Maxine Waters should have a Democratic led Congressional ethics hearing for her conduct.

TXAGFAN said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

More than you think. Not the surrogacy avenue, but lots of people in my circle of friends have adopted. I can count 11 families that adopted infants or fostered until adoption.

Not that it takes $100,000k per child, but it's easily 4 years and $50k.

---

Good for you? That wasn't my point. Every gay couple I know went surrogacy route and going rate is around $150k last I checked with a friend. adoption is a minefield for us and there is a current case I believe before Supreme Court related to this very issue re: discrimination in adoption processes related to religous agencies that receive govt funding. Trump administration wrote a brief supporting that practice by the way, since many keep saying they did NOTHING to harm gay people.

Edit: A link to Foxnews since I know this isn't in your "Trump was a pro-gay president" talking points

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-proposes-hhs-rule-to-roll-back-lgbtq-protections-for-adoption-foster-care.amp

---

Um, do you think it is appropriate to force faith-based institutions to facilitate adoption to families that are against their belief systems?

Contrast that to the de-platforming rule, that would force Facebook to host messages of political candidates that Facebook did not agree with.

I do draw a line, that people should be able to believe that heterosexual marriage is the best way to live life, and the government should not be legislating against the right to hold and act on that belief, nor should they cut out these organizations from all federal funding.

I would point out that:
1) It only gives the right of faith-based adoption agencies to avoid acting against their principles, not outlawing adoption to homosexuals.
2) Plenty of faith-based adoption agencies will likely allow homosexuals to adopt anyways, as their beliefs about homosexual marriage are different than other faith based organizations.
3) There are plenty of adoption agencies receiving funding from the government that do allow homosexual adoptions.

This goes back to my point. You are arguing that people shouldn't have the right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and act on that belief. There is nothing in that bill that prevents homosexuals from adopting.

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

For God sakes dude, the Republican platform is not what you say. Please point out a single Republican politician in the last 4 years with any national power that has actively fought to overturn gay marriage or strip gays of any rights. What laws did the Republican controlled house and senate and Republican president sign into law? You tried and failed to say that this is a part of the party platform then got called out for it and said you were tired and thats why you got it wrong. The SCOTUS that had a conservative majority is the same court that decided on gay marriage.

You know damn good and well that gay marriage is here to stay, what you really are is dies in the wool liberal who would have never voted for a Republican no matter how much you claim to align with them on most issues and just like a good liberal you have an extreme hate in your heart for Trump that really can't be rationally explained other than muh feels.

---

And since I believe in facts...here is a link to Foxnews where they discuss the platform would not change:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-no-new-2020-platform-trump-agenda.amp

Even Fox News when covering the platform mentioned the language around gay marriage and conversion therapy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-new-and-updated-republican-party-platform.amp

The 2016 platform, which was part of the Trump election cycle, went FAR right on many of the issues people in this topic tell me are "over", "decided", "not at risk", etc. For how principled you all keep saying the party is, did I miss something about these issues? The answer is of course not, they are a reflection of the current party. They just haven't acted on them because they are losers, but if they can somehow get Trump or find a majority again they'll be front and center.

---

You obviously don't believe in facts because the facts are that Republicans are not trying to overturn gay marriage. period. Simply saying that the party opposes gay marriage in 2016 and Ted Cruz saying he disagreed with the 2015 court ruling does not equal the Republican party trying to take away gay marriage. You know that, but like a good liberal you won't lets facts get in the way of your feelings.

Malibu2 said:

---

Maxine Waters should have a Democratic led Congressional ethics hearing for her conduct.

---

Whoopty f***ing doo. You think the Dems and the left should be reigned it yet you still vote for the communist *******s.

Damn right I do.

TXAGFAN said:

---

LOL nm, this conversation just got too crazy. Congrats on your "getting more votes than Obama" and still losing.

---

I think it is incorrect to say that Trump "lost the moderates".

