Protection Of Women And Girls In Sports Act

  • Thread starter Thread starter Callatoroy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 201
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
Zoo_View said:
The idea that Conservatives/Republicans/Trumplicans want to protect women and girls in sports or want to protect women’s and girls’ sports is laughable.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely, but you guys have sure allowed yourselves to be framed as the anti women's sports party.
 
lawtig02 said:
Is it just me, or have the Pubs on here basically given up any pretense since the inauguration. I'm seeing a lot of admissions that the things Trump is doing are not principled or effective, but are solely intended to score cheap political points on inconsequential issues.
Click to expand...
Where has that been stated or implied.
 
Callatoroy said:
Please zzl don't lose your shit because i'm not stating this as a 1 for 1 equivalency, but you don't have to stretch that line of reasoning to say then states should decide abortion rights. It's in the ballpark.
Click to expand...
I KNOW, RIGHT!!!! Things like who should be able to participate in public school sports should be decided at the local level, and that means the right of all women to control what happens within the confines of their uterii should also happen at the local level. OUTSTANDING point!!!
 
Ramrouser said:
I don't know where you got that idea. Trump is off to a fantastic start of his 2nd term. The deportations have commenced; DEI is being rooted out of the federal government; federal workers have been ordered back to in person work; AI investments have been secured; Pro lifers and J6ers have been pardoned; DOGE is getting started; he's visiting 2 disaster areas today; energy is being unleased, etc., etc. Trump supporters are thrilled with the pace of change.

Trump hasn't focused at all on this sports issue. That's the Republican Congress.
Click to expand...
Agree. My criticism of trump so far is in his use of pardons and his bullshit inaugural speech. Otherwise I'd say he is doing what he said he would do.
 
Paine said:
I understand that you are asserting that. I’m asking what evidence you have that she is synonymous with “woke?”
Click to expand...
Because of the issues she champions. I'm not going to get into a pissing match over the definition of woke. I think most people would classify her as woke. If you disagree then not much more I can say.
 
Ramrouser said:
I don't know where you got that idea. Trump is off to a fantastic start of his 2nd term. The deportations have commenced; DEI is being rooted out of the federal government; federal workers have been ordered back to in person work; AI investments have been secured; Pro lifers and J6ers have been pardoned; DOGE is getting started; he's visiting 2 disaster areas today; energy is being unleased, etc., etc. Trump supporters are thrilled with the pace of change.
Click to expand...
1. the AI investments have not been secured. Elon says they don't have the money and while I don't trust that dude at all, it's also true that they have not actually committed any money.

2. Trump has, in three days, decreased our energy production by cancelling wind and solar projects that were close to online, whereas his drilling plan merely opens up lands to future exploration and drilling -- all of which is years away if it even produces anything.

3. Visiting disaster areas seems like a pretty fucking low bar for success

4. It's unclear why you think it's a good thing that federal workers have been ordered back to work. See, here's how things work: when you make working conditions for employees unpleasant, the best ones leave to find work elsewhere. The ones who can't find better jobs -- i.e. the low achievers -- stick around. People will quit over this policy, because it's basically impossible to manage for them. And thus, Trump is chasing away good employees and leaving the bad ones in place. WINNING!
 
lawtig02 said:
I KNOW, RIGHT!!!! Things like who should be able to participate in public school sports should be decided at the local level, and that means the right of all women to control what happens within the confines of their uterii should also happen at the local level. OUTSTANDING point!!!
Click to expand...
Sure if you want to classify the state level as the local level. I'm glad to see you think abortion rights should be left up to the states.
 
Callatoroy said:
Sure if you want to classify the state level as the local level. I'm glad to see you think abortion rights should be left up to the states.
Click to expand...
Thanks for acknowledging your hypocrisy! We got it even more explicitly from Ramrouser earlier, but always good to add to the list!
 
Ramrouser said:
For every video and picture you can post depicting violence that day, the other side can post videos and pictures showing people in the Capitol simply walking around between the rope lines. Or, officers welcoming them into the building. No picture, or group of pictures, paints a definitive picture of what occurred that day.
Click to expand...
You are one ignorant and spineless motherfucker.
 
Callatoroy said:
Because of the issues she champions. I'm not going to get into a pissing match over the definition of woke. I think most people would classify her as woke. If you disagree then not much more I can say.
Click to expand...
The less you say about anything, the better.
 
StrangePackage said:
"Why have y'all allowed us to lie about you so frequently and so much?" has big "why do you make me hit you?" energy, which is also pretty hilarious coming from the party claiming to protect women.
Click to expand...
One side is arguing a point to protect women
One side is arguing a point to protect transgender men.

Which one looks like the party protecting women in the eyes of the public?
 
Callatoroy said:
One side is arguing a point to protect women
One side is arguing a point to protect transgender men.

Which one looks like the party protecting women in the eyes of the public?
Click to expand...
Except you're not arguing to protect women. That assertion is patently laughable.

If Republicans were serious for even a millisecond about protecting women then they wouldn't be nominating a person to head the largest employer in the federal government (which has a sketchy history of dealing with sexual assault within its own ranks) who had repeatedly been accused of sexual assault and enacted several non-disclosure agreements preventing people from talking about that.

That's not a party that's interested in protecting women. This legislation is not about protecting women. It's about bashing queers. Y'all are the party that likes to bash queers.

Which is the party that likes to bash queers in the eyes of the public?
 
Callatoroy said:
In a fairly civil discussion, look who starts getting nasty. Color me surprised.
Click to expand...
Oh don't make it about a "side". This is me personally. I dont represent anyone other than myself. As someone who has been ENTRIELY civil and tried 1000 times to engage you constructively, im sick of you and your shit.

Me. Travis. Not liberals. Not "the left". Just me.
 
StrangePackage said:
A fairly civil discussion about limiting the rights of minorities to participate in public life is not actually a civil discussion.
Click to expand...
No where in the 6 pages has anyone advocated to limit the rights of any minority to participate in public life. Also, this reeks of the "if you don't agree with me you are a bigot" mentality that was soundly repudiated. So, your contribution so far is to use inflaming rhetoric and say anyone not agreeing with you is being uncivil. Kind of hard to reason with that mentality so....ok whatever you say.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Oh don't make it about a "side". This is me personally. I dont represent anyone other than myself. As someone who has been ENTRIELY civil and tried 1000 times to engage you constructively, im sick of you and your shit.

Me. Travis. Not liberals. Not "the left". Just me.
Click to expand...
ENTIRELY civil? Ok, whatever you say.
 
Callatoroy said:
No where in the 6 pages has anyone advocated to limit the rights of any minority to participate in public life. Also, this reeks of the "if you don't agree with me you are a bigot" mentality that was soundly repudiated. So, your contribution so far is to use inflaming rhetoric and say anyone not agreeing with you is being uncivil. Kind of hard to reason with that mentality so....ok whatever you say.
Click to expand...
The Secretary of State just froze all passports with the gender marker of X. That means that American citizens in possession of lawfully issued passports are no longer able to travel outside of or return to their home country, because of a gender marker.

You want to try again about how this isn't about taking away civil rights to participate in public life? I'll give you a do-over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top