The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Intell]

This is why populists are inherently not conservatives.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Turning on someone for being a sexual abuser is slimy opportunism now?

The point is that people aren't convinced that Franken is a sexual abuser. They wanted the process to play out before drawing their conclusions. Gillibrand, and others, made sure that didn't happen.

And campaigning last year with Bill Clinton only to trash him a year later is the definition of rank opportunism. It's not like she learned something new in the meantime.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Turning on someone for being a sexual abuser is slimy opportunism now?

The point is that people aren't convinced that Franken is a sexual abuser. They wanted the process to play out before drawing their conclusions. Gillibrand, and others, made sure that didn't happen.

And campaigning last year with Bill Clinton only to trash him a year later is the definition of rank opportunism. It's not like she learned something new in the meantime.

It's not as if these are unproven allegations.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

He... isn't great: the general transphobia, that awful hurricane post and having a signature longer than my television are three crimes against him.

But the fact is there are 2 genders Male and Female you’re born one or the other. No if’s no but’s of anything end of discussion.

Medical science is pretty unanimous on this: gender dysphoria is pretty much unanimously seen as being a thing that exists and the body of the evidence is that the only way of managing it is for a person to transition.  This may sound a big smug but I wrote I post that I'm quite proud of about the "mental illness!!!!!" argument that I'm pretty proud of (and a few people told me that it made them consider things a little which means that the time writing it was worthwhile), I'll quote it here

[..]To build on Crabcake's post above (and mine from earlier that you elected to ignore for some reason), the body of evidence proves that the only way to treat gender dysphoria is transitioning.  To cite only a few; there was a 2013 study in Canada that showed that 27% of the group of trans people had had not begun transitioning yet had attempted suicide; which dramatically fell to 1% of those that had completed transitioning. There was another American study of 50 trans women who'd received bottom surgery that found no significant difference in their mental or physical health from control samples of cis women.  And there was also a 2010 meta-analysis of 28 earlier studies which found that the vast majority of trans people showed significant improvement in psychiatric health; to the point where they concluded that the mental health of trans people after transitioning was broadly similar to that on the general population and much lower than pre-transition trans people.

I hate medicalising the whole issue because I don't see it as being a medical issue but one of basic rights, but the facts are very clear that transitioning works, and is the only way that does when dealing with gender dysphoria.  All of the other things that they've historically tried failed; including the joke of trying to treat it with the wrong hormones which actually only worsened the problem significantly.  But I mean, if your feelings matter more than the facts do; feel free to carry on believing that - however, using science when all of the science is against you is the height of ignorance.

A summary is basically this: the body of contemporary medical evidence strongly is in favour of our side of the argument: that is for trans people to transition to the gender that they are (which isn't something that "you wake up as" and it tends to be a lifelong thing; although the person involved doesn't always realise that that is what the issue is) as by doing that it dramatically improves their physical and mental health and well-being and that's the whole point of medical science.  They tried all sorts of other things ranging from conversion therapy to injecting people from the wrong hormones and shockingly they didn't work: the former was useless, the latter made dysphoric feelings worse and worsened outcomes.  Spreading outright falsehoods as "facts" is an incredibly intellectually dishonest thing to do, and you shouldn't do it.  I get that the science of this can seem odd because lots of it is pretty new (although that's only because no one bothered researching it that seriously until pretty recently) but the above posts contains plenty of citations to academic articles about this if you want to have a looksie at them.

There's also another side of things in relation to the subject of misgendering people; and that's basic respect for other people.  Perhaps I'm old fashioned or something but I believe that even if you disagree fundamentally with someone you lose nothing by being a decent person towards them. Internationally misgendering a trans person who posts on this forum; as both Greedo and Bagel23 have done, is frightfully rude no matter how you think about this issue.  I've not read the terms of service but I'm sure that there'll be something in it about treating other users with respect and therefore that might apply in this.  Besides, this world would be a lot better if we treated each other a lot nicer anyway!  Decency doesn't cost anything, and makes people a lot more likely to listen to you while intentionally calling a woman a man is going to make them not like you a whole lot, as well as those of us who think that doing that sort of thing is just nasty.

Okay so if a there is a transgender woman if this person is actually a woman then why do we say transgender woman.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wow so many left wing democrats on here defending bezos and his near monopoly. Fwiw I think amazon should be broken up. I mean it owns a damn supermarket and newspaper

I'm sure if Bezos' (not exactly the same as Amazon) newspaper reporting was of the same odor as Fox News, blue avatars would be just fine with it.

The Washington Post is a 3rd way CIA propaganda rag. They were running 16 hit pieces a day against Bernie.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wow so many left wing democrats on here defending bezos and his near monopoly. Fwiw I think amazon should be broken up. I mean it owns a damn supermarket and newspaper

I'm sure if Bezos' (not exactly the same as Amazon) newspaper reporting was of the same odor as Fox News, blue avatars would be just fine with it.

The Washington Post is a 3rd way CIA propaganda rag. They were running 16 hit pieces a day against Bernie.

