We have a great system if used as designed allows for diversity among the states. Our core problems with FDR and continues through Biden where there is an attempt to centralize more power in Washington instead of the states and local governments. SCOTUS did not help when it began to make write laws that had national implications. I've posted 100 times: limit the power in D.C. and return more power to the states, who in turn should put more power into local political subdivisions.

Mothra said:

---

contrario said:

---

Ok, keep focusing on they/them, you will continue to lose actual rights in the process. While you guys have been fighting a losing cultural war for decades, the people in charge have been increasing the deficit and federal spending. You are electing people that will fight the they/them fight for you, but at the expense of financial freedom and an unmanageable debt for our ancestors. Even the chosen one in some of your eyes (Trump) increased the deficit even further than Obama did. At what point do you cut your losses and elect someone that will actually take control of our financial mess? Because the truth is, while you have been focusing on these tangential social issues, the group in power has used the social issues distraction to create a two-party system where the two parties are really two sides of the same coin and they use all of you as pawns to push their true agenda which is to make the rich people that finance their campaigns even richer.

---

I suspect there are some Republican candidates that can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not the binary issue you would make it.

---

And yet it has become binary. The national debt has been growing at an alarming rate and no one has given the appearance of being able to chew gum and walk at the same time. Either the candidates are too conservative on social issues and light on economic issues to make an impact on the national debt, or they are too conservative on economic issues and light on social issues and won't be elected by the republican electorate.

My point is it appears a large portion of the republican electorate is too distracted by pronouns and genders in bathrooms, and they have lost their attention on what really matters - the economy and the debt/deficit. It doesn't really matter what someone chooses to do in their bedroom or how they would prefer to be addressed, but what does matter is deficit spending our country out of existence.

To repeat again, you guys keep electing people that are "tough" on social issues but don't give a fck about the national debt. All I'm suggesting is maybe don't focus as much on social issues and support candidates that will try to right this ship. Because if the economic trajectory isn't fixed soon, no one will be worrying about pronouns.

You're confusing what interests the leftist media versus what republicans care about.

contrario said:

---

Golem said:

---

contrario said:

---

whiterock said:

---

my favorite part of rainbow land is the one where people get to choose their pronouns.

Actually, they are not choosing "their" pronouns, because one never actually uses one's own pronouns. They are choosing pronouns of everyone else who talks about them, when they are not present. Imagine that. Your definition of freedom and democracy requires others to follow rules about how they talk about you when you are not around, and if they don't obey, you get to denounce them as oppressors and have a fair chance of cancelling them from social institutions and or employment.

At first glance, the pronoun game seems demure compared to the megalomania of full bore trans trying to draw emotional strength from the power of transforming the reality of everyone and everything around them. On the other hand, the non-binary seek to control their legacy to the horizons, to force society at large to acknowledge their specialness, or else.

How long before ordinary people get tired of being bullied by the emotionally weak, and just start ignoring the whole thing?

---

The pronoun thing is a distraction. While you are wasting time and energy worrying about pronouns, they are attacking in areas that actually matter. And they are laughing at you as they do it.

---

Forced restructuring of the English language to incorporate lies into the language, is not a small thing and it matters quite a lot. If you don't stop the smaller evils, the bigger evils won't be stopped either, because they seem more acceptable.

---

The English language has constantly been restructuring and evolving for the past several hundred years. The English language would not be understood very well by people from just a couple hundred years ago, possibly even by people from a hundred years ago. Worrying about pronouns is minor - we have used different pronouns to describe people for quite some time. There have been many times I've been talking professionally about a person I haven't met and I didn't know their gender (because they have a gender neutral name or they are from a foreign country and I don't know the genders of all of the names from other countries), and in those instances I will use they/them. I've been doing this for quite some time, long before this movement. If someone would prefer to be called they or them, let them. Who gives two fcks? I have much bigger things in my life to worry about than what someone wants to be called. They are winning when you let yourself get distracted by these things because it allows them to push the bigger agenda while you are busy protesting pronoun preferences.

---

This is not evolution. You know that. Try another argument.

Mothra said:

---

contrario said:

---

Ok, keep focusing on they/them, you will continue to lose actual rights in the process. While you guys have been fighting a losing cultural war for decades, the people in charge have been increasing the deficit and federal spending. You are electing people that will fight the they/them fight for you, but at the expense of financial freedom and an unmanageable debt for our ancestors. Even the chosen one in some of your eyes (Trump) increased the deficit even further than Obama did. At what point do you cut your losses and elect someone that will actually take control of our financial mess? Because the truth is, while you have been focusing on these tangential social issues, the group in power has used the social issues distraction to create a two-party system where the two parties are really two sides of the same coin and they use all of you as pawns to push their true agenda which is to make the rich people that finance their campaigns even richer.

---

I suspect there are some Republican candidates that can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not the binary issue you would make it.

---

contrario's argument is the faulty premise of moderate Republicans, that culture wars are to be studiously avoided as irrelevancies. It also implicitly assumes that because Republicans have been lacking in fortitude on the budget, Democrats have had no hand in making the mess.

How can leaders afraid to offend anyone over the definition of what is a boy or a girl say no to deficit spending demanded by the language nazis?

Andrew Breitbart was right: politics is downstream of culture.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

contrario said:

---

Ok, keep focusing on they/them, you will continue to lose actual rights in the process. While you guys have been fighting a losing cultural war for decades, the people in charge have been increasing the deficit and federal spending. You are electing people that will fight the they/them fight for you, but at the expense of financial freedom and an unmanageable debt for our ancestors. Even the chosen one in some of your eyes (Trump) increased the deficit even further than Obama did. At what point do you cut your losses and elect someone that will actually take control of our financial mess? Because the truth is, while you have been focusing on these tangential social issues, the group in power has used the social issues distraction to create a two-party system where the two parties are really two sides of the same coin and they use all of you as pawns to push their true agenda which is to make the rich people that finance their campaigns even richer.

---

I suspect there are some Republican candidates that can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not the binary issue you would make it.

---

contrario's argument is the faulty premise of moderate Republicans, that culture wars are to be studiously avoided as irrelevancies. It also implicitly assumes that because Republicans have been lacking in fortitude on the budget, Democrats have had no hand in making the mess.

How can leaders afraid to offend anyone over the definition of what is a boy or a girl say no to deficit spending demanded by the language nazis?

Andrew Breitbart was right: politics is downstream of culture.

---

100%. If the center and right win back the culture, politics will take care of themselves. The biggest and most important war is a war for the culture. Culture is the collective 'soul' of the populace. If it's seedy and twisted (leftist), so too are the politics.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

We have a great system if used as designed allows for diversity among the states. Our core problems with FDR and continues through Biden where there is an attempt to centralize more power in Washington instead of the states and local governments. SCOTUS did not help when it began to make write laws that had national implications. I've posted 100 times: limit the power in D.C. and return more power to the states, who in turn should put more power into local political subdivisions.

---

I agree but to be completely honest that horse has been out of the barn since at least the time of Lincoln.

If our old system was still alive after the war in 1861 (debatable) it was buried by FDR and World War II.

The States are today merely provinces of the Central Federal government.

I hate that, think the founders were against it, but it happened none the less.

One in a while the Supreme Court will try and remind our political class of the facts of our history...but no one seems to care.

[Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)

Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal (emphasis added) sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."]