Youngkin won in VA because Terry McAuliffe made a huge gaffe a few weeks before the election saying parents don't have a right to choose their child's education.
Youngkin also has the vibes of a sweater vest Suburban dad "reasonable Republican" and that helped him win.
I think Youngkin is the best we can do in terms of electability in statewide Virginia but we can do so much better nationwide.
Why would anyone who doesn't want Trump choose Youngkin when we have Ron DeSantis?
His simping for Pelosi killed any good will I harbored towards him. The last thing we need is another Romneyesque clown who only puts up token resistance before throwing the election, all while being called the next Hitler by the shitheels he's colluding with.
I don't give a shit who shits next to me. I do give a shit about people who can't or won't give a proper definition of Man/Woman, something that illiterate morons have been able to do since the advent of language.
I'm not sure "fact" is the right concept or at least how the word has come to be used in common parlance. I've been home all day, and thus spending too much time posting here, and everything I've griped about comes down to the rejection of Realism. Take the dictionary definition of "fact":
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
A real occurrence; an event.
Notice the trend: "real", "demonstrated", "real". Realism supports the existence of universals, numbers, and propositions. These three are "mind independent." Universals being things like a circle; there is no need for a human mind to exist for a circle to exist. Numbers being things like the number seven; there is no need for human mind to exist for the number seven to exist. And finally propositions being things like "trees are green"; require not human mind to exist for the proposition to be true.
Ok, why all this crap? Because if you're not a realist you wind up being some sort of nominalist. And that is the sort of person that says: "some women have penises and some men have babies." Such statements used to be confined to defenders of Realism given as a hyperbolic example of nominalism, but now it's part of our public discourse.
Well you said that better than I could. I guess I’m a realist because women don’t have penises. I guess I should’ve said it seemed to be accepted logic.
We are talking about children so it should be pretty safe to have them using the bathroom of their birth sex. If a girl is dressing like a boy, no one gives a shit, she can still use the girls room. I see no problem with that.
Um having your kid in school with a pervert -- or a kid raised by perverts -- is another problem.
Youngkin is the ideal Republican as far as the Democrats are concerned. He does a half assed job at actually opposing them, then he rolls over and dies once he's tricked enough normies into thinking he fought the good fight. It still won't stop them from screeching about he's the second coming of Hitler.
he's good as a blue state governor, those guys exist just to deny the job to a Democrat. but as far as allowing a blue state governor to ever touch the Presidential nomination again? After Romney? fuck that
Yeah, I'm realistic enough to see that he's the best we can do in a blue state and take that W. Fortunately for the GOP Larry Hogan saw the writing on the wall and fucked off. The Orange Man Bad shtick may work in deep blue shitholes like Maryland or Massachusetts but it can't build a viable coalition nationally.
Phrased in the most weasely way possible. No, I don't think anyone would feel comfortable in a bathroom with you, freak. When I was a kid kids like you had to use the teacher's room.
The post wherein I agree with the criticism on this sub against Republicans. I will only add that not all Republicans are like this, and it's totally fair to trash the ones who act this way.
Stop criticizing me! I checked the polls and they said it was okay for me to be against trans in women's sport, okay? My "overton window" lawyer gave me permission to take this position, and I checked twice!
And you kind of look like a dude. I get it. So instead of being like "no, you're a chick, go squat in the women's restroom with the rest of the women" I can't say that, because I'm running for President and that would be mean, maybe, so instead hell, let's do it like this:
Are you ready? Hold on. Are you ready? Cue the drum roll. All right, now everyone reach under your seats and open the box!
My gripe isn't with Republicans; its with Conservatives. Two generations and they haven't conserved a damn thing. This makes sense when you realize that American Neo-conservatism was founded by dude who didn't necessarily disagree with Liberals, but thought they were moving a bit too fast (Irving Krystal; Early Life section reads as expected).
All I ask at this point, and I'm being serious, is a Republican who is willing to unapologetically say in public: "Women do not have penises, and men cannot have babies." Until they cross that particular Rubicon, they are not to be taken seriously. This is a very low standard.
Edit: To be honest, transgenderism is a bit of a godsend: you can, in a moment, determine if a person is capable of rational thought and honest communication. If a person is incapable of thought, its a harder question as to if they can be saved. If this sounds like a purity test: you're goddamned right.
The first Republican to hold up an lgbt flag was a nationalist. Afterwards, a bunch of faggots and trannies thought it was ok to be a Republican. They also celebrate the passing of gay marriage. And we the US didn't look like weirmar until a nationalist was elected as president.
Youngkin won't ever even win the nomination if he does this.
He is clearly too weak on important cultural issues.
The base doesn't want a milquetoast mild mannered guy like Youngkin who mainly focuses on tax cuts for corporations.
I want an electable candidate for 2024 but I want that candidate to be strong on policy. Youngkin has failed that test.
Young king won in VA because the left really overplayed their hand right? The trans stuff as well as pushing the race nonsense
Youngkin won in VA because Terry McAuliffe made a huge gaffe a few weeks before the election saying parents don't have a right to choose their child's education.
Youngkin also has the vibes of a sweater vest Suburban dad "reasonable Republican" and that helped him win.
I think Youngkin is the best we can do in terms of electability in statewide Virginia but we can do so much better nationwide.
Why would anyone who doesn't want Trump choose Youngkin when we have Ron DeSantis?
DeSantis is electable and strong on the issues.
