NY GRAND JURY VOTES TO INDICT TRUMP

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

DeSantis is popping.

I'd be a Smilin' Jack too, if I was the governor of the state that controls the statutes that my chief rival just got arrested under.

Remember the Suprenacy Clause was specific on purpose. The Federal government has no right to interdict a standard review. Federal laws "over-rule but do not replace" local jurisdiction. If you go to a major courthouse you see federal and local officers working hand in hand for this reason. But not in Florida and your last name is Trump lol.

Isn't it a federal judge in a federal court and federal charges?

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isn't it a federal judge in a federal court and federal charges?

Hello? It's in Miami?

I am pretty sure that's not under debate [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...what?

Here's the definition of ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

There you go.

So what is "modern transgender ideology" then, outside of any normal representative function?

The coal industry, for example, has interests, power to shape policy, and a set of ideas (an ideology) that they share with many extraction industries. But that is normal politics.

Maybe what I am asking is, what is the "coal industry" in this equation here? Because an industry has rights and I think I understand what you mean by ideology.

You mean, like a trade group? You don't mean ideology with a capitol I, like "Democracy," "Capitalism," "Marxism" and so forth?

Is this an ideology with a small I or a big I? If it's the former, have at it. Banter, make your case I say. You have an interest in transexual policy moving forward? Speak up citizen.

Now, ideology with a big "I" doesn't make any sense. It's not a big deal. No legs over time. Simple google searches demonstrate, you are not the daddy here. Time's bearing other daddies' babies. Fact.

But if you want to just argue policy, have at it, right? What's your argument? If it's about not grooming children I'm pretty sure that is the law. No consent, no sexy time.

So what policy? If you say weird gender ideas in front of the kids, I'm gonna post the front of Kiss Alive. I went to a Kiss concert in 1977.

And then I am going to repeat, it's not the plane, it's the pilot.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hello? It's in Miami?

I am pretty sure that's not under debate [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/federa...tricts-florida

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what is "modern transgender ideology" then, outside of any normal representative function?

The coal industry, for example, has interests, power to shape policy, and a set of ideas (an ideology) that they share with many extraction industries. But that is normal politics.

Maybe what I am asking is, what is the "coal industry" in this equation here? Because an industry has rights and I think I understand what you mean by ideology.

You mean, like a trade group? You don't mean ideology with a capitol I, like "Democracy," "Capitalism," "Marxism" and so forth?

Is this an ideology with a small I or a big I? If it's the former, have at it. Banter, make your case I say. You have an interest in transexual policy moving forward? Speak up citizen.

Now, ideology with a big "I" doesn't make any sense. It's not a big deal. No legs over time. Simple google searches demonstrate, you are not the daddy here. Time's bearing other daddies' babies. Fact.

But if you want to just argue policy, have at it, right? What's your argument? If it's about not grooming children I'm pretty sure that is the law. No consent, no sexy time.

So what policy? If you say weird gender ideas in front of the kids, I'm gonna post the front of Kiss Alive. I went to a Kiss concert in 1977.

And then I am going to repeat, it's not the plane, it's the pilot.

Ohhhhhkay. I'll bite.

Kiss wasn't trying to take your kids away if they say they're the opposite sex and you don't agree, which they are now doing in california and washington state. They actually think you're an abusive parent if you don't just go along with it.

Imagine if those insane hippie cat ladies who think crystals will cure your scoliosis got into state government and made it an actual crime not to treat your child with crystal shakra therapy. That's the level of nutso this is, and I think as adults we should be able to talk about it.

So that, among many other things, is "modern transgender ideology" in my view.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ohhhhhkay. I'll bite.

Kiss wasn't trying to take your kids away if they say they're the opposite sex and you don't agree, which they are now doing in california and washington state. They actually think you're an abusive parent if you don't just go along with it.

So that, among many other things, is "modern transgender ideology" in my view.

Wait. Qiestion one. Who are they, and why are they getting involved in a family dispute?

Children beyond puberty have very bad fights with parents and a youth can bring suit for emancipation. We do grant, in other words, that a legal dependent can become alienated from the parent.

In the case of divorced parents this gets even worse and some of these cases you mention might be rooted in custody battles. Just saying.

A court can rule for the emancipation of a young person for many reasons. Are you saying none of those examples can [or should] stem from gender conflict w/ the parents?

(cut for ease of use)

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

So let's say I am born to a conservative religious family and I am forbidden from dating outside my faith. But I love Mormons, not Buddhists.

I move to Utah. They welcome me. I fall in love. My family tries to stop the wedding because I am 17. I ask a judge for emancipation and a friend of my would-be wife's family agrees to adopt me and be my guardian to grant the required permission to marry.

Is that morally wrong for the government to facilitate this?

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait. Qiestion one. Who are they, and why are they getting involved in a family dispute?

Children beyond puberty have very bad fights with parents and a youth can bring suit for emancipation. We do grant, in other words, that a legal dependent can become alienated from the parent.

In the case of divorced parents this gets even worse and some of these cases you mention might be rooted in custody battles. Just saying.

A court can rule for the emancipation of a young person for many reasons. Are you saying none of those examples can [or should] stem from gender conflict w/ the parents?

(cut for ease of use)

Do we grant that the state may keep the whereabouts of a minor child from their parents under any other circumstances?

Besides for abortion, obviously.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ohhhhhkay. I'll bite.

Kiss wasn't trying to take your kids away if they say they're the opposite sex and you don't agree, which they are now doing in california and washington state. They actually think you're an abusive parent if you don't just go along with it.

Imagine if those insane hippie cat ladies who think crystals will cure your scoliosis got into state government and made it an actual crime not to treat your child with crystal shakra therapy. That's the level of nutso this is, and I think as adults we should be able to talk about it.

So that, among many other things, is "modern transgender ideologyk" in my view.

So GOP who didn’t have problem with transgender didn’t go off the deep end until their Christian base needed to be whip back into a frenzy to prevent further die off of the religion.

We have conservatives calling normally born Cis 9 year old girls transgender at events because their little girl didn’t win.

…incident left her daughter, who is not transgender, “hysterically crying” and unable to compete in the shot put final.

Starr’s former partner Heidi described the incident to CTV News:“His wife started yelling that my ex-wife and I– parents of my daughter– and other parents of trans kids were genital mutilators and groomers, and the man himself began demanding to see a certificate proving my daughter was born a girl.”

Josef Tesar and his wife Krista, who attended the event to see their granddaughter compete, were asked to leave by other parents. In a statement to local media, Tesar denied he ever confronted the nine-year-old.

“As I was walking away from the official, a woman said ‘I’m her mother’ and [she was] yelling, and swearing at me and offering if I want to see [the girl] naked, or if I want to see her genitals,” he said.“I said ‘No, the certificate is OK.’ That’s all I said. I never pointed to another girl and said she’s obviously trans.”

The incident happened the day before the girl’s 10th birthday.

“Fortunately, the day after it all happened she had her birthday party with her soccer team and then another party with her mom, so she’s been quite distracted,” said Starr. “But the same time, it’s really hit her hard.”

It is not free speech when it is clearly hate speech that a couple got banned for chanting at a 9 year old at a sporting event.

And the FL failed law wasn’t just about trans children it was aimed at all Trans rights in that state.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/polit...ill/index.html

The CA law was aimed at repeated individuals constantly referring to the same person with the wrong pronouns and name. Not one time offenders. It combats bullying more than anything. It combats hate speech.

It is just sad for the GOP party to nickname something like Trump does to push collective hate.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is not free speech when it is clearly hate speech

Hate speech is free speech