He just sent a lot of people that don't normally vote to the ballot box, and lost a very close and heavily contentious election. With record turnout on both sides, I see no evidence that your assertion that Trump "lost the moderates" is correct.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

As for DeSantis, why offer up a deplatforming judicial loser? What's the broader strategy if not to fight a culture war?

---

Take a step back from who currently controls the media, and the messages that are being blatantly suppressed.

Is blatant censorship and the silencing of contrary ideas a legitimate, ethical tool in a culture war fought within a free society? Is that really a constructive way to go as a society?

---

Well, January 6th had a hell of a lot to do with a Conspiracy Theorist in Chief rallying a social media mob and live streaming how they are beautiful people as it was live-streaming. At some point in time you can't enable that person to have a megaphone to use lies to destroy social order so that they can stay in power.

I'll say it, censorship of Trump post January 6th is absolutely ethically appropriate. He can't use force a private businesses to distribute conspiracy theory content that incites or approves of mobs raiding the Capitol. He can't destroy the will of the voters of some states on unproven crap lies. Yes, they can censor some voices that are damaging to our social trust in each other.

---

Sounds like you're all for them banning the likes of most of the Democrat party, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO, HuffPo, Salon, Vox, etc? There's the last five years of non stop lies that streamed out of those propaganda outlets in an effort to cause political unrest.

---

This may surprise you, but potentially yes. But I would add to that list Fox, Newsmax, and OAN as right wing propaganda media as much as those voices are left wing propaganda.

How to deescalate and reverse tribalize our news is an important social order. We must all be able to trust certain sources to credibly and without bias report uncomfortable facts we all agree on. I do not know how to do sensible reform that doesn't have potential 1st amendment consequences. Maybe bring back the fairness doctrine? I don't know.

---

I agree with this, but disagree that Trump is somehow more dangerous and worthy of censorship than the degenerate Democrats whose rhetoric contributed to the last four years of Antifa/BLM violence/destruction. Playing up Jan 6th (as disgusting as it was) as somehow worse than the culmination of BLM/Antifa riots is just Democrat posturing and disgusting to say the least. The double standards are only creating a bigger political divide and have to stop!

---

Liberals and concerned moderates continually misconstrue "the big lie" as some kind of nutjob conspiracy theory that votes were changed or fake ballots were counted. That has never been the basis of voter integrity questions regarding the 2020 elections. The leftwing idea that there is no possible way there could have been any election fraud is just plain laughable and they "debunked" it without having to do any investigations.

Malibu2 said:

---

Damn right I do.

---

Honestly, I'll take it.

Please, for the love of God, help kick the squad out of your party.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Maxine Waters should have a Democratic led Congressional ethics hearing for her conduct.

---

Whoopty f***ing doo. You think the Dems and the left should be reigned it yet you still vote for the communist *******s.

---

Exactly whoopy ****ing doo. It's a choice between which left right ****ed up extremists are going to **** things up more. With Trump, it was his clown show that needed reigning in more. And from the looks of it after he's gone, still need reigning in.

Short answer: If they receive government funding? Absolutely.

If they're pro life and want these kids brought into this world, they should allow any eligible candidates to adopt - even the gays.

1939 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

For God sakes dude, the Republican platform is not what you say. Please point out a single Republican politician in the last 4 years with any national power that has actively fought to overturn gay marriage or strip gays of any rights. What laws did the Republican controlled house and senate and Republican president sign into law? You tried and failed to say that this is a part of the party platform then got called out for it and said you were tired and thats why you got it wrong. The SCOTUS that had a conservative majority is the same court that decided on gay marriage.

You know damn good and well that gay marriage is here to stay, what you really are is dies in the wool liberal who would have never voted for a Republican no matter how much you claim to align with them on most issues and just like a good liberal you have an extreme hate in your heart for Trump that really can't be rationally explained other than muh feels.

