As an Independent, I can say that most Democrats would likely prefer that Trump wins the Republican nomination over DeSantis.

[toobfreak]

Energy production has not even been suffocated. More fantasies on your part. Green energy production is growing in this country. There are no American soldiers in Ukraine so we are not at war with them. We should continue to send weapons to Ukraine. The fact is that companies have seen a huge increase in profits especially industries that have little or no competition. The financial statements that these companies release have clearly shown that.

Republicans are attacking the rights of women. The attack on abortion rights is the prime example. Women's lives are being threatened if they have health issues during their pregnancy. Young girls have suffered health issues because they have been forced to have a child. Republicans want to cut aid to low income children. The rage now is to get rid of child labor laws.

I wouldn't have thought anyone could be full of more bullshit & lies with their head farther up their ass than Moonglow, Mac1958 & Rupol, but there it is. You take the lead.

 

[toobfreak]

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm "moderate" on all issues.

YOU are the one who called yourself a moderate. You seen to confuse being an Independent like me with also having to be moderate as well.

Are you saying the reason you belong to a specific political party is because you are incensed at the current state of affairs?

Who told you I belonged to a particular party? Without saying anything, you are already building false castles in your mind based on your own prejudices.

 

[busybee01]

I wouldn't have thought anyone could be full of more bullshit & lies with their head farther up their ass than Moonglow, Mac1958 & Rupol, but there it is. You take the lead.

You and the rest of the Fascist goon squad are the ones full of bullshit. Your head is so stuck up in Trump's ass that your brain died from suffocation. You are the lead shitass.

 

[presonorek]

I am 100% politically non-partisan/independent/moderate.

From what I see, most people on the left would prefer Trump vs Biden 2.0 in the general election over DeSantis vs Biden.

Why?

-Biden has already beaten Trump once in the general election and has the support among most moderates to beat him again. The general election is no longer about "who has the strongest, most radical followers" - it's about who is more appealing to MODERATES. Moderates/Independents decide who wins the general election in almost all elections.

- Trump has done a great job rallying his followers but not so good of a job rallying moderates.

-Biden, on the other hand, has remained relatively low-key but hasn't done anything major to lose the support of most moderates - at least nothing grave enough to turn them into Trump voters.

- DeSantis has come across as being very appealing to most moderates on the right - he's a level headed, well spoken, polished conservative who is also a highly educated military veteran. He checks off most boxes for the vast majority of moderate conservatives. Any other year (or time) he would be the hands on favorite. The only thing slowing him down is the loyalty of Trump supporters to Trump.

Thoughts?

Former governor is always appealing to me. I haven't had that option since 2012.

I'd vote for the opposite party if one has a former governor and my party does not.

 

[presonorek]

Biden isn't going to get 81 million votes again.

He will if I run against him.

 

[BothWings]

Hell yeah! He attacked Disney where they go to look for nookie!

 

[presonorek]

So why is Trump running again if he's inevitably going to lose through cheating?

That's what I think too. It is an excellent question.

 

[toobfreak]

You and the rest of the Fascist goon squad are the ones full of bullshit. Your head is so stuck up in Trump's ass that your brain died from suffocation. You are the lead shitass.

SURE, CLOWN, SURE.

 

[Ace Nova]

DeSantis is more divisive than Trump when you look at what he has done. Even Trump knows this Disney fight is silly. That is why he has been egging DeSantis on. That does not bode well for DeSantis.

The Disney issues began when Disney employees threatened to walk out and and strike because Disney had initially taken a "hands off" approach in reference to the legislation. Why were Disney employees enraged? Because almost all the media called the bill, "The Don't Say Gay" bill.

I live in Florida and based on how it was being reported, I actually thought the bill was called that for days/weeks. I also thought that students were no longer allowed to even mutter the word. Obviously, none of that is true. But the way it was portrayed by the media and other groups would make almost anyone, especially Gay people (or others within those marginalized groups), think that it's a direct attack on them. "Mob mentality/group think" took over and they threatened to strike and walk out. (All based on very misleading narratives and information).

