• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Dems move to the Right of Biden?

Should Dems move to the Right of Biden?


  • Total voters
    71
... used in law. You're taking a sentence said in the middle of a conversation and not including that conversation's context.

Here's the message in this thread that started the "law" discussion.

View attachment 67576494

I know the context. The problem is that attempts (by politicians) to legislate science always involve interpretations of science by non-scientists. Hard and fast rules like this never work. What work are flexible laws.

Your demand to see a law that incorporates good science is just not going to happen, and your reliance on the laws of Montana, Texas, etc. is misplaced, because the interpretation of the science is just wrong.

The (scientific) fact is that there are about 30 variations on gender, and attempts to knock that back to two are necessarily going to lead to some discrimination. When you bake faults right into laws, those laws are going to lead to challenges, and they will be far more trouble than they are worth.
 
The issue is whether blue-state gender laws are based solely on a belief standard, and they are.

At least they are flexible and not based upon a bad interpretation of science. They recognize the large number of non-binary variations and make a sensible compromise to come up with a workable law that doesn't discriminate.
 
I know the context. The problem is that attempts (by politicians) to legislate science always involve interpretations of science by non-scientists. Hard and fast rules like this never work. What work are flexible laws.

Your demand to see a law that incorporates good science is just not going to happen, and your reliance on the laws of Montana, Texas, etc. is misplaced, because the interpretation of the science is just wrong.

The (scientific) fact is that there are about 30 variations on gender, and attempts to knock that back to two are necessarily going to lead to some discrimination. When you bake faults right into laws, those laws are going to lead to challenges, and they will be far more trouble than they are worth.
No there isn’t 😂
 
Because it doesn’t establish a causal link. It can barely show a correlation 😂

Be specific.

It is not only shows correlation, it is consistent with "past research that has established that laws targeting trans people are associated with worse mental health outcomes for trans and nonbinary people, including youth."

So like I said, suicide attempts and mental health for trans has to worsen... because you care.

Maybe don't care so much, and help save a life.
 
Last edited:
Be specific.
I was. There’s no causal link. There’s a negligible correlation.

Over 90% of GD cases in minors resolve naturally by adulthood. So obviously there is no causal link to suicides by outlawing child abuse before adulthood 😂
 
No thanks. Biden was already very centrist, desperate allowing his party to nudge him slightly left on some issues. Its this fence-sitting that has contributed to Dem losses in recent years. The Dems need left-leaning populists like Bernie and AOC to move forward - a counterbalance to the sort of firebrands the right has been fielding lately.
 
... used in law. You're taking a sentence said in the middle of a conversation and not including that conversation's context.

Here's the message in this thread that started the "law" discussion.

View attachment 67576494

Is this the logic the Supreme Court used when it ruled that discrimination of pregnant women isn't discriminatory toward women because not all women are or get pregnant?
 
Very much like with the Plessy decision, where the courts ruled that racial segregation laws were not unconstitutional because they effected whites and blacks equally.
You are now attacking a civil rights ruling that *protects* the transes, and comparing it to segregation because the courts didn't do it according to the exact legal rationale you would have preferred. And yet you regularly call me transphobic.

"You hate the transes! We need to protect them! No, not like that!" :rolleyes:

OK, sure. Whatever. Nothing is ever good enough for you anyway. Politicians should simply not waste any time trying to appease the most unreasonable 5% of the electorate.
 
You are now attacking a civil rights ruling that *protects* the transes, and comparing it to segregation because the courts didn't do it according to the exact legal rationale you would have preferred. And yet you regularly call me transphobic.

"You hate the transes! We need to protect them! No, not like that!" :rolleyes:

OK, sure. Whatever. Nothing is ever good enough for you anyway. Politicians should simply not waste any time trying to appease the most unreasonable 5% of the electorate.

"Transes"
 
I was. There’s no causal link. There’s a negligible correlation.

Over 90% of GD cases in minors resolve naturally by adulthood. So obviously there is no causal link to suicides by outlawing child abuse before adulthood 😂

Youre just repeating yourself and providing nothing to support your claim.

However, the study was controlled for a variety of variables to establish causality, and it is consistent with other studies that show a rise in mental health problems for trans living under anti-trans laws.

As for your study:

"ABSTRACT Background: It has been widely suggested that over 80% of transgender children will come to identify as cisgender (i.e., desist) as they mature, with the assumption that for this 80%, the trans identity was a temporary "phase." This statistic is used as the scientific rationale for discouraging social transition for pre-pubertal children. This article is a critical commentary on the limitations of this research and a caution against using these studies to develop care recommendations for gender-nonconforming children."

Link



 
You are now attacking a civil rights ruling that *protects* the transes, and comparing it to segregation because the courts didn't do it according to the exact legal rationale you would have preferred. And yet you regularly call me transphobic.

"You hate the transes! We need to protect them! No, not like that!" :rolleyes:

OK, sure. Whatever. Nothing is ever good enough for you anyway. Politicians should simply not waste any time trying to appease the most unreasonable 5% of the electorate.

So you are unable to say how the logic is different.
 
I think the democrats need to remember that they lost the presidency by just 1.5 points, by 2.3 million votes out of 156 million cast. Also, that the democrats did gain 2 house seats in the only other what could be called, national election. This when the sitting president had just a 39% overall job approval/57% disapproval. The economy, inflation, rising prices did the democrats in. What could be done about the economy differently, I don’t know. I’ve always been one who believed the economy, inflation is like the weather. It’s going to do whatever it’s going to do. If presidents or governments could control the economy, we’d have all good times, all ups, no downs and no bad times.

