jerryskids

I understand what you are saying, and I'm telling you that it's possible to support one thing and oppose the inevitable slippery slope thing it leads to. Moving on from this somewhat, I'm sure you'll recall the hard progressive push to call gay unions "marriages," and the similarly strong objection from opponents. The reasoning from the progressive side is that if you draw any differences, in language or otherwise, then they wouldn't quite be "married" the same as hetero couples. I think we see that now in the trans progressive movement. Bathrooms, spas, prisons, sports... progressives insist that trans "women" share these spaces. Otherwise, they aren't quite women. I think it also explains the conundrum that progressive people have in defining a "woman." Because to define it, you kinda need a word that is specific to a biological woman. Let's say we use "female" as such a word. A woman would thus be "a person who identifies as a female." But nono, they can't do that, because now female is a difference. Anyway, just my thoughts.

I'm saying that I don't object to gays being married, but recognize that allowing it was a slippery slope, because all progressive movements are slippery slopes. We are literally living through it now with trans rights as I've listed (women's safe spaces, women's sports, kids, etc.). Sorry for the snark, but I've now said at least three times that I don't object to gays being married, and you are saying I said we should have given rights to gays.

I'm not saying that. I was explaining how it, like all progressive movements, was a slippery slope. In fact I specifically said up thread that I'm not saying it. But, you famously like to attribute stuff to me that I've never said because you think you know me so well, so I look forward to your response.

There is a concept of punishment and negative incentives, it's pretty well established. Theoretically, our entire criminal justice system is based on the concept of not so much punishing people per se, but in creating disincentives for such behavior in the future, for both the perpetrator and others who might commit similar crimes. Incentives drive the reason that kidnapping by itself is typically not a capital crime -- if it were, the kidnapper would have no reason NOT to kill their victims should things not go astray. It is the unfortunate that incentives work this way, but if your approach is to give illegal aliens free housing, free healthcare, free schooling, free translation, and other services totalling $20B in your state alone... you aren't incentivizing them to leave, or stop coming. Sorry about this reality drop. Also, you either won't read it or won't respond, because as usual, you have nothing substantive to add to my comments. But others might.

I just explained it, you don't see how it was a progressive movement although it clearly was, you don't see how LGBTQ+ rights lead to future movements for more rights... you just don't see it and offer nothing else. Agree to disagree.

Gay marriage expanded LGBTQ+ rights, trans is the "T", so by association it could lead to expanded trans rights, as spelled out in the slate article. Look, I don't want to be insulting, but I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could NOT see gay marriage as a progressive movement, or how that helped pave the way to the trans right expansion (safe spaces, sports, kids). If you can't or don't want to see it, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Well if you disagree with Slate, you must be correct. Just because you think it should always have been normal (it wasn't, ask Clinton or Obama when they opposed it), it was in fact a progressive movement, and continues to be expanding in the interest of trans rights including minors. Do you at least agree on this latter part, or do you still not see the relationship.

You should read your own links:

Yeah... I think that is unfortunate, because I think there is actually value in separating MAPs who haven't assaulted kids, from pedos who have. I would like MAPs to get therapy or whatever they need to not assault kids. IMO they are two different things, but unfortunately you are probably correct, and obfuscating the two will eventually lead to normalizing pedos.

I don't know if she is still around, but Rashida Jones is/was a turrble actress. I first saw her in The Office and thought she sucked; thankfully they got rid of her. Wait, not really, she got a bigger gig at Parks and Rec, where... she still sucked. Speaking of Parks and Rec, Aubrey Plaza also sucked.

From Slate, 2015, right after Obergefell: Full article: https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/06/same-sex-marriage-and-progressive-politics-can-they-coexist.html

Well, technically, it was. Pretty much all progressive movements are slippery slopes -- their goal is to enable the way for the next, more-progressive movement. We wouldn't be discussing medically transing kids if gays hadn't gotten all those rights including marriage back then. I'm not saying it was wrong to do, but it was a slippery slope. If the Left manages to normalize it, they'll move on to something worse, like maybe pedos? You laugh, but 20 years ago, everyone would have laughed at transing the kids.

I dispute the "culture of sexual assault and dominion over women." I've already pointed out the strong women he's appointed (chief of staff, AG) and his strong daughters. If we are going your route, Harris represents that women can sleep their way to the top. Also, she married a guy who shtupped the nanny and slapped around a girlfriend in Europe, so it seems that if you voted for Harris, you endorse women who like the very "toxic" males you mentioned, and use sex to get what they want.

Pretty good list. I need to learn more about the crypto one.

As you said, nobody knew his background. He could have been a model citizen having a bad day. Or he could have been a homicidal maniac who was about to pull a gun out and start shooting people. This is why we have the concept of legal assault: You do not need to wait to get punched in the face to hit someone. If they are threatening immediate harm, you can defend yourself. This may be why the jury found him not guilty on the lesser charges.

Perfectly. It's exactly like I said. You are merely wording it differently. And you maintain this faulty logic that if you voted for Trump, you are probably MAGA, and by MAGA you mean a cult follower of Trump. You've repeatedly said that if we/I voted for Trump, you voted for and support all of his positions and alleged behaviors. Yet you say that you get to pick and choose. From yesterday: I'd go on but I feel like we're back to the "this one goes to 11" scene from Spinal Tap, so I'll stop now. HTH

I'm Tyreek Hill IRL.

Sorry, I meant Harris, To summarize your post: that's not the logic, but it is the logic with MAGA because it is a cult, and if you voted for Trump, you follow most of his stuff and are in the cult.. Leftism isn't a cult, even if you live in an echo chamber and voted for the most progressive member of the Senate whose only actual identified policies were ultra-left. How'd I do?

LOL, what dumb logic. Also, you voted for Biden, so you support transing the kids. Whee! There are plenty of gays in the MAGA movement; podcaster Dave Rubin is a front and center one. Some might also say Bari Weiss, although she is traditionally center/left, but she's right of Mao so radical Lefties like Gutter consider her MAGA.

I already responded to the topic before this one. Also, doesn't she have a job? Wasn't she elected to help run the US, especially since she should have 25th'd Biden years ago?

If only we could look forward to 4 years of the clarity that is a Kamala Harris response. At the risk of sidetracking, I wonder what she is doing these days. I bet her computer solitaire game is killer.

We had this discussion recently; IMO you are both correct. Whoever runs for the Reps will be labeled as worse than Trump. More specifically, worse than Trump because of the same bad policies but they are more effective speakers/leaders, so they can get more of their dangerous fascist blah blah blah done! We already saw this with DeSantis when he seemed to be the front runner a few years back.

I did? I voted for a guy who appointed conservative justices who decided abortion was a state issue. In Arizona, because of the amendment to the state constitution, women have more freedom to kill their unborn child than ever before. Isn't that great, Gutter?! More dead babies, whee! How are things in Jersey, are abortions outlawed yet? That same man has appointed women as chief of staff (first ever) and AG. He also has strong, capable daughers and daughters in-law. Trump likes confident, capable people, doesn't matter if they are male or female.

Cowboys

Politics aren't already injected into this proceeding?