Disney eventually came out with a statement to DeSantis stating they thought the legislation was a bad idea. And in response to the gender instruction law, Disney announced it was suspending political donations in the state and would support organizations that oppose it.

DeSantis viewed this as an attack on the Florida State Government. It's one thing for a business in the private sector to support/oppose certain issues, legislation, etc but it's another for a business (especially a business like Disney, which caters to all people, different ideologies, families, etc. to say that they would stop all political contributions to the state and not only that, but fund organizations (or other parties) that oppose the legislation.

DeSantis then went on to say he was going to sign legislation that would take back governing responsibilities for land that was previously given to Disney to govern.

So there are "two sides" to the story. That said, I tend to agree that DeSantis should have taken the higher road. Maybe come out with a statement stating what the legislation really is and why it was put into legislation. Explain to people (especially people in those marginalized groups) that the legislation is/was not an attack on them.

It's legislation designed to deal with the topic of sexual education/gender identities. Other states (NJ) had passed laws mandating that it can be taught to all age groups; K-12. But most people in Florida do not want any sexual education taught to young children by schools and prefer that it's handled by family, loved ones, etc. when children are at that age. Gender identity, etc would fall under the umbrella of "sexual education".

This law simply states that in Florida, sexual education can be taught beginning at 4th grade through grade 12. Had it been explained like this to the general public, I doubt it would have been nearly as "big" of an issue as it was.

This is an example of how party politics can take a relatively "non issue" and turn it into something it never should have become. Less than 3%-4% of children may have some form of "gender dysphoria" before the age of 18. After the age of 18, that number drops to less than 2% - and less than 0.5% eventually become "transgender".

The main reason proponents of teaching sexual education at an early age want it taught early is because of the risk of other mental health issue, depression and even suicidal thoughts among a high % of children that have gender dysphoria. If that is the case, why would politicians and the media (on both sides) put these marginalized groups under a spotlight, making them the center of attention and making them feel even more isolated and confused by the 98% of the country that knows little about their specific issues and yet, use it as a way to advance their political ideologies.

If you are a child dealing with these issues, how would you feel if your personal health issues are the subject of constant news/media attention? - which results in heated debates among various political/ideological groups - to the extent of turning it into a rallying cry on one side and a subject of ridicule on the other.

How would you feel growing up dealing with these issues but feeling the need to walk on eggshells because it's become such a divisive and "controversial" issue? Not only are they dealing with their issues internally, psychologically etc. but now they need to worry about saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, to the wrong group of people.

Historically, there were groups of people that would ridicule, offend, etc some of these marginalized groups. But prior to the past 5 or so years, those groups were becoming less and less prevalent because almost every person living in the US likely has a loved one or a friend or an acquaintance, etc that are among these marginalized groups. They were no longer "just a part of society" but a part of most of our families or friends or extended group of friends. Most people (even if some did not agree or understand it) would (at the very least) treat others with respect.

After the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando in 2016, the entire city, state, country and world rallied around the victims and their families. The 98% joined the 2% and became unified against a common enemy of hate and violence. God forbid, if something similar were to happen again today, would we be as unified as we were in 2016? I would hope so but for some reason, I have my doubts. Why is that? Because this issue has become heavily politicized, turning it into a Right Vs Left issue, veiled as a "Family values vs liberalism" issue. Some went from mostly accepting these groups/people as part of "our family/friends" to it becoming "families and our values don't include these groups because they are now on the opposite side of a political debate."

How did this happen?

Both sides of the debate share blame, imo. Far left progressives took it from being a personal, physical, physiological, psychological, mental health and human rights issue among less than 2% of society and turned it into one of their major political and ideological platforms. They went on to teach and mandate that only one scientific/psychological theory is correct and that there are over 100 "gender identities.". Well to most people, that sounded crazy.

Most people living in the United States don't have advanced psychological training, experience, etc. And the word "gender" historically is used when referencing someone's sex. "Gender Identity" on the other hand, is a psychological construct, which can become physiological for some. Is it possible for someone to have a different psychological construct than someone else? Of course. All human beings have various psychological constructs within themselves and most of these constructs have nothing to do with "gender identity" Gender Identity is simply ONE of potentially limitless psychological constructs within the human mind.

