# Everything wrong with the Texas Republican Party Platform



## Nothereed (Jul 3, 2022)

https://texasgop.org/platform/

I'll be quoting direct lines, I'm going to be spacing between quotes, and my responses. This is going to be very, very long.

"6) Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage* of a natural man and a natural woman."*

in other words against gay marriage.

"We support the defunding of “climate justice” initiatives, the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency, and repeal of the Endangered Species Act."

So in other words, they don't want people to have clean drinking water, don't want any limits on companies polluting water ways, don't want any interference for endangered species. Well they already got part of that due to the supreme court

"Carbon Tax: We oppose all efforts to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We further urge the US Senate to defeat the “Cap-and-Trade” legislation, as it is outside the authority of the US Constitution."

So in other words "We want to give more money to oil and gas giants"

"We oppose any distribution of taxpayer dollars to unions."

Anti union

"We believe the Minimum Wage Act should be repealed."

No minimum wage, have fun being paid astronomically like shit.

"We support the immediate repeal of Dodd-Frank legislation."

Oh, soo... the legistlation that is preventing another 2008?
That's cool. It is defined as the following:
The _Dodd_-_Frank_ Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection _Act_ is a series of federal regulations passed to prevent future financial crises.
So that's cool, they want the reckless investing happening again, because capitalism can't do anything bad.

"We oppose all efforts to further regulate the internet in the United States or internationally."

Ah of course, so you want your ISP to throttle or limit what you can see right? Not like we already don't get a choice in our internet providers.

"The Republican Party of Texas calls on our Congressional Delegation to push for reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to limit the ability of online social media platforms to censor the speech of citizens in the new digital town square which they currently control."

So... you want Nazi's and pedos to be on the internet? Because uh, that's what moderators have to do. Along with you know, straight up racism? Do we want another 4chan?

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a direct violation of Article 1,
Section 10, and Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution and shall be rejected by Texas and all its officials.
We support the electoral college."

So in other words, both they don't support doing a popular vote, and continue to support a broken electoral collage system that can be gerrymandered for their own use.

"We support the right to recall our elected officials."
....* WHAT*. Oh so in other words: _we support the right to overwrite the will of the people, but now even more brazenly by removing electors and putting in ones we like_

"We support a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the United States, and one of no more than two official languages of all US territories and other possessions."
This is just straight up racist. No like actually. We have multiple different races here. I've seen people speak in Japanese, Chinese, and Spanish. Considering that Texas's neighbor is Mexico. I have a strong suspicion this is to get at those "dirty folk"

"We support legislation ensuring that the parents' rights to raise and educate their children are protected in Texas law as a fundamental, constitutional right and that there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interest of their children."

Considering that those parent's have been about banning the word gay out of existence, and LGBTQ people. Yeah I don't see that ending well.

"We urge the complete repeal of the hate crimes laws, since ample laws are currently in effect to punish criminal behavior towards other persons."

Oh so in other words, you want to not stop... racism... yikes. Because ample laws are definitely not in place.

"Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education should be abolished, and the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency should be prohibited."

....  wow. I don't think I need to explain why we need a educated populous to make sound decisions.

"We urge school administrators and officials not to infringe on Texas school students’ and staffs’ rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents and encourage discussing those documents, including the Bible as their basis. Students have the right to exhibit religious items on school property."

And this one is painfully loaded. The biggest problem with this statement, is that teachers are NOT allowed to express religion, specifically if they are a public school teacher, and as such, part of the government. Because the government itself is not allowed to cross the boundaries between church and state. Doing so would mean the government is supporting a religion.

"We support objective teaching of scientific theories, such as life origins and
climate change. These shall be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data
is produced. Teachers and students shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories
openly, without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Are you... are you kidding me. "Challangable"
Really. Boy I can sure challenge climate change, and say it doesn't exist, and everyone gets to say that I'm right. Even though it does exist, and I would be factually wrong to say that. The  planet is abnormally heating due to CO2 emissions, there is a strong increase in CO2 past the normal line as the earth has never passed a certain amount of CO2 levels.

"We reject Critical Race Theory as a post-Marxist ideology that seeks to undermine the system of law and order itself and to reduce individualsto their group identity alone. We support legislation to remove this ideology from government programs,
*including education involving race, discrimination, and racial awareness. To facilitate the appreciation of
our American identity*, the contrast between freedom and the tyrannical history of socialism/communism
throughout history must be taught. *Students shall pledge allegiance to the United States and Texas flags
daily to instill patriotism. *Students have the right to display patriotic items on school property. Schools
should have the options to display the National Motto “In God We Trust.”

...... So in other words, you support removing education of slavery... boy does that fit with the whole proposal to soften slavery. And that you want children to be obedient entirely to their country, without asking a single question. "Facilitate the *appreciation" *alone wants to make me barf. Do you not realize Hitler did the exact fucking same thing? teaching the generations under him that the country their in is entirely infallible. And then then go talk about "tyrannical history of socialism/communism" even though Britain had several colonies and capitalist.
    Nazi Germany was state capitalist.  In the sense that Hitler allowed your business to exist if it helped his goals, and you to profit on it. We literately did manifest destiny, because land=money. And kicked out the natives of their own lands for essentially fucking profit. We literately fucking installed a dictatorship into Cuba, actively supporting it, and it took a revolt to throw us out, and we did it because we didn't want Cuba going socialist. overthrowing their democratic system in the process. And one of the major reasons the Cuban missile crisis happened FFS.

"We demand the State Legislature pass a law prohibiting the teaching of sex education, sexual health, or sexual choice or identity in any public school in any grade whatsoever, or disseminating or permitting the dissemination by any party of any material regarding the same. All school districts, individual schools, or charter schools are prohibited from contracting with or making any payment to any third party for material concerning any of the above topics. Until this prohibition goes into
effect, sexual education shall only utilize sexual risk avoidance programs and promote abstinence outside
of marriage. Before a student may be provided with human sexuality or family planning instruction, the
district must obtain the written consent of the student’s parent or guardian [Opt-In status]."

So straight up more anti LGBTQ. Since they even say "sexual choice or identity" So anything out of the being heterosexual, will not be discussed or taught. And nor do they want to teach about how condoms or birth control works, while also banning abortions. They even say " utilize sexual risk avoidance programs and promote abstinence outside of marriage" which is absurd.

"Identity: The official position of the Texas schools shall be that there are only two genders:
biological male and biological female. We oppose transgender normalizing curriculum and pronoun use."

oh hey, more erasing of trans people from existence.

"United Nations: The United Nations is a detriment to the sovereignty of the United States and other
countries, and because of this we support:
a. Our withdrawal from the current United Nations.
b. The removal of the United Nations from United States soil.
c. The rejection of all Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 policies and programs"

Agenda 21 is a non binding action plan to be more sustainable so we don't end up fucking ourselves. and Agenda 2030 is more sustainable development, and in hopes maybe ending poverty too. So in other words, they want people to still be in
poverty, and for us to recklessly abuse the planet!

"We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin,* and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.* No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification."

In other words, they support people being homophobic or trans-phobic if their religion allows it, and you can't sue over that.

"c. Abortion is not healthcare."

So when saving the mother from death via getting an abortion, your health insurance won't cover that.

"The Republican Party of Texas opposes medication of the drinking water supply of the state of Texas, including but not limited to fluoridation."

So in other words, you want teeth to rot faster and easier, the reason we did it was for the general public health. I'm sure the dental industry will be happy with that choice with their new found profits.

"
We support Medicaid block grants to the states and returning Medicaid to its
original purpose to be a temporary assistance. We oppose any further expansion of Medicaid."
In otherwords, we don't want public healthcare, because private healthcare makes us money.

"We support appropriate limits on the length of time to receive Social
Security disability benefits for all but those truly not able to do ANY kind of paid employment."

Oh so... anti disabled. Wow that fits so well with the one before it.

"We support legislation such as the Preborn Non-Discrimination Act (Pre-
NDA) to close existing discriminatory loopholes that fail to protect preborn children suspected of having a "fetal anomaly" or disability,"
Great on paper, until you realize that there will be people who may not be able to hold any job. So your now forcing them to exist, and suffer simultaneously. What a GREAT combination.

"VA: We support replacing the Veterans Administration with a commercial insurance
plan that allows eligible veterans to obtain health services from any licensed provider."
So you want war vets... to be price gouged like the rest of us. What a great service!

"Pornography Crisis: The State of Texas shall recognize that pornography is a public health crisis."

Oh so the obesity crisis, the climate crisis, the mental health crisis, the poverty crisis, the housing crisis, and homeless crisis are all not that important. But sex! Now sex is a *sin. *What a great and totally not stupid focus. Let's not fix homelessness, or obesity, instead, you should focus on how there's too much fucking and not enough birthing.

"We oppose gender norming in the military. Transgendered persons
should not serve in the military as a special class; no special considerations or medical treatment shall be
required or offered."

Trans people getting kicked down the stairs even further.

"We believe all historical war memorials, including Confederate monuments,
in Texas shall be protected from future removal or defacement and that those monuments that have been
removed should be restored to their historical locations."

Maybe having confederate monuments still out and about, tells everyone that you still support slavery, and that maybe, just maybe, those people don't deserve to have monuments? Crazy thought.

"Gender Identity Facilities in Businesses: We support enacting legislation in the State of Texas
ensuring that:
a. No government entity in the state shall be allowed to take it upon itself to define for any
private business or private entity how it must segregate its restrooms, changing facilities, or
showers."

Kicking down trans people... again.

"Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between
one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations
in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin."

More homophobia.

"We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government
officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special
legal entitlements or creation of special status for LGBTQ+ behavior, regardless of state of origin. We
oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or
belief in traditional values."

Even more kicking down trans and gay people, HOW NICE. Oh and gotta say it again that it's okay to be homophobic. Let's repeat that last sentence"oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction"
So in other words if my faith said that gay people should be idk... the devil, and I say... idk. Kill them. I won't receive *any* criminal penalties if my religion says it was the right thing to do.

"We believe the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling."

Oh hey, kicking gay and trans people again! not like you already been doing this non stop.

So... Now that I went through all of this. This is a pretty obvious reason why I absolutely hate the Republican party.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

with the exception of  gay marriage, all of these things sound fantasic!


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> with the exception of gay marriage, all of these things sound fantasic!


So your fine with:
"We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction"
Which means killing a gay person because your religion said so would get a pass


Nothereed said:


> Pornography Crisis: The State of Texas shall recognize that pornography is a public health crisis


You would accept that Pornography in general is a crisis, instead of focusing on climate change, or focusing on the obesity crisis, or homelessness.


Nothereed said:


> "Carbon Tax: We oppose all efforts to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We further urge the US Senate to defeat the “Cap-and-Trade” legislation, as it is outside the authority of the US Constitution."


your in favor of them not classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, even though that's a major reason climate change is happening due to increase CO2 emissions. Nor the fact multiple studies have linked high C02 with issues such as asthma.



Nothereed said:


> "VA: We support replacing the Veterans Administration with a commercial insurance
> plan that allows eligible veterans to obtain health services from any licensed provider."


You support Veterans getting price gouged by normal commercial insurance companies, instead of having their own better network. What a great way to support Vets, by making their lives even more miserable.



At this point, I'm hoping you just skimmed, and didn't bother doing a throughout read. Because those things, is just the start.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 4, 2022)

"Pornography Crisis: The State of Texas shall recognize that pornography is a public health crisis."

I laughed hard!!!

Also:

"United Nations: The United Nations is a detriment to the sovereignty of the United States and other
countries, and because of this we support:
a. Our withdrawal from the current United Nations.
b. The removal of the United Nations from United States soil.
c. The rejection of all Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 policies and programs"

Please do that USA, the whole world would enjoy supplying your international customers instead of you


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> "Pornography Crisis: The State of Texas shall recognize that pornography is a public health crisis."


Texas/Republicans being a parody of itself, the terrifying part though is they genuinely believe it and have power in this system.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> So your fine with:
> "We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction"
> Which means killing a gay person because your religion said so would get a pass
> 
> ...



well im not sure where you got killing anyone from, but hey, alot of religions from protected classes aren't big fans of gays, and we have to be fair to them.  Don't look at me for the obesity climate or homelessness, talk to california. Also talk to the liberal oganzations that gouge vets.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well im not sure where you got killing anyone from





Nothereed said:


> "We oppose any* criminal *or civil penalties *against those* *who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction*"


In other words, you would not be receive any criminal penalties to kill a gay person as long as your faith told you to do so.  , so I'll repeat are you fine with that? Failing to answer with a redirection or nothing response will result me into believe that you believe so.


lolcatzuru said:


> but hey, alot of religions from protected classes aren't big fans of gays, and we have to be fair to them.


