Is it time for a legitimate third party?

[JoeB131]

Libertarians support all of those things. You're just lying again.

It certainly isn't their priority since they whored themselves out to the Koch Bros.

 

[dblack]

It certainly isn't their priority since they whored themselves out to the Koch Bros.

You're lying. Your weird fixation with the Cock brothers notwithstanding.

 

[JoeB131]

You're lying. You're weird fixation with the Cock brothers notwithstanding.

They took over your movement, and brainwashed you children into thinking the government is a bad thing.

 

[dblack]

They took over your movement, and brainwashed you children into thinking the government is a bad thing.

Yes, yes, yes. I'm aware of your conspiracy theories.

But the fact of the matter is, Libertarians fully support gay marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. You said otherwise. And I don't think it was an honest mistake, because I've told you this many times. You're just lying.

 

[CowboyTed]

Is it time for a legitimate third party?

• Too much political divide on issues that could have a common middle ground?
• Our 2 current parties drive their own agenda, while the a unheard majorities voice is left unheard, seen, or advised.
• In today's political climate, how would a third party get a voice? We are not asking for a seat at the table, but rather, a voice that can be heard. Then let the dominoes fall.
• George Washington warned of political parties subverting the people and leading to despotism. This board that example where many on here, express desire to remove the other in totality.
• From Washington - "...The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
  
  All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
  
  However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion".
  
  Farewell Address (1796) | Constitution Center

  National Constitution Center Historic Documents Library record for Farewell Address (1796)

  constitutioncenter.org
• The above is where we are today. Do you disagree?
• Recent Gallup Poll (take it for what it's worth says that support of a third viable party is up 63%
  • Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%
• And, maybe there is another option; no parties, purely a stance and position.
• Has the country outgrown our political party system?

Problem is the voting system...

Saying it now for years...



US voting system is basically a scam... Not going to change because Turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving..

 

[dblack]

Problem is the voting system...

Saying it now for years...



US voting system is basically a scam... Not going to change because Turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving..

Exactly. But the two entrenched parties will have nothing to do with it. Which means it must be a grass-roots change. It's happening, we're seeing real progress. The question is whether it will be too little too late.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it time for a legitimate third party?

• Too much political divide on issues that could have a common middle ground?
• Our 2 current parties drive their own agenda, while the a unheard majorities voice is left unheard, seen, or advised.
• In today's political climate, how would a third party get a voice? We are not asking for a seat at the table, but rather, a voice that can be heard. Then let the dominoes fall.
• George Washington warned of political parties subverting the people and leading to despotism. This board that example where many on here, express desire to remove the other in totality.
• From Washington - "...The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
  
  All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
  
  However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion".
  
  Farewell Address (1796) | Constitution Center

  National Constitution Center Historic Documents Library record for Farewell Address (1796)

  constitutioncenter.org
• The above is where we are today. Do you disagree?
• Recent Gallup Poll (take it for what it's worth says that support of a third viable party is up 63%
  • Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%
• And, maybe there is another option; no parties, purely a stance and position.
• Has the country outgrown our political party system?

After thinking about this for awhile, the viable choice for a third party is to vote Trump and for all MAGAs running for office at local, state and federal levels.

The Democrats hate all of those because they promote strong, free, secure America first policies with maximum liberty, choices, options, opportunity, prosperity for all, everything the Democrats oppose lately.

(The usual trolls will no doubt rate that as fake news, but all capable of critical thinking know it is true. The Democrats are pushing limitations on free speech, religious expression; what fuels, appliances, light bulbs, automobiles, grocery bags etc. etc. etc. the people will be able to buy and use, what pronouns will be allowed, what authority parents will have over their children's education, healthcare, etc. And they want millions of migrants to be allowed into the country every year all with a path to citizenship and voting rights. And they like the idea of a New World Order that will have authority over all.

Likewise the old guard Republicans are far more globalist than Trump and the MAGAs, resent anything that upsets the status quo or their conventional wisdom and, like the Democrats, too often would rather risk war than negotiate with people declared our enemies.

 

[dblack]

After thinking about this for awhile, the viable choice for a third party is to vote Trump and for all MAGAs running for office at local, state and federal levels.

Keep thinking.

 

[Foxfyre]

Keep thinking.

Any other choice is anti-American, anti-liberty, anti-prosperity, pro Marxist totalitarianism.

