefits marriages have, as they do not have children.

3. Forced health insurence doesn't work at all. I know it, there is one in my country.

4. You do know what's the purpose of this amendment? Type of riffle is not important here.

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus Ok dude. You don't really know what you're talking about. What bill in California to do what? Tax benefits for marriage in this country have NOTHING to do with added benefits for children. Again, you're wrong. "Forced" health insurance DOES work, especially if you get yours for free because your income level is low. If you don't want it, you pay a tax and opt out.

I understand the 2nd amendment far better than you do, since I actually LIVE in the USA. You fail to comprehend the full intent, and somehow believe that ANY 271 year old document has to be taken in context. Our entire Constitution should be revisited.

[Cubus]

1. It's easy to check.

2. They do. Someone who does not provide country with future workforce should not have tax benefits, as it is the only reason they exist for marriages.

4. Your constitution is the most successful in the world and you still objectively believe it should be repelled. All other countries have already changed theirs a few times. Which one is the one not working?

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus Check it yourself then. You're the one who brought it up by saying "Oh, there was SOME law proposed, but I don't know what it was.

2) That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Personally, I believe it's fucking stupid for several reasons. First, you can raise children in a gay marriage by adopting one of the THOUSANDS of kids who need a home. Second, what you're saying is, if you don't make babies, you shouldn't get any tax benefits from marriage. That's ridiculous! Not only is it ridiculous, but it's EXACTLY what you say Democrats are doing in my country! It's the same thing as making a Federal Law saying "you only get FULL marriage tax benefits if you make babies - otherwise you get nothing". You're crazy.

I said our Constitutional needs to be reviewed, not repelled. If it was THE most successful Constitution in the world, we'd be the best place to live in the world, which we're not. That doesn't mean I'd rather live in Poland, but there's a lot of things about my country that are fucked up, particularly that we lead the WORLD in incarcerating our citizens.

If you keep throwing nonsense at me, I'm ending the conversation.

[Cubus]

1. It's bill nr 2223 from what I remember.
2. If you adopt children you do not give birth to it. Adopting children does not give a state taxpayers.
3. What is sole reason the states decided to give a man and a woman tax benefits in first place?
4. Depends what criteria you use. There are many cases in which USA is much better than all other countries, and cases in which they are not.

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus # 2 Your objection is irrelevant. Your position is "no kids, no tax break for just being married". My position is - you suck for that.
# 3 ) There are many reasons, not just to have kids as you think.
# 4) No it doesn't. The "criteria" is the SAME for ALL COUNTRIES that get ranked. What the "depends" part is pertains to whose data and surveys you choose to believe. Plus, you have to compare the USA to other industrialized nations to get a real sense of anything. Obviously, its a better place to live than say, Myanmar.

[Cubus]

2 and 3. Yes, because that was a sole reason states decided to give marriages tax benefits. Politicians do not give money away if they have no interest in it.
4. You clearly didn't understand. Some criterias are immesurable because of their subjectiveness

[Cubus]

by the way. You are quite contradicting yourself.

You said "If you keep throwing nonsense at me, I'm ending the conversation."

You insist that I was talking nonsense, before that comment. I didn't change my opinions, but you keep talking to me. So you either believe I "stopped this nonsense", don't really believe I talked nonsense in the first place, or didn't want to stop talking at all.

[loveslongnails]

@Cubus I gave you one last shot, but now I'm done. Your observations are useless to intelligent people. Good bye.

[Cubus]

You don't have any more arguements that you start attacking me ad personam?

[Stoner710]

In the United States yes. The democrats party is the party of communist and people who want to cut the breast of healthy girls and penises off of 12 year olds vs the Christian/Jewish traditionalist of the Victorian era

this is the issue with the having a 2 party I’m largely libertarian on most issues but I’m a republicans because the libertarian party is a joke so we’re stuck with the republicans the Green Party on the more left side of politics is stuck voting for the democrats

people like Mick Romney and John Klasich need to leave the republicans party and people like kyrsten sinema and Joe Manchin need to leave the democrats party because there moderates and there no room for moderates in either party. Republicans need more Donald Trumps or Ron DeSantis and the democrats need more AOC or Bernie Sanders

[OddBeMe]

You know we don’t do them ourselves? And kids can’t get surgery? And that we’re only for protecting people’s freedom to decide? Do you get it?