Are you trying to argue that you don't want to be fair to them?



lolcatzuru said:


> Don't look at me for the obesity climate or homelessness, talk to california.


No, I'll pass on the "look at califorina" since that's not the point of my question,


Nothereed said:


> You would accept that Pornography in general is a crisis, instead of focusing on climate change, or focusing on the obesity crisis, or homelessness.


it's a simple yes no. If you try changing the goal post again, I'm going to believe you think that Pornography, is a Bigger issue than climate change, homelessness, or obesity.


lolcatzuru said:


> Also talk to the liberal oganzations that gouge vets.


I'm sorry I don't do strawmans, answer my original question


Nothereed said:


> "VA: We support replacing the Veterans Administration with a commercial insurance
> plan that allows eligible veterans to obtain health services from any licensed provider."


do you support Replacing the Vetrans administration, with giant comercial healthcare companies.  Who we all know continue to price gouge us to this day? Failure to respond to this answer with yes or no, will result in me believing you are fine with this. That you believe veterans should get worse care, and be price gouged by this decision.

These are very easy, very simple questions. If you cannot honestly answer this questions, then you are aruging in bad faith.


Nothereed said:


> your in favor of them not classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, even though that's a major reason climate change is happening due to increase CO2 emissions. Nor the fact multiple studies have linked high C02 with issues such as asthma.


You also didn't answer this either. I should of phrased it as a question. So i'll do so now. Do you support not classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, even though it's one of the major causes of climate change, and it has several links to causing asthma.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

OP - You seem triggered about Republicans, you should probably switch parties to Republican as the Dems are going down, they are also wrecking the USA. Only the Rebublicans can save you now. Bring on the RED wave.

Let's Go Brandon,


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> OP - You seem triggered about Republicans,


Maybe because a good bulk of their policies are completely asinine.
 If anything Republicans are more triggered by the existence of someone who doesn't conform to their existence given how much of a hate boner they got for gay and trans people that they want to do everything they can to make their lives miserable.
And that maybe it's not humane to treat them like shit? Just a crazy thought there.


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jul 4, 2022)

What ''a shithole place to be in'' is what comes to mind, oh wait, this is murica we're talking about?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Maybe because a good bulk of their policies are completely asinine.
> If anything Republicans are more triggered by the existence of someone who doesn't conform to their existence given how much of a hate boner they got for gay and trans people that they want to do everything they can to make their lives miserable.
> And that maybe it's not humane to treat them like shit? Just a crazy thought there.


What the hell are you talking about - where does the gays come into this post, that stuff is just in your own demented head and bears no resemblence to reality? Next you'll be claiming the Nazi party from the 1940's is back and there's Nazi's hiding out in congress.

Do you want me to start telling you all the policies the dems have implemented that's making people poor, and how they armed the Taliban, Abandoned their allies, Opened the borders for everyone, Have nearly caused WW3 to start, are racists towards white people, are devaluing women, are corrupting the youth, are letting criminals walk free, etc....


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> In other words, you would not be receive any criminal penalties to kill a gay person as long as your faith told you to do so.  , so I'll repeat are you fine with that? Failing to answer with a redirection or nothing response will result me into believe that you believe so.
> 
> Are you trying to argue that you don't want to be fair to them?
> 
> ...



well you are welcome to assume anything you'd like about me, your opinion is genuinely worthless to me, but for the record, i don't support killing anyone, however, many democrats do, and this action is already happening under democrat supervision,  so you not responding will make me assume you do.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What the hell are you talking about- where do gays come into this post



Someone must of not read anything I said.


Nothereed said:


> We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction"





Nothereed said:


> "6) Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage* of a natural man and a natural woman."*





Nothereed said:


> We demand the State Legislature pass a law prohibiting the teaching of sex education, sexual health, or *sexual choice or identity in any public school in any grade whatsoever*,





Nothereed said:


> "We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin"


I'll give you a couple seconds before I end up cooking the rest of your  points


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> don't support killing anyone


That is not my original question. Nor did you answer any of other statements I asked. I told you that I would assume based if you avoided the questions I asked. And in this you did again. I never asked if you were in support of killing anyone. I specifically asked if you were in support of


Nothereed said:


> other words, you would not be receive any criminal penalties to kill a gay person as long as your faith told you to do so. , so I'll repeat are you fine with that?


You still have not answered my question in good faith. 

And as such, I don't have any reason to continue this discussion with you.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> That is not my original question. Nor did you answer any of other statements I asked. I told you that I would assume based if you avoided the questions I asked. And in this you did again. I never asked if you were in support of killing anyone. I specifically asked if you were in support of
> 
> You still have not answered my question in good faith.
> 
> And as such, I don't have any reason to continue this discussion with you.



you never did have a reason, my posting here doesnt need to warrant a response from you.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Someone must of not read anything I said.
> 
> I'll give you a couple seconds before I end up cooking the rest of your  points


I read what you wrote and found it to be the ramblings of a mad man. You seem to harbor a lot of hate inside for anyone that doesn't support your world views. You especially seem to hate Republicans and anyone that doesn't agree with deviant behavior.

There are places in the world where someone with your views would be executed, so don't expect everyone to think some of the perverse things you believe in are acceptable to all - they aren't, get over it.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> you never did have a reason, my posting here doesnt need to warrant a response from you.





lolcatzuru said:


> with the exception of gay marriage, all of these things sound fantasic!


This you?


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I read what you wrote and found it to be the ramblings of a mad man. You seem to harbor a lot of hate inside for anyone that doesn't support your world views.


Alright, I'll play ball.

"we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
What does this sentence mean? This is directly pulled from https://texasgop.org/platform/

I'll give you one response. If I am supposedly a mad man, then you should be able to interpret the meaning of this differently without sound stupid.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I'll give you one response.


I don't take orders from you, how's that for a response?


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I don't take orders from you, how's that for a response?





mrdude said:


> I read what you wrote and found it to be the ramblings of a mad man.


I gave you a chance to disprove me with a single sentence they said. I'll give you another shot. This time I'll be extra generous and provide no response limit.


Nothereed said:


> "The Republican Party of Texas opposes medication of the drinking water supply of the state of Texas, including but not limited to fluoridation."


What does this mean?
And again


Nothereed said:


> "we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."


And what does this mean?

If I am truly a mad man, you should be able to easily disprove it through giving an alternative, logical explanation as to what these statements mean. 
I am giving you the chance to prove me wrong, by putting your money where your mouth is.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> This you?



 am i who?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I'll give you another shot. This time I'll be extra generous and provide no response limit.


Oh really, well how generous of you. As you didn't reply to any of the points I made in my posts - I will respond in kind,


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Oh really, well how generous of you. As you didn't reply to any of the points I made in my posts - I will respond in kind,


Maybe because your points aren't worth my time? Or I may be cooking up a long response for you?


mrdude said:


> There are places in the world where someone with your views would be executed, so don't expect everyone to think some of the perverse things you believe in are acceptable to all - they aren't, get over it.


So in other words your telling me that the belief that
this statement right here
"we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
that this is blatantly homophobic since it allows for someone to beat up a gay person and receive no criminal penalties if their religion says to do it.
That I would be executed for being against homophobic  people... Alright. Go on.


mrdude said:


> You especially seem to hate Republicans and anyone that doesn't agree with deviant behavior


There's a line between deviant behavior, and straight up harming others and making it legal to do so because it's political viable, you should be aware of this oh great one. Maybe homophobia isn't and shouldn't accepted, nor should it be legalized in a way that protects someone from criminal penalties since their religion said to do so. Which the republican party in Texas, wants to do.

Again I'll give you a ability prove me wrong. All you got to do is
"we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
give an alternative, logical, explanation to what this sentence means.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

snipped for dupe


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Maybe because your points aren't worth my time? Or I may be cooking up a long response for you?
> 
> So in other words your telling me that the belief that
> this statement right here
> ...


You seem to be obsessed with gay stuff and trans stuff. Nobody gives a hoot if you want to prance around in a dress and call yourself whatever you want. As for your interpretation of laws, well since I assume you're not a lawyer or in any position to make laws, you should stop whining and leave that stuff to people that spent years of their lives studying the law.
Your posts are unhinged and you have a lot of hate in you, have you tried seeking therapy from a professional.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> you seem to be obsessed with gay stuff and trans stuff. Nobody gives a hoot


Really? Nobody gives a hoot?
Why the *FUCK *would the republican party of texas write that as one of the things they WANT TO DO. Clearly they must care to go write that as part of their fucking platform targeting trans and gay people maliciously.
I only have to care about it because your party *FORCES *me to counteract *IT'S BULLSHIT *in it's attempts to hurt my peers and everyone it's seeking to hurt. I would GLADLY fuck off and stop talking about it, but I literately can't because their actions continue to be malicious towards those groups of people.


mrdude said:


> As for your interpretation of laws, well since I assume you're not a lawyer or in any position to make laws, you should stop whining and leave that stuff to people that spent years of their lives studying the law.


that's not laws, those are written agendas for the republican party. So your argument here is null.


----------



## KitChan (Jul 4, 2022)

Go home Texas, you're drunk.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

snipped for another double


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Your posts are unhinged and you have a lot of hate in you, have you tried seeking therapy from a professional.


So in other words your telling me to love a party that is actively looking to, and hurting gay and trans people?
No of course I'm going to fucking hate them for having so much hate for my existences. I am Bisexual,  I have two trans partners.
Are you seriously telling me to go say "Go republican party" as they actively try to ban gay marriage again, and continue to demonize my partners?
No, that would be fucking stupid.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yep, NOBODY gives a hoot about your trans stuff






Republican party,* clearly* cares about it. We already went through this. Keep saying that no one does, but that party does care, care to fucking make it as agonizing as it can be as a gay or trans person.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> View attachment 316496
> Republican party,* clearly* cares about it. We already went through this.


Yep, I'm all for paragraph 317 as well. Marriage should only be for men and women, as it has been for thousands of years and still is in most parts of the world. The gays can have a civil partnership or whatever, after all it's just a bit of paper isn't it.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Marriage is should only be for men and women


thanks for your mask off moment. Your homophobic. no question about it at this point.


----------



## MariArch (Jul 4, 2022)

Is this the liberal circlejerk thread?


----------



## XDel (Jul 4, 2022)

I don't understand the carbon tax scam and how everyone falls into it. Clearly if there is any damage being done to the planet, it is mostly done by the ventures of the industrialists with their asphalt, concrete, factories, waste, automobiles, and wasteful lifestyle/culture that they've peddled to the world over the past century. And now the industrialists with their little Davos buddy clubs, get together and blame all the carbon on humans, animals, and their farts, then decide that they must tax the people for their destruction of the environment. 

I would think that the solution would have been to put a chain on the industrialists a long time ago and continue riding horses, which happen to be a self driven, self reproducing, biodegradable, fertilizer producing, vehicle that runs off plant life, but no people are stupid and would rather have their wasteful toys than attempt to live in accord with nature.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Most religions in the world belive marriage is only between a man and a woman - are you discriminating against religous people? Some would call you a bigot with that attitude.


Your religion only applies to you, your religion does not apply to me. Your rights end where mine start, and mine ends where your starts. So no, I'm not discriminating against your religion. I'm discrimanating against your attempt to use you religion over my rights.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Your gay/trans views only apply to you, they don't apply to me


And you don't have the right to regulate marriage so it only applies to your view. Your being exclusionary, that's being a bigot. The actual definition:
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.


mrdude said:


> You already admitted you despise Repubilcans and those who's religious views don't accept your views on the gays or trans being married


No, I'm fine with religious people, I've been blessed by the hand by a christrian as non christian. I've gone through buddhism, Chrisanity and Wiccan.
 I don't care if someone loves their god, or their god tells them to x,y,z. I care when it begins to hurt peers and unfairly target them.  Which is exactly what the republican party is doing.

 They are using religion as the excuse to hurt gay and trans people. To give them no civil or criminal recourse. I don't hate them because they identify as the republican party.
I hate them for the very actions they do to my peers and neighbors. While I don't have a religion, I do thoroughly believe to take care of your neighbors and peers. The republican party completely violates that. Because at any moment, my neighbor can be trans, they can be gay, or drag, and that party is actively doing every legal change they can to worsen their life.