 

[dblack]

Any other choice is anti-American, anti-liberty, anti-prosperity, pro Marxist totalitarianism.

Of course.

 

[bendog]

We need a conservative party.

MSN

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, yes, yes. I'm aware of your conspiracy theories.

But the fact of the matter is, Libertarians fully support gay marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. You said otherwise. And I don't think it was an honest mistake, because I've told you this many times. You're just lying.

Nope, we all know what your child-like priorities are.

 

[my2¢]

I don't see the need of any more political parties, we have enough of them: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, No Labels, etc.

What we need are single non-partisan primaries that provides every voter (Democrats, Republicans, and others) an equal standing in the process.

 

[dblack]

Nope, we all know what your child-like priorities are.

You're lying.

 

[LibertyKid]

Your concession is duly noted.

You don't believe in liberty.

If you did, you wouldn't be trying to ban gay marriage, transgender care, and abortion.

I never said that. In fact, I'm for gay marriage. I don't care what adults do with their bodies, but let a child, regardless of how they present 'gender' grow fully into the biological bodies and let them experience sexuality before modifying their sexual growth. I believe there are cases that allow for abortion. But I believe the narrative needs to change so that option for "Pro-choice" is the last choice. Make better choices up front so that a pregnancy isn't the outcome when two consenting adults, who know how babies are made, don't make a baby. It's pretty common knowledge now a days and there are plenty of ways to have a sexual encounter that doesn't lead to a pregnancy.

So, stop being a narcissistic troll. Stop generalizing everyone because they disagree or see something different.

And, I still see you can't have any reasonable discourse and ignored my request. You're a debased, cyber troll, of an inhuman kind with the brain capacity of a single watt bulb, dim, who provides no reasonable light of knowledge. In fact, you're more like a black hole of ignorance and bias, you suck in all the BS while you never let anything else get in, and then regurgitate the same information, over and over and over again like a bad case of tinnitus.

 

[JoeB131]

I never said that. In fact, I'm for gay marriage. I don't care what adults do with their bodies, but let a child, regardless of how they present 'gender' grow fully into the biological bodies and let them experience sexuality before modifying their sexual growth.

In short, you are for controlling people's choices if they make choices you don't like. Even if the Parents and Doctors determine gender affirming care is the best option for a minor, you would oppose it because it offends YOUR sensibilities.

I believe there are cases that allow for abortion. But I believe the narrative needs to change so that option for "Pro-choice" is the last choice.

Nope. The reality is women should be the only people deciding on whether an abortion is appropriate. Mind your own fucking business.

Make better choices up front so that a pregnancy isn't the outcome when two consenting adults, who know how babies are made, don't make a baby. It's pretty common knowledge now a days and there are plenty of ways to have a sexual encounter that doesn't lead to a pregnancy.

And some day you might even have a sexual encounter and prove it... snark.

So, stop being a narcissistic troll. Stop generalizing everyone because they disagree or see something different.

Sorry, I just look at the damage the Koch Brothers have done getting stupid people like you to see that good government is the enemy. So I can't respect someone who thinks "Liberty" is the ability for the rich to poison the water we drink so they can make a profit.

And, I still see you can't have any reasonable discourse and ignored my request. You're a debased, cyber troll, of an inhuman kind with the brain capacity of a single watt bulb, dim, who provides no reasonable light of knowledge. In fact, you're more like a black hole of ignorance and bias, you suck in all the BS while you never let anything else get in, and then regurgitate the same information, over and over and over again like a bad case of tinnitus.

Wow, I hurt your little sensibilities, didn't I, "Kid". Some day you'll grow up and realize how the world really works. You might even be bare naked with a girl at some point. We can always have hope.

 

[LibertyKid]

In short, you are for controlling people's choices if they make choices you don't like. Even if the Parents and Doctors determine gender affirming care is the best option for a minor, you would oppose it because it offends YOUR sensibilities.

My opinion, and the opinion of other doctors, is that GAC, a vast oversimplification. GAC has a lot risks, many of which are long term and or irreversible that impact one's own sexual function and health. I call for a middle ground, that asks parents, instead of medically stopping what the body is meant to do, let it grow and mature, in all aspects. If you start GAC, you risk that the child may not experience a fully functioning, sexually operative body. I think if you asked parents, "do you want to remove the capacity for your child to experience sexual pleasure as the body is meant to", I think most parents would say no. But that is the very real risk of doing so. Instead, let child grow into their body, experience sex as their body was meant too, then let that near term adult or adult decide on what they want to with their body.

