Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Too many long words for Trumpublicans, they don't understand things as social construct, chromosomes and genetics.

Nothing longer than two syllables.

 

Edited by CMRivdogs
Posted
3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - Maybe she should have said: "Chromosomes are genetics, gender is a social construct."

Blackburn's base was going to get fired up no matter how the question was answered which is why she asked the question.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Too many long words for Trumpublicans, they don't understand things as social construct, chromosomes and genetics.

Nothing longer than two syllables.

 

They have heard the term "social construct".  They don't know what it means, but it's a triggering phrase based on who uses it.   

Posted
Just now, Tiger337 said:

They have heard the term "social construct".  They don't know what it means, but it's a triggering phrase based on who uses it.   

HaHA - Of course for many of them it means they shouldn't be racist, and sure, that's a problem!

Posted
1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

But she doesn't know what a woman is.  

the best answer would be: "It doesn't matter what I think the answer is because all are equal before the law" , which in essence is pretty close to what she did say.

  • Like 2
Posted
56 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - Maybe she should have said: "Chromosomes are genetics, gender is a social construct."

the inability for people on both sides of that issue to draw the line between "sex" and "gender" is very frustrating.  that said, we have drawn so many legal and social lines along gender (who gets protected by what rules, who can use this facility (bathrooms), who can compete against whom, who is being discriminated against, who can go where in society) it makes it an almost impossible problem to "solve" and an impossible question to answer, especially in a legal sense where so many questions are supposed to have black letter law answers.

how do you legislate who can use what bathroom?  or who can compete against whom in sports when the variables change so much?  i doubt most people care - or would notice - if some transwoman walked into a woman's bathroom.  but how do you write that into law and prevent dudes from abusing it?  its easy fodder for scaremongering republicans to present a worst case scenario (which does happen but very rarely) and make democrats look bad for defending it.

Posted
20 minutes ago, buddha said:

the inability for people on both sides of that issue to draw the line between "sex" and "gender" is very frustrating.  that said, we have drawn so many legal and social lines along gender (who gets protected by what rules, who can use this facility (bathrooms), who can compete against whom, who is being discriminated against, who can go where in society) it makes it an almost impossible problem to "solve" and an impossible question to answer, especially in a legal sense where so many questions are supposed to have black letter law answers.

Reminds me how "mental health" is used whenever there is a school shooting in this country.

It's easy to blame a nebulous subject that cannot really be legislated than it is to address problems that actually can be legislated.

Its really a perfect strategy for today's GOP on any number of issues given how little interest they seem to take in actually legislating.

Posted
2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Too many long words for Trumpublicans, they don't understand things as social construct, chromosomes and genetics.

Nothing longer than two syllables.

 

Except "tremendous". That's the MAGA code word.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

 

He was actually looking for a reason to mock her and that's the sound bite he was given which may be what you are saying.  

Edited by Tiger337
Posted
51 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Reminds me how "mental health" is used whenever there is a school shooting in this country.

It's easy to blame a nebulous subject that cannot really be legislated than it is to address problems that actually can be legislated.

Its really a perfect strategy for today's GOP on any number of issues given how little interest they seem to take in actually legislating.

Just a friendly reminder that Republicans actually have no interest in legislating, because they profess to despise government. They're business people, or at least business-people-adjacent, and businesses are anti-government because good government holds them to standards, and businesses want no standards.

That's why these Republicans ran for government, and frankly, that's why their districts voted them in. Their twin goals are to destroy the effectiveness of government from within, and then plunder the Treasury for themselves and their benefactors on the way out.

Posted
1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

He was actually looking for a reason to mock her and that's the sound bite he was given which may be what you are saying.  

Correct. I am also saying that these MAGAs are too weak-minded to develop opinions based on analyzing whatever the subject at hand is. They are already reactionary, which they've committed to instinct, so they know they need to oppose everything—that's the easy part. The hard part is coming up with the why, which is what they need to be told by their media.