Religion is fine until it starts hurting others.


mrdude said:


> You started swearing and getting all uppity when your views were challenged. Basically you are an unhinged bigot and also a hypocrite.


No, I'm neither. Because unlike the republican party, I don't hate them because I have extreme vitrol in my heart or fear of others. I hate them because they actively hurt others. My hatred  of them comes from a source of love for people, as I watch their rights, their life violated by a political party, and makes me angry. My rage comes from the need to protect people, and watching someone/party actively kick them down over and over and over again, forcefully triggering that response of needing to protect.
 The republican party's hatred comes from fear, and refusing to understand those people.

I get unhinged because I actually believe people should be equal, I don't believe you should be discriminated against for your sex, gender, or whatever the fuck. But it ends if you try hurting another or worsen their lives.

The republican party, doesn't believe that, and acting that belief. They seek to harm.

Same sex marriage doesn't hurt you. Removing it hurts my peers and I. It is a exclusionary act to ban it, not a inclusive one. Removal of it hurts my peers and I. Removal of hormone therapy, only seeks to hurt my peers. It doesn't effect you, but you want to remove it anyways.


----------



## XDel (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> And you don't have the right to regulate marriage so it only applies to your view. Your being exclusionary, that's being a bigot. The actual definition:
> a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.


Gay marriage is a form of cultural appropriation, in fact all the said core values of the so called Woke movement are culturally appropriated.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

XDel said:


> Gay marriage is a form of cultural appropriation


marriage is a cultural universal.  Almost every civilization had some form of it. So no, it's not.


XDel said:


> in fact all the said core values of the so called Woke movement are culturally appropriated.


There's no woke movement. That is you being told they are. There was a hatred for left handed people. It was so strong, that left handed people faded out of existence due to the culture non stop forcing and turning them away. Only until they were accepted into society, did suddenly many show up, until it plateaued.  Because more and more of them got to become comfortable with who they were.

How is what we are seeing here any different? That party has associated Gay, LGBTQ people as woke. And they want you to be against them.
How is this no different than Christians battering the hands of left handed people because "it invokes the devil"
How is erasing their existance, through making it harder for them to talk about who they are, any different from that.


----------



## XDel (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> marriage is a cultural universal.  Almost every civilization had some form of it. So no, it's not.
> 
> There's no woke movement. That is you being told they are. There was a hatred for left handed people. It was so strong, that left handed people faded out of existence due to the culture non stop forcing and turning them away. Only until they were accepted into society, did suddenly many show up, until it plateaued.  Because more and more of them got to become comfortable with who they were.
> 
> ...


1. Marriage was a spiritual rite practiced by cultures around the world,  it's key is in the religious systems which are mirroring natural design. The Male and the Female unite into one flesh, both figuratively through the union of opposites, the two made one, etc. and literally through the process of reproduction. 

2. What was that about left handed people again? Was their some sort of world wide slaughter of people born left handed that I've never heard about? And when did they invoke devils, and how come I as a right handed person not invoke devils? I am confused.


----------



## Chary (Jul 4, 2022)

I feel like the Texas GOP threw all the possible things they could ever think of at the wall, and somehow all of it stuck with their userbase. Somehow. Texas gonna Texas. This is why we're one of these pathetic go to answers for classic dumb American state, right next to like, Alabama.

I know Texas education sucks, but straight-up abolishing the DoE sounds like actual insanity--I know they're going to defend it because they want to have the oh-so-totally accurate textbooks that teach such fundamental Texan topics like "slavery wasn't that bad guys", and "Texas woulda totally won the civil war and we were in the right anyway, and the Union should feel bad for winning", and "we'd rather kill ourselves than teach kids sex-ed and how to understand their bodies".

One I don't think was in your post was that the Texas GOP does not believe in requiring a safety inspection for cars--so, it would allow cars that are barely functional or at risk onto the road, which seems like an incredible threat to all drivers. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to require cars pass a mechanic's test.






One interesting one that was actually useful was getting rid of the Texas toll road fees, once the debt of building the toll road is completely repaid through said tolls. Houston is near unnavigable without the toll roads here, and it'd be fantastic to not have to choke up a few dollars every single day just getting around tow easily. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jul 4, 2022)

Lots of people have just stopped thinking by themselves and simply follow the current trend and norm set by today's society, and if it does not work out they'll just rage out and protest over it


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

Chary said:


> One I don't think was in your post was that the Texas GOP does not believe in requiring a safety inspection for cars--so, it would allow cars that are barely functional or at risk onto the road, which seems like an incredible threat to all drivers. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't want to require cars pass a mechanic's test.


I proably missed that. I went through roughly 33 pages worth of content. It costed my sanity


----------



## KitChan (Jul 4, 2022)

Toxic masculinity in the 90s: Calling someone a girl for doing something perceived to be non masculine.

Toxic masculinity in 2022: Calling someone a man for replacing their testosterone with estrogen, growing a pair of tits, putting on dresses and getting surgery to turn their penis inside out.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

ZeroT21 said:


> Lots of people have just stopped thinking by themselves and simply follow the current trend and norm set by today's society, and if it does not work out they'll just rage out and protest over it


That's why they get laughed at, riducluded, and called NPC's that we can meme about. They resemble a of bunch cloned brains in different and often strange looking bodies. They have hive mind mentality and are similar to the Borg. I have attached a picture of a typical lefty NPC, this is how many of them may as well look. I probably should have stuck in a speech bubble with "blah blah blah" or "me, me, me", coming out of them as that's about all that seem's to emit from their mouths.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 5, 2022)

We wouldn’t have this bizarre argument over marriage if the state did the right thing and removed itself from the matter entirely. State-sanctioned marriage is obsolete.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 5, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> https://texasgop.org/platform/
> 
> I'll be quoting direct lines, I'm going to be spacing between quotes, and my responses. This is going to be very, very long.
> 
> ...


Going to need greater context for some of those as you clearly have an axe to grind/agenda and world view all of your own and some of those have a basis in more sound policy if you were to divorce yourself from such things (hard as it may be). Haven't read any other replies yet.

On minimum wage. "The real minimum wage is zero" may not necessarily be completely correct but it is most of the way there -- if I am forced to extract 15 dollars an hour (plus insurance, due diligence and tax and whatnot that may go on top of that) I am going to need the best and the brightest. To that end if you are disabled, old, slow, with kids, a carer for someone with very limited hours... I will seek alternatives as best I can up to and including robots in current space year or doing without.

EPA and endangered species acts. Two different concepts but endangered species act is a fairly weak piece of legislation that causes all sorts of fun and games acting at state level in some case rather than the borders of the plant/animal/whatever population.

Drinking water I would write off as hyperbole on your part -- assuming they are at least going to vaguely take the lessons of Machiavelli to heart then 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food and society is only 3 meals away from revolution... oh dear.

Carbon taxes are for the most part a money laundering scheme from where I sit. I am not necessarily opposed to some carrot and stick but their efficacy as a general concept is quite questionable.

Gay marriage. I would generally oppose marriage as a legal concept and have it was whatever kooky ritual your religion cares to do with all the force that such a thing implies (may be considerable in some communities, some of the Islamic stuff in the UK being an interesting case study, but ultimately unenforceable by law if you decide to wander off). Given the falling off a cliff such a thing has done, though you would have to be incredibly foolish to watch everything since your grandparents get nailed for alimony and whatever else at a more than 50% basis (first marriage divorce rate is teetering on 50% with it only going up from there, to say nothing of who files and timelines thereof) with no signs of slowing to take that risk, then seems that is already being handled. Pending the glorious day when it is a thing of the past then as we are not ancient Rome and needing to create those citizens and keep the males vaguely contented then no reason then for the few legal benefits that such a thing might have then no reason to deny it. That said without context of the further quotes both parents in the household does produce the best outcomes for kids (single mothers and foster care tending to be the exact opposite) so promoting it as that initial snippet could be said to be (again context) could be a thing worth doing.

Taxpayer dollars to unions is anti union or anti state support thereof? I find the government can't compete with private enterprise ideas and results thereof quite curious for the US (filing taxes being among the most interesting -- I am self employed in the UK and while I keep my books current using basically a spreadsheet then it takes me a whole 20 minutes once a year).
That said most unions these days are useless and counterproductive, certainly anything vaguely to do with the national level bodies in the US. Maybe not quite on par with the mob days but hey. If you want to do a local union for you and yours, especially if you are not technically capable or otherwise skilled, then might be some merit there as you actually have your interests at heart (though funding of anything serious as far as legal and inspection, much like HR then health and safety is funded by the company with the company's pocket book in mind and thus if you are going to do something risky then better to have someone with a vested interest in your well being take a look, can be fun for obvious reasons).

I shall have to look into the efficacy of the Frank Dodd things but I am generally going with ineffective and watered down as most legislation is and probably only serves to throw roadblocks in front of the little guy wanting to spin up. Or if you prefer if housing is what 2008 was about in part (money printing also being a fun one) then the whole mortgage backed security and CDO markets that were pretty much fraudulent by the end started up again once the dust had settled in 2012 albeit under a different name, and is about to come due again. This time we also had a nice bit of money printing also happen so yeah.
Now if they were actually going to do something like tax during the boom times and release the boons during the bust cycles then I might actually be impressed but I am not going to hold my breath there.

I too would be wary of regulations on internet and internationally is a fun one as well as far as the US is concerned. Neither flavour of politico likely to get power in the US has me all that enthused and both would cripple it if given their free reign so pending some kind of "you are a common carrier, no preferential treatment/taxes, and definitely fuck off with that blocking of sites/countries we don't like" type deal then by all means be wary, hopefully we also get the content provider vs content creator line sorted out as well so Facebook, Google/Alphabet/Youtube et al don't dance between the two as it befits them (and will be curious to see how the meddling in private enterprise sentiments also play out there). I can ignore the hyperbole of national socialists and those scary paedophiles (the latter being illegal anyway) and have to wonder if I were to look out into the world if twatter, facebook, youtube et al are doing a good job of things... survey says no and putting a thumb on the scales gets interesting results people might not want.

Elected officials being recalled.
I am not sure where the contention comes in here. Now if abuses of such things surface to stuff the whatever with cronies then I might take issue but recall and other censure mechanisms seem like a good thing from where I sit in case of abuse of power (which is a relatively common experience if we look at history and the US as a whole -- percentage wise then governors getting impeached, recalled and such like is fairly high as these things go even if you ignore Michigan).
If there is an implementation error and yeah recall and emergency election (granted the US seems to be fond of timelines being adhered to, compared to UK where by elections seem to be every other week) would be a nice thing to see in preference of recall and replace with the backup or head of whatever.

The US is rather unique in not having an official language -- everywhere else in the world does and is rather stringent about it (indeed the English speaking world being probably the least stringent compared to Japan, France, Canada if we count Quebec, Germany, Russia, Korea, India, China... though I will give several of those are not necessarily places with the highest emphasis on human rights). Bit of a stretch to get to racism and not sure what problems it thinks it will solve (still going to have to find interpreters for courts, hospitals and probably want to provide all sorts of leaflets in whatever is out there). Two others in territories (presumably Spanish for Puerto Rico and such, and maybe French until the last few Cajuns die out) would rather seem to omit the Indians though which could be tricky.

Are ample laws not in place for hate crimes? I murder someone and that is a thing, I rob someone and that is a thing, I beat someone up and that is a thing, first amendment would generally protect speech (sadly not the case everywhere in the free world). Irrationality in a course of action would tend to also be a thing come sentencing though I don't know what goes for guidelines there and prosecution ones prior to that.
Employment and tenancy laws could be a fun one to consider under this and I don't know how that plays out.

So going for state level control of education? Looking around the US I don't know how much I would like the results but well within the "If you don't like it then do it yourself or leave" that would be in line with the general thought process and backed up by other aspects there.

Religious stuff in schools. I did find the prayer club stuff quite bizarre -- if you have a room that can be booked out then whatever. Bible as a founding document... interesting leap given half of it is copy-pasted from various enlightenment thinkers and UK/English common law. Teachers as preachers outside of those poor unfortunates that get sent to religious schools gets to be more tricky, especially as "I am here to teach you how to think, not what to think" is now an ancient and forgotten concept.

