Biggest land mass wise, not biggest population density wise, not even remotely close to close.
Allright, gotta do an OT political thread
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
Biggest land mass wise, not biggest population density wise, not even remotely close to close.
So? I'm sure you have travelled around the country. Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas? Lots of square miles, very few people. Even in Washington State. Ever been through Kahlotus or Winona? I just don't get the fixation with land mass as some sort of barometer for what should be the US's governance. Maybe antelopes and prairie dogs should get a vote. Then Wyoming, Utah and the Dakotas would rule the country.
That said, and being the open-minded independent that I am, I spent way too much time this afternoon, post Coug Men's BB game (we won!) reading up on this democracy vs republic thing. IMHO, equal parts of sense and ridiculousness. Below is a link to a pretty comprehensive analysis of democracy vs republic. But it almost muddies the water more than it clears it up. Getting back to our issue at hand, I will never change my opinion that the Electoral College needs to go away. All state governorships (I think anyway), and all US senators are elected by a statewide purely democratic vote. Likewise all representatives (state and federal), are too, with the various districts determined by population, not by how many acres the encompass.
So I will acquiesce to you REPUBLICans (see how that works?) that the US, on a presidential election only basis, is a republic. The winner take all BS state by state is BS, and the disproportionate weight given to the Wyoming's is BS.
What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples
Democracy means “rule by the people.” However, since its emergence in the 5th century BC, democracy has evolved into many forms.www.thoughtco.com
So there. Peace, you fascist commies.
What you are not getting, is that it has NOTHING to do with LAND MASS.
Suppose you are a Christian Republican Farmer, in Wyoming. Suppose that every person in a rural small state like Wyoming is also a Christian Republican Farmer like you.
Next suppose that every NYC, LA, etc BIG CITY, is a Atheist, Democrat, that wants to PERSECUTE Christian Farmers like you, and is bigoted toward you and others like you.
Next, then, suppose in this dynamic, that the Electoral College is done away with, replaced by POPULAR VOTE.
Next,suppose there are 2 presidential candidates, 1 supported by the Christian Farmer hating MAJORITY in NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Seattle, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, DC, Miami, AKA the BIGGEST CITIES.
the other candidate is supported by the hated Christian Farmer MINORITY in places like Wyoming, etc.
The BIG CITY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE is running on promises that he will put all Christian Farmers in places like Wyoming in Concentration camps, like what was done to Japanese in WW2, and seize take away all land owned, farmed by Christian Farmers.
That candidate is Supported by the 25 biggest cities.
The rest of the states, etc, support the presidential candidate that is supported by the rest of the states, nation, etc.
The Election is won by the HITLER like candidate supported by the 25 biggest cities, because even tho the rest of the nation voted against the HITLER candidate, the 25 biggest cities voters voting that voted for the Hitler candidate, OUTNUMBERED, WAS THE POPULAR VOTE, over the rest of the nation.
Then the Hitler like President rounds up the Christian Farmer Loyal Coug and the other Christian Farmers and puts them in Concentration camps, and seize, take away their lands, etc.
THATS HOW THE POPULAR VOTE WORKS.
IT WAS A POPULAR VOTE THAT ALLOWED HITLER TO RISE TO POWER, START WW2
THOSE WHO FAIL TO LEARN FROM HISTORY WILL BE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.
Elections are battles of Values, beliefs, religions, morals, etc.
Elections determine whether people will be free, or whether they will be FORCED, RAPED, DICTATED TOO, ROUNDED UP, PUT IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS, GET THEIR PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THEM, ETC.
POPULAR VOTES TAKE AWAY PEOPLES FREEDOM, BOSSES THE MINORITY AROUND, ETC.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE GIVES ALL PEOPLE, AREAS, BELIEFS, RELIGEONS, MORALS, ETC, A FAIR AND EQUAL CHANCE, OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, ETC.
THE POPULAR VOTE IS FOR THE COMMIES, HITLERS, ETC.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS FOR THOSE THAT DONT WANT TO BE BOSSED AROUND, AND DONT WANT ANYONE ELSE BOSSED AROUND, WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY, OR MINORITY.