---

And since I believe in facts...here is a link to Foxnews where they discuss the platform would not change:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-no-new-2020-platform-trump-agenda.amp

Even Fox News when covering the platform mentioned the language around gay marriage and conversion therapy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-new-and-updated-republican-party-platform.amp

The 2016 platform, which was part of the Trump election cycle, went FAR right on many of the issues people in this topic tell me are "over", "decided", "not at risk", etc. For how principled you all keep saying the party is, did I miss something about these issues? The answer is of course not, they are a reflection of the current party. They just haven't acted on them because they are losers, but if they can somehow get Trump or find a majority again they'll be front and center.

---

You obviously don't believe in facts because the facts are that Republicans are not trying to overturn gay marriage. period. Simply saying that the party opposes gay marriage in 2016 and Ted Cruz saying he disagreed with the 2015 court ruling does not equal the Republican party trying to take away gay marriage. You know that, but like a good liberal you won't lets facts get in the way of your feelings.

---

Why is it when republicans say something it doesn't count, but anything a democrat says becomes a bulletin board material for you re: why democrats are bad? Seriously, you don't see any issues with that point of view?

What's the timeline? For example, I always see the comments that Hillary and Bill, Obama etc were against gay marriage more than a decade ago and that's important for me to consider, but what Cruz said 5 years ago is not?

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Maxine Waters should have a Democratic led Congressional ethics hearing for her conduct.

---

Whoopty f***ing doo. You think the Dems and the left should be reigned it yet you still vote for the communist *******s.

---

Exactly whoopy ****ing doo. It's a choice between which left right ****ed up extremists are going to **** things up more. With Trump, it was his clown show that needed reigning in more. And from the looks of it after he's gone, still need reigning in.

---

Trump and the hard shift right by conservatives was a response to the left going completely ape **** in 2008 and onward. The left starts all this crap and then complains when the right tries to play by the same rules. At the end of the day, regardless of his crude personality, Trumps policies were working pretty well for Americans while Bidens have been pure s**t so far.

Malibu2 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

As for DeSantis, why offer up a deplatforming judicial loser? What's the broader strategy if not to fight a culture war?

---

---

---

And then....

Quote:

---

I'll say it, censorship of Trump post January 6th is absolutely ethically appropriate. He can't use force a private businesses to distribute conspiracy theory content that incites or approves of mobs raiding the Capitol. He can't destroy the will of the voters of some states on unproven crap lies. Yes, they can censor some voices that are damaging to our social trust in each other.

---

And then...

Quote:

---

How to deescalate and reverse tribalize our news is an important social order. We must all be able to trust certain sources to credibly and without bias report uncomfortable facts we all agree on. I do not know how to do sensible reform that doesn't have potential 1st amendment consequences. Maybe bring back the fairness doctrine? I don't know.

---

You are all over the map here.

1) The deplatforming bill is just a step back towards the fairness doctrine. When it comes to goals, they are in the same vein - equal access to disseminate information across the political spectrum.

2) Who is going to decide what the news that we can trust is, and the facts we can agree on? The Ministry of Truth? A Reality Czar? Is it unfathomable to you that some believe the sensationalizing of Jan 6th as some sort of armed coup is just as "damaging to our social trust in each other" as the actual act of trespass that occurred that day?

TXAGFAN said:

---

Short answer: If they receive government funding? Absolutely.

If they're pro life and want these kids brought into this world, they should allow any eligible candidates to adopt - even the gays.

---

Ok.

We will agree to disagree.

I'm all for the rights of homosexuals to adopt. I'm not sure that is the best thing for the kids, but that is my opinion. I think that government regulation to prevent that is stupid.

I'm also all for the rights of faith based organizations not to participate in that if it is against their ethos.

People should have the right to have their own opinion on homosexuality and family structure, and not have other people's views on it forced upon them.

1939 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

As for DeSantis, why offer up a deplatforming judicial loser? What's the broader strategy if not to fight a culture war?

---

Take a step back from who currently controls the media, and the messages that are being blatantly suppressed.

Is blatant censorship and the silencing of contrary ideas a legitimate, ethical tool in a culture war fought within a free society? Is that really a constructive way to go as a society?