[Stoner710]

They do preform surges on miners Vanderbilt children’s Hospital in Tennessee reportedly preformed double double mastectomy‘s on a girl as young as 12. They don’t start cutting off the penis and removing the uterus unit 16 normally and that is just in Tennessee. Matt Walsh of the dailywire found this out and was active in getting a bill past the would ban the practices of transition for minors.

I understand democrats and doctors who preform these surgeries think there doing something moral. Which again has a lot to do with how polarized we are as a national. One sides thinks if you don’t trans your 4 year old and get his or she on hormones quickly so they won’t go through puberty and so we need to take away the rights of parents to raise there children they way they see fit. The other side which I’m on thinks giving your child cross sex hormones and purity blockers and transitioning your kids with surgery at purity blockers at age 4 then with surgery between 12-16 is immoral and those who preform these acts and allow doctors to preform these act should be in prison for the rest of there lives (maybe death penalty ) but this is how polarized the country is one side think not transitioning your kid is immoral and the kid should be taken away from the parents and maybe the parents put in jail. Vs you transition your kid your the one who should be in prison.

[Stoner710]

(Sorry long) you can’t have a country like this, The original federalist system set up by Hamilton John Jay and James Monroe could have left this issue to the states and you can fight for these trans issue in your individual state. Your in Texas in Texas transition of minor would be banned my state no. But the civil war changed that (good and bad thing slavery is evil of course so good thing for that bad thing is we put practically all the power in the federal government we now live in a centralized system where many people don’t have trust in there local or state governments so everything has to be federal so as a country as a whole we have 2 options (and this doesn’t just go for that trans issue) we need to have 1 standard on the federal level that everyone agrees to. Is the transition of minors child abuse? If the feds say yes transitioning kids in child abuse then my state is going to have legal issue with the federal government same with Oregon California and New York. If not transitioning your child is child abuse then Texas Florida and Tennessee are guilty of abusing children by passing laws preventing minors going on puberty blockers. But with 1 standard at the federal level which our current government dictates you could see civil war 2 children is definitely an issue where succession or war can happen.

There a reason. I mainly focus on race issue the trans issues and gun issue because these are the trinity of issues that could very well start the next civil war.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I don't think so. The democrats and republicans are both right wing of what is the centre. As for moderate politics the democrats and republicans maintain the status quo and though each spout left wing or right politicies neither have the intention of enacting them.

[Anonymous]

The right have become so right wing that they are now officially dangerous and a threat to all Americans. It has become a cult.

[Ill_made_Knight]

The US "left" if your talking about the Democratic Party is really not even to the left much whatever the radical alt right Republicans may squeal. Democrats are essentially Eisenhower Republicans.
The Republicans just want to do away with democracy because their positions are unpopular, they offer no real policy, and are only about grievance, removing freedoms their evangelical base doesn't agree with, and protecting the wild west gun culture they've built. The word "conservative" shouldn't be used to describe these people. Fascists is more accurate, and they are exploring every avenue possible to get a "forever president" installed because it's getting harder and harder to win even with the electoral college and all the gerrymandering and suppressive tricks they've installed.
The current Republican Party doesn't care for democracy.

[Cubus]

Show me a party in a western world that is more world-view left-wing than Democrats.

[goaded]

@Cubus Every German political party but AfD. Every British political party but UKIP.

[Cubus]

@goaded I talk about world-view. Not economy.

[goaded]

@Cubus Uh, OK, so how is the CDU to the right of the Democrats? Or the British Conservatives?