Youngkin is electable but weak on key issues.
Oh yea I remember hearing about that. Also like you said Youngkin appeals to the suburban moderate Republicans that hate Trump
His simping for Pelosi killed any good will I harbored towards him. The last thing we need is another Romneyesque clown who only puts up token resistance before throwing the election, all while being called the next Hitler by the shitheels he's colluding with.
I think you overestimate the basedness of voters.
This question was clearly planned, so I'm guessing this response was focus grouped to hell. Women aren't going to be like "lol fag" like us.
I don't give a shit who shits next to me. I do give a shit about people who can't or won't give a proper definition of Man/Woman, something that illiterate morons have been able to do since the advent of language.
Yea it is annoying because this was basic fact up until a few years ago
I'm not sure "fact" is the right concept or at least how the word has come to be used in common parlance. I've been home all day, and thus spending too much time posting here, and everything I've griped about comes down to the rejection of Realism. Take the dictionary definition of "fact":
Notice the trend: "real", "demonstrated", "real". Realism supports the existence of universals, numbers, and propositions. These three are "mind independent." Universals being things like a circle; there is no need for a human mind to exist for a circle to exist. Numbers being things like the number seven; there is no need for human mind to exist for the number seven to exist. And finally propositions being things like "trees are green"; require not human mind to exist for the proposition to be true.
Ok, why all this crap? Because if you're not a realist you wind up being some sort of nominalist. And that is the sort of person that says: "some women have penises and some men have babies." Such statements used to be confined to defenders of Realism given as a hyperbolic example of nominalism, but now it's part of our public discourse.
Well you said that better than I could. I guess I’m a realist because women don’t have penises. I guess I should’ve said it seemed to be accepted logic.
Observable reality, fundament truth
I'm in favor of 3 bathrooms: One for men, one for women, and one for perverts. That way the perverts stick to preying on each other
The trans bathroom debate is exactly the same as the trans sports debate.
FtM in the male space is permissible, because they do not pose a threat to the men there that is any greater than another man does.
MtF is the female space is not permissible, because they pose a threat to the women there that is greater than the threat posed by another woman.
A man in the women's bathroom causes fear.
A woman in the men's bathroom causes laughter.
This woman has chosen to become a joke, and I welcome her into the men's bathroom on one condition: I get to make fun of her.
We are talking about children so it should be pretty safe to have them using the bathroom of their birth sex. If a girl is dressing like a boy, no one gives a shit, she can still use the girls room. I see no problem with that.
Um having your kid in school with a pervert -- or a kid raised by perverts -- is another problem.
I care about the principle. If women get a designated space, men should get one too. The sideshow freaks can go in the bushes.
Youngkin is the ideal Republican as far as the Democrats are concerned. He does a half assed job at actually opposing them, then he rolls over and dies once he's tricked enough normies into thinking he fought the good fight. It still won't stop them from screeching about he's the second coming of Hitler.
he's good as a blue state governor, those guys exist just to deny the job to a Democrat. but as far as allowing a blue state governor to ever touch the Presidential nomination again? After Romney? fuck that
Yeah, I'm realistic enough to see that he's the best we can do in a blue state and take that W. Fortunately for the GOP Larry Hogan saw the writing on the wall and fucked off. The Orange Man Bad shtick may work in deep blue shitholes like Maryland or Massachusetts but it can't build a viable coalition nationally.
Shockingly, when you base your opposition to troon insanity on women's comfort, you only get so far
Phrased in the most weasely way possible. No, I don't think anyone would feel comfortable in a bathroom with you, freak. When I was a kid kids like you had to use the teacher's room.
The post wherein I agree with the criticism on this sub against Republicans. I will only add that not all Republicans are like this, and it's totally fair to trash the ones who act this way.
My gripe isn't with Republicans; its with Conservatives. Two generations and they haven't conserved a damn thing. This makes sense when you realize that American Neo-conservatism was founded by dude who didn't necessarily disagree with Liberals, but thought they were moving a bit too fast (Irving Krystal; Early Life section reads as expected).
All I ask at this point, and I'm being serious, is a Republican who is willing to unapologetically say in public: "Women do not have penises, and men cannot have babies." Until they cross that particular Rubicon, they are not to be taken seriously. This is a very low standard.
Edit: To be honest, transgenderism is a bit of a godsend: you can, in a moment, determine if a person is capable of rational thought and honest communication. If a person is incapable of thought, its a harder question as to if they can be saved. If this sounds like a purity test: you're goddamned right.
The worst are nationalists.
The first Republican to hold up an lgbt flag was a nationalist. Afterwards, a bunch of faggots and trannies thought it was ok to be a Republican. They also celebrate the passing of gay marriage. And we the US didn't look like weirmar until a nationalist was elected as president.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What is a nationalist? How does it relate to whether or not women have penises?
Do an image search of "Lady MAGA" and you'll find your answer to that lol.
I don't need to. Would you provide an answer to my questions?
Your question was answered if you weren't so scared to do a simple search:.
Nationalists invited faggots and trannies into the right wing, made it socially acceptable, and now we're dealing with the fallout.
Why are you so defensive all of a sudden?
You're not one of those faggot-loving nationalists, are you?
Dude I asked you to provide an answer. We all know who says "goggle it."
Since I have nothing better to do, I'll provide my original questions again:
Nothing else in your previous comment (or any others) warrants a response.