Which dovetails nicely into critical race theory is a stupid and itself racist and ahistorical view of things every time I have gone reading into it (rather than go into depth I think I will link https://www.lotuseaters.com/video-critical-race-theory-explained-30-06-21 as a reasonable approximation of where I sit). Banning it entirely while as pleasant as contemplating a banning of religion would however go against that free speech lark so play on in that marketplace of ideas. As a governing principle for education... fuck right off.

On global warming et al being able to be challenged. Sadly a lot of it does have the air of dogma about it these days with panic panic panic being another aspect. It would be terrifically difficult to dismiss it entirely but there are plenty of hazy edges to pick at. Whether kids might appreciate the nuance is a different matter entirely.

+1 to abstinence only being ineffective at best and idiotic at worst if taken as a population sample (the pill is very effective if clinically controlled, let people use it themselves and enough forget or otherwise take things that counteract it that the net efficacy is rather lower. Applying similar scientific standards to abstinence only and... yeah). The not funding a third party course is an interesting one.
Anti gay alphabet soup... much of identity as it would be phrased is not settled clinical science so I would not take that path if you are going to try attacking it. That said yeah I can sense the hand of the old school religious types having been taught how to phrase things by lawyers.
The genders as biological male and female is an interesting twist as well and counter to some of the linguistic fun others go in for (the distinction between chromosomes and what your head reckons it is works for me, the "no such thing as biological..." being rather silly).
The bake the cake/"wax my balls, bigot" thing is a fun one as far as laws and freedoms go without too many easy answers for optional things.

Don't normally see anti UN stuff make it this far. How interesting. The efficacy of the UN is rather dubious on many fronts (UN peacekeeping is a joke with its few successes being when people went off script) but outright withdrawing from it is an interesting play, I would have to wonder if that is one of those force a concession points. Wonder if it also speaks to a more isolationist streak bubbling up (historically we are due for another US isolationism period, helped along but what will probably be a nice depression for the next while with the only question being whether China, India or Russia will be ascendant during that though all of those are facing massive problems with hopes of a lot of those being on a knife edge).

Fluoride in water got this far... interesting. I am sure some would try to cloak it in choice, which is not an unreasonable course of action. I would too fear the net effects though, especially as toothpaste is not always containing it in the US.

I would be tempted to look how effective some of the US healthcare measures are as a concept, and also ponder the weird hybrid nature of public and private that helps remarkably few people in the end. If it is to further that.

As far as social security to all but those truly unable to work then that seems reasonable (pending qualifications for it, which I am sure will be on the harder side of things), though how many system surfers there are I don't know and would bet more towards it being a boogeyman to scare/enrage the would be voters with. It will also be an interesting question in a few more years when if you can't program a computer or use one to a serious degree (some ponder links between IQ and fitness for task, somewhat dubious for me but not as much as the idea of the blank slate) that you find yourself unemployable in the same way someone with Down's syndrome might be today when a few more robots get brought in.

Abortion not being healthcare is a bit hard line for me as well -- even if you are going to take the questionable step of banning elective ones then incest, rape and ectopic pregnancies (never mind even more fun ones like cancer and disease treatment and options therein).

The VA healthcare system is generally not held in high regard and has all sorts of trip ups and issues vis a vis percentage disability, injury in service vs not, prexisting before service (even if worsened by it) and more besides. You might be accused of seeking to find an issue here.

Pornography crisis. Somewhat of a twist I had not seen coming (though don't tend to keep a finger on the pulse there) and wondered if it was mostly going to be the Mormons that cared/tried it on as some kind of money shovelling tool. Your other stuff could well be trying to crowbar something in and not sure where sex comes into this one as it is pornography that is being discussed. That said if they omit the prevalence of fat bastards (most places everywhere seem to have something aimed at it) and instead tackle this then yeah that is dubious.
On the one hand I would happily put porn under free speech (call it art if you have to, barrier to such things being rather low) and go with look at what you want to look at. On the other there are some considerable downsides for a not insignificant portion of the population (levels of erectile dysfunction, relationship dysfunction, expected vs reality, body image issues*, it being used as a teaching tool**). That said once more the slimy hand of a religious weirdo being coached by a lawyer is felt though.
*time was a young girlie having read too many fashion magazines and coming up short to the airbrushed, well lit, professional makeup, tailored clothes sporting and starved winners of the genetic lottery would be told to go buy a dead tree porno (the mere act of having to go into a newsagents and get it also helping at some level) and read that as it was what the males were after/excited by, today even amateur porn might be tricky for that one. Gay males and body image issues is a whole other kettle of fish as well (fat straight guy might at least make some money and get a gold digger, fat gay guy might be the literal definition of involuntary celibate if what I have seen is anything to go by).

**made even more fun if you are going to dodge sex education as well. As a general rule learning sex from porn is a bit like learning computer hacking or gunplay from TV shows. Rule of cool being the order of the day compared to anything comfortable, practical, safe or enjoyable, plus you do tend to go in for the genetic freak shows much like any other acting or sports type gig.

The transexuals in the military thing is an interesting one. If the military is going to be social advancement method then exclusion to some extent could be a thing. On the other having to carry your hormone tablets (because logistics is a thing), the effects of said same on combat efficacy (if we are to believe MTF confers no advantage in sports then that is a disadvantage in combat where mixed units have been repeatedly tested and came up wanting) and never mind having to bugger off to dilate or whatever when you are supposed to be manning the walls is rather tricky when you a military force aiming to hurt the enemy where violence of action is your doctrine. People with far lesser issues are also excluded from military service on the basis of it reducing efficacy/combat effectiveness as well. The phrasing would also seem to reflect that (can you shoot your rifle, hump the weight in the best time and never leave a man behind whilst not needing any special considerations... don't care what your head reckons it is then), though that could be a more subtle hand of the lawyer at work (and indeed if I am assuming competent and Machiavellian, and I do in all cases even if it does conflict with the malice and stupidity phrase at times, then I would have to go there).
Also related at this point


Memorials is ever the debate. There is a difference between venerate and remember your history, tearing things down (especially when history is not necessarily black and white) is rather more dubious. I do also reserve quite some disdain for those that would take it upon themselves to destroy things.

The toilets and changing rooms being presumably left to private individuals. Bit more libertarian than some of the other proposals in this list (though again lawyer directing phrasing would be my bet).
While I don't necessarily imagine it will be the shining beacon for those more used to New York and California universities mindsets (and those builders that get to make them) there is very clear argument for freedom in this one, including your freedom not to grace the business with your presence if such a thing is a dealbreaker for you. While the dude in a dress next to my daughter people don't make much sense to me (never mind the merely self identify vs performative question) I am not sure I have a particularly well formed thought on this one.

I already said my bit on marriage above (stupid idea, don't do it, pending the day of its ridding as a government enforced contract then give it to the gays, if your religious institution cares to do government sanctioned types then you get to too, if your religious institution has it as a private internal ritual then carry on even if you get the religious tax exemption). That would seem to contradict it as the thematic basis. I am curious to see the basis for the law though as that will be interesting based on most readings I have seen thus far.
Similarly the bake the cake thing I covered briefly and don't have an easy answer. The killing thing is hyperbolic but I can see downsides, especially if it extends into irrelevant things to the transaction (decorate my cake is one thing vis a vis forcing me to act, sell me an existing one from your counter/we don't serve your kind quite another).

Some interesting phrasing on the promotion of heterosexual marriage. I see a pork barrel as things are made to promote it. That said it is not without underlying reason -- I already mentioned the less than stellar outcomes*** for single parent, which usually means single mother, households and dodging that by promoting other means (which for Americans seems to mean marriage) could be seen as a good thing, though I would still say you are a fool if you marry or get into a common law marriage.

***merely from an economic standpoint if the income is less and attention split by virtue of being said single parent then that alone, and that is before we ponder what roles each gender might play in the upbringing and what lacking one or the other for various stages might do in such things.

If I am take California and Texas as the extremes within the US then even ignoring self interest and pending financial woes (granted some might say the woes are caused by such policies, and they are not without a leg to stand on; there being some quite ridiculous taxes and requirements I would not adopt for myself if I were king, not least of all because much of them are sexist and racist -- keep your quotas and forced diversity hires as I will take the best for the job regardless of melanin and flavour of wobbly bits or indeed wobbly bits they care to fumble with) I think I would take Texas. All that said as probably evident above I am one of those filthy centrists it seems so would probably go for somewhere closer to that.

Further to that then as I am only reading what I assume are carefully selected excerpts then surprised not to see anything on vaccinations (not so many hippy earth mothers in Texas compared to California but enough of the religious weirdo and love my country hate my government components of that crowd that you still have numbers worth considering as a whole) and parental choice vis a vis transexual children (if they are going for the complete list its absence is noted -- some states allow your child to be removed if you refuse to go in for that, rather contrasting with other rights to choose medical treatment even at severe costs to the child**** but different debate there). Maybe it is a solved issue but if it is a going to be some kind of platform statement then eh.

****there being all sorts of religious, personal and cultural exemptions for things trivially fixed otherwise with stuff presumably metres away in the hospital there and then and plenty willing and capable of administering care.

Now the bets on whether responses to this are "tl;dr", ew you filthy anti American hippy or "ew you bigot" despite me not being anything the sort (at least as far as I understand it but those goalposts are ever shifting).


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 5, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Is this the liberal circlejerk thread?



I think they all are.

Re: the topic, easy solution. If you don't like what they say, don't vote for them. If they win anyway, well that's democracy for ya.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 5, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> If they win anyway, well that's democracy for ya.


Is it democracy when districts are so gerrymandered that the political party with fewer votes ends up winning the most seats?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 5, 2022)

Not only will I donate, I'll physically help build the wall between Texas and the US if they actually go through with seceding from the union. 

Of course they're all bark and no bite though, because that would also mean no Republican ever wins a presidential race again.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 5, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Is it democracy when districts are so gerrymandered that the political party with fewer votes ends up winning the most seats?



Is it democracy when Democrats do the same thing in New York, Illinois, Oregon, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico? There is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 5, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Is it democracy when Democrats do the same thing in New York, Illinois, Oregon, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico?


No, it isn't.


----------



## m1x3rr (Jul 5, 2022)

Land of the unfree, basically.


----------



## Costello (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude has been suspended for 1 week for inappropriate behavior & insults despite being asked repeatedly to cool down

being a despicable human being is not against the rules per se, but if you are going to start being downright insulting to everybody here, might as well go cool off in a corner. If you do return you'd better change attitude, unless you want to be permanently banned.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

I actually laughed out loud at your outrage. You are going to have a really tough rest of the year. I hope you will be able to cope.


----------



## videogamefanatic (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


> I don't understand the carbon tax scam and how everyone falls into it. Clearly if there is any damage being done to the planet, it is mostly done by the ventures of the industrialists with their asphalt, concrete, factories, waste, automobiles, and wasteful lifestyle/culture that they've peddled to the world over the past century. And now the industrialists with their little Davos buddy clubs, get together and blame all the carbon on humans, animals, and their farts, then decide that they must tax the people for their destruction of the environment.
> 
> I would think that the solution would have been to put a chain on the industrialists a long time ago and continue riding horses, which happen to be a self driven, self reproducing, biodegradable, fertilizer producing, vehicle that runs off plant life, but no people are stupid and would rather have their wasteful toys than attempt to live in accord with nature.


You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

A carbon cap and tax is literally taxing those industrialist corporations for producing, buying, or using carbon dioxide releasing fuels. It isn't a direct tax on normal taxpayers. And if it's done *right*, the taxes paid for such a program would at least, in part, go directly to taxpayers to ease the increase in gas prices (hell, make it progressive, redistribute it based on income so that the poorest can still afford their gas and then some), and other parts of tax would go to funding alternative energy developments and infrastructure (including electric car tax credits hopefully, which makes it easier for taxpayers to replace their fossil-fuel burning cars too).

Here's the thing: Fossil fuels are artificially *extremely cheap* because their environmental costs are externalized. Fossil fuel companies tend to not have to worry about the environmental damage that processing and burning their fuels cause, so alternatives didn't historically have any chance to even compete. That's managed to actually change somewhat as the cost of wind and solar has fallen so much, but the fight was unfair to begin with. A carbon tax makes it so that the cost of those fuels takes into account the previously externalized environmental costs, and those costs will be pretty high because we waited this long to do anything to fix the problem we've been inching our way into since industrialization started.