WYOMING KNOWS WHATS BEST FOR WYOMING. WYOMING DOES NOT NEED NYC BOSSING WYOMING AROUND.
NYC KNOWS WHATS BEST FOR NYC. NYC DOES NOT NEED LA BOSSING NYC AROUND.
A POPULAR VOTE ALLOWS LA TO BOSS NYC AROUND, AND LETS NYC BOSS WYOMING AROUND.
A ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM DOES NOT LET LA BOSS NYC AROUND, AND DOES NOT LET NYC BOSS WYOMING AROUND, AND MAKES IT SO THAT NYC, LA, WYOMING ARE HEARD, HAVE A MEANINGFUL VOTE, ETC.
Candidates spend little time there because those states you mentioned are not competetive. A Democrat must run to the left to guarantee California and New York. A republican must do the opposite to guarantee Texas. Doing away with the EC would persuade the candidates to a more moderate position because as it stands, those millions of gop voters count for nothing. If it was popular vote those millions mean a lot.
Those big states you mentioned are only the big prizes BECAUSE of the dumb EC. Otherwise those individual voters would have just as much value as a rural voters in Idaho.
Ita only been about 100 years that presidential candidates actually personally campaigned. In todays environment with modern media they really dont need to again.
No third party candidates have effectively made inroads yet due to the party power over the process. A popular vote would likely INCREASE thwir chances to be a factor. They are merely spoilers now. Is that good? Clinton and Bush would have gone to a runoff since neither gained 50%. Taihtsat
Dumb example. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and would prevent your scenario.
We also have a representing elected body (congress) that is fully functional to prevent this. Taihtsat
Concentrated population centers are irrelevant. You people on the wrong side of this argument talk as if those millions of voters cannot be reached or fought for by Republicans.
They choose not to appeal to them because they don't need to. You know why they don't need to? Because there is a system in place that allows them to cater to a minority of the popular issues (abortion, gun control, any number of grab-bag social/Christian conservative topics) all of which supporters are in the minority. And they can STILL win the national election because the math ONLY favors them. Therefore, why give that system up?
If most of you were being honest, you would want to ditch this the moment a Democrat won the election with a minority of the vote. Admit it.
They choose not to appeal to them because they don't need to. You know why they don't need to? Because there is a system in place that allows them to cater to a minority of the popular issues (abortion, gun control, any number of grab-bag social/Christian conservative topics) all of which supporters are in the minority. And they can STILL win the national election because the math ONLY favors them. Therefore, why give that system up?
If most of you were being honest, you would want to ditch this the moment a Democrat won the election with a minority of the vote. Admit it.
Putting “fully functional” and “Congress” in the same sentence is a fallacy.
That ship has sailed with the might of special interest money and exemptions to members of Congress to laws like insider trading.
Not fully functioning at all.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. As I said above, any change to the system that is in place now would only be done for the benefit of one party over another, and that is not the way to go. I simply want elections to be fair and played by the same rules. Everyone knows how the EC system is set up, how it works, and everyone should continue to play by the same rules.
I would not support a change just because the R's had a bad candidate or whatever caused them to pull a Hillary and lose the EC while getting more popular votes.
Admit it. To you, having your side win is the only thing that matters to you and you are willing to do anything and everything it takes to achieve that goal.
Thank you Donald Trump.
I sat down and read the entire Constitution this morning over coffee. It was interesting. The 12th amendment throws me though. I says, among other things, that:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President..........the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed
This is interesting. Unless one of you Constitutional Scholars can find something to the contrary, it doesn't appear to say anything about "all or none" when it comes to Elector votes.
Article II is a bit odd also. Each state determines how their electors are selected?
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So I guess that could mean that each red state or blue state (legislature-wise) could chose a slate of electors that match their lean. Probably benefitting the R's.
So, why do we even have a Presidential election? I must have missed something. Hopefully someone will clear this up for me.
Oh and Mik - how about you knock off your "rape and enslave" bullshit? The R-word describes one thing and one thing only. And it's not what you seem to refer to constantly. I find it highly offensive. Even worse than you "Coug it" haters.
Oh and one other thing. The most recent amendment to the Constitution was in 1992. 32 years ago. Contrary to a comment to the effect of how things have been going along just fine for 200 years. Except for those 27 silly amendments.
