Since when has it been legal for transgendered to use whatever restroom they wanted? Do you monitor every major/small news paper around the country to see if this is happening? Not something that one would think would make the major news outlets.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
NO! I have a ten year old and I would be complaining to the local authorities if it was happening here.
They have to, or they wont get the nomination. Sad but true. All thanks to useless POS like Cruz and Huckabee for dragging everybody down into the "I love jesus more than the other guy, so vote for me" muck like we all knew they would.
US AG makes ~ $205k, probably some COL adjustments for DC (there is for DOJ staff attorneys), call it $250k. Of course, there are other perks that can be equated to money - retirement plans, insurance, maybe free transportation (not sure, I think positions like CIA head get a driver), etc... If you're qualified to be US AG, then you can be a pretty big deal partner at a pretty big deal law firm. That's over $2m easy. Still, many/most would prefer US AG, at least for some period of time, because it's a more prestigious job, and those types can always be partners later if they need cash. Yeah, Lynch wouldn't exactly be destitute, but come on.
The US in particular seems very ill prepared for transgender bathroom issues. In 100 years, we're probably all in same gender bathrooms (lots of clubs have these, for some reason, because when you're hitting on chicks and drinking, dropping a deuce while they do makeup 10 feet away is totally hot I guess). I see the arguments on both sides. Are these laws needed? They seem more likely boogeymen laws to me, but I see the concern. Not like Japan which had a rampart upskirt photo problem when it mandated the shutter click sound for cameras.
Problem with the current R field is on the electorate and the process of primary season. People are dumb, and some candidates that would be fine choices (even if you disagree with their politics), like Walker, Kasich, Christie (although he's an ass, he has experience and he's not an idiot), Richardson, etc... but that's not what appeals to voters, particularly in early states when candidates have to find a niche to stand out. Early voters want religion (Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum, Carson) or big names (Bush, Romney, Trump, Forbes). You see the occasional upstart, like a libertarian-ish type (Paul, Paul), or a political outsider (Fiorina, Cain, Carson). Then for some reason the establishment coalesces around Senators, who are leaches on society. Congressmen exist to raise money to stay in power. They're all door to door vacuum cleaner salesmen, but they have TV or curb appeal I guess.
The US in particular seems very ill prepared for transgender bathroom issues. In 100 years, we're probably all in same gender bathrooms (lots of clubs have these, for some reason, because when you're hitting on chicks and drinking, dropping a deuce while they do makeup 10 feet away is totally hot I guess). I see the arguments on both sides. Are these laws needed? They seem more likely boogeymen laws to me, but I see the concern. Not like Japan which had a rampart upskirt photo problem when it mandated the shutter click sound for cameras.
Problem with the current R field is on the electorate and the process of primary season. People are dumb, and some candidates that would be fine choices (even if you disagree with their politics), like Walker, Kasich, Christie (although he's an ass, he has experience and he's not an idiot), Richardson, etc... but that's not what appeals to voters, particularly in early states when candidates have to find a niche to stand out. Early voters want religion (Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum, Carson) or big names (Bush, Romney, Trump, Forbes). You see the occasional upstart, like a libertarian-ish type (Paul, Paul), or a political outsider (Fiorina, Cain, Carson). Then for some reason the establishment coalesces around Senators, who are leaches on society. Congressmen exist to raise money to stay in power. They're all door to door vacuum cleaner salesmen, but they have TV or curb appeal I guess.
That and the flag lapel thing just kill me. America is great, but covering everything in flags all the time is dumb. Even worse is the pandering - pandering to vets, pandering to shallow nationalists, pandering to "if you don't like it, gtfo" types. Just stop.
Sure makes it easier to pull off the ole Cleveland Steamer if you're in the same bathroom
I know I'm known to give religion a hard time. But I am a-ok with having a Christian president. I really am.