Seriously, we need to get off of fossil fuels, and air carbon capture (or at least, planting, lumbering, and replanting hella trees) is going to be necessary if we don't want miles upon miles of land going underwater at every coast (causing absurd amounts of property damage and displacement), summer temperatures getting progressively hotter, and more and more reefs and other underwater habitats to die off from heat and acidification. A carbon cap and tax is the *minimum* we need to be doing IMO. The transition needs to speed up sooner rather than later.

EDIT: Also, going back to horses aren't the answer. Nice thought, I guess?, but going backwards like that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jul 7, 2022)

Tldr; Texas Republicans aren't Democrats so I don't like them


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

videogamefanatic said:


> You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> A carbon cap and tax is literally taxing those industrialist corporations for producing, buying, or using carbon dioxide releasing fuels. It isn't a direct tax on normal taxpayers. And if it's done *right*, the taxes paid for such a program would at least, in part, go directly to taxpayers to ease the increase in gas prices (hell, make it progressive, redistribute it based on income so that the poorest can still afford their gas and then some), and other parts of tax would go to funding alternative energy developments and infrastructure (including electric car tax credits hopefully, which makes it easier for taxpayers to replace their fossil-fuel burning cars too).
> 
> ...


Now name a tax that has ever been done right and explain why you would want the federal government to have even more power over us and drive the cost of everything even higher than what they are doing now.

Getting off of fossil fuels is a noble goal. We just need a technology that is reliable, safe, and cheap to make. Do you think it's weird that the people who talk about rising ocean levels and climate change the most have properties on the coast that they spent 10's of millions of dollars purchasing? It's almost like they don't believe their own bullshit but they expect us to believe it. I guess some people actually do believe it after all.

And here is your carbon capture system. They are called trees.

https://www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 7, 2022)

Costello said:


> being a despicable human being is not against the rules per se


This explains the attitude and actions of 70% of people in this site, users and staff alike, perfectly.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2022)

Costello said:


> mrdude has been suspended for 1 week for inappropriate behavior & insults despite being asked repeatedly to cool down
> 
> being a despicable human being is not against the rules per se, but if you are going to start being downright insulting to everybody here, might as well go cool off in a corner. If you do return you'd better change attitude, unless you want to be permanently banned.


What about his wife mrsmaam?


----------



## bodefuceta (Jul 7, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yep, I'm all for paragraph 317 as well. Marriage should only be for men and women, as it has been for thousands of years and still is in most parts of the world. The gays can have a civil partnership or whatever, after all it's just a bit of paper isn't it.


Stop drinking the kool aid. Traditional marriage in official capacity in america died in the 1930s, traditional marriage means the wife belongs to the husband, whatever you call marriage now is just a modern invention, the government has been actively supressing the rights of husbands since, leaving only a shell of what marriage once was, an actively harmful one that's absolutely no surprise people are avoiding. Do not protect this shit, for God's sake.


----------



## WG481 (Jul 7, 2022)

Maybe Texas should split off of the US again...


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 7, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Tldr; Texas Republicans aren't Democrats so I don't like them


If that means democrats pass the tiny bar of not treating human beings like shit. Then sure.
Which by the way, shouldn't even be a bar to pass. But here we are.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jul 8, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> If that means democrats pass the tiny bar of not treating human beings like shit. Then sure.
> Which by the way, shouldn't even be a bar to pass. But here we are.


Imagine thinking any political party cares about you


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Imagine thinking any political party cares about you


The left as a whole and many on the right are so heavily invested in this Democrat vs Republican team sport bullshit that it prevents them from seeing the bigger picture. They can't grasp that 90% of those in DC and in the state governments are nothing but puppets enriching themselves at our expense. They fail to see that the politicians create emergencies so they can pass laws to strip away our freedoms. How quickly people became accustomed to being searched at airports by nude scanners, forced to only carry small bottles of bathroom items, taking off your shoes, belts and hats, and hour long queues through security. They don't mind that you have to throw away your bottle of water in the security line and if you want another, you have to buy it at a business in the terminal for $6.50. How convenient for the airport businesses. They say nothing about the government actually encroaching on them personally. It's always, "Govern me harder, daddy" with these people.


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Imagine thinking any political party cares about you


I tend not to trust the one's who market their every "good deed" done for "the people".


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 8, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Imagine thinking any political party cares about you


Oh don't get me wrong. Both Republicans and Democrats are backed by companies. They don't give two shits.
The problem is that one of them instead of not giving a shit on a specific issue, decided they should, and treating certain human beings as lesser because they saw it as politically viable to rile up their base.
So I'll repeat myself. At least one of them didn't treat certain human beings like shit, and want to say...
Make their lives as miserable as possible through law just to rile up their base.
So no. Democrats don't care about people. It's just that Republicans care about the people who go against their idealogy and rather do everything they can to proscute them.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 8, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> It's just that Republicans care about the people who go against their idealogy and rather do everything they can to proscute them.


You really think that is a unique trait to them? Seems to be a standard modern political tool regardless* which is a bit sad really but got to play human psychology and most people (aka enough voters to cancel out others) are susceptible to it.

*some of the libertarians are a bit more permissive but I can't imagine for a moment that if they came to power in a basically two party system (can't imagine the US is going to be anything but any time soon) that they would not drop it like a hot potato. Or for the more flip side see all the fun and games the US democrats and the business democrats that are still nominally in charge are having with the democratic socialists not bowing to the whip and tanking agendas all over the place because maths.

That said I am curious. If they gain the perception of such things (whether justifiably or not -- perception is reality after all) if that will have an impact on things (whether votes for, switching sides/swing votes in US parlance or those that would have stayed at home turning up aka most of the potential youth vote and we will pretend it is in a place that matters for such things -- stay home/do whatever California youth as not much is going to change regardless). It was noted that the Roman Catholics suffered a bit of problem here when being all "ew gays" and the youth being "that is my mate Billy, he is not bad" and something similar could happen.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Oh don't get me wrong. Both Republicans and Democrats are backed by companies. They don't give two shits.
> The problem is that one of them instead of not giving a shit on a specific issue, decided they should, and treating certain human beings as lesser because they saw it as politically viable to rile up their base.
> So I'll repeat myself. At least one of them didn't treat certain human beings like shit, and want to say...
> Make their lives as miserable as possible through law just to rile up their base.
> So no. Democrats don't care about people. It's just that Republicans care about the people who go against their idealogy and rather do everything they can to proscute them.


The Democrats are bad, but the Republicans are worse argument is so lazy and ignorant of history. Yes, both parties suck. One party is currently allowing criminals to roam the street hurting and killing people by releasing them immediately after arrest.  One party is sending our strategic oil reserves to China, India and Europe while we pay $5/gallon. One party has opened our border allowing an active slave trade of brown people to take place.

I'm not sure what certain human beings are being treated as lesser, but if you look around, we are all being treated as lesser now.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The Democrats are bad, but the Republicans are worse argument is so lazy and ignorant of history


"Ignorant of history"
Republicans: commonly the KKK, proud boys side with them even now.
You had a president who did an attempted arm coup in the middle of a federal election process.
You have the politicians supporting gerrymandering.
You just had that same party remove abortions regardless of circumstances. Resulting in severe disfigurement or trama of women.
You have the same party going after gay marriage.
The same party now looking into completely overturning the will of the people through independent legislature theory. Which also they refused to fix gerrymandering. As a result Republicans are less in favor of a democracy.
The same party wanted to go build a expensive ineffective wall, and instead it hurt Americans since they had to pay up for it.
The same party I should add, added into the baby formula issue, through a trump era policy of putting sanctions on imports. Which we ended up paying.
A party who rather have a private commercial healthcare. The same one everyones been dealing with for the last 30+ years.
Oh right! The same party that continues to believe "trickle down economics" works. You know. Part of the reason the pay disparity is so absurdly high.


The worst thing democrats has done is sit on their asses and stick up a finger up their nose. By that I mean the worst thing they've done is literately  the act of doing nothing. Outside of overturning *some* polices that were genuinely bad. Outside of also doing war crimes. But both parties share that one via drone strikes and casualties


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 8, 2022)

Oh and let's not forget this image either.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 8, 2022)

Modern Conservativism is literally just "anything Liberals are doing or we think they are doing, we are against. Their entire idea of "small government" makes no fucking sense. How can you have a small government, while also wanting a government that limits the rights of everyone you don't like/agree with? Then there are the mental gymnastics justifying these positions, which mostly boils down to wanting to force everyone into being as shitty as they are. So It's an entire movement of being the shittiest people you've ever met.


----------



## djpannda (Jul 8, 2022)

1. They are Republicans from Texas.

thats it, thats all you need


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> "Ignorant of history"
> Republicans: commonly the KKK, proud boys side with them even now.
> You had a president who did an attempted arm coup in the middle of a federal election process.
> You have the politicians supporting gerrymandering.
> ...


False. The Dems traded the KKK because they have zero influence for KLANtifa as their foot soldiers
False. Nobody was armed except for Capitol Police. The only people who died that day were Trump supporters
NY Supreme Court dismissed gerrymandered Dem Congressional map and drew one themselves
A party did not remove abortions. It's not in the Constitution, therefore, it is the purview of the states
We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy
The wall wasn't finished and there are a flood of illegal aliens being trafficked across the border
The factory that makes baby formula here in the US was shut down by Biden
I like my private healthcare insurance. Works better than the Obamacare plan I was forced on in 2011
Pay disparity is so high because blue states shut down their economies and people couldn't work

You're not very good at this are you?


----------



## CMDreamer (Jul 9, 2022)

Damn, Texas' law system will be going to hell if they even consider allowing all that crap. Which afaik is a contradiction as their arguments are clearly influenced by a religious connotation, which again is pure crap.

Welcome to Inquisition, Season 2, or is it Season 3?.


----------



## Stealphie (Jul 9, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Imagine thinking any political party cares about you


personally i'd take the one that doesn't care about me over the one that actively wants me gone so


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 9, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> False. Nobody was armed except for Capitol Police


This is false if you listened to the hearings.  Republicans witness and police stated there was weapons.



TraderPatTX said:


> The Dems traded the KKK because they have zero influence for KLANtifa as their foot soldiers


Not even sure wtf your trying to say. Because antifa littearly stands for anti fascists, and antifa is decentralized. There isn't a leader.  Capital rioters themselves stated that antifa wasn't there. And the KKK aligns with Republicans today.


TraderPatTX said:


> The wall wasn't finished and there are a flood of illegal aliens being trafficked across the border


It's not "illegal aliens" since you and I both know what you really mean. "Mexicans" even though it's not Mexicans but more likely El Salvadorans due to the gang crisis going on over there. You know, the one we help created? Littearly gang members are hunting people down and killing them.
As for the trafficking part. Blame Republicans. No seriously. Instead of maybe creating a path to citizenship, they rather criminalize them, deport them, and essentially have them killed since said gang members just have to wait for them to get thrown out. They instead choose to profit off it. Ever thought that companies looking for super cheep labour is the reason why they get hired? Because if they do get them hired. They can use deportation as a threat. Keeping their pay low. And getting a lots of profits.
I might as well also state they can't vote. I swear if I hear the "but they manage to vote anyways because stolen social security and hogging benifits" shumuck that I had to crawl out from. I am not even going to entertain responding to you for your own blatent stupidity of being unable to think of how they could possibly do that without getting busted. We have a deceasist record. A birth record. And your name written on that social security record. And commonly photo id records from state ids. Let's not forget your address is also recorded. So having everything smoothly and perfectly line up to get social secruity benifits isn't very probable. But then also assuming they are here illegally. Why the hell would they try to contact the goverment? They'll just risk getting deported.
And a shitty wall that doesn't even last for a full year would somehow be less shitty? Go on.


TraderPatTX said:


> A party did not remove abortions.


So republicans passing abortion bans that would otherwise be unconstitutional unless they had sway in the supreme court to make a decsion like that, is not banning abortion? Okay go on.


TraderPatTX said:


> We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy


No, we live in a representive "democracy."
(Heavy air quotes when the supreme court isn't actually representive. Or the existence of gerrymandering)
 But if your party wants to force everyone into a constitutional republic we're going to fuck off and leave. Since no one wants to live in that kind of system.


TraderPatTX said:


> Pay disparity is so high because blue states shut down their economies and people couldn't work


Do you have the attention span of bug? Because you could look at pre covid pay disparities and they were just as high.



TraderPatTX said:


> You're not very good at this are you?