Then it never really has been. And yet here we are without any "tyranny" of the minority or majority. I'd say they've done their job, along with the courts. Taihtsat
Wrong to the third power. The simplest and fairest and most just system when electing a national political office is simply one where the majority of the voters who cast their vote elect the winner of said election.
Do you support a senate election system where the minority elects the candidate simply because the other candidates primary support comes from densely populated districts or counties? If not, why not? Because there is no difference between the presidential system we have and that hypothetical. Please explain yourself
There is a difference between a Senator who is elected per state and a President is elected per each state. A Senator functions pertaining to their said state. A president functions pertains to ALL states. You yourself said majority of votes elect a candidate. Again an again 5-6-7 MAJORITY POPULATED CITIES could determine the outcome of the Presidential election. So all those votes in smaller states are null and void. Why should the smaller states ever vote again? What LA, SF, Chicago, Houston, NYC, Philly wants the rest of us have to live with. The EC process eliminates the big cities controlling of a country.
Why do those voters in smaller states not count? There are a lot of people who live in less populated areas and smaller cities and towns. There's also a lot of folks voting for the other team living in huge metropolitan cities. The candidate would be incentivized to go get those votes.
What are you failing to understand (apparently) is that now they don't even need to try to persuade them.
Also, US senators make federal law. They also used to be elected solely by state legislatures. That only changed about 100 years ago. Do you appose that change or should we go back to a few electors making the decision bynproxy for entire electorate? You do not. Why not? Please explain yourself
Why do you guys keep harping on these big cities? Your whole premise is BS. First of all, you seem to assume that 100% of the voters in these big cities would vote one way? Conversely, NONE of the smaller states' votes would count?
Re: Senators - Senators represent a bunch of counties. Presidents represent a bunch of states. Aside from size, exactly what is the difference?
You all are just full of nonsense. Just beating our heads against the wall.
There are 4.6 million registered voters in NYC (not state) according to WNYC News 2023. STATE of Alabama 3,466,791, Alaska 537,615, AZ 4,206,639, Arkansas 1,576,910, Colorado 3,839,946, Delaware 718,772, Idaho 923,517, Iowa 2,083,979, Maine 1,039,517, Mississippi 1,932,172, Montana 677,865, Nebraska 1,181,974, NH 1,000,925, NM 1,235,665, ND 423,819, OK 2,116,074, RI 734,914, SD 580,051, Utah 1,520,941, Vermont 462,397, WV 1,092,051, WY 286,354. Info from the Independent Voter. Now as MOST everyone can see ONE city, NYC has enough voters to cancel out the votes of multiple states. Now add in 5-8 major metros. There you have it, numbers don’t lie. EC needs to stay
FWIW, both parties are currently changing election laws to benefit their parties already. In Kansas, the GOP gerrymandered Douglas County, Kansas (which is next to Kansas City) into a district that includes most of western Kansas so they could eliminate a Democrat from the House of Representatives. They also passed laws to eliminate voting stations in minority areas to make it harder for Democrats to vote. States, democratic and republican, have passed laws that they feel benefit their majority parties. The notion that the Electoral College is a sacred cow that shouldn't be changed because it was part of the original setup ignores that the original setup also said that black people were not eligible to vote nor were they even a full person. Women were also considered too incompetent to vote. The EC has it's reasons to exist...but that doesn't mean that adjustments wouldn't make sense to try to make sure that each vote really counts.
You don't get DEMOGRAPHICS.
BIG CITIES DO HAVE DIFFERENT VALUES, BELIEFS, MORALS, RELIGEONS, VOTES, ETC, THEN RURAL AREAS.
I have lived in both rural and BIG CITY areas, and the DEMOGRAPHICS of both, are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED, DIFFERENT, OPPOSITE, ETC.
BIG CITIES are about 89% Far left, liberal, socialist, Marxist, communist, are either apathetic towards or are atheist or are anti religion, are social justice warriors, are WOKEIST, Politically correct, pro abortion, apathetic towards or semi anti family values, are TAX AND SPEND LIKE CRAZY, etc.