---

Well, January 6th had a hell of a lot to do with a Conspiracy Theorist in Chief rallying a social media mob and live streaming how they are beautiful people as it was live-streaming. At some point in time you can't enable that person to have a megaphone to use lies to destroy social order so that they can stay in power.

I'll say it, censorship of Trump post January 6th is absolutely ethically appropriate. He can't use force a private businesses to distribute conspiracy theory content that incites or approves of mobs raiding the Capitol. He can't destroy the will of the voters of some states on unproven crap lies. Yes, they can censor some voices that are damaging to our social trust in each other.

---

Sounds like you're all for them banning the likes of most of the Democrat party, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO, HuffPo, Salon, Vox, etc? There's the last five years of non stop lies that streamed out of those propaganda outlets in an effort to cause political unrest.

---

This may surprise you, but potentially yes. But I would add to that list Fox, Newsmax, and OAN as right wing propaganda media as much as those voices are left wing propaganda.

How to deescalate and reverse tribalize our news is an important social order. We must all be able to trust certain sources to credibly and without bias report uncomfortable facts we all agree on. I do not know how to do sensible reform that doesn't have potential 1st amendment consequences. Maybe bring back the fairness doctrine? I don't know.

---

I agree with this, but disagree that Trump is somehow more dangerous and worthy of censorship than the degenerate Democrats whose rhetoric contributed to the last four years of Antifa/BLM violence/destruction. Playing up Jan 6th (as disgusting as it was) as somehow worse than the culmination of BLM/Antifa riots is just Democrat posturing and disgusting to say the least. The double standards are only creating a bigger political divide and have to stop!

---

Liberals and concerned moderates continually misconstrue "the big lie" as some kind of nutjob conspiracy theory that votes were changed or fake ballots were counted. That has never been the basis of voter integrity questions regarding the 2020 elections.

---

Umm...millions of Americans claim to believe just that.

The media effectively rigged the election via their biased coverage leading up to it, but it's absolutely true to say a large segment of the right genuinely believes the election was literally rigged via election night ballot/voting machine manipulation.

zoneag said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

SidsBurnerAccount said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

No. I am a single issue voter for the most part re democrats. As much as I hate their stance on issues like economy I can't vote against my own basic rights for republican party and certainly couldn't for trump.

We will see how democratic executive/legislature handles the economy the next few years, but as a high earner I'm ok with paying more taxes. Republicans continue to seem obsessed with genitals and won't be giving that up anytime soon so don't see my vote changing.

You do you though...

Sidenote, I don't think Biden whitehouse has screwed really anything up yet. Agree or disagree with the vaccine, that improved dramatically. The border issues were a mess before and I don't give him a pass, but time will tell there too. Next 6-12 months will be the real story.

---

You expect people not to mock this?

---

I honestly don't care.

You can hassle me all you want. I'm a pretty intelligent guy and done pretty well for myself, I'm no dummy. I recognize the flaws in my vote - can't say the same for a lot of people on either side of the aisle on that subject.

---

This is blatantly false, and you know better. Many, many of the most conservative posters on this board either refused to vote for Trump in 2016, or very reluctantly did so to prevent that old sea hag from winning. Even through his entire presidency many of us criticized his spending, and his penchant for not telling the truth about the silliest things.

---

And every single one was called a CM and therefore not a conservative. The Trumpers want the Republican tent to be small.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

1939 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

As for DeSantis, why offer up a deplatforming judicial loser? What's the broader strategy if not to fight a culture war?

---

Take a step back from who currently controls the media, and the messages that are being blatantly suppressed.

Is blatant censorship and the silencing of contrary ideas a legitimate, ethical tool in a culture war fought within a free society? Is that really a constructive way to go as a society?

---

Well, January 6th had a hell of a lot to do with a Conspiracy Theorist in Chief rallying a social media mob and live streaming how they are beautiful people as it was live-streaming. At some point in time you can't enable that person to have a megaphone to use lies to destroy social order so that they can stay in power.