If good is supposed to define changing your mind? Heavily ineffective. It's impossible to debate your brain rotting level of koolaid since none of your arguments are fact or logic base. Since they fly in the face of any reasoning.
 Thanks for the reminder though


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> This is false if you listened to the hearings.  Republicans witness and police stated there was weapons.


Imagine taking the kangaroo court of the Jan 6th committee seriously and as facts in any stretch of the imagination when no proof has ever been shown outside of hearsay, which amounts too, "I heard this from my cousin's sister's brother's uncle twice removed indefinitely."

In other news, Seabears and fairy tales are real.


Nothereed said:


> Not even sure wtf your trying to say. Because antifa littearly stands for anti fascists, and antifa is decentralized. There isn't a leader.  Capital rioters themselves stated that antifa wasn't there. And the KKK aligns with Republicans today.



The dems created the KKK, antifa, and helped BLM, founded by communist ideologists, grow into what it is, all radical domestic terrorist groups hell bent on destroying America. And just a group is called "Ant Fascist", doesn't mean they themselves are fascist themselves and their tactics. It's like an oxymoron (emphasis on moron lol). A serial killer can claim he never killed a soul, but if the hard and concrete evidence is there that he did kill multiple people, will you take their word for it and just let them go?

I know this is hard to wrap your head around and it won't go through, but this mostly for others so they don't get confused by your bullshit misinformation tactics you claim the right likes to use.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> This is false if you listened to the hearings.  Republicans witness and police stated there was weapons.
> 
> 
> Not even sure wtf your trying to say. Because antifa littearly stands for anti fascists, and antifa is decentralized. There isn't a leader.  Capital rioters themselves stated that antifa wasn't there. And the KKK aligns with Republicans today.
> ...


Nothing from the J6 hearings is true. Name one person who has been charged with possession of weapons. You don't be able to.

Illegal aliens is the legal term for people who cross the border illegally. There is a path to citizenship. People do it every day. These illegal aliens are dying in semi trucks while being trafficked into the country because of the Resident's open border policies and the cartels are getting richer. Women and children are being sold into sex slavery and you support it. You are no better than Jeffrey Epstein.

The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not a protected right. If you can find it in the Constitution, I'll stand corrected. The right to life is protected.

We live in a constitutional republic. That is what the Founders called it when the states created the federal government.

Pre-Covid, pay disparities were the closest they have ever been. Look it up.

And the personal attacks because you do not have facts on your side. Typical brain dead leftist.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

"Both parties are bad!" say a bunch of people who, strangely, continue to either vote republican, or don't vote and back their talking points anyways. Remind me again, what are you guys doing to actually change the system? Any uh, local politics you're involved in? Canvassing for grassroots campaigns maybe?

Or uh, do you just whine about the left online and call it centrism?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Imagine taking the kangaroo court of the Jan 6th committee seriously and as facts in any stretch of the imagination when no proof has ever been shown outside of hearsay, which amounts too, "I heard this from my cousin's sister's brother's uncle twice removed indefinitely."
> 
> In other news, Seabears and fairy tales are real.
> 
> ...


 communism is when you hate racism, apparently.

Literally the dumbest post in this thread.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> "Both parties are bad!" say a bunch of people who, strangely, continue to either vote republican, or don't vote and back their talking points anyways. Remind me again, what are you guys doing to actually change the system? Any uh, local politics you're involved in? Canvassing for grassroots campaigns maybe?
> 
> Or uh, do you just whine about the left online and call it centrism?


We are getting active locally. We have won many school board seats across the country and local offices. We are also not trying to change the system. We are trying to restore it back to the Constitution which the left openly hates. If you did a simple Google search, you'd know all of this.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> We are getting active locally. We have won many school board seats across the country and local offices. We are also not trying to change the system. We are trying to restore it back to the Constitution which the left openly hates. If you did a simple Google search, you'd know all of this.


I'm not asking for your party, lapdog. I'm asking about you personally. Do you, an individual, do anything, besides cry about the left online and call it political action?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I'm not asking for your party, lapdog. I'm asking about you personally. Do you, an individual, do anything, besides cry about the left online and call it political action?


These threads are leftists struggle sessions. I'm not the one crying.

Considering I just moved to a new district in the last month, I haven't been able to do as much yet as I am still making contacts. Don't worry, I'll get there though.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> These threads are leftists struggle sessions. I'm not the one crying.
> 
> Considering I just moved to a new district in the last month, I haven't been able to do as much yet as I am still making contacts. Don't worry, I'll get there though.


Lmao, that is just cope for doing nothing. What a fucking joke. If you don't take political action, your mewling is literally useless.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Lmao, that is just cope for doing nothing. What a fucking joke. If you don't take political action, your mewling is literally useless.


Feeling cute, might volunteer to be a poll watcher in November. I'd like to see leftists try to throw me out like they did to other poll watchers in 2020.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Feeling cute, might volunteer to be a poll watcher in November. I'd like to see leftists try to throw me out like they did to other poll watchers in 2020.


oh my god lol we're doing internet tough guy shit now???

the absolute fucking state of the beta right


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> oh my god lol we're doing internet tough guy shit now???
> 
> the absolute fucking state of the beta right


At least you didn't deny that republican poll watchers were thrown out of rooms while counting resumed. That's progress.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> At least you didn't deny that republican poll watchers were thrown out of rooms while counting resumed. That's progress.


Republicans don't send poll watchers lol, they just send activists.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Republicans don't send poll watchers lol, they just send activists.


Call them what you want. They still had a right to be there.


----------



## videogamefanatic (Jul 27, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Now name a tax that has ever been done right and explain why you would want the federal government to have even more power over us and drive the cost of everything even higher than what they are doing now.
> 
> Getting off of fossil fuels is a noble goal. We just need a technology that is reliable, safe, and cheap to make. Do you think it's weird that the people who talk about rising ocean levels and climate change the most have properties on the coast that they spent 10's of millions of dollars purchasing? It's almost like they don't believe their own bullshit but they expect us to believe it. I guess some people actually do believe it after all.
> 
> ...


Cap and Tax worked for HFCs


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 27, 2022)

videogamefanatic said:


> Cap and Tax worked for HFCs


Wrong. No tax has ever worked because taxation is theft of people's time. A resource we cannot get back.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 27, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> No tax has ever worked because taxation is theft of people's time.


So when they reduce taxes is it for your tax bracket? Because often or not it's not your tax bracket that's getting reduced. It's the ones already making ludicrious amounts of money/ the top 10%


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 27, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Now name a tax that has ever been done right and explain why you would want the federal government to have even more power over us and drive the cost of everything even higher than what they are doing now.


Here's a thought. Put legislation for the IRS to actually be able to do their job. They already reported they go after poor people because it's easy and they lack the funding to do investigations into CEO's. Since the many ways company heads can try to fool the IRS is a lot higher than someone who is near or at the poverty line.


TraderPatTX said:


> you think it's weird that the people who talk about rising ocean levels and climate change the most have properties


Except that's not us. Whoever gave you that talking point is just wrong. I lived in both arizona and north Dakota. And when it starts randomly fucking snowing in Arizona during the winter. In the actual city I lived in. That's a problem. Because no one there is equipped to drive in snow, or deal with that cold of a climate. And nor are the buildings designed around snowfall. Roofs can collapse.
Edit:and in north Dakota, i'm seeing temperatures that are far out the "normal"


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 27, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Wrong. No tax has ever worked because taxation is theft of people's time. A resource we cannot get back.



How many public systems like transportation and social security have been generously funded by billionaire philanthropists? 

Is it, is it none? I've seen more philanthropists provide for countries outside of America as opposed to inside it.

But, *sigh*, I don't disagree with your stance on taxes. The problem is the idea behind taxes was that of solidarity, and it became tainted by corporate greed and underhanded political tactics. Now taxes have become little more than opposing blue v red stances and every party attacks the others idea of taxes until it's become this great evil unleashed upon the land. People should be paid appropriately, especially after taxes are taken out. Then it becomes a problem for the super rich.



TraderPatTX said:


> These threads are leftists struggle sessions. I'm not the one crying.
> 
> Considering I just moved to a new district in the last month, I haven't been able to do as much yet as I am still making contacts. Don't worry, I'll get there though.



Are you going to actively involve yourself in protests, riots, active anarchy? That's all constitutional. Would be pretty weird of you if you made some phone calls, picketed a clinic or two, and then just call it a day.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> So when they reduce taxes is it for your tax bracket? Because often or not it's not your tax bracket that's getting reduced. It's the ones already making ludicrious amounts of money/ the top 10%


In the past, that may have been true. However, the tax breaks that were passed in 2017 reduced everybody's taxes. Even the NYTimes was forced to admit it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 27, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> How many public systems like transportation and social security have been generously funded by billionaire philanthropists?
> 
> Is it, is it none? I've seen more philanthropists provide for countries outside of America as opposed to inside it.
> 
> ...


The original idea behind taxes was that it was only going to affect the top 1%. History proves that was a lie. Yes, taxes now are a way to divide us and we fell for it, just like we have fallen for all the ways that we've been divided into smaller and smaller groups.

If I want to protest, I will. I have in the past. I will not involve myself in riots or anarchy because that is not constitutional and until 2020, was against the law.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> In the past, that may have been true. However, the tax breaks that were passed in 2017 reduced everybody's taxes. Even the NYTimes was forced to admit it.


except if you read what it said (not NYtimes, I mean the actual legal document). It was only for 3 years.
Afterwords the bottom most bracket (most people) would be raised, higher than what it was before the decrease. While the highest/higher tax bracket would keep it's decrease. With lower brackets, continuing to get taxes raised higher until 2027.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> except if you read what it said (not NYtimes, I mean the actual legal document). It was only for 3 years.
> Afterwords the bottom most bracket (most people) would be raised, higher than what it was before the decrease. While the highest/higher tax bracket would keep it's decrease. With lower brackets, continuing to get taxes raised higher until 2027.


Since Democrats have complete control over Congress, you would think they would be rushing to pass tax breaks for the lower brackets. But they never do that. They want us to pay high taxes. They just want the rich, except for their donors that they write exemptions for, to pay higher taxes. If the left was really for the little guy, this would have gotten done during Biden's first month in office. They've showed us who they really are. They hate all of us while we sit online and bicker amongst ourselves.

All they've done for us is give us a measly $600 check and sent us on our way because we didn't have money for more, but just sent 10's of billions of our money to Ukraine. Both sides should be outraged, but one side "sTaNdS wItH uKrAiNe" instead of America.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I will not involve myself in riots or anarchy because that is not constitutional and until 2020, was against the law.



So let me ask you this then: At what point are riots mandatory for change? 

Over the years we've seen plenty of riots and civil unrest work in favor of the average American. Black lives (and not just BLM), women's rights, worker's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and much more have had inarguably positive outcomes over the centuries, and will most certainly continue to do so. 

According to you and what I'm sure would be most Republicans, riots are unconstitutional (technically they're not), and therefore should be demonized outright. Regardless of situation?


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Since Democrats have complete control over Congress, you would think they would be rushing to pass tax breaks for the lower brackets. But they never do that.


Yeah. Crazy. (I'm not surprised) But your also not focusing on the fact that Trump, and the Republican party, passed _that_ act, for taxes, that expires _only_ for poor people, and makes them pay more in the long run. Can I get you to at least concede that both parties are bad? Both being pro corporate. And that the Republican party/MAGA, is part of the problem.
I have gone on to state several times over that Democrats, and Republicans are both, for CEO's and corporations. With the Republican party being more fascistic.
(calling women getting rapped as a benefit, from the fucking lawyer who made those bills that caused that is proof alone. If not, them also immedately blocking any investigations into radicalization within the military, or laws that would assist with that)


----------



## videogamefanatic (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Since Democrats have complete control over Congress, you would think they would be rushing to pass tax breaks for the lower brackets. But they never do that. They want us to pay high taxes. They just want the rich, except for their donors that they write exemptions for, to pay higher taxes. If the left was really for the little guy, this would have gotten done during Biden's first month in office. They've showed us who they really are. They hate all of us while we sit online and bicker amongst ourselves.
> 
> All they've done for us is give us a measly $600 check and sent us on our way because we didn't have money for more, but just sent 10's of billions of our money to Ukraine. Both sides should be outraged, but one side "sTaNdS wItH uKrAiNe" instead of America.