I just wish conservatives would get insight from what is causing the decline in desirability and talk about it. Hell, come up with a general blanket statement such as, "I appreciate the question you have, but I am not about to fall for "gotcha" politics. I will answer any other question about jobs, fiscal responsibility"
Christians will not win the social battle. It will ostracize them and they will not overturn gay rights, abortions, marijuana legalization. It's not even their job to be judgmental. Isn't that what one of those proverbs in Matthew states? I wish Christians would just quit trying to think they are doing the Lord's work. Let shit play out and let their God make that call on judgment day (for those who believe that)
Rand Paul is the only person I have heard address "gotcha politics" he is very religious but boy he does a damn good job not letting the libs get at him.
Pandering in general makes me sick.
I agree. Religious is fine. But Cruz and Huckabee made it the central point of their entire campaign. They start campaigning on how theyll make abortion illegal, reverse gay rights, etc (knowing full well they cant and wont). That keeps social issues front and center in the primaries, which kills the nominee in the general. EVERY time.
Yea, thats the impasse. I am for individual rights, even when they discomfort the masses, however, its a very tricky case. I dont know the answer. I dont know if its something as a society we need to accept, like when society saw black/white couple or now gays together, or if its so out of whack, that we are losing our damn minds to think its ok. Not even sure the analogy is correct. Maybe its own thing.
then you have the alternative to support the political side that panders to homosexuals, panders to all sexually confused for that matter, panders to all who look for a victim's identity, panders to the heavy tones of racial fear, panders to welfare recipients and all other forms of "society" contributing will-not's, panders to the belief that abortion is no less virtuous than natural birth, panders to the immigrant mass while somehow magically holding organized labor support in-tow, panders to those who break laws in the moments before unfortunate results with law enforcement, to Iranians, to Syrians, but not to our military and not to our flag.
I agree. it's tricky. I support trannies and gays, but not sure it's a good idea to put kids in that situation when we are essentially taught nudity and sex are shameful. Essentially it is a shame issue that we haven't evolved long enough to shed yet. Like I said, maybe in 200 years this won't be an issue. But for now, it is and I agree with keeping boys and girls bathrooms separate.
That's the F'd part. Bitchass government has really mind F'd us with this equality stuff.
DO YOU SUPPORT GAYS??!!
Well, yea, I suppose. Ain't thought much about it, but yea, I support their rights.
WELL GOOD THEN YOU WONT BE UPSET IF WE CREATE LAWS DEMANDING SUCH N SUCH, OR ELSE YOU WOULD BE A *gasp* HOMOPHOBE!!!
Well, wait a minute, just slow down for a sec, laws?? What's that got to do with...let me think about this.
HOMOPHOBE STUPID RACIST PRICK!!!!!!
Equality and all this shit is just being used to to give government more control. Period. It's been going on for a while. Same shit with safety, and all the bullsht rules and regulations that come with that.
DO YOU SUPPORT GAYS??!!
Well, yea, I suppose. Ain't thought much about it, but yea, I support their rights.
WELL GOOD THEN YOU WONT BE UPSET IF WE CREATE LAWS DEMANDING SUCH N SUCH, OR ELSE YOU WOULD BE A *gasp* HOMOPHOBE!!!
Well, wait a minute, just slow down for a sec, laws?? What's that got to do with...let me think about this.
HOMOPHOBE STUPID RACIST PRICK!!!!!!
Equality and all this shit is just being used to to give government more control. Period. It's been going on for a while. Same shit with safety, and all the bullsht rules and regulations that come with that.
They pander to welfare recipients yet the states with the most welfare recipients are red. Strange world.
Now Willy, we've been over this and over this .....heh. Yeah, I know you think it was a sorry lot, but I tend more towards the George Will take. I don't know if it was the best field in a hundred years, I'd have to look into that, but after the last two cycles, when we ended up with McCain and Romney - and it's not like there were other better picks and the Repubs screwed it up, all of them were meh. This time you had governors and senators, people with records of success, young guys and nonwhites. Pretty good spectrum.
