- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 77,080
- Reaction score
- 80,661
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I have no clue what you're talking about.
I think you know you're wrong on this, and for some baffling reason you just find it less embarrassing to double down on a ridiculous take than to say "No, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not a segregationist."
The alternative, of course, is that you genuinely believe this. Either way, a good reason for politicians not to waste any effort trying to appease crybullies. They won't appreciate it anyway.
What does that even mean? One single vote seldom swings an election. But votes, collectively, do make a statement.
It means vote completely for what you believe.
I can't stress enough that in THIS case, the ruling was IN FAVOR of trans people. It LIMITS discrimination against them. It had a 6-3 majority including all four of the Democratic-appointed justices at the time. And yet you are comparing it to segregation and pregnancy discrimination. Just incredible. Nothing is ever good enough for trans extremists. Ever.
In every election you've ever voted in, the same candidate would have won whether you voted for them, voted against them, or stayed home. If that's true, then your vote has never actually mattered.
You expect politicians to be brave but you won’t even vote for what believe even when it doesn’t matter ?I prefer to vote more strategically. In the end, you are given a choice between basically two options (in the U.S., anyway), and I vote for the better, or least bad, option.
I took a principled stand in 2016 and voted third party, thinking Clinton had it wrapped up. I didn't like how the Dem primaries were handled. My vote didn't swing anything, but collectively third party voters might have cost her the election and brought about the plague that is trump and trumpism. Few people at the time could have imagined how much damage trump could have done. As a consolation prize, I was looking forward to him destroying the Republican Party from within. Which sort of happened, but he replaced it with something worse.
You expect politicians to be brave but you won’t even vote for what believe even when it doesn’t matter ?
They already suffer mental illness. These laws have nothing to do with it. And as we know empirically, over 90% of GD cases among minors resolve naturally in adulthood.
And yet, I get out and vote every election. Call me crazy.
I don't mean to have a go at you, but why not just always vote for what you believe in?It always matters. Some elections more than others.
When I have the opportunity to vote for a brave candidate, I do so. Usually, that's just in the primaries, unfortunately.
So what do you do about the occasional 300-lb 8th grader who wants to play football with his much smaller classmates?
Sports involve some risk of injury. Girls get hurt playing against other girls all the time. And there are big size differences among girl athletes, too.
I don't know where you live, but the schools around here are not dominated by these trans-hulks you seem to see everywhere.
I don't mean to have a go at you, but why not just always vote for what you believe in?
It needs to be said: Independents aren't centrist, they aren't where the two parties converge, they don't share the same opinions, and they are not the epitome of pragmatic compromise. Some are to the left of me, some are to the right or Trump. Some are just contrarians. These are not people that should be catered to because it's impossible mission.
I remember people saying, "I'm not voting for Dems or Republicans, I'm voting for RFK Jr."
Because they're freakin' weirdos, not serious people.
Nice sleight of hand.Oddly, about the only female athelets I see speak out against them are either tied to anti-trans groups or are hard core Christian Nationalists.
I don't mean to have a go at you, but why not just always vote for what you believe in?
Nice sleight of hand.
It’s sort of a cost benefit analysis. How much do you believe in the individual I’m assuming more than a partyHere's a perplexing dilemma- the Senate candidate you'd like to vote for is of the other party, but you don't want the other party controlling the senate.
It’s sort of a cost benefit analysis. How much do you believe in the individual I’m assuming more than a party
Well any female athlete I could mention is likely to have been at least quoted positively by a “anti trans group” that’s why you didn’t just put any female athlete.How so?
You get my point thoughOver the past few decades, party-line voting is the norm.
Hillary came across as aloof during her campaign, but I have watched several interviews/podcasts where she was very likeable and funny. It is a shame
she couldn't get that side of her to come out on the campaign trail. Maybe she thought she had to be serious to be taken seriously.
Well any female athlete I could mention is likely to have been at least quoted positively by a “anti trans group” that’s why you didn’t just put any female athlete.
Well any female athlete I could mention is likely to have been at least quoted positively by a “anti trans group” that’s why you didn’t just put any female athlete.
I voted for what I believe in by voting red Tory in preference to the Greens, who had little chance of beating the incumbent blue Tory. He's now gone and we've got a slightly less Tory Labour MP. Had I voted Green, the blue Tory might have held on, so I'm marginally better off.I don't mean to have a go at you, but why not just always vote for what you believe in?
You get my point though
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?