Why Natalie Beisner switched parties

We can move back to the 90s and keep gay marriage legal. I'd take that deal just as fast.

But this also goes back to my point about the Democratic playbook, especially for lawyers.

Everything they like is an advancement of rights.

Everything they don't like is either an infringement of rights or authoritarianism.

 

I stated a fact. I believe under the method the Florida Supreme Court laid out, Bush would have won. Under a broader method, I believe Gore would have won.

Yep. My memory is right:
So, who really won? What the Bush v. Gore studies showed | CNN Politics
Months after the United States Supreme Court delivered its ruling to stop the statewide hand recount in the Sunshine State, media and academic organizations conducted their own studies of the disputed ballots in Florida.

Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race.

This goes against the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush, or took it away from Gore.

The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite your desperate attempts at a false equivalence to justify your party being full of idiotic clowns, I don't claim that Bush was an illegitimate president or that Gore won the election, despite there being far more basis for that claim than whatever nutso theories the Republicans are claiming in 2020. Of course, we haven't even gotten into the illegal and dishonest shit Jeb did to disenfranchise voters leading up to the 2000 election:
US inquiry into claims black voters were stripped of rights
However, far more black Floridians lost their voting rights as a consequence of measures taken by the Florida state government, and in particular by Governor Bush's political lieutenant and secretary of state, Katherine Harris.

In June, Ms Harris sent out a list of more than 700,000 convicts and ex-convicts deemed ineligible to vote under a 19th-century law which disqualifies felons for life. Interviews by the Guardian have confirmed that the names of many black voters were wrongly added to the list, which included ex-convicts whose rights had been restored.

The wrongly disenfranchised include a black man disqualified from voting because he walked out of a community service job collecting rubbish in 1959. The man, Wallace McDonald, 64, was told he had been excluded from the electoral rolls on the grounds that he was an escaped felon.
* * *
Thousands more black residents lost their votes on November 7 because their names had been purged from voter rolls on the basis of technicalities, such as changes of address. Several told the Guardian that they had voted regularly in federal elections, but had arrived at polling stations last month to find their names had been erased.
------------------------------------------
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

I guess the 50s are far enough off where no one thats not a million years old romanticizes them, but its really bizarre to see the 90s becoming the new 50s. But I guess it was the last real decade, we dont really have those anymore.

 

It might seem that way to a freedom-hating socialist like yourself. Rights are good. Discrimination is bad. Sorry if that hurts your fee-fees.

 

X = {Democrat, Republican}

p.s. Hey mods, how do I access mathematical symbols?

 

I think your example is more definitional in terms of how we define, categorize, and refer to biological sex vis a vis gender.

For those who categorically oppose any recognition of transgender status and dispute any distinction between biological sex and gender identity, any reference to someone being trans seems nonsensical on its face. They will also reject the "cis" designation. But whether we should refer to people based upon their biological sex or their gender identity seems different to me than a factual disagreement about how human procreation works. I don't know anyone who believes that Caitlyn Jenner or Dylan Mulvaney might get pregnant tomorrow. I think statistically, that would be a very fringe position.

 

Please dont tarnish the good name of socialism.

 

Meh, the more distant we are from the 2000s, the more they're getting an identity, albeit not nearly as flashy as its predecessors.

 

I completely understand your point, but their incoherent definition of words like "man" is part of the point. Regardless of whether we're talking biology or social constructs, definitions need to be coherent and somewhat logical. There is no logic to the definition that suggests Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.

 

"The aughts" aren't going to be a thing, I think most of the late 90s bled into the early-mid 2000s, so its sort of the same thing anyways. I doubt we are going to be calling the current decade the '20s either. There just isnt a mono-culture anymore that is going to define decades.

 

I agree that rights are good and discrimination is bad.

I just don't trust you to define those terms nor draw the lines as to where those rights begin and end and what forms of discrimination are illegal, because I know you're not advocating for all sorts of discrimination to be illegal. You specifically oppose that. You just want some forms of discrimination to be illegal.

Also, calling me a socialist. That's a good one.

 

And that's perfectly fine. When what you would like to see is worth having to put up with the pushback, then under that priority system, it's worth it.
In the immortal words of the best TV show ever -
"You take the good
You take the bad
You take them both and there you have the facts of life,
The facts of life"

 

Why would social constructs follow logic? Is everything people do logical and done to fit some preconceived category?

 

That show was from the 80s, disqualified

 

I see you've adopted the Kamala Harris nervous tick. Laughing like a mad man when someone makes a point you don't like or a question you don't like.

 

I think it's logical because "transgender" is a real word with a defined meaning.

With the election example, if someone vaguely asserts that the Democrats "stole" the election, we may ask them to define "stole" in that context and find that person believes the media was unfair to Trump, which cost him votes. That's at least a matter of subjective belief or opinion. In contrast, if someone claims Biden obtained more votes in a given county than there were people who lived in that county, that's a specific statement of fact which would be subject to analysis.

The line between "fact" and "opinion" may sometimes come down to evaluating how we're using language and what precisely is being claimed. That's a problem that Alex Jones and Fox News got into with their reporting.

 

"I agree rights are good and discrimination are bad. But I define rights and discrimination differently than you. For example, under my view of rights, there is no right to speak out against the government without government retaliating against you." You, Stalin, and Fidel Castro all have similar views of "rights," oddly enough.

 

This does not create a problem if people distinguish "transgender men" and "transgender women" from plain old "men" and "women."

By asserting "transgender men are men" and "transgender women are women" you make the definition of plain "man" and plain "woman" incoherent and circular.

 

Poor Disney, they've been through so much.