Complete control my ass. Kill the filibuster, then we'll talk.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Here's a thought. Put legislation for the IRS to actually be able to do their job. They already reported they go after poor people because it's easy and they lack the funding to do investigations into CEO's. Since the many ways company heads can try to fool the IRS is a lot higher than someone who is near or at the poverty line.
> 
> Except that's not us. Whoever gave you that talking point is just wrong. I lived in both arizona and north Dakota. And when it starts randomly fucking snowing in Arizona during the winter. In the actual city I lived in. That's a problem. Because no one there is equipped to drive in snow, or deal with that cold of a climate. And nor are the buildings designed around snowfall. Roofs can collapse.
> Edit:and in north Dakota, i'm seeing temperatures that are far out the "normal"


I have an even better solution, but here is my compromise. Eliminate federal income taxes for everybody in the bottom 50% income bracket. That way the IRS will be forced to go collect from rich people. If the left is really for the little guy, this is a no brainer.

Obama has a huge mansion in Martha's Vineyard and another in Hawaii, both right on the beach. All the climate alarmists live in houses that are way too big for their family size. They have private jets, giant yachts, helicopters, and gas guzzling vehicles. They have the biggest carbon footprint and yet, they tell us we need to sacrifice. And the left eats that shit up and I laugh at all of you when you do it, especially when the left calls the right a cult. That's priceless.

What is the normal? The normal for the past 10 years? 50 year? 100 years? You do know the Earth is 4 billion years old. It goes through cycles that are barely even understood by climate scientists. It's been warmer during the Middle Ages and we are still here. There's a reason all the climate predictions in the last 60 years have been proven false.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Yeah. Crazy. (I'm not surprised) But your also not focusing on the fact that Trump, and the Republican party, passed _that_ act, for taxes, that expires _only_ for poor people, and makes them pay more in the long run. Can I get you to at least concede that both parties are bad? Both being pro corporate. And that the Republican party/MAGA, is part of the problem.
> I have gone on to state several times over that Democrats, and Republicans are both, for CEO's and corporations. With the Republican party being more fascistic.
> (calling women getting rapped as a benefit, from the fucking lawyer who made those bills that caused that is proof alone. If not, them also immedately blocking any investigations into radicalization within the military, or laws that would assist with that)


I know both parties are bad. Why do you think many Republicans are losing their primaries this cycle?

How did you go from both are bad to rape is a benefit and radicalization of the military?

Are you ok? Did you hit your head?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

videogamefanatic said:


> Complete control my ass. Kill the filibuster, then we'll talk.


Show me a comment of yours from 2017-2019 calling for the end of the filibuster and we'll talk.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So let me ask you this then: At what point are riots mandatory for change?
> 
> Over the years we've seen plenty of riots and civil unrest work in favor of the average American. Black lives (and not just BLM), women's rights, worker's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and much more have had inarguably positive outcomes over the centuries, and will most certainly continue to do so.
> 
> According to you and what I'm sure would be most Republicans, riots are unconstitutional (technically they're not), and therefore should be demonized outright. Regardless of situation?


I abhor violence, especially political violence. Once you start violence, you have lost the debate.

And I understand that the left has been violent for decades. It's what they do. We've seen it all over the world many times over when communists take over. And the left does not find it weird that communism is almost always brought in at the barrel of a gun, but still advocate it. Another part of the cult right there.


----------



## Sir Tortoise (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> All the climate alarmists live in houses that are way too big for their family size. They have private jets, giant yachts, helicopters, and gas guzzling vehicles. They have the biggest carbon footprint and yet, they tell us we need to sacrifice.


That's a pretty major claim, I personally would have thought the biggest carbon footprint would have gone to those in the fossil fuel industry and lobby. But if there's evidence that it's actually all the climate alarmists, well that sucks.


> You do know the Earth is 4 billion years old. It goes through cycles that are barely even understood by climate scientists.


Yup, the temperature changes over time. But if these cycles are barely understood, what makes you think that recent changes are indeed just a normal cycle? Surely there would be room for reasonable doubt if we have no idea how these cycles work. Ofc, saying they're "poorly understood" is a good way to get out of having to explain why this current part of the "cycle" appears to be happening drastically faster than the usual changes that happen over thousands of years. It's probably also a coincidence that it lines up with the drastic increase of emissions, that or all the science on how these emissions cause warming is fake, I guess.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

Sir Tortoise said:


> That's a pretty major claim, I personally would have thought the biggest carbon footprint would have gone to those in the fossil fuel industry and lobby. But if there's evidence that it's actually all the climate alarmists, well that sucks.
> 
> Yup, the temperature changes over time. But if these cycles are barely understood, what makes you think that recent changes are indeed just a normal cycle? Surely there would be room for reasonable doubt if we have no idea how these cycles work. Ofc, saying they're "poorly understood" is a good way to get out of having to explain why this current part of the "cycle" appears to be happening drastically faster than the usual changes that happen over thousands of years. It's probably also a coincidence that it lines up with the drastic increase of emissions, that or all the science on how these emissions cause warming is fake, I guess.


You are comparing individual people to an entire industry. Do you really want this to be your first reply back to me?

I don't have to prove that they are a normal cycle. It's up to the climate alarmists to prove that they are not normal.

Who says it's even warming? It's been proven that climate scientists have gone back and "adjusted" past temps that have stood for decades. It's also proven that it's been both warmer and colder in the past since humans started walking the earth and life still flourishes here. For a group that believes in evolution, you people seem to think that everything is static and never changes. I've never understood how you guys square that round peg. But it's a cult and it's not supposed to make sense.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I abhor violence, especially political violence. Once you start violence, you have lost the debate.



So are you implying that the riots of the past should not have taken place? In your eyes, fighting to get rights for non white males, better working hours and conditions, things like these are not even necessary evils?

You seem to have created this odd scenario where "Lefties" both control the government:



TraderPatTX said:


> Since Democrats have complete control over Congress....



...and are threatened by it to the point of violence...



TraderPatTX said:


> And I understand that the left has been violent for decades...



...and then go on to continue this chaotic, self deprecating cycle...



TraderPatTX said:


> ...communism is almost always brought in at the barrel of a gun, but still advocate it.



...Which causes your Republican party to be caught in the middle of all this. 

Is this an accurate enough portrayal? This master mind of techniques brought on by Democrats to crush the Republican party and turn the nation into communism, slaving for our corporate masters?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So are you implying that the riots of the past should not have taken place? In your eyes, fighting to get rights for non white males, better working hours and conditions, things like these are not even necessary evils?
> 
> You seem to have created this odd scenario where "Lefties" both control the government:
> 
> ...


I'm not implying anything. I don't know if there were alternatives to violence back then, but the Democrat Party has always been violent against the people so I guess it was justified self defense.

Tell me the party affiliation of the Speaker of the House, the Leader of the Senate and the President of the United States.

Since they are slaving for their corporate masters, then the apt description of the uniparty would be fascism. Make no mistake, communism is the end goal. Fascism is just another step to get there.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'm not implying anything. I don't know if there were alternatives to violence back then, but the Democrat Party has always been violent against the people so I guess it was justified self defense.



So if the Republican party supported workers' rights, black rights, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and so on, back then there wouldn't have been any riots?



TraderPatTX said:


> Tell me the party affiliation of the Speaker of the House, the Leader of the Senate and the President of the United States.



Imma take a wild guess and say they're Democrat.



TraderPatTX said:


> Since they are slaving for their corporate masters, then the apt description of the uniparty would be fascism. Make no mistake, communism is the end goal. Fascism is just another step to get there.



Ok. Let's turn America communist. What then? Are they going to control the means of production like Bezos, Musk, Rothschild, Koch, Bush...? Are they going to create a wider poverty level, by increasing prices on the housing market, standard of living costs, basic necessities and such? You make communism out to be this great evil like modern capitalism is in much better of a position for a greater portion of people. 

Though I must say that with all this Democrat blame and Republican idolization you've had recently, it makes that old argument of yours about being against big government and corporate leaders seem so aged... Just not very well.


----------



## Sir Tortoise (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You are comparing individual people to an entire industry.


So now it's individual people and not "all the climate alarmists"? It's one group to another. Either way, this would be settled pretty easily if you backed up your claim, but I notice you haven't.


TraderPatTX said:


> For a group that believes in evolution, you people seem to think that everything is static and never changes.


Back to being a group again, and also demonstrating that you aren't actually interested in a discussion instead of repeating the same misconceptions. If you had read my reply, you'd see that I don't think "everything is static", as explicitly stated. Earth's average temperature has changed in the past. This statement is true. It does not mean that a sudden and abnormal shift in temperature, coinciding with a drastic increase in emissions by a mechanism that is well-documented and proven, is normal. You can have normal cycles over thousands of years *and* a sudden change in temperature over the last fifty.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So if the Republican party supported workers' rights, black rights, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and so on, back then there wouldn't have been any riots?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've think I've said numerous times on this forum that I do not play "what if" games, and yet, you people keep trying.

Your guess would be correct. So you are paying a little bit of attention to your surroundings.

Communism always creates a larger disparity in income levels every time it is tried. The problem with our capitalism is the federal government is not enforcing monopoly laws and they government is busy choosing winners and losers. The government forcing us onto private healthcare plans that may not suit us and forcing us to inject ourselves with an untested "vaccine" from Big Pharma companies, enabling them to make 10's of billions a quarter every single quarter over the last couple of years is not capitalism. That's cronyism. Not to mention all of the failed "investments" in "green energy" where the companies file bankruptcy as soon as that government check clears, like Solyndra.

Calling out Democrat bad behavior is not idolizing Republicans. The RINO's and NeverTrumpers are equally as guilty for the suffering of all of us as their cocktail party friends in the Democrat Party. But you do tend to read words that are not there in my posts. Not sure if you are dyslexic or mentally deficient. If you are I apologize.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

Sir Tortoise said:


> So now it's individual people and not "all the climate alarmists"? It's one group to another. Either way, this would be settled pretty easily if you backed up your claim, but I notice you haven't.
> 
> Back to being a group again, and also demonstrating that you aren't actually interested in a discussion instead of repeating the same misconceptions. If you had read my reply, you'd see that I don't think "everything is static", as explicitly stated. Earth's average temperature has changed in the past. This statement is true. It does not mean that a sudden and abnormal shift in temperature, coinciding with a drastic increase in emissions by a mechanism that is well-documented and proven, is normal. You can have normal cycles over thousands of years *and* a sudden change in temperature over the last fifty.


I did back up my claim. Obama has a mansion in Martha's Vineyard on the water and another mansion in Hawaii on the water. He specifically talked about the rising sea levels, yet he doesn't seem very concerned about it. Weird.

Another example is Nancy Pelosi just bought a house in Florida, on the water.

Look at all the people who take private jets and yachts to attend climate conventions while telling us we need to tighten our belts.

When the "elite" who tell us that we need to cut back our carbon footprint start taking it serious, then I will take it seriously. Until then, I will continue to live life the best I can and they can f off.

Define normal and abnormal changes in temperature. What was the normal rate of change during the Jurassic period? During the last ice age? During the height of Roman empire? During the Middle Ages?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 28, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I've think I've said numerous times on this forum that I do not play "what if" games, and yet, you people keep trying.



It's because if you admitted that riots both worked and were backed by both the first and second amendment, your entire pro Republican and constitutional law fronted narrative would crumble. You can't discredit riots without implying that you would be ok with 100 hour work weeks in terrible conditions and the lack of rights for anyone that isn't a white male. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Communism always creates a larger disparity in income levels every time it is tried. The problem with our capitalism is the federal government is not enforcing monopoly laws and they government is busy choosing winners and losers. The government forcing us onto private healthcare plans that may not suit us and forcing us to inject ourselves with an untested "vaccine" from Big Pharma companies, enabling them to make 10's of billions a quarter every single quarter over the last couple of years is not capitalism. That's cronyism. Not to mention all of the failed "investments" in "green energy" where the companies file bankruptcy as soon as that government check clears, like Solyndra.



Is this the same government your conservative Republicans currently, historically, have managed and controlled and profited from for about as long as the Democrats? The same corrupt system Republicans play with just as much as any other politician? 

You seem to equate capitalism with the advancement of technology, and I'm not quite sure that's fair. Something could be said for competitive nature, yes, but concepts like green energy and vaccines aren't going to be developed overnight, and just because some people misuse them doesn't mean they're inherently bad systems. You're real big on holding the whole of something accountable for the actions of a few, which is weird because conservative Republicans have a habit of grooming some horrible people and that never seems like an issue with you. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Calling out Democrat bad behavior is not idolizing Republicans. The RINO's and NeverTrumpers are equally as guilty for the suffering of all of us as their cocktail party friends in the Democrat Party. But you do tend to read words that are not there in my posts.