If your Jfern erection lasts longer than four hours call a doctor.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I have another jfern post, but this one is much worse:

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Yeah, the Shah was definitely, 100% a dictator. But he did not place such locks on personal and cultural freedoms that the current regime does.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wow so many left wing democrats on here defending bezos and his near monopoly. Fwiw I think amazon should be broken up. I mean it owns a damn supermarket and newspaper

I'm sure if Bezos' (not exactly the same as Amazon) newspaper reporting was of the same odor as Fox News, blue avatars would be just fine with it.

The Washington Post is a 3rd way CIA propaganda rag. They were running 16 hit pieces a day against Bernie.

If your Jfern erection lasts longer than four hours call a doctor.

I'll defer to your expertise on chronic morbid tumescence.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Why did they want that deal with Iran so bad? It was such a one sided crappy deal.

Because without that deal, Iran would have carried on developing nuclear weapons and there would have been a very expensive war.

Where was it ever confirmed that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?

lmao

You realize there is a difference between a nuclear program and nuclear weapons, right?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wow so many left wing democrats on here defending bezos and his near monopoly. Fwiw I think amazon should be broken up. I mean it owns a damn supermarket and newspaper

I'm sure if Bezos' (not exactly the same as Amazon) newspaper reporting was of the same odor as Fox News, blue avatars would be just fine with it.

The Washington Post is a 3rd way CIA propaganda rag. They were running 16 hit pieces a day against Bernie.

If your Jfern erection lasts longer than four hours call a doctor.

I'll defer to your expertise on chronic morbid tumescence.

Ok I'll give you this one, that was pretty funny.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Why did they want that deal with Iran so bad? It was such a one sided crappy deal.

Because without that deal, Iran would have carried on developing nuclear weapons and there would have been a very expensive war.

Where was it ever confirmed that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?

lmao

You realize there is a difference between a nuclear program and nuclear weapons, right?

.... Yes?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Turning on someone for being a sexual abuser is slimy opportunism now?

The point is that people aren't convinced that Franken is a sexual abuser. They wanted the process to play out before drawing their conclusions. Gillibrand, and others, made sure that didn't happen.

And campaigning last year with Bill Clinton only to trash him a year later is the definition of rank opportunism. It's not like she learned something new in the meantime.

There was literal proof. Are you just mad that she called out Clinton for being a rapist.

This is why populists are inherently not conservatives.

Populism is objectively not inherently leftist. It's a rhetorical style, and one quite fit for reactionary fits. See trump.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Turning on someone for being a sexual abuser is slimy opportunism now?

The point is that people aren't convinced that Franken is a sexual abuser. They wanted the process to play out before drawing their conclusions. Gillibrand, and others, made sure that didn't happen.

And campaigning last year with Bill Clinton only to trash him a year later is the definition of rank opportunism. It's not like she learned something new in the meantime.

There was literal proof. Are you just mad that she called out Clinton for being a rapist.

This is why populists are inherently not conservatives.

Populism is objectively not inherently leftist. It's a rhetorical style, and one quite fit for reactionary fits. See trump.

Populism doesn't have a political bent, per se. It's a philosophy built around primal rage, around taking revenge against "the oppressors". Therefore, it's inherently incompatible with conservatism, which is a philosophy based around the free market, self-sufficiency, and individual rights. A philosophy that urges the government to take revenge for what's "keeping us down" is anathema to constitutional conservatism.

Populism isn't inherently leftist, no, but it's inherently anti-conservatives, and the fact that so many Republicans got suckered in by a coarse populist remains a massive blot on the party.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Turning on someone for being a sexual abuser is slimy opportunism now?

The point is that people aren't convinced that Franken is a sexual abuser. They wanted the process to play out before drawing their conclusions. Gillibrand, and others, made sure that didn't happen.

And campaigning last year with Bill Clinton only to trash him a year later is the definition of rank opportunism. It's not like she learned something new in the meantime.

There was literal proof. Are you just mad that she called out Clinton for being a rapist.

This is why populists are inherently not conservatives.

Populism is objectively not inherently leftist. It's a rhetorical style, and one quite fit for reactionary fits. See trump.

Populism doesn't have a political bent, per se. It's a philosophy built around primal rage, around taking revenge against "the oppressors". Therefore, it's inherently incompatible with conservatism, which is a philosophy based around the free market, self-sufficiency, and individual rights. A philosophy that urges the government to take revenge for what's "keeping us down" is anathema to constitutional conservatism.

Populism isn't inherently leftist, no, but it's inherently anti-conservatives, and the fact that so many Republicans got suckered in by a coarse populist remains a massive blot on the party.

This is sort've what I've been trying to say. Populism, whether of the right-wing or left-wing variety, is inherently bad because it attempts to pit people against one another and blame "the other" for all our problems.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Turning on someone for being a sexual abuser is slimy opportunism now?

The point is that people aren't convinced that Franken is a sexual abuser. They wanted the process to play out before drawing their conclusions. Gillibrand, and others, made sure that didn't happen.

And campaigning last year with Bill Clinton only to trash him a year later is the definition of rank opportunism. It's not like she learned something new in the meantime.