[goaded]

*left

[Cubus]

@goaded You are the one who say they are to the left of Democrats. Not me.

[RolandCuthbert]

I think if we truly consider things honestly, we would admit that what we think is moderate is a matter relative. But what has happened is that our process for deciding public policy has become politicized itself. To the point where it is not a political belief that elections cannot be trusted when one side does not win.

We used to have debates about political ideology/philosophy. I think it is a joke to pretend that we have actual debates about conservative/liberal thinking. So why do we continue playing this game?

[loveslongnails]

Because we don't know any other way, and the people with the gold still make the rules.

[goaded]

As long as people are convinced that moderate politics is actually far left and that they are encouraged to move further right in response, yes. It's been building for decades.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xbu1TlEoK-4

"... the Gingrich Senators behave as partisan warriors, which has radically transformed the way the Senate operates as an institution, by using cutthroat tactics, obstructionism, and legislative games."

https://web.archive.org/web/20181122012735/https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-gingrich-senators-9780199307456?cc=is&lang=en&#

[WindAtMyBack]

It's the exact opposite of that. Conservatives have not moved to the right. Liberals have moved so far left that they've gone completely off the scale. For that matter, conservatives have moved to the left also. The difference is that liberals move left faster than conservatives.

It's pretty much built into the definition of conservative and liberal. Liberals are the progressives.

[OddBeMe]

Do you have examples of this? Because even republicans call their platform far right.

[OddBeMe]

And there is no alt left…I wish there were.

[jshm2]

It's on hiatus as there just is no vote bank for it, at the moment.

Everything is either all "left" or all "right," and there are too few people in the middle who want to give a finger to both sides, and move forward on the real issues.

It's these bipartisan people who are the 80/20 that make things work.

[OddBeMe]

I think you’re mostly right. But I’m gonna call BS on your equivocation of “both sides”. The left is not even half as bad as the right wing…

[Juxtapose]

What are you talking about? The dems went from the saner party to the one that wants to outdo the right in mutilating children and policing free speech.

Wokeism has effectively labeled every moderate left is, AKA a real liberal, a right winger. People call Tim Pool and Glenn Greenwald right wingers and they are left leaning.

[Juxtapose]

*moderate leftist

[OddBeMe]

Children can’t get surgery. And you’re for taking away adult’s decision to decide for themselves?

[OddBeMe]

I thought you called yourself a liberal…

[Juxtapose]

Dude, if children were being left out of it then Matt Walsh would not have had the fight so hard to get that shit out of Tennessee.

I don't care what adults do to themselves.

[goaded]

Tim Pool and Glenn Greenwald are just two examples of people who have used their reputations as left-wingers to get paid a load of cash from where the money is by espousing right-wing tropes. There are a couple of ex-TYT people who did that, too. They have no sense of honour, so fit perfectly into the Republican misinformation machine.

[Juxtapose]

TYT were the ones that sold out to Al Jazeera, your hold on reality is pretty warped.

You know Jimmy Dore was actually paid more when he worked for TYT, right? What would be the point of him doing this?

[Juxtapose]

I bet you guys even believe the FBI when they say the Twitter files are some conspiracy.. riiight. My eyes and ears are lying to me apparently.

[Juxtapose]

It's been fucking proven that Twitter and other big tech companies have been directly controlled by the government to influence elections and stifle free speech.. that is fascism.

Anyone still following the Democrats at this point are fascists.

[goaded]

Al Jazeera bought Current TV and promptly stopped broadcasting TYT. You've got that completely backwards.

You might be right about Jimmy Dore's income (who says he was paid more at TYT, by the way?), but he has been putting out various right-wing conspiracy theories.

As far as I know, the FBI hasn't said anything about "the Twitter files". As I understand it, both campaigns requested and got things removed from the platform, and the only government influence on Twitter was to ask them to watch out for disinformation better than in 2016.

It's not Twitter's fault that the Hunter Biden laptop story looked and smelled exactly like Russian disinformation, so much so that even Fox News wouldn't touch the story, and they ran with the Dominion lies after the election.