I'll say it, censorship of Trump post January 6th is absolutely ethically appropriate. He can't use force a private businesses to distribute conspiracy theory content that incites or approves of mobs raiding the Capitol. He can't destroy the will of the voters of some states on unproven crap lies. Yes, they can censor some voices that are damaging to our social trust in each other.

---

Sounds like you're all for them banning the likes of most of the Democrat party, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO, HuffPo, Salon, Vox, etc? There's the last five years of non stop lies that streamed out of those propaganda outlets in an effort to cause political unrest.

---

This may surprise you, but potentially yes. But I would add to that list Fox, Newsmax, and OAN as right wing propaganda media as much as those voices are left wing propaganda.

How to deescalate and reverse tribalize our news is an important social order. We must all be able to trust certain sources to credibly and without bias report uncomfortable facts we all agree on. I do not know how to do sensible reform that doesn't have potential 1st amendment consequences. Maybe bring back the fairness doctrine? I don't know.

---

I agree with this, but disagree that Trump is somehow more dangerous and worthy of censorship than the degenerate Democrats whose rhetoric contributed to the last four years of Antifa/BLM violence/destruction. Playing up Jan 6th (as disgusting as it was) as somehow worse than the culmination of BLM/Antifa riots is just Democrat posturing and disgusting to say the least. The double standards are only creating a bigger political divide and have to stop!

---

Liberals and concerned moderates continually misconstrue "the big lie" as some kind of nutjob conspiracy theory that votes were changed or fake ballots were counted. That has never been the basis of voter integrity questions regarding the 2020 elections.

---

Umm...millions of Americans claim to believe just that.

The media effectively rigged the election via their biased coverage leading up to it, but it's absolutely true to say a large segment of the right genuinely believes the election was literally rigged via election night ballot/voting machine manipulation.

---

I certainly do.

I think it was likely a lot more low tech than what is being described. Probably just stuffing the ballot box. There is just too much smoke to ignore.

Between the unethical financial deals with Zuckerbucks, the abhorrent behavior of poll workers on election night, especially related to poll watchers, the many laws broken by poll workers in many districts related to signature matching, chain of custody, and legislated deadlines, the many lies about broken water pipes, sudden halt in counting, resuming counting in the middle of the night after poll watchers were gone, inability of poll workers to reconcile the number of ballots with the number of voters by precinct for an extended period of time, firing of election poll leadership after audits, weird jumps in votes that happened simultaneously across select districts during the middle of the night, and the amazingly disparate sizes of rally crowds between Trump and Biden, there is a lot there to be skeptical of.

The vehemence by the media that there is nothing to see here, and that it is all a hoax, does nothing but make me more suspicions, and for good reason

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

I did. For 5 rounds of IVF and an egg donor.

Let me know if you want to compare tax returns, bring that you've said here many times how rich and smart you are.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Sidenote, I don't think Biden whitehouse has screwed really anything up yet. Agree or disagree with the vaccine, that improved dramatically. The border issues were a mess before and I don't give him a pass, but time will tell there too. Next 6-12 months will be the real story.

---

I disagree. I think the damage is done, we just haven't felt it yet.

How are you hedged against the double digit inflation we are going to see in 2022 and 2023 thanks to printing all of the new money, and strangling our supply chains / labor markets with unnecessary unemployment benefits?

TXAGFAN said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

More than you think. Not the surrogacy avenue, but lots of people in my circle of friends have adopted. I can count 11 families that adopted infants or fostered until adoption.

Not that it takes $100,000k per child, but it's easily 4 years and $50k.

---

Good for you? That wasn't my point. Every gay couple I know went surrogacy route and going rate is around $150k last I checked with a friend. adoption is a minefield for us and there is a current case I believe before Supreme Court related to this very issue re: discrimination in adoption processes related to religous agencies that receive govt funding. Trump administration wrote a brief supporting that practice by the way, since many keep saying they did NOTHING to harm gay people.