BIG CITIES ARE HOME TO ANTIFA, TERRORIST, CRIMINALS, ACORN, CAIR, EXTREMIST, BLACK LIVES MATTER(FOUNDED BY CARD CARRYING COMMUNIST, A HATE, RACIST GROUP, A LOT LIKE ANTIFA), GANGS, CARTELLS, DRUGS, BLACK PANTHERS, etc.
Rural areas, altho they have very rare extremist, criminals, bigots, etc, about 89% are FARMERS, Christians, NOT PC, anti abortion, anti tax, anti spending, are OPPOSITE, DIFFERENT then BIG CITIES.
The Rural areas views, beliefs, RELIGEONS, morals, etc, that are the opposite of BIG CITIES DO NOT COUNT, DO NOT HAVE A VOICE, WILL NOT WIN AGAINST THE COMPLETELY OPPOSITE values, beliefs, etc, of the BIG CITIES, that are DIFFERENT then Rural ways.
Because of that A POPULAR VOTE System where the BIGGEST CITIES, SOLELY decide elections, over the rural areas, ways, is ANATHEMA to Rural areas.
WHY?
Because as soon as the BIG CITIES SOLELY determine who wins election, the BIG CITIES, start doing things, and start making, forcing, etc, Rural areas to do EVERYTHING the BIG CITY WAY, over the DIFFERENT RURAL WAY.
In a POPULAR VOTE THE BIG CITY WAY TRUMPS, ETC, THE RURAL AREA DIFFERENT WAY.
INSTEAD OF RURAL AREAS BEING ABLE TO DO THINGS THE WAY THEY WANT TO DO THINGS, BIG CITIES START BOSSING, TELLING THE RURAL AREAS WHAT TO DO.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT RURAL AREAS LOSE THE FREEDOM TO DO THINGS THEIR WAY.
Now you, others would say that the rural areas, Republicans, if they campaigned in Big Cities, or compromised, or learned moderation, etc, then the rural areas would win more, etc, in the Popular Vote system.
But Rural Areas, Republicans, have campaigned, have compromised at times, have moderated at times, and when they have done so, THE RURAL AREAS, REPUBLICANS, STILL DID NOT WIN, etc.
And that's because ITS THE BIG CITY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY in the POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM.
In the Electoral College, both the BIG CITY WAY, THAT IS DIFFERENT then the RURAL WAY BOTH GET FAIR, EQUAL voice, representation, where BOTH the BIG CITY WAY and the DIFFERENT RURAL AREA WAY, get fair, equal voice, representation, both get visited, campaigned, get their voice, votes, WAY, heard, and where both have about equal chance to have THEIR WAY.
ELECTIONS IS A BATTLE TO SEE WHICH WAY WILL BE FOLLOWED, DONE.
A POPULAR VOTE IS A BATTLE BETWEEN THE BIG CITY WAY AND THE RURAL FARMER WAY
A ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE IS A MORE FAIR BATTLE BETWEEN THE BIG CITY WAY AND THE RURAL FARMER WAY.
Your right in what your saying. Repubs are as guilty as the Democrats trying to get rid of Electoral College.
2 Wrongs don't make a right. Just because Repubs are guilty of what your saying, does not make it ok to replace the Electoral College with a POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM.
And most of us here would like adjustments made to Electoral College, that would make each vote count.
But the argument wasn't about whether to make adjustments to Electoral College.
The argument was about whether the Electoral College should be replaced by POPULAR VOTES.
The ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULD NOT BE REPLACED BY A POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM.
ADJUST THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, IMPROVE IT ALL YOU WANT, JUST DONT REPLACE IT WITH THE POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM.
There isn’t anything about all or nothing in the constitution. The states determine how their electoral votes are awarded. Thats how Maine and Nebraska can split theirs. No idea why the all or nothing thing started, but it needs to go away.
No, I do not because there is a monumental difference between the two situations. And that difference is that the Electoral College system is the law of the land, by inclusion in our founding documents.
As far as the fairest system......where do you think it is easiest to cheat in an election-in rural areas where more people know each other or in densely packed urban areas where way fewer people know their neighbors?