Of course, it hasn't been "proven that Twitter and other big tech companies have been directly controlled by the government to influence elections and stifle free speech", but even if it had, "the government" at the time of the 2020 election was run by Trump and the Republicans.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded well fuck, good on that News Network for not hosting the trash that is the Armenian genocide denying TYT.

Those are not conspiracy theories those are straight up facts. Go ahead and read the Twitter files dude.

You must have your head in the sand because the FBI has been calling the Twitter files a conspiracy theory 😂

Oh please not even you believe that Russian conspiracy theory nonsense. It's obvious that the White House was protecting its own.

That is such a stupid thing to say. You don't think the deep state was working against Trump the entire time? The establishment fucking hated him. These Twitter files make Watergate look like jaywalking.

[Juxtapose]

www.queensjewishlink.com/.../7752-breaking-down-the-twitter-files-so-far

[Juxtapose]

youtube.com/watch

[goaded]

OK, I'm going to take @OddBeMe's advice and ignore you for a while because you've veered into conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism. Have a nice day.

[Juxtapose]

Wow you're retarded if you think a link that promotes the Jewish community and connecting people of the Jewish faith together is anti-Semitic.

I can understand why you think I'm into conspiracy theories because you are so brainwashed into the establishment narrative but anti-Semitism? Really? Ironic coming from a German.

[goaded]

Apologies, I saw the link and assumed it was one of those sites that said the Queen is part of a global conspiracy with the Jews/Illuminati, etc., not a site to link Jewish people in the Queens area!

[goaded]

"You must have your head in the sand because the FBI has been calling the Twitter files a conspiracy theory"
That's might be true, because I've seen some reporting about it, but none of it seems to link to the actual FBI response. And there doesn't appear to be anything on fbi. gov. Which is odd.

"Oh please not even you believe that Russian conspiracy theory nonsense. It's obvious that the White House was protecting its own."
It's not nonsense, there's ample proof that Russia was coordinating misinformation before the 2016 election, that they hacked the Podestra emails, and that Trump was perfectly content to let that happen because it helped his campaign. The only thing not proven was that he coordinated with Russia (other than asking them for help in plain sight the day before the GRU started hacking) and that was only because various people obstructed the investigation.

"That is such a stupid thing to say. You don't think the deep state was working against Trump the entire time?"
No.

"The establishment fucking hated him."
Well, yes, anyone who cares about democracy hates him.

"These Twitter files make Watergate look like jaywalking."
No, they don't. There's not a single crime in them.

[OddBeMe]

@goaded It’s unfortunate bc Juxt is a cool guy. I hope he gets the help he needs…

[Juxtapose]

Yeah I know you didn't look which is why I called you retarded xD Next time don't be so fucking lazy!

<---- living under a rock 😂

Yeah right, tell me other lies you believe that the establishment crafted. Next thing you know you're going to tell me that the Russians were the one to bomb that one pipeline instead of NATO xD

The Establishment didn't like Trump, why do you think that is? It's obviously because he wasn't playing ball with the deep state, the same deep state that killed JFK and initially denied the existence of the mafia.

Oh give me a fucking break with that bullshit. The worst thing Trump did to democracy was allowed Anthony Fauci to run wild and you fucking progressives cheer that on under Biden.

You're constitutionally illiterate if you believe that. Working with corporations to silence people is the same as a government silencing the people themselves -_-

[goaded]

Thanks for the precise wording, that helped me find some news reports, none of which link to an original source and most leaving out what context even Fox News, or was it the New York Post, retained. As a critical thinker yourself, I'm sure you're aware of the importance of original sources over media reporting.

Just to be clear, you do understand that Trump planned the march on the Capitol starting in December and kept it secret? That the Eastman plan to use fake electors to pretend that states' elections were contested was illegal, and they knew it?

"The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter shows nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding, and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries," the FBI said.