Unfortunately, this was rarely, if ever, explained, to most people. Why? Because the people "preaching it" likely didn't understand the differences themselves. To them, it was a way of showing "the other side" that these marginalized groups had scientific/psychological theories that explained and validated the way they felt and behaved. And they wanted the rest of the world to accept, validate and conform to these theories - without ever understanding or explaining it themselves. To the rest of the world, "Gender Identity" became a bunch of words, syllables, nouns, pronouns etc - that were associated with "extreme liberal ideas". I have a degree in psychology and even I thought it was bizarre and in my own ignorance, even light heartedly ridiculed the idea at times. Then it became an afterthought, associated with liberal ideas. Eventually, after doing some reading, I came to the understanding that "Gender Identity" is not the same thing as a person's physical sex. Why did it take me so long? Because 99% of the time people refer to it as "gender" instead of "gender identity". And gender can be a synonym for a person's sex and has been used that way historically.

Physically, the vast majority of humans are one of two sexes: male or female. Other species also have hermaphrodites (both sexes) but in humans, it's called "intersex" and in most cases, one sex prevails by adulthood.

That said, far right conservatives also threw fuel on the fire by immediately blasting, ridiculing and mocking the idea. They adopted it on their major political platforms as a way to ridicule liberals and to a lesser extent, even to mock the marginalized groups. They use it as a way to bolster their version of "family values" and to validate their supporters' views on the subject.

"Mob mentality/group think" (on both sides) is what has turned this issue into what it is today.

Sorry about the long winded post. To finish, I've been using the phrase "marginalized groups" to refer to the LBTGQ groups because I am unfamiliar with the most "up to date" wording to use. Initially, I was going to use LBTGQ but when I looked it up, some sources had added an additional 2-3 letters. I understand that these groups want to include everyone when they are being referenced - and apparently they do so by adding more and more letters. For someone trying to gain a better grasp of these terms, it can become confusing. Then add another 100+ ways to describe specific gender identities - it's not the easiest concept to learn to begin with - why not make it a little "simpler" for us common folks?

In my humble opinion, if the LBTGQ communities want people to truly understand who they are, why they seem "different" to some and why this is so important to them, why not give most folks a "Cliff's Notes" version and leave the textbook version up to doctors, psychologists and close friends, family, relatives, etc?

My 2 cents.

 

[Ace Nova]

YOU are the one who called yourself a moderate. You seen to confuse being an Independent like me with also having to be moderate as well.


Who told you I belonged to a particular party? Without saying anything, you are already building false castles in your mind based on your own prejudices.

I'm going to take the high road and assume you must have missed reading the part where I said, "I am non partisan, first and foremost" I use the terms "Independent" and "Moderate" when speaking because it's easier for people not familiar with political terminologies to understand that I don't belong to a political party.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The Biden administration is the most recklessly extreme radical administration we have ever had

Any actual moderate would understand that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Biden administration is the most recklessly extreme radical administration we have ever had

Any actual moderate would understand that.

Prove it if you wish.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Prove it if you wish.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Dogmaphobe is on his knees, which I guess is where he believes he belongs. Real Americans stand up for the Constitution and civil liberties and rebukes Trumplicans and chaos.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Dogmaphobe is on his knees, which I guess is where he believes he belongs. Real Americans stand up for the Constitution and civil liberties and rebukes Trumplicans and chaos.

I show that the Biden administration is so extreme that it establishes gay BDSM is an important job qualification and so you respond with accusations that I do not stand up for the constitution and oppose civil liberties?

Your mind does not work the way minds are supposed to work, boy.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You idiot. Where did Biden "establish gay BDSM is an important job qualification." No wonder no one takes you seriously.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You idiot. Where did Biden "establish gay BDSM is an important job qualification." No wonder no one takes you seriously.

Are you speaking to anybody in particular, John the slow?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

A mental and emotional cripple our Dogmaphobe. On Ignore until some sanity begins to show.