I never said that. I do not think that.So you’re just another typical Democrat…..anyone who doesn’t agree with you is just stupid.
End of discussion.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I never said that. I do not think that.So you’re just another typical Democrat…..anyone who doesn’t agree with you is just stupid.
End of discussion.
Kennedy woud not align with todays republican party in any way. Today's republicans are the dixiecrats of the 60's.And he would still align more with current Republican values than current Democrat values.
So you think the John F. Kennedy of 1963 would think that men can give birth.... I don't think so..Kennedy woud not align with todays republican party in any way. Today's republicans are the dixiecrats of the 60's.
Or they will send Reverend Al to get you.Or what?
Or they will send Reverend Al to get you.
No question. JFK would run as a Republican and be appalled at what the Democrat Party has become - destroying families, disincentivizing work, opening the border to foreigners who make false asylum claims, spending a fortune in government bills during high inflation, tucking tail and running and leaving the enemy with billions of U.S. military equipment, calling nearly half of all voters “threats to democracy,” and weaponizing the government against political opponents.So you think the John F. Kennedy of 1963 would think that men can give birth.... I don't think so..
I am confident that the JFK of the 60s would totally reject trans-ideology which is embraced by the Democrat party of today.
That's just one example.
No rounds. He will knock you out in the 1st.Pretty sure I can take Al on rounds.
So you think the John F. Kennedy of 1963 would think that men can give birth.... I don't think so.
Love it. Short and simple and very much to the point.No, JoeMoma dems don't say that, only you do.
Your democrat neighbors vote for politicians that espouse trans-ideology. Many Democrat politicians that are in office have stated that men can get pregnant and give birth and/or they support academics that do. They are the people fighting for allowing children to take puberty blocking drugs and so called "gender affirming" surgeries that involve removing perfectly healthy body parts or construction fake parts of the opposite sex. Joe Biden and his Democrat comrades are trying to change Title IX so that public schools will have to allow biological males that claim to be girls/women to compete against biological females in female sports. This would also allow biological males that have male genitals to be able to expose themselves to biological females in female locker rooms for minor children.WTF? I don’t think so either!
But as far as I can make out, only crazy “cultural warriors” would say this, or would say that Democrats really believe this. My neighborhood is filled with Democrats — never ever heard anyone argue this.
Your democrat neighbors vote for politicians that espouse trans-ideology. Many Democrat politicians that are in office have stated that men can get pregnant and give birth and/or they support academics that do. They are the people fighting for allowing children to take puberty blocking drugs and so called "gender affirming" surgeries that involve removing perfectly healthy body parts or construction fake parts of the opposite sex. Joe Biden and his Democrat comrades are trying to change Title IX so that public schools will have to allow biological males that claim to be girls/women to compete against biological females in female sports. This would also allow biological males that have male genitals to be able to expose themselves to biological females in female locker rooms for minor children.
You may have never heard any of your democrat friends "argue this" because you never had that conversation with them. And if your Democrat neighbors don't believe this trans-ideology, then they need to be electing different politicians that don't espouse trans-ideology.
I believe it out to be one key issue in voting for or against them. If you have no problem with "Lia Thomas", a biological male exposing his genitals to real female athletes/swimmers who didn't consent to that, then don't use it as a key issue... which kind of proves my point.Well, I myself am not a registered Democrat. To answer your point though, I don’t think politician’s views on how to define a “real man” or a “real woman” — however you may define those terms — ought to be a key issue in voting for or against them.
JFK would not be a republican today. Period.So you think the John F. Kennedy of 1963 would think that men can give birth.... I don't think so..
I am confident that the JFK of the 60s would totally reject trans-ideology which is embraced by the Democrat party of today.
That's just one example.
Bingo. Its obvious purpose. Instantly made a thousand times more difficult since Rupert Murdoch ditched his favorite spoiled brat, Tucker Swanson Carlson, without so much as a "Bubbye!" by email.My main concern is that all the nonsense — on both sides — of the “trans” and “gender identity” issues … distracts from larger issues concerning education, medical and dental health for youth, and other economic and social issues.
Lia Thomas could not compete in womens sports without undergoing estrogen treatments for at least 1 year. That's the NCAA rule pertaining to trans athletes.I believe it out to be one key issue in voting for or against them. If you have no problem with "Lia Thomas", a biological male exposing his genitals to real female athletes/swimmers who didn't consent to that, then don't use it as a key issue... which kind of proves my point.
That said, I was originally saying that JFK of the 60s would align more with Republicans of today than of Democrats of today. Support for trans-ideology is coming overwhelmingly from the Democrat side of the Isle, not the Republican side. In the 60s, it was well understood that a man is an adult human male and a woman is an adult human female....something that many democrat politicians are afraid to say today.
Transgenders are the Democrats’ new “protected minority,” so nothing will come of it, but exposing one’s male genitalia to an unwilling person is a form of sexual assault.I believe it out to be one key issue in voting for or against them. If you have no problem with "Lia Thomas", a biological male exposing his genitals to real female athletes/swimmers who didn't consent to that, then don't use it as a key issue... which kind of proves my point.
That said, I was originally saying that JFK of the 60s would align more with Republicans of today than of Democrats of today. Support for trans-ideology is coming overwhelmingly from the Democrat side of the Isle, not the Republican side. In the 60s, it was well understood that a man is an adult human male and a woman is an adult human female....something that many democrat politicians are afraid to say today.
So Lea Thomas could be charged with sexual assault. I’m thinking Riley should bring charges.Exposing one's genitalia period to any unwilling person is an assault, yes.
One can try and see what the courts have to say.So Lea Thomas could be charged with sexual assault. I’m thinking Riley should bring charges.