"As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers. The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency," they said.
thepostmillennial.com/breaking-fbi-cries-conspiracy-theories-and-misinformation-in-response-to-elon-musks-twitter-files

[Juxtapose]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../fbi-dismisses-twitter-files-authors-as-conspiracy-theorists

I don't know why you were seemingly denying this when you post a link at the end of your message confirming that the FBI did indeed respond.

Nope, I won't believe that unless he is convicted on it and even then I might not believe it because of the incredible bias this kangaroo committee has. They couldn't even get Tim Pool's statements right.

I don't care what the FBI says, cajoling social media companies with censor people on behalf of the government is in direct violation of the First Amendment and any constitutional lawyer worth their weight in salt will tell you that. The FBI is just trying to get people to think what they are doing is supposed to be normal much like the Chinese Communist Party assures people that what they are doing is perfectly normal and just 😆👍

[Juxtapose]

*to censor on behalf

[Juxtapose]

#abolishthefbi

[goaded]

Christ, yet another article referring to a video of someone on Fox News reading out some portion of what they were told by someone in the FBI?

Did you miss the part where I asked if you understood that Trump planned the march on the Capitol starting in December and kept it secret? That the Eastman plan to use fake electors to pretend that states' elections were contested was illegal, and they knew it?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded I don't believe any of that garbage.

[goaded]

Unfortunately "that garbage" is backed up by sworn testimony and documentation.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded sworn lies and bogus documents 🤭

[goaded]

Strangely enough, no. People tend to tell the truth when getting caught lying can land them in prison.

Trump planned the march on the Capitol starting in December and kept it secret and the Eastman plan to use fake electors to pretend that states' elections were contested was illegal, and they knew it.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded maybe I'll believe you when there's an actual conviction but this whole thing is horseshit. Like I said, they couldn't even get information on a podcaster right which was super easy to verify.

[goaded]

I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm pointing you at the evidence.

You're using the right-wing's favourite fallacy, the fallacy of the excluded middle.

If something isn't 100% perfect, that doesn't mean it's 100% wrong, there are infinite possibilities in between the two, and in this case there is a massive amount of evidence that shows Trump knew he was breaking the law when he tried to steal the presidency.

[Juxtapose]

I just don't trust the motivations of this committee and I think you're going to see it's not getting anywhere. They really overblew Jan 6th and a lot of the radical elements of the protest was because of the planted feds.

[Juxtapose]

And you can't take over the government by simply occupying the white house anyway.

[goaded]

If you think they only looked at the events of that day you really haven't been paying attention. If you think there were "planted feds" encouraging it, you've been listening to liars. (Remember Hannity and Ingraham lying about it being AntiFa at the time? They were texting Meadows in private, telling Trump to call it off.)

The plan was to finish the election by a vote in the House where each state gets two votes. There were more states controlled by Republicans than Democrats, so they could have won that vote.

All they had to do was screw up the Jan 6 count, either by getting Pence and Republican lawmakers to break their oaths and support the lie that some states' results were "contested", or somehow stop the count from happening at all. Taking Pence away from the Capitol and not returning him would work, for example, which is why he refused to be evacuated from the Capitol by the Secret Service.

[msc545]

Republicans seem pinned to the wall of right-wing crazy.

[OddBeMe]

Yup. They love the poorly educated.

[genericname85]

yup. the left have moved so far left, that even the "moderate left" seem right in comparison these days and the centrists like right wing extremists.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah that Alt Left is fcking up our primaries…wait no that’s alt right! Wtf are you talking about?

[genericname85]

I don't know what primaries means in this context. It's a second language.

[OddBeMe]

That means you are a political moron who just regurgitates comments from Reddit.

[genericname85]

You're entitled to your opinion.

[Sasahara]

@OddBeMe if thats the meaning of the word primaries, would it not mean that you are the political moron using comments from Reddit since you used it?