Edit: A link to Foxnews since I know this isn't in your "Trump was a pro-gay president" talking points

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-proposes-hhs-rule-to-roll-back-lgbtq-protections-for-adoption-foster-care.amp

---

Well, the "science" says having two parents of the opposite sex is better than having two parents of the same sex. Gee, I wonder why? It's almost like that falls direction line with nature.

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

I did. For 5 rounds of IVF and an egg donor.

Let me know if you want to compare tax returns, bring that you've said here many times how rich and smart you are.

---

I mentioned it twice...once to support that I am fully aware my vote will cost me money and a second time in a bit of a br**** way about what kind of people should be voting for republicans economic policies. I do ok. Congrats on your financial success as well.

My reply was because of your insinuation gay people either cannot have kids OR maybe even more negatively they aren't real parents. That's on you. Hope your IVF kid(s) are straight given your attitude.

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

For God sakes dude, the Republican platform is not what you say. Please point out a single Republican politician in the last 4 years with any national power that has actively fought to overturn gay marriage or strip gays of any rights. What laws did the Republican controlled house and senate and Republican president sign into law? You tried and failed to say that this is a part of the party platform then got called out for it and said you were tired and thats why you got it wrong. The SCOTUS that had a conservative majority is the same court that decided on gay marriage.

You know damn good and well that gay marriage is here to stay, what you really are is dies in the wool liberal who would have never voted for a Republican no matter how much you claim to align with them on most issues and just like a good liberal you have an extreme hate in your heart for Trump that really can't be rationally explained other than muh feels.

---

And since I believe in facts...here is a link to Foxnews where they discuss the platform would not change:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-no-new-2020-platform-trump-agenda.amp

Even Fox News when covering the platform mentioned the language around gay marriage and conversion therapy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-new-and-updated-republican-party-platform.amp

The 2016 platform, which was part of the Trump election cycle, went FAR right on many of the issues people in this topic tell me are "over", "decided", "not at risk", etc. For how principled you all keep saying the party is, did I miss something about these issues? The answer is of course not, they are a reflection of the current party. They just haven't acted on them because they are losers, but if they can somehow get Trump or find a majority again they'll be front and center.

---

You obviously don't believe in facts because the facts are that Republicans are not trying to overturn gay marriage. period. Simply saying that the party opposes gay marriage in 2016 and Ted Cruz saying he disagreed with the 2015 court ruling does not equal the Republican party trying to take away gay marriage. You know that, but like a good liberal you won't lets facts get in the way of your feelings.

---

Why is it when republicans say something it doesn't count, but anything a democrat says becomes a bulletin board material for you re: why democrats are bad? Seriously, you don't see any issues with that point of view?

What's the timeline? For example, I always see the comments that Hillary and Bill, Obama etc were against gay marriage more than a decade ago and that's important for me to consider, but what Cruz said 5 years ago is not?

---

I'm against plenty of court decisions even if I agree with the policy their holding supports, and vice versa. But I'm an attorney and believe that the PROCESS of how we arrive at our laws (we're a common law nation meaning judges "make" law) is way more important than the outcome itself because that ensures our structural foundations stay in tact. If you like judges for the decisions they make rather than HOW the arrived at those decisions, you're out of your depth and clearly don't care about anything other than politics.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

I did. For 5 rounds of IVF and an egg donor.

Let me know if you want to compare tax returns, bring that you've said here many times how rich and smart you are.

---

I mentioned it twice...once to support that I am fully aware my vote will cost me money and a second time in a bit of a br**** way about what kind of people should be voting for republicans economic policies. I do ok. Congrats on your financial success as well.

My reply was because of your insinuation gay people either cannot have kids OR maybe even more negatively they aren't real parents. That's on you. Hope your IVF kid(s) are straight given your attitude.

---

Gay people can't have kids. That's a fact. Are you disputing that?

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

For God sakes dude, the Republican platform is not what you say. Please point out a single Republican politician in the last 4 years with any national power that has actively fought to overturn gay marriage or strip gays of any rights. What laws did the Republican controlled house and senate and Republican president sign into law? You tried and failed to say that this is a part of the party platform then got called out for it and said you were tired and thats why you got it wrong. The SCOTUS that had a conservative majority is the same court that decided on gay marriage.