There was literal proof. Are you just mad that she called out Clinton for being a rapist.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

F- It seems to me that Obama was a disaster. As a far lefty (by American standards) who wants less corporatism, a less corrupt government, more respect for basic rights, less foreign intervention, and a stronger social safety net, Obama was a sellout and an enabler of everything I don't want the government doing, and did little I do want to see happen.

Weak on global warming and green energy. Socially liberal mostly when he was pushed into it. Missed a clear opportunity to revitalize our national infrastructure. His signature piece of legislation was Cato Institute health care plan. He aided and abetted the Bush Administration's regime of torture and illegal spying, giving the criminals a free pass and setting a terrible precedent. He did the same for the  crooks profiting from the 2007 economic crash. He didn't even try to fix our most pervasive and dangerous problems.  He trashed Libya and continued all of the Bush administration's worst offenses. He belongs in jail, in a cell between Bush and Trump.

But even if you don't agree with me, if you want a strong and globally active America, he was a failure. He oversaw the continuing decay of our military, while squandering it's capability to little effect. He failed to counter Russian or Chinese expansionism, and left the nation ill-prepared to do so in the future. Sure, he left our economy better than he found it, but you can say the same about Putin, and I'm not going to sing his praises either.

The most you can really say for him is that the creaky, corrupt, decaying machine that is the American establishment didn't completely break on his watch. He even shined it up really nice. But he certainly didn't do anything revolutionary, or even to change where the US is headed.  And he did set the stage for Trump. He seems good to us now only because anyone would look good in comparison to Trump.

I've written before about the metaphor of the nation as a bus, with Trump as the crazed, intoxicated passenger who seized control, waves around his gun (and appears to be wearing a bomb) and is drunkenly accelerating towards a cliff.

Obama, by contrast, was a nice, clear spoken and polite man. He explained that he'd recently gotten his commercial license, and if he could please drive, he'd take us where we want to go. But once in the chair, he was a pleasant driver, but he kept us on the road to the same place Trump is going, just at a slower and more sedate pace.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

See the bolded word

Another year is over and Vienna had 17 murders this year (a rate of 0.9/100.000 people).

Compared with Philly (315 murders so far), the rate is 20/100.000.

Those new Syrian refugees must be busy not murdering each other.

Once again, you are misinterpreting these numbers:

We have imported additional crimes by allowing this uncontrolled mass immigration to happen.

Crimes that would have otherwise not happened. Many young Austrian/German/Swedish etc. women would be unraped now and many people would not be dead now or beaten up.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

As a realistic Trump fan, its impossible for me to say he'll get reelected no matter what. 

If the Dems get someone charismatic who can mold themselves into a far-left Reagan, gloss over a polarizing platform, and reach out to the working-class again, they have a shot at a 1980.

I saw that scenario with Franken, but it looks like that won't be happening any time soon...

It’s such a shame, Al Franken would have been the greatest president since FDR, If it wasn’t for that damn #metoo movement (which is secretly controlled by Republicans to destroy high profile Democratic political, media, and entertainment figures).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Too bad we can't deport the native-born meth fiends first. Maybe we could giver citizenship to some illegal aliens on condition that they take the meth fiends' kids.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Establishing a 5-member elected commission with districts where gun permit applications are reviewed and can be accepted or rejected with infinite discretion.

In a state as Democratic as Maryland, this would equate to voters elect a majority rejection-in-all-cases group to the commission which means that guns would be banned completely in a way that is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Establishing a 5-member elected commission with districts where gun permit applications are reviewed and can be accepted or rejected with infinite discretion.

In a state as Democratic as Maryland, this would equate to voters elect a majority rejection-in-all-cases group to the commission which means that guns would be banned completely in a way that is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.

wrong thread

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Establishing a 5-member elected commission with districts where gun permit applications are reviewed and can be accepted or rejected with infinite discretion.

In a state as Democratic as Maryland, this would equate to voters elect a majority rejection-in-all-cases group to the commission which means that guns would be banned completely in a way that is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, that's...not how this works.

If a state's commission was voting down all gun permits, that would mean the right to bear arms was being suppressed in violation of the constitution.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No. Your sister must be one of those hysterical pink hatters.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Establishing a 5-member elected commission with districts where gun permit applications are reviewed and can be accepted or rejected with infinite discretion.

In a state as Democratic as Maryland, this would equate to voters elect a majority rejection-in-all-cases group to the commission which means that guns would be banned completely in a way that is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.

So, basically, Jim Crow for firearms? LOL.

[MasterJedi]

Establishing a 5-member elected commission with districts where gun permit applications are reviewed and can be accepted or rejected with infinite discretion.

In a state as Democratic as Maryland, this would equate to voters elect a majority rejection-in-all-cases group to the commission which means that guns would be banned completely in a way that is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.

So, basically, Jim Crow for firearms? LOL.

Make it legal to keep and bear arms but make it illegal to manufacture, purchase or import them. So the right to keep and bear them is not infringed but you can't get them. Surprised somewhere hasn't tried that yet actually.