So what is exactly the difference? I don't see any. Oh and slavery and lack of women's right to vote were in our founding documents, so why aren't we still following them?
What seemed to get everyone so grouchy about this? It's not like we live in a piece of shit "loser" country.
I swear it seems like everyone is pushing aside how lucky we are... how amazing things have been...
If anything, we need more laws that force us to be what made us great vs. floating into a land of frutti pebbles.
To see anyone here bitch about Trump when we are going towards problems with what is a he/she... chopping 8 year old penises... allowing a flow of total "unknowns" into our country when 1/4 of the world wants us destroyed...
Hate Trump all you want.
Can anyone name anything as dumb as promoting people who want to support parents that chop a kids' dingy? Forcing schools to remove him / her from what people can say?
I swear it seems like everyone is pushing aside how lucky we are... how amazing things have been...
If anything, we need more laws that force us to be what made us great vs. floating into a land of frutti pebbles.
To see anyone here bitch about Trump when we are going towards problems with what is a he/she... chopping 8 year old penises... allowing a flow of total "unknowns" into our country when 1/4 of the world wants us destroyed...
Hate Trump all you want.
Can anyone name anything as dumb as promoting people who want to support parents that chop a kids' dingy? Forcing schools to remove him / her from what people can say?
Come on, don't play dumb. One situation is a silly hypothetical possibility and the other situation is that the EC is enshrined in our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Why aren't we still allowing slavery and blocking women's votes? Perhaps you have heard about this process called Amending the Constitution? Yes, it was determined by pretty universal agreement that both of those things were NOT good things and thus the proper process for amending the Constitution was followed, thus those Amendments became law.
At this point in time, there is no such universal agreement that the Electoral College should be eliminated or changed. So far there has simply been arguments for and against making changes, no overwhelming reason for making changes. And as I said before, the proposed changes are being driven not by any sense of fairness betterment to the US but simply for the benefit of one party because they were on the losing side in the 2000 and 2016 elections in the EC totals while getting more popular votes. You can bet your bottom dollar that if those situations were reversed that the liberals would then be arguing vehemently to keep the EC exactly as it is now.
Meh. Ok I'm done with this. There is no room for compromise here. Time to move on.
Now the Lady Cougs beating #2 UCLA today, at UCLA, was the biggest victory of all time for them. I watched a lot of it. I like watching them. Thought they were going to Co - uh I mean choke it at the end after being up 20 in the 3rd Q. Which begs the question - why do College men play 2 halves but the women, and pretty much all of organized basketball, play 4 quarters? Hmmm.
All I know is that a lot of people in today's GOP spend a lot of time thinking about kid's dingys. Can you point me to the time where Biden said that it should be legal to chop off an 8 year old's penis? He was saying that it should be legal for 13 to 17 year old kids to get "gender affirming care" with their parents' permission. I don't agree with "gender affirming" sex change operations for minors but at the same time, y'all spend a lot of time talking about "government over-reach" and "freedom" but that sh!t only applies to things that you agree with. When the Democrats say, "Choice"...you lose your f#cking minds. F#cking hypocrites.
FWIW, I do believe that the Democrats have fubared the southern border and they know that. They've recently been willing to pass laws that would strengthen the government's ability to slow immigration. The irony? Cocksucking Trump nutlickers blocking legislation because they don't want there to be any positive news while there is a Democrat in office. You can talk sh!t all you want about the border...but the reality is that you don't want it to be fixed because it takes away your talking point. F#cking hypocrites.
And finally...for the love of God....why can't you find a better candidate than Donald J. Trump? Is that how f#cking pathetic the GOP is today? The dude is clearly delusional, basically the same broken down old ass man as Joe Biden, mumbles like a f#cking idiot all the time and he's the best you've got right now? Biden is a terrible candidate, but Jesus Christ...do better than the narcissistic lunatic who sh!ts in a gold toilet while he jerks one off to classified information and spews out drivel all the time about getting even. You f#cking a$$holes go on about how f#cking old Joe Biden is but you want to elect a dude that's going to be the same GD age when he's done if he's elected. F#cking hypocrites.