You know damn good and well that gay marriage is here to stay, what you really are is dies in the wool liberal who would have never voted for a Republican no matter how much you claim to align with them on most issues and just like a good liberal you have an extreme hate in your heart for Trump that really can't be rationally explained other than muh feels.

---

And since I believe in facts...here is a link to Foxnews where they discuss the platform would not change:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-no-new-2020-platform-trump-agenda.amp

Even Fox News when covering the platform mentioned the language around gay marriage and conversion therapy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-new-and-updated-republican-party-platform.amp

The 2016 platform, which was part of the Trump election cycle, went FAR right on many of the issues people in this topic tell me are "over", "decided", "not at risk", etc. For how principled you all keep saying the party is, did I miss something about these issues? The answer is of course not, they are a reflection of the current party. They just haven't acted on them because they are losers, but if they can somehow get Trump or find a majority again they'll be front and center.

---

You obviously don't believe in facts because the facts are that Republicans are not trying to overturn gay marriage. period. Simply saying that the party opposes gay marriage in 2016 and Ted Cruz saying he disagreed with the 2015 court ruling does not equal the Republican party trying to take away gay marriage. You know that, but like a good liberal you won't lets facts get in the way of your feelings.

---

Why is it when republicans say something it doesn't count, but anything a democrat says becomes a bulletin board material for you re: why democrats are bad? Seriously, you don't see any issues with that point of view?

What's the timeline? For example, I always see the comments that Hillary and Bill, Obama etc were against gay marriage more than a decade ago and that's important for me to consider, but what Cruz said 5 years ago is not?

---

I'm against plenty of court decisions even if I agree with the policy their holding supports, and versa. But I'm an attorney and believe that the PROCESS of how we arrive at our laws (were a common law nation meaning judges "make" law) is way more important than the outcome itself because that ensures our structural foundations stay in tact. If you like judges for the decisions they make rather than HOW the arrived at those decisions, you're out of your depth and clearly don't care about anything other than politics.

---

So now the bar is we need to be constitutional scholars to have an opinion on this? I think the court righted a previous wrong, as they've done many times. While you and other lawyers may disagree with the decision, a majority of the Supreme Court didn't share your opinion. That's enough for me today to continue about my life, but not enough to feel comfortable my rights are so stable I should run back to a party that was most vocally against that decision in the years prior.

I'm baffled why my point of view is so hard for many of you to appreciate and that you'd trivialize what was a real gap in my rights - even if you disagree with it on religious views. It's not a boogie man point of view, it was very real, nor is it this weird Republican white Christian guy martyrdom about perceived loss of rights posted a few times here.

Anyways, I've said my peace and I think I'm done with this topic. I don't regret my vote and if anything topics like this strengthen my resolve about why I voted the way I did.

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

I did. For 5 rounds of IVF and an egg donor.

Let me know if you want to compare tax returns, bring that you've said here many times how rich and smart you are.

---

I mentioned it twice...once to support that I am fully aware my vote will cost me money and a second time in a bit of a br**** way about what kind of people should be voting for republicans economic policies. I do ok. Congrats on your financial success as well.

My reply was because of your insinuation gay people either cannot have kids OR maybe even more negatively they aren't real parents. That's on you. Hope your IVF kid(s) are straight given your attitude.

---

Gay people can't have kids. That's a fact. Are you disputing that?

---

My friends have had kids thru technology.

Both gay and straight.

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

I did. For 5 rounds of IVF and an egg donor.

Let me know if you want to compare tax returns, bring that you've said here many times how rich and smart you are.

---

I mentioned it twice...once to support that I am fully aware my vote will cost me money and a second time in a bit of a br**** way about what kind of people should be voting for republicans economic policies. I do ok. Congrats on your financial success as well.