[genericname85]

@Sasahara just leave him alone. He doesn't want a fruitful civil discussion. He just wants to insult people. That's obvious. No need to waste your time with logic and reason

[Sasahara]

Its the left that has moved so far left they consider moderate left people right.

[goaded]

What are Democrats proposing today that they weren't 50 years ago? Higher minimum wage? More unions?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded how about insane child mutilation?

[Juxtapose]

Or authoritarian lockdowns?

[OddBeMe]

@goaded just ignore him, he’s going through stuff. His father is liberal and he’s striking out.

He’s not a moron. Juxt knows kids can’t get surgeries.

[Sasahara]

@Juxtapose excellent examples.

[goaded]

Speaking of examples, weren't you going to give me examples of right-wingers threatening speech and not violence? Elon Musk FREE SPEECH absolutist (em, when people agree with him) has lost over $200 billion. Conservatives love unprincipled hypocrites? ↗

And, since I'm here, @Juxtapose, wasn't Trump president during the lockdowns? Weren't they a public health matter recommended by his administration?

[Sasahara]

@goaded I was going to answer you there, but the asker felt it was off topic and irrelevant so I decided to respect her opinion and stop spamming her question. I don't really have any examples of threats right now but I did mean if they were using the same exact threats Democrats online safety expert did, then you would not have considered them more of a threat than when she used them.

[goaded]

OK, that's a fair reason. I don't think there's any need for Democrats to pretend to be upset about someone on the right threatening to use their free speech rights when there are so many examples of far worse threats coming from far higher profile figures.

Republicans were really reaching with their claim that never letting certain public figures "have a peaceful moment in public again" was a serious threat.

[Juxtapose]

youtube.com/watch

[Juxtapose]

From CBN.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Was that the hospital where a receptionist gave incorrect information?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded even if that were true that is far from the only hospital where this shady crap is going on.

Do we need procedures on minors is an abomination.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Do you genuinely believe that that's happening? There was another occasion where I think it was you that essentially claimed that the lack of evidence for something (massive voter fraud?) was proof that it exists. You might like to reconsider that line of reasoning.

That hospital, like every other in the US, "adheres to medical guidelines developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and gender-affirming care involving genital surgeries are only offered to patients between the ages of 18 and 35 while surgical consultations can be offered beginning at the age of 17".

[Juxtapose]

@goaded youtube.com/watch

youtube.com/watch

youtube.com/watch

[Juxtapose]

youtube.com/watch
youtube.com/watch

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Yay, a bunch of videos of people claiming stuff to rile up their base, while ignoring the answers. Do you know what the important word in the phrase "gender-affirming care" is? It's "care". Why do Republican politicians think they know better than doctors and parents?

You found evidence that "On average, VUMC has provided five gender-affirming surgeries to minors every year since its transgender clinic opened in 2018. All were over the age of 16 and had parental consent, and none received genital procedures." So, presumably, trans boys getting mastectomies to prevent their suicides. Would you rather they committed suicide?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded saying they will commit suicide is false emotional blackmail. If anything these transitions will cause more suicide because they permanently fuck them up in various ways, even puberty blockers. It's best to treat the mental illness through therapy and if the ADULT wants to do that shit still then that's their prerogative.

Are you going to cut the arms off of kids if they threaten suicide because you don't cut their arms off? No? Then why would you sterilize children, carve up their bodies and horrific ways and get them hooked on big pharma for life? Do you know how awful this is and how incentivized big pharma is to do this?

[Juxtapose]

*in horrific ways

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Here you are again, setting your opinions above those of doctors, parents and patients. Once more, there is NO genital surgery on under 18s, and a handful of other gender-affirming surgery a year on about 8 million 16 or 17 year olds.

You have no clue what those people are going through, their parents and doctors do.

[Cubus]

@goaded They propose legally killing children up to a month after birth. That's a law Democrats proposed in California.

[goaded]

@Cubus No, it's not.

[Cubus]

@goaded Yes, they do. One can easily check it.