Except you don't criticize any Republican and especially not Trump, and you continue enforcing this ideal that conservative Republicans are the most ideal political party to align. So how are we supposed to infer your stance when you continually post pro Republican responses and only demonize Democrats? You can't blame other people for inferring what you try so hard to imply. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Not sure if you are dyslexic or mentally deficient. If you are I apologize.



Weren't you just whining a few posts ago about being attacked? You sure cry a lot for someone who enjoys speaking in hypocrisy.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's because if you admitted that riots both worked and were backed by both the first and second amendment, your entire pro Republican and constitutional law fronted narrative would crumble. You can't discredit riots without implying that you would be ok with 100 hour work weeks in terrible conditions and the lack of rights for anyone that isn't a white male.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't have the right to destroy other peoples' property and you can't tell me what to do.

Why are you deflecting? My comment about communism creating the greatest income disparity will always hold true. The same can be said for other forms of socialism like fascism.

I've been criticizing Republicans far longer in my real life a lot longer than I've been criticizing Democrats. I would say there are only a handful who are currently in Congress who I agree with. I was raised a Democrat and didn't change my party affiliation until 2007. Been a registered independent until recently so I can vote in primaries. 

So you are one of those who can dish it out, but cries when somebody throws it back in your face. Duly noted.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 29, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You don't have the right to destroy other peoples' property and you can't tell me what to do.



I'm not necessarily on board with the destruction of private properly if it has nothing to do with the cause, but it sounds kinda like you're deflecting the issue at hand...



TraderPatTX said:


> Why are you deflecting? My comment about communism creating the greatest income disparity will always hold true. The same can be said for other forms of socialism like fascism.



Who's deflecting? You made one comment about communism. The rest of the paragraph was about the current state of American capitalism. 

Try again. 



TraderPatTX said:


> I've been criticizing Republicans far longer in my real life a lot longer than I've been criticizing Democrats. I would say there are only a handful who are currently in Congress who I agree with. I was raised a Democrat and didn't change my party affiliation until 2007. Been a registered independent until recently so I can vote in primaries.



Then why be so supportive of one political party you don't even affiliate with? Just because you want to be against Democrats so bad? 



TraderPatTX said:


> So you are one of those who can dish it out, but cries when somebody throws it back in your face. Duly noted.



Who's crying? I just like pointing out your hypocrisy, especially when you run out of things to say.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 30, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I'm not necessarily on board with the destruction of private properly if it has nothing to do with the cause, but it sounds kinda like you're deflecting the issue at hand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you were against the George Floyd riots? Billions in damage to personal property and over 30 murders. The left and the media, but I repeat myself, twisted themselves into pretzels to defend it.

You don't pay attention to my comments. I lump RINO's in with Democrats. Thankfully, the RINO's are getting cleaned out in the primaries and the Dems will be cleaned out in November.

You haven't pointed out any hypocrisy.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 30, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So you were against the George Floyd riots? Billions in damage to personal property and over 30 murders. The left and the media, but I repeat myself, twisted themselves into pretzels to defend it.



Not inherently, no, but I've found that a lot of times when businesses get burned down it's not the fault of the original rioters, it's people using it as an excuse to cause mayhem or to discredit the movement as a whole. 

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, but the closest I've seen is:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled

Which purports that only a few dozen were killed due to violent rioting over the course of the year; any other murders that happened during the time were separate issues not related to the riots themselves. 



TraderPatTX said:


> You don't pay attention to my comments. I lump RINO's in with Democrats. Thankfully, the RINO's are getting cleaned out in the primaries and the Dems will be cleaned out in November.



Yes, I did. You're singling out RINOs but you still primarily post pro Republican sentiments and attack all things Democrat. You try to claim that you're Independent and against big government/corporation, but your responses betray that with every post.



TraderPatTX said:


> You haven't pointed out any hypocrisy.



Did you not see where I pointed out how you whine when other people attack you despite you doing it as soon as you run out of arguments?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 30, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I abhor violence, especially political violence. Once you start violence, you have lost the debate.


So what you're saying is you hated the war against Nazi Germany?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> So what you're saying is you hated the war against Nazi Germany?



a là @TraderPatTX : "Germany was controlled by Nazis that closely followed US Democrats and their racist policies. If Germany didn't want to exterminate all of the Jews then German citizens should have voted out the Nazi party and upheld the (whatever equates the German Constitution here). But they didn't because American DemoCANTs are being led by people like Biden who want to turn everything into communism and anti civil rights. Why are you deflecting so much? It sounds like you're projecting your Nazi love!"


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 31, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Not inherently, no, but I've found that a lot of times when businesses get burned down it's not the fault of the original rioters, it's people using it as an excuse to cause mayhem or to discredit the movement as a whole.
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, but the closest I've seen is:
> 
> ...


What do you think rioting is? It is the destruction of personal property. You trying to separate different groups of rioters looks silly.

You do know that a few dozen is 36 and I said over 30, right? 

What does the R in RINO signifiy? If you were paying attention, I rail against corporations too.

It's hard for me to run out of arguments when I have the truth on my side. You wanna talk about people who run out of arguments, go talk to all the dorks who constantly call me a Nazi or a fascist. News flash, that's not an argument.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 31, 2022)

Hmm, curious! So Trader never wants violence to be used against political opponents. I'm sure he'd fit right in with those dudes in the 1933 Madison Square protests.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 31, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> What do you think rioting is? It is the destruction of personal property. You trying to separate different groups of rioters looks silly.



There's no trying. The people who burned down buildings were Republican stand-ins trying to discredit the movement because Republicans are racist, misogynistic, religious zealots who don't like change. Ever wondered why no Republican has fought for civil rights? Much less rioted, against the government, to gain those rights. Even though, the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, and therefore people technically have the right to do so, especially in the context I explained. 



TraderPatTX said:


> You do know that a few dozen is 36 and I said over 30, right?



You do realize your attempt at math only serves to deflect the fact that you clearly can't read, right? There were ~30 over the entire 365 day period, not exclusive to just the Floyd riots. If you're going to debate, you need to up your reading comprehension a bit, because you're failing severely. 



TraderPatTX said:


> What does the R in RINO signifiy? If you were paying attention, I rail against corporations too.



No, you don't. Not once have you mentioned anything about corporations in any post toward me unless you're denying climate change, and if you expect me to read everything you post, you're more crazy than you portray. 

Also, RINOs? What are they, fake Republicans? You people desire to hate so much you're targeting your own political affiliation to hate. Is hating women, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT community not enough for you guys anymore? You're literally operating on cult status. 



TraderPatTX said:


> It's hard for me to run out of arguments when I have the truth on my side. You wanna talk about people who run out of arguments, go talk to all the dorks who constantly call me a Nazi or a fascist. News flash, that's not an argument.



Nothing you've presented has been truthful in any sense, and on the rare occasion you post something to supposedly back your claim, it's outdated and misrepresented data or overly biased, opinionated articles that fail to back up their own claims with any facts or statistics. You've added nothing to any conversation you've been a part of except another reason to dislike the Republican party as a whole because with you as a representative, they have even little saving grace to deal with. 

You know what else isn't an argument? Your constant hypocritical statements and flame baiting. Don't you have an 8chan skinhead thread to moderate?


----------



## Jayro (Jul 31, 2022)

The main issue here is they're Republican.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 31, 2022)

Daily reminder that republicans argued against the civil rights act, stating that "desegregation violates state's rights."

Remember kids. If you support the republican party, you support the likes of Barry Goldwater.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Aug 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> There's no trying. The people who burned down buildings were Republican stand-ins trying to discredit the movement because Republicans are racist, misogynistic, religious zealots who don't like change. Ever wondered why no Republican has fought for civil rights? Much less rioted, against the government, to gain those rights. Even though, the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, and therefore people technically have the right to do so, especially in the context I explained.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So Republicans infiltrated the BLM protests? You really gonna go with that? You sound like the people who say that antifa infiltrated J6. 

So you are saying there were only 30 murders in an entire year in the cities where the riots took place? Maybe if you learned how to write and convey your shitty ideas with clarity, we wouldn't have this problem.

I've never denied climate change. I'm very aware the Earth has been both warmer and colder throughout it's history. Try again.

Kyrsten Sinema and and Joe Manchin enter the chat.

I've presented evidence that your cult thinking cannot accept. You think facts you disagree with is overly bias because you can't think outside of your cult bubble. 

It's funny that you get so mad. That's a key indicator that I am right. Every time you try to refute anything I say, you only have raw anger. Never any facts coming from you. All you have are insults. Each one of your responses are getting more and more pathetic.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Aug 2, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So Republicans infiltrated the BLM protests? You really gonna go with that? You sound like the people who say that antifa infiltrated J6.



https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/story?id=72051536

Here's one article. We'll do them one at a time so you don't get ahead of yourself. Lemme know when you're ready for another.



TraderPatTX said:


> So you are saying there were only 30 murders in an entire year in the cities where the riots took place? Maybe if you learned how to write and convey your shitty ideas with clarity, we wouldn't have this problem.



No, I posted an article that stated that. You're trying to argue that the George Floyd riots led to dozens of murders, to which you provided no backup for your claim, which I argued against and provided references. 

You seem to be getting lost in your own arguments. 



TraderPatTX said:


> I've never denied climate change. I'm very aware the Earth has been both warmer and colder throughout it's history. Try again.



You called climate change believers a cult in another thread. Maybe you should try again. 



TraderPatTX said:


> I've presented evidence that your cult thinking cannot accept. You think facts you disagree with is overly bias because you can't think outside of your cult bubble.



What facts have you presented? When's the last time you shared an article? You spend post after post whining and trying to argue with people over things you don't understand. It's also funny you keep calling whatever you think I identify as a cult; even if I affiliated with the Democrat Party, that's still a larger entity than your conservative Republican "cult".



TraderPatTX said:


> It's funny that you get so mad. That's a key indicator that I am right. Every time you try to refute anything I say, you only have raw anger. Never any facts coming from you. All you have are insults. Each one of your responses are getting more and more pathetic.



What anger?

What insults? 

Facts? You mean aside from the numerous articles I've presented that you've blatantly ignored because they cause you to think for yourself? 

You sure you're ok? Normally you're on par but this attempt at a response is kinda weak from your norm. Maybe take another day off or two and try to reformulate. I'll wait for you, buddy.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Aug 3, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/s
> 
> 
> SyphenFreht said:
> ...


Those two sure are chummy.



Yeah, murders happen during riots. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. David Dorn is one of them and his killer, a BLM "protester", finally got convicted.

You are part of a climate cult because you believe SUV's cause climate change when the people you worship fly around in private jets and live in mansions right on the coasts. That's pretty cultish.

What anger and insults? How about calling me fascist, nazi, cult, racist, transphobe, whatever the hell that is, and whatever else the losers want to call me.

You present articles from hilariously leftwing biased websites and state news sources. With trust in them being at 11%, I'm not the only one by far who refuse to take them seriously.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Aug 3, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Yeah, murders happen during riots. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. David Dorn is one of them and his killer, a BLM "protester", finally got convicted.



Yes, murders do happen during riots. The number of murders you said happened during Floyd's riot was false. I corrected it. Quit trying to rewrite what you said because you, yet again, got proven wrong. 



TraderPatTX said:


> You are part of a climate cult because you believe SUV's cause climate change when the people you worship fly around in private jets and live in mansions right on the coasts. That's pretty cultish.



At what point did any of that come out of my posts? Have you gotten to the point where you're creating arguments for yourself to respond to?



TraderPatTX said:


> What anger and insults? How about calling me fascist, nazi, cult, racist, transphobe, whatever the hell that is, and whatever else the losers want to call me.



Ok but what portion of that has come from our particular interaction? Don't accuse me of attacking when the others are calling you these names because that's how you portray yourself. 



TraderPatTX said:


> You present articles from hilariously leftwing biased websites and state news sources. With trust in them being at 11%, I'm not the only one by far who refuse to take them seriously.



At this point I could post Onion articles as fact and it's still far ahead of anything you've presented in any capacity to backup any claim you've made. 

It's more gotten to the point where we're bickering over essentially nothing. You need to come up with a better, more on topic response if you want to continue having a "friendly" debate.


----------

