I hate to stick up for the guy, but didn’t Trump distinguish himself from Cruz by coming down on the correct side of the bathroom question?
Cruz was anti golden toilets?
It should have.
Your apparent attempt at sarcasm using the word darkie is noted as a failure. It also appears to be intended to provoke a reaction rather than make a point–pretty much the definition off trolling.
Knock it off and do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
I have no idea what you are on about. Not only did I not insult some vague and undefined "majority, I did not even insult the poster whose post I addressed.
I am also unsure what you mean about “respect[ing] the will of the majority.” The majority gets its will “respected” simply by having the political power to impose it. The other point generally associated with our form of government is to respect the rights of minorities. Are you proposing that minorities need to have their rights suppressed to “respect” a majority will?
Not necessarily, in fact, John Adams specifically argued that our government was able to, among other things, prevent the “tyranny of the majority”. In fact, it’s one of the purposes of many parts of the Bill of Rights.
Sure. Trump is surprisingly progressive. But the forces that enable stuff like Trumpism may not be. And those are the folks who get mobilized by being insulted or if they participate in democratic rule get tired of judicial overrule.
If only we could apply those principles to the income tax.
Well, I can think of one reason why someone might want to make a big deal about how he’s totally not attracted to transgender women and definitely would not want to “accidentally” have sex with them, or “accidentally” look at nudie photos of them.
How is this in any way accepting? You’re reserving the right to insult trans people while prohibiting others from insulting you. You’re not allowing them to present them selves in the way they want. You’re not allowing them to be portrayed as part of society. What part of this is accepting? Is this accepting because you don’t advocate beating them for being “disgusting?”
I would also note that some polls in recent years show even higher skepticism of transgenders using bathrooms of their newly chosen sex CBS News Poll: Transgender kids and school bathrooms - CBS News so yea, my skepticism of the concept is no outlier, but mainstream
In that case, we can trust in the democratic process to allow the conservative state of California to overturn this obviously unwanted law they just passed.
Well, the Constitution specifically allows for a constitutional amendment, if 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of the state legislatures approve.
You could work for a repeal of the 16th Amendment, if you like.
Hey, where did all my government programs go?
Skepticism of the theory of evolution was mainstream for many years, then, after a slight period of rational thought, has again become mainstream What is your point? That multitudes entertain prejudicial feelings or beliefs is not a valid argument that their irrational and unfounded fears are based in reality.
So when faced with actual cites, you have fallen back on "other people feel the same way (though that survey was “uncomfortable with” bathroom use, not “repulsive” or “disgusting”) so it isn’t bigotry! "
Right. The comment was in response to Madison and his view that one should worry about the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps Madison should have worried about the tyranny of the supermajority. Which if you think about it if the supermajority can take what ever it wishes via constitutional amendment why can’t a certain majority enact whatever law they wish. What rights does an individual have that a supermajority feel they don’t?
Evolution has been proved with extensive visible and examinable physical evidence. Not the case with trans-ism.
Honestly, why are so many “progressives” acting like I’m condoning something like racism? No, the racial civil rights movement and the trans-ism movement are not the same. Race is immutable and cannot be hidden or changed. Black people faced discrimination for being black that included lynching. Women or men do not get that for being women and men. Trans-ism, as in cross-dressing and getting surgery, is a choice. Race is not.
That is not to leave out that I do not condone the violence against transgenders that occurs. But it could’ve been avoided by just being oneself’s actual sex. As I’ve said, the same LGB protection laws extend to “transgender,” IMO.
Thanks–somehow I’ve missed that article before. Derek, READ IT. REEEEAAAAAD ITTTTTTTT.
Nobody is suggesting that your sort of bigotry is an outlier. Our country has a long history of astonishing bigotry. The challenge you’re facing is at least twofold:
- You claim that acceptance of trans rights is a “hard left” movement. That’s clearly nonsense, according to the previous poll you cited.
- Your suggestion that since your bigotry is shared by tens of millions of people, it’s magically prevented from being bigotry. No: there’s no argument by popularity here, except inasmuch as it’d be incorrect to call your view a fringe view. It’s a wrong view, it’s a pernicious view, it’s an anti-humanitarian view, it’s a pre-enlightenment view, it’s a bigoted view, it’s a harmful view, it’s an antiquated and soon to be fringe view, but it’s not currently a fringe view.
If anyone accuses it of being so, I’ll have your view’s back :).
“Trans-ism”?
I think it makes more sense in the frame of mind they had when creating the government. Remember that we’re talking about a time where the Senate was elected by high-ranking members of society, and the political upper class was one and the same as the educated class.
With one house being specially selected, it’s much more resistant to electoral shenanigans, and a supermajority is something that a lot of educated, thoughtful people need to approve (in theory).
Of course, I’m not arguing we go back to that. If anything, having politicians select the senate would be a disaster (though I do sometimes wonder about the point of the senate after it went to popular vote). I’m more saying that an entirely popularly elected government is much more susceptible to the “tyranny of the majority” than the original system was. If anything, the USSC is the last bulwark against it (though obviously there’s the amendment issue still).