Immigration, securing the southern border. Immigration was the second most important issue in folks deciding who to vote for. Behind the economy in general and inflation, rising prices in particular. Along with the economy, illegal immigration really hurt the democrats. The rest of your issues was fine as far as I’m concerned. But many folks voted their wallets last year which means against Biden, Harris and the democrats.

Moving as a whole to the right, probably wouldn’t do much good. According to Gallup independents, the non-affiliated, the less to non-partisan group make up 43% of the electorate. Which means the democrats need to get them to vote for their candidates. When Biden won, independents voted for him by a 54-41 margin. When Harris lost, independents still voted for her 49-46, but that 10-point drop of independent support cost her the election. That 10-point drop was due to many independents feeling they had it better under Trump, financially, living standards etc. than under Biden. Independents aren’t a monolithic group. They will support the democrats on some issues, oppose them on others. Same for the republicans, support them on some issues, oppose them on others. Prime example is an independent who is pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment at the same time.

Moving right won’t help much in my opinion. Right now, most independents are disgusted with both major parties. Movement left or right by either party isn’t what they’re looking for. They’re looking for both major parties being willing to compromise and stop treating each other like they’re enemies to be destroyed. They don’t want the far-left agenda forced on them anymore than they want the far right agenda forced on them as Trump is doing now and what Biden and the democrats tried to do during his presidency.
Great post, and very true.
 
So you are unable to say how the logic is different.
I'm not going to waste any effort trying to appease you. If this is the way you react to pro-trans civil rights rulings from a Supreme Court with a 6-3 Republican majority, then it's obvious that nothing will ever be good enough for you. But thank you for providing such a crystal clear example for why politicians should just tell trans extremists to **** off instead of giving into their bullying. They're going to get bullied by trans extremists anyway.

You're right, the court issuing a ruling IN FAVOR of trans people is exactly the same as segregation. You are hereby awarded an extra 95 oppression points. What a stunning and brave victim you are. Congrats! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Youre just repeating yourself and providing nothing to support your claim.
😂
However, the study was controlled for a variety of variables to establish causality, and it is consistent with other studies that show a rise in mental health problems for trans living under anti-trans laws.
It’s not possible to determine causality.
As for your study:

"ABSTRACT Background: It has been widely suggested that over 80% of transgender children will come to identify as cisgender (i.e., desist) as they mature, with the assumption that for this 80%, the trans identity was a temporary "phase." This statistic is used as the scientific rationale for discouraging social transition for pre-pubertal children. This article is a critical commentary on the limitations of this research and a caution against using these studies to develop care recommendations for gender-nonconforming children."

Link
So your rebuttal to established fact is “nuh uh”

Anyway, we know over 90% of GD cases resolve naturally at adulthood without resulting to child abuse. So we won’t be allowing you to do this any longer.
 
Nasty Transes. Always asks us for the same rightses as everyone else, Precious...
I get that they're trying to insult trans people, I just don't see the insult.This is the problem with this issue - most on the anti trans side just hate them. No logic or reason other than it's a powerless other that they feel they can bully.
 
If we didn’t have an EC, the GOP would be a regional party.
Great, all you need to do is get a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate, and 3/4 of the states to agree, we can then do away with the EC.
Should be easy. /s
 
If Harris had stayed left and not moved center she probably wins. Barely but probably wins.
Sorry, I have to disagree. There are areas in the county where progressive's do well, nationally, not so much. It was speculated that AOC was planning to run for Schumer's seat last cycle, do you know why she didn't? I bet her internal polling showed her losing. AOC could not win a statewide election, nor could MTG, though both are very popular in their districts. Moving more to the left is political suicide for Dems.
 
You're making no sense at all.

you stated that social laws were weird attempts to impose religion and backwards. I asked you about a social law that you would approve of. You did not like the point that your categories were wrong.

Hope that helps :)
 
Well what are examples of social laws that you think he doesnt like @cpwill?

Social, not medical or Constitutional.
Those things overlap considerably.

However, my initial bet would be that he lacks the ideological self awareness to identify his own preferred social policies as such, and believes such things belong only to those with whom he disagrees.
 
What would that actually mean?
 
Sorry, I have to disagree. There are areas in the county where progressive's do well, nationally, not so much. It was speculated that AOC was planning to run for Schumer's seat last cycle, do you know why she didn't? I bet her internal polling showed her losing. AOC could not win a statewide election, nor could MTG, though both are very popular in their districts. Moving more to the left is political suicide for Dems.
AOC can’t win NY right now because the state is way more conservative than people realize. AOC isn’t who Od run for potus. The Overton window is moving on what’s considered “extreme”. Bernie paved the way.
 
AOC can’t win NY right now because the state is way more conservative than people realize. AOC isn’t who Od run for potus. The Overton window is moving on what’s considered “extreme”. Bernie paved the way.
We will have to agree to disagree. A far left candidate would have a hard time getting my vote.
 
Simply the Democratic should stop behaving like, GOP lite;
get off Wall St. and return to Main St..

The Clintons, Obama, and of course Biden / Harris are of Wall St. It has been a long time since we had a Main St. Democrat as President
 
Back
Top Bottom