We've talked a lot over the months about Trump's ceiling. Just read that Trump got 35% in both New Hampshire and Wisconsin. He won NH easily, which is what happens when you get 35 and there are several candidates, and he got crushed in Wisconsin, which is what happens when you get 35 and there are only 3. When the field gets to two and you still get 35, not sure what that's called. Epic Ass Kicking, I suppose....
We've talked a lot over the months about Trump's ceiling. Just read that Trump got 35% in both New Hampshire and Wisconsin. He won NH easily, which is what happens when you get 35 and there are several candidates, and he got crushed in Wisconsin, which is what happens when you get 35 and there are only 3. When the field gets to two and you still get 35, not sure what that's called. Epic Ass Kicking, I suppose....
WTF? It seems as if to you it is a forgone conclusion that Lynch would be nominated for the court if Hillary wins. There is no basis for that line of thought other than attempts of rationalization by HRC haters as to why she hasn't been indicted. It just isn't possible in their eyes that any other reason exists.
So if Hillary wins and 1, 2, 3 SCOTUS appointments later Lynch is neither the AG for her administration or nominated for the SCOTUS...what will you say then?
If whoever the GOP nominee wins and HRC still isn't indicted...what will you say?
I'm sure whatever you say will be some off-the-wall rationalization with never a thought given that maybe there is nothing there indictable.
If she gets indicted...whoopee!
It's clear that HRC is the boogie-man that all Republicans fear.
It is. We've yet to face a situation like this yet. Thats why we dont have a good solution to it. Until a good solution presents itself, things need to remain separate.
Yes and no. Yes he has a ceiling. But Wisconsin is a different animal. Walker is really popular, and he endorsed Cruz. Plus now you have everyone is using Cruz as their vote against Trump, whereas in NH which was February, there hadnt been the intense anti Trump movement from the GOP establishment.
Next thing you know some politicians will even start pandering to blacks and Hispanics
this has been used a lot. but really? what does it say about Cruz's ceiling? he is in fact losing and has lost a lot where he only received 25% or so of the vote and sometimes worse. and Cruz isn't winning battleground states. the electoral map in the general is where it is at. not national polls, not winning idaho, kansas, nebraska, the dakotas. Cruz has done poorly in the states that will matter in the general election, ohio, florida, michigan. he is going to lose pennsylvania by a wide margin as well.
Welp, let's look at this another way. I don't agree at all with George Will about that. And I'll tell you why. Up until Obama, Repubs have had the presidency for the last 20 years including Bill's 8 years. 20 years. We've seen at least two good presidents, George 1 and Reagan. No way are any of the current Repub candidates in shape or form good enough to be in the same breath as those two guys. So that renders his thoughts as incorrect.
The other piece to this. Where is he getting his evidence to support his claims? Our Bill Cosby doesn't like Kasich because of the Medicaid expansion that was done in Ohio (hopefully I remember that correctly), Rubio was absolutely a joke in Florida (I live here, I know), and Cruz welp. He's incredibly smart but has the likability of AIDS.
What did these guys do to earn that kind of praise? Unless, I'm not seeing it, these guys do not bring anything to the table. If people think they do, I want to know why. Because this batch of candidates aren't worth pissing on.
That isn't the point Fuzz. Society still teaches the body as shame. Until that is removed, 15 year old girls should not have to endure sharing the bathroom with a chick with a dick. Period.
If society moves away towards shaming of the body, then you may just have a point. But you're at least 100 to 200 years away from that.
Mash,I noted something on this about 3 to 4 pages ago. What we have now is the difference between two extreme groups. One that wants selected rights and one that wants gov't intervention. There is no middle ground because of "gotcha politics". This is why common sense legislation has no place in the current order
Probably more like 10 or 20 years away. Bet it will be in our lifetime.
Making something forbidden only increases curiosity. If chicks roamed the beach topless like the guys nobody would give their tits a second look.
There is nothing shameful about the body. Now there are a lot of bodies out there I don't really want to see. Got no desire to see some morbidly obese fat chicks folds. Good thing we can always close our eyes.