[goaded]

@Cubus As easily as you could post a link?

[Cubus]

@goaded Here you are
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.../billNavClient.xhtml

[goaded]

@Cubus You'll have to be more specific. That text doesn't include the word "month", only includes the word "weeks" in "20 weeks gestation", talking about the cut off point between miscarriage and stillbirth, and the three times the word "day" comes up have nothing to do with time after birth.

Did you actually read it yourself, or did you believe someone who just told you it's "a law Democrats proposed in California" that allows "legally killing children up to a month after birth"?

[Cubus]

@goaded It includes the words "perinatal death". Perinatal means "relating to the period before and soon after birth".

[goaded]

@Cubus So you think a month is "soon after birth"? And, the damage has to have been done "in utero" (before birth) by the pregnant person or someone helping with their "voluntary consent".

Hardly "a law Democrats proposed in California" that allows "legally killing children up to a month after birth", is it?

"123467. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to *their pregnancy* or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero.

(b) A person who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise be deprived of their rights, based solely on their actions to aid or assist a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article with the pregnant person’s voluntary consent."

[Cubus]

@goaded That's one definition, by dictionary. Another definitions define it by "up to 30 days after birth" or "up to 60 days after birth".

[goaded]

@Cubus I'm pretty sure any such "definition" is made up by people lying about this bill. Also, the damage has to have been done before birth, remember? You're claiming that it means they can be legally killed up to a month after birth.

Does that actually sound plausible to you?

Are you so convinced that Democrats are evil that they would vote for such a thing? "Here's a happy, healthy three week old baby, we can throw it off the roof with no consequences!"

And not a single serious media outlet noticed?

The WHO definition:

"Perinatal period
The perinatal period commences at 22 completed weeks (1 54 days) of gestation (the
time when birth weight is normally 500 g), and ends seven completed days after birth. (WHO Geneva, WHA20.19, WHA43.27, Article 23)"
web.archive.org/.../e68459.pdf

[goaded]

@Cubus I have to make an apology, there are surprisingly variable definitions of perinatal, of up to a year after birth (the NHS). The rest of my comment still stands.

[exitseven]

No, they just are not very interesting to talk about so you never hear about it.

[Cubus]

In United States yes, but they are performing really good in Western Europe and Canada.

[Uannoyme]

I love how you only mention the right.

[OddBeMe]

Only mention the right…as being so batshit right wing? Are lefties batshit socialist? Cuz Bernie ain’t president. 20 years ago, Biden could've been repub.

[Uannoyme]

All I see the republicans doing is rolling over for the democrats.

[OddBeMe]

Oh right, Dems hated Roe…

[Anonymous]

Another troll question.

[OddBeMe]

Thanks for the real time example…

[Opinion Owner]

You're just trying to make the right look bad, and lying in the process.

[OddBeMe]

They don’t need me for that. I’m just asking why?

[Sasahara]

@OddBeMe, Of course the Right does not need you to make them look bad, its the Left that needs you to make the Right look bad.

[Opinion Owner]

@Sasahara
He just likes to stir the pot. And that's OK if you tell the truth. But when someone says that people who are obsessed with the 97 genders, and take their 5 year old kids to drag shows are moderate, they are flat out lying.

[OddBeMe]

Obviously what drag show you take kids to matters. Are you saying all drag queens are pedos? Bc that’s literally not the case. Your kid would be more in danger at church with pedo priests.

[Opinion Owner]

Just state why liberals are so much better than conservatives, and do it without lying about what a moderate is.

[OddBeMe]

Well…that’s not what I meant but I see how it could be seen. It’s not the left is better, just not the cause of right wing extremism. There’s no left wing extremism besides bernie.

[Opinion Owner]

What right wing extremism? Why do you keep forgetting the mention that? Is it the fentanyl killing kids?

[OddBeMe]

Is drug abuse right wing political extremism? You seriously don’t see the rise in antisemitism, white nationalism, etc. that’s right wing extremism.