I saw a meme that made me laugh because it made me realize how stupid you f#ckers are when it comes to Trump. My cousin's idiot wife posted, "I'd rather support the man that gave up his life of riches to become President rather than a guy who became President to get rich". Trump charged our government millions of dollars to use his properties while he was President, he broke the law by forcing foreign diginitaries to stay at his Washington properties and he used his influence to convince millions of you idiots to donate to his criminal prosecution case. He didn't give up sh!t. F#cking idiots.
I don't want Biden as President next year but f#ck Donald Trump.
Just to get the facts straight, Biden surgeon General has advocated for legislature that would allow minors to get gender affirming car without parental consent.
Flat... don't be lost.
Who do you think is pushing through the demand for the country to become the land of fruitti pebbles?
If I have to vote 100% right on every single candidate out there to make it so there are men's and women's bathrooms...
So chicks with dicks aren't sharing locker rooms and involved in women's sports...
So no one under the age of 18 can get dicks chopped off...
I am 100% fine in stating I will vote Republican.
I swear anyone out there REMOTELY giving the okay to any of this crap should be in a mental ward.
We also used to select our VP by being the runner up. We don't do that anymore. Some states would select their govenors by legislative selection. We don't do that anymore. Senators used to be selected by state legislatures. We don't do that anymore. As mentioned above, slavery was institutionalized in our founding documents by those same founding fathers. We don't do that anymore.
As far as cheating goes, Trump tried to cheat his way out of his loss by having fake/alterate electors appointed. If the state gop governors and legislatures had agreed to go along he would have been successful in "cheating" his way to a win. The EC is more susceptible to cheating than the popular vote. Taihtsat
Just out of curiosity , how many presidential elections have we had that cheating went on ? And how many elections have been a result of fraud in the ballot box. ?
I just looked around and everything that I saw with Biden involved said, "Children and their families".
For me, the biggest problem that I have with the GOP position on this is the hypocrisy of the right when it comes to "Big Government" and "Government Overreach". I own multiple firearms and I enjoy shooting them. I don't think that gun ownership should be illegal but every time I hear an a$$hole talking about the second amendment and "constitutional rights" and then seeing that same person immediately flip to "except when abortion, ******s, queers and cross-dressers are involved"....it makes me question whether or not I want these dumb, angry misogynistic a$$holes walking around with firearms.
There are a lot of things that I don't like about Joe Biden and the Democrats.....but when it comes to abortion and transgender issues.....I figure I'm going to let God sort that sh!t out. It's not my job to force other people to comply with my viewpoints.
well, you completely missed the point, or at least what I addressed, which is minors being allowed to make these decisions.
And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, just look at the laws on WA state regarding minors health care. The can, without parental consent or knowledge: get an abortion, birth control, vd pills, and for all intents and purposes gender affirming care. They cannot get regular health care, nor can they vote, carry or own firearms, drink, smoke weed, get a tattoo, look at porn, GET A VACCINE, etc. I put the vaccine thing there not to trigger your delicate sensibilities about the issue, but to point out there there are children who are raise Christian Scientists who are denied medical care by their parents, and who parents always get convicted of some sort of homocide when they inevitably die, but these kids still can't advocate to get a fricken measles vaccine.
THAT is the problem I have with the left (the right too, but we're talking about a leftist issue) is that they can't see the forest through the trees, and they're more than happy to pass pandering, hot topic legislation and then hold a press conference to virtue signal, but ignore equally as important issue like the one I mentioned.
WA minor healthcare laws
Scroll down to the blue pull down menus.
It's not hypocritical to be anti Big government and then to be against the murder of the sentient, self aware, can feel pain, unborn.
If you want to kill, murder your neighbor, it's not ok, because of anti Big government stance.
One's rights end at the rights of others. A person's rights end at the nose of another person. A person can't say "If I want to punch somebody in the nose, that's my right, and the government, law enforcement does not have to right to stop me from exercising my right to punch somebody in the nose, if I want to.
Sentient, Self Aware, can feel pain, etc, unborn, have rights also. They have the right not to be killed, murdered.
The founding documents says "Right to life, liberty, property". That applies to sentient, self aware, can feel pain, etc, unborn. Because of that, government, laws, law enforcement, courts, etc, have every right, responsibility to protect the life of sentient, self aware, unborn.