I'm sure you you'll come back with some dimwitted quip and have an unreasonable reply.

Nope. The reality is women should be the only people deciding on whether an abortion is appropriate. Mind your own fucking business.

Did I say otherwise? When did I say it's not the woman's. Comprehension hard for you. I would imagine not from someone in your "profession". Also, not only should the woman be a decider, but why are the men getting out of this scott free? Why are more woman asking that the impregnator take on the medical, financial, and emotional risk as well?

And some day you might even have a sexual encounter and prove it... snark.

I'm not even sure how this is relevant, pervert. At least I'm not scouring the internets and scamming some poor soul from China to come live with me. And that is not an insult to her, it's on you and your inability to date and have a woman actually fall in love with you. And report it, because you opened the can of worms.

Sorry, I just look at the damage the Koch Brothers have done getting stupid people like you to see that good government is the enemy.

No, that's how the founding fathers viewed Gov't. But I'm sure you'll reply with the same regurgitated BS; "You mean the white slave rapists". So refer to my blackhole of regurgitation. And yes, gov't can be the enemy. And when the gov't become your enemy, what will you do stop it if they have gone too far. Nothing. Because you are nothing but a troll, hiding behind your screen pretending to be someone that you're not.

So I can't respect someone who thinks "Liberty" is the ability for the rich to poison the water we drink so they can make a profit.

Again, you take one instance of something and then try to apply liberally to the whole. That's illogical. God damn you're dumb.

Wow, I hurt your little sensibilities, didn't I, "Kid".

Like that actually means something, "troll".

Some day you'll grow up and realize how the world really works. You might even be bare naked with a girl at some point. We can always have hope.

That's rich coming from someone who could on the next season of 90 day fiance. I have kids and beautiful wife, troll.

 

[JoeB131]

My opinion, and the opinion of other doctors, is that GAC, a vast oversimplification. GAC has a lot risks, many of which are long term and or irreversible that impact one's own sexual function and health. I call for a middle ground, that asks parents, instead of medically stopping what the body is meant to do, let it grow and mature, in all aspects. If you start GAC, you risk that the child may not experience a fully functioning, sexually operative body. I think if you asked parents, "do you want to remove the capacity for your child to experience sexual pleasure as the body is meant to", I think most parents would say no. But that is the very real risk of doing so. Instead, let child grow into their body, experience sex as their body was meant too, then let that near term adult or adult decide on what they want to with their body.

I'm sure you you'll come back with some dimwitted quip and have an unreasonable reply.

Conversely, GAC would work better before Puberty kicks in, because the body hasn't developed into the wrong gender yet. I think I will trust doctors more than I would trust religious moral scolds.

Did I say otherwise? When did I say it's not the woman's. Comprehension hard for you. I would imagine not from someone in your "profession". Also, not only should the woman be a decider, but why are the men getting out of this scott free? Why are more woman asking that the impregnator take on the medical, financial, and emotional risk as well?

I wouldn't know. If the man doesn't want the child, he's shit out of luck, and he should be.

Because it's her decision.

No, that's how the founding fathers viewed Gov't. But I'm sure you'll reply with the same regurgitated BS; "You mean the white slave rapists". So refer to my blackhole of regurgitation. And yes, gov't can be the enemy. And when the gov't become your enemy, what will you do stop it if they have gone too far. Nothing. Because you are nothing but a troll, hiding behind your screen pretending to be someone that you're not.

Yes, I know you think the Founding Slave Rapists Shit Marble, but they were just a bunch of rich guys who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes.

The Founding Slave rapists shit in chamber pots. I much more prefer big government and modern sanitation systems and not getting cholera from the drinking water.

Again, you take one instance of something and then try to apply liberally to the whole. That's illogical. God damn you're dumb.

Nope, I measure where your hole movement is. Right now, your whole movement is an Orange Goon who plays on your racial fears to get you vote against your own economic interests.

 

[LibertyKid]

Conversely, GAC would work better before Puberty kicks in, because the body hasn't developed into the wrong gender yet. I think I will trust doctors more than I would trust religious moral scolds.