Get back to them on any of this in a couple of months and ask them why then. They'll have moved on and long forgotten the reasons by then.

Posted
8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Correct. I am also saying that these MAGAs are too weak-minded to develop opinions based on analyzing whatever the subject at hand is. They are already reactionary, which they've committed to instinct, so they know they need to oppose everything—that's the easy part. The hard part is coming up with the why, which is what they need to be told by their media.

Get back to them on any of this in a couple of months and ask them why then. They'll have moved on and long forgotten the reasons by then.

I know one guy who whenever I tell him sonething is not true, he'll immediately send me a link from a MAGA site telling that it is.  I tell him his source sucks and then he sends me an equally stupid link from another terrible site.  He's a nice guy though as long as he's not talking politics.  

Posted
26 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Just a friendly reminder that Republicans actually have no interest in legislating, because they profess to despise government. They're business people, or at least business-people-adjacent, and businesses are anti-government because good government holds them to standards, and businesses want no standards.

That's why these Republicans ran for government, and frankly, that's why their districts voted them in. Their twin goals are to destroy the effectiveness of government from within, and then plunder the Treasury for themselves and their benefactors on the way out.

what is the goal of the democrats?

Posted
1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Reminds me how "mental health" is used whenever there is a school shooting in this country.

It's easy to blame a nebulous subject that cannot really be legislated than it is to address problems that actually can be legislated.

Its really a perfect strategy for today's GOP on any number of issues given how little interest they seem to take in actually legislating.

agreed.

"mental health" and "therapy" are the new penance.  Make a public mistake that causes you to lose reputation?  go to "therapy".  you dont have to say 10 hail mary's and wear a hairshirt anymore, now you need to go tell a "mental health professional" all your secrets.

just as a side note, i think a lot of legislation gets passed but we never hear about most of it.  we hear about republicans obstructing democrats from passing larger legislation - which is true - but more actually gets done than we know about.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Murkowski and Romney both a yes to confirm.

but what about manchin and sinema!!!!!!!  lol.

she'll be easily confirmed.  she's taking a liberal's seat so its not a fight.

now....if thomas dies...then you'll see a fight.  especially since republicans will likely control both houses of congress after the next election.

Posted
10 minutes ago, buddha said:

... now....if thomas dies...then you'll see a fight.  especially since republicans will likely control both houses of congress after the next election.

Biden will need a non-controversial centrist type judge then... As long as Manchin & Sinema are on board they'll be able to get that person through the nomination...

Posted
34 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Biden will need a non-controversial centrist type judge then... As long as Manchin & Sinema are on board they'll be able to get that person through the nomination...

Doesn't matter, if Beijing Mitch is Senate Leader, he'll declare it's an election year somewhere and delay the selection. Biden should call Lady Linsey's bluff and nominate Michelle Childs (who Graham suggested this time around)

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Doesn't matter, if Beijing Mitch is Senate Leader, he'll declare it's an election year somewhere and delay the selection. Biden should call Lady Linsey's bluff and nominate Michelle Childs (who Graham suggested this time around)

Obama did that when Orrin Hatch suggested nominating Merrick Garland. 

Posted
1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

Biden will need a non-controversial centrist type judge then... As long as Manchin & Sinema are on board they'll be able to get that person through the nomination...

it wont matter who biden picked, the republicans would likely not allow her/him to be accepted.

Posted
1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

Biden will need a non-controversial centrist type judge then... As long as Manchin & Sinema are on board they'll be able to get that person through the nomination...

Ummm… this choice now is / SHOULD have been non-controversial. 
 

So, you know what? The hell with trying to appease that side of the aisle, because there’s NO ONE they won’t paint as extreme Commie-loving pinkos.

It’s disgusting.

  • Like 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, buddha said:

it wont matter who biden picked, the republicans would likely not allow her/him to be accepted.

If they don't win the Senate back, yes, Biden will be able to get a candidate through.

And before the next election winners are seated in the Senate, yes, he will be able to get a candidate through.

I specifically stated this.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...