I think clothing should optional at the beaches. I've also felt waitresses should be topless, as well as flight attendents. Cheerleaders? You bet! TV anchorwoman? Sure. Fuzz, if you don't want to see ugly bodies then why should other people be subjected to transsexuals using their restroom?
I believe George Will's quote was "diverse and qualified" field.
And he was right. There were a ton of multi-term governors from blue/purple states. There were three senators who represented three distinct sectors of the republican spectrum. There were three unique "outsiders" (I touching hate that term).
And we're left with these two jokers.
And he was right. There were a ton of multi-term governors from blue/purple states. There were three senators who represented three distinct sectors of the republican spectrum. There were three unique "outsiders" (I touching hate that term).
And we're left with these two jokers.
I'm sure that many know that I take religion seriously. However I would not vote for someone because he/she shared my religious views or made promises on the moral issues that we all know they won't/can't keep. I really believe George W. Bush was/is a real Christian and I liked him as a man (no homo) but I think he was a horrible president. He started this country on this downhill slide I think it is in and Obama has just rushed it along
Very true.
How do I know? Because I (either currently or at one time in my life) like drugs, heavy metal, gangsta rap, violent video games, porn and premarital sex, which is all stuff that was "evil" and "wrong" when I was a kid.
If it wasn't beaten into my mind by well-meaning parents, I probably wouldn't care about any of it.
"F you. I won't do what you tell me." - Rage Against The Machine
ugly bodies = apples, transsexuals using their restroom = oranges.
I'm not going into a restroom or locker room to see dude's bodies but I guess I see whatever is in there.
I couldn't care less who sees my body...male, female or transgender. I see a naked woman all the time...I happened to be married to her but she couldn't care less who sees her either.
What is it that you fear? Some sexual attraction? So do you fear a gay man in a men's room or a lesbian in a woman's room?
It's an irrational phobia. Get over it.
haha, in our lifetime? Buddy, you have no effing clue. Absolutely zero insight in some areas. This is one of them. There is a lot of unspoken racism that still exists since the Civil Rights Act 52 years later and YOU think that 10 to 20 years is enough time for THIS society as a whole to rid the mindset of shaming from nudity and sex? You're oblivious. 100% oblivious.
Your narcissism is gushing out.
You're the irrational one if you think this isn't a generational mindset and it will take generations to level out. First being racism, then maybe sexuality. Fuzz, I have no doubt you're the type guy who non-sexually showers with his teenage daughters. This coming from a guy who wants to eat a human. That's really saying something.
Last edited:
Not saying that society as a whole will do anything. Just saying that those thing will start to become common place.
Full blown nudity on late night tv...then prime time.
Thing is...most bodies are more attractive clothed than naked. Once you've seen every size and shape of body enough times you're not going to even turn your head if a naked chick walks by.
Never said that there wouldn't be objections by some...and we can predict who will do so...same folks who are always objecting to change. Ever been to Europe Willy? Nudity is quite common. Probably why the Muslims go nuts there because they've lived in prudish societies for so long.
There will always be those who reject any and all changes and hold onto those rejections for the remainder of their lives.
Is this actually true? Judging by the people who liked it, my guess is no, it's not supported by stats.
Europe is light years a head of us in the nudity department. I've never been on a European beach that wasn't topless. And no one gave a damn about all the tits flopping around.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01...tes-federal-tax-dollars-voted-republican.html
I didn't check the bias of these sources, but a simple Google search of "states with most welfare recipients" reveals the same conclusion from multiple sources.
Don't fear any of it. I just don't want to see it, nor would a majority of the populace
Then I bastardized the quote, apologies. I understand where Willy is coming from, and appreciate that he's consistent in his distaste for politicians from both sides! This is where - with respect to the Republican crop this time around -- I point out that the way media covers candidates, with an eye towards "transparency", which really means reveal all dirt, legit or not.......the system we have in place is designed to belittle politicians. I don't think Lincoln or Washington would fare well in this process. The cherry tree thing would result in endless stories, interviews with former neighbors who never liked George.....by the end, we'd all be convinced he's a liar. Heh.