Why are you adding religion into this? I didn't. Assuming from fuming behind your monitor?

This has nothing to do with religion. It's medical science. Look at Jazz, that TLC show. They started the boy on puberty blockers at a young age. Therefore the penis didn't experience the growth during puberty. The doctors had very little 'material' to craft a vagina out of. Now the kid has to dialate this faux vagina or it will CLOSE UP on itself. That GAC for ya. Also, no guarantee of sexual performance, gratification, libido. But go ahead continue to believe that GAC is some warm and cozy security blanket. As I said, let an adult, or a minor greater than 16 who understands ALL of the inherent risks and life long medicines and therapies they will need to go through make that decision, their body, their choice right?

Also, there is the potential risk of cancer in trans patients because of long term hormonal treatments.

Cancer risk among transgender adults: A growing population with unmet needs - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And if you would like further readings, which I doubt you will: And the following is from a LGBTQ Advocate.

One moment, please...

According to the principles of evidence-based decision-making, when making treatment recommendations, one has to leverage the best available evidence, which is typically found in systematic reviews of evidence. Several systematic reviews have recently been completed by European public health authorities; three of these reviews are available in English. These independent systematic reviews of evidence found the practice of youth gender transition to either not be clearly beneficial, or net-harmful.

And as much as you love to reference other countries, here is what some other countries do.

One moment, please...

Are “gender-affirming” surgeries performed on children?​

The answer to this question depends on the country. In the United States, transgender surgeries on children are not uncommon. For example, this NIH-funded research describes mastectomies in children as young as 13. Other published research suggests that even 12 year olds get mastectomies. Because there is no U.S. national registry or reporting mechanism for these surgeries, it is not known how frequently they occur. However, recent data published in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that around 500 mastectomies were performed on minors in 2019 in the U.S. in hospital-owned surgical centers. This is likely a significant undercount since many plastic surgeons who specialize in these procedures own their own surgery centers and the mastectomies they performed would be excluded from the counts in JAMA Pediatrics.

In other countries, such as Sweden and the UK, where healthcare is publicly funded, such surgeries for youth <18 are typically not performed. For example, in the UK, the National Health Service will fund mastectomies for 17-year-olds in Scotland, but not in other regions. In Finland, transgender surgeries are never performed on gender dysphoric minors.
The draft 2022 WPATH guidelines lowered the age of mastectomy to 15 and orchiectomy (removal of testicles) and a number of other genital surgeries to 17. However, the final guidelines removed all lower age limits. It is not clear if other countries’ public health systems will follow these WPATH recommendations or if they will default to their own guidelines.

Because it's her decision.

Didn't say it wasn't.

Yes, I know you think the Founding Slave Rapists Shit Marble,

Hahahaha...couldn't resist being a broken record. And you'll gladly give up your rights for your love of gov't. Maybe you should have moved to China.

 

[JoeB131]

Why are you adding religion into this? I didn't. Assuming from fuming behind your monitor?

This has nothing to do with religion. It's medical science. Look at Jazz, that TLC show. They started the boy on puberty blockers at a young age. Therefore the penis didn't experience the growth during puberty. The doctors had very little 'material' to craft a vagina out of. Now the kid has to dialate this faux vagina or it will CLOSE UP on itself. That GAC for ya. Also, no guarantee of sexual performance, gratification, libido. But go ahead continue to believe that GAC is some warm and cozy security blanket. As I said, let an adult, or a minor greater than 16 who understands ALL of the inherent risks and life long medicines and therapies they will need to go through make that decision, their body, their choice right?

Again, which is why I clearly said that DOCTORS should be involved, not religious prudes like yourself.

Incidently, I can't find any reference to Jennings having any health issues other than her weight, which has been an issue all of her life. And even there, she's lost a bunch of weight recently.

The only one that mentions dilation is a homophobic article that constantly misgenders her.

And as much as you love to reference other countries, here is what some other countries do.

The British will probably go to a more sane policy now that the Tories have been thrown out on their asses.

Hahahaha...couldn't resist being a broken record. And you'll gladly give up your rights for your love of gov't. Maybe you should have moved to China.

Maybe what we should do is look at what China is doing right.

They are spending on education.
They are spending on infrastructure.
They are building markets for their product through foreign assistance.

But, no, the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't imagine a modern state... so let's not do that.