The sentient, self aware unborn right to life, ends at the right of the mother to live, if the mother is going to die giving birth.
As far as Transgenders. Females have the right not to have males share bathrooms, lockerooms, rape them by pretending to be Transgender and then pretending to use bathroom, and then raping females(this has happened).
Females have the right not to have their safety, etc, endangered by males, pretending they are females and playing with females in female sports.
People have the right to not call a he a she.
Being pro government protecting those rights is not against anti Big government stance, and is not hypocrisy.
Having the government give SUPERIOR rights to TRANSGENDERS over the rights of others and making females share bathrooms, lockerooms with males pretending to be females, and making females play sports with males pretending to be females, and making people call he's, she's, etc, is wrong, bad, hypocritical, etc
Now if Repubs were the ones that were Pro transgenders doing this shit, and pro having the government do this shit, then the Repubs would hypocritically going against their anti Big government stance.
It's not Repubs forcing transgenders.
It's Transgenders AND BIG GOVERNMENT, FORCING people to call he's, she's, forcing females to share bathrooms, lockerooms, with males, forcing females to play sports with males, forcing everybody to the TRANSGENDER point of view.
Lots of Repubs would be willing to LIVE AND LET LIVE, and IF YOU WANT TO BE TRANSGENDER, MORE POWER TO YOU, YOU GO AHEAD AND CUT YOUR DICK OFF, WEAR WOMENS CLOTHING, PRETEND ALL YOU WANT, ETC, JUST DONT FORCE ME TO CALL YOU A SHE, AND JUST DONT SHARE BATHROOMS, PLAY SPORTS WITH FEMALES.
BUT THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR TRANSGENDERS, BIG GOVERNMENT
Are
Same with objections to homosexuality and reference to the Bible. It's nearly never about lesbians. Just guy on guy.
Men have always been able to pretend to be women and invade a women's locker room/bathroom. It has happened. You will find very little evidence of actual legitimate transgender women sexually assaulting women. Unless you are implying these folk go through the whole transition just so they can have access to taking sexual advantage of women. Do you really believe this?
Are you as outraged about females who transition to male? Everytime...and I mean EVERYTIME you folks fr3al out over transgendered folk, the examples you provide are always about guys cutting their dicks off.
Same with objections to homosexuality and reference to the Bible. It's nearly never about lesbians. Just guy on guy.
Men have always been able to pretend to be women and invade a women's locker room/bathroom. It has happened. You will find very little evidence of actual legitimate transgender women sexually assaulting women. Unless you are implying these folk go through the whole transition just so they can have access to taking sexual advantage of women. Do you really believe this?
I don't know if I can respond back to this without laughing...
Yes... A girl can get messed up by chopping boobs and taking anti-pubecent pills. In fact... one of the most horrible testimonials about "what can't be undone" was a teenager who mad/sad/depressed it can't be undone. It made her life horrible. It should have never happened.
When talking with guys here on a message board... or apparently im certain cases.... used to be guys...
I don't find it odd at all to reference a penis.
Roll what you need to roll man.
Oh my. How did we go from a rather tame topic of annoyance that the pundits want to call the R race after 1 small primary and 1 small caucus, to a very long meander through the Constitution and Electoral College, and now we have devolved to talking about penises and trans people and everything semi-related?
My only comments are these. Gross as they are.
First, I am a little morbidly curious about how these surgical procedures work. To truly turn a guy into a fully functioning woman they slice his penis in half and create a vagina? Does that mean he can have orgasms? And vice versa - they can fabricate a penis for a woman? Does it work? I just don't get it. I guess the link below sort of explains, but man that is some serious surgery. Make a penis out of a clitoris? I've seen some big clits, but not big enough to suffice as a weiner!
And how much does all this cost, and does insurance pay for it? Hope mine doesn't!
So second comment. I do not understand these Trans "women" who grow boobs, take hormones, etc. to look like women, but still have their junk (and the bathroom issue arises here). So it's like OK, any man who wants you has to go you know where, and any woman might as well have a real man. Disgusting, perplexing and a bit fascinating all in one.
sex change operations - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
So howsabout we move on to the next topic?