My reply was because of your insinuation gay people either cannot have kids OR maybe even more negatively they aren't real parents. That's on you. Hope your IVF kid(s) are straight given your attitude.

---

Gay people can't have kids. That's a fact. Are you disputing that?

---

Weird point of view for someone who brought kids into the world using somewhat similar extreme methods and that some religions disagree with on principle. That being said, I'm happy for you if that brought you your kid(s) and wouldn't diminish the end result as you're trying to do with gay couples.

Now I'm done. Have a good one.

Cassius said:

---

Which rights are the conservatives taking away from you?

---

The "rights" of parents to kill and abuse their children.

Which is insane, and this isn't even a mischaracterization. They really want to be able to mutilate their children with impunity.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

This will blow your mind, lots of us have kids and are pretty good parents. I won't say gay people want kids more than straight people, but not many straight couples stroke a 6 figure check for surrogacy and medical procedures to make that dream a reality.

---

I did. For 5 rounds of IVF and an egg donor.

Let me know if you want to compare tax returns, bring that you've said here many times how rich and smart you are.

---

I mentioned it twice...once to support that I am fully aware my vote will cost me money and a second time in a bit of a br**** way about what kind of people should be voting for republicans economic policies. I do ok. Congrats on your financial success as well.

My reply was because of your insinuation gay people either cannot have kids OR maybe even more negatively they aren't real parents. That's on you. Hope your IVF kid(s) are straight given your attitude.

---

Gay people can't have kids. That's a fact. Are you disputing that?

---

Weird point of view for someone who brought kids into the world using somewhat similar extreme methods and that some religions disagree with on principle. That being said, I'm happy for you if that brought you your kid(s) and wouldn't diminish the end result as you're trying to do with gay couples.

Now I'm done. Have a good one.

---

You're upset because someone is pointing out correctly that you can't have kids naturally. It's impossible for you because it's unnatural. It's not impossible for me. I am not the issue. They're not equivalent at all. As I said before, your insecurities about your sexual preference is your problem, not mine. Very strange that you'd vote for things so destructive just so you can "side" with people who pretend to agree with your choices just to manipulate you into voting against your interests. Incredibly weak minded. Bizarre.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Tear Down This Wall said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

1939 said:

---

For God sakes dude, the Republican platform is not what you say. Please point out a single Republican politician in the last 4 years with any national power that has actively fought to overturn gay marriage or strip gays of any rights. What laws did the Republican controlled house and senate and Republican president sign into law? You tried and failed to say that this is a part of the party platform then got called out for it and said you were tired and thats why you got it wrong. The SCOTUS that had a conservative majority is the same court that decided on gay marriage.

You know damn good and well that gay marriage is here to stay, what you really are is dies in the wool liberal who would have never voted for a Republican no matter how much you claim to align with them on most issues and just like a good liberal you have an extreme hate in your heart for Trump that really can't be rationally explained other than muh feels.

---

And since I believe in facts...here is a link to Foxnews where they discuss the platform would not change:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-no-new-2020-platform-trump-agenda.amp

Even Fox News when covering the platform mentioned the language around gay marriage and conversion therapy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-new-and-updated-republican-party-platform.amp

The 2016 platform, which was part of the Trump election cycle, went FAR right on many of the issues people in this topic tell me are "over", "decided", "not at risk", etc. For how principled you all keep saying the party is, did I miss something about these issues? The answer is of course not, they are a reflection of the current party. They just haven't acted on them because they are losers, but if they can somehow get Trump or find a majority again they'll be front and center.

---

You obviously don't believe in facts because the facts are that Republicans are not trying to overturn gay marriage. period. Simply saying that the party opposes gay marriage in 2016 and Ted Cruz saying he disagreed with the 2015 court ruling does not equal the Republican party trying to take away gay marriage. You know that, but like a good liberal you won't lets facts get in the way of your feelings.

---

Why is it when republicans say something it doesn't count, but anything a democrat says becomes a bulletin board material for you re: why democrats are bad? Seriously, you don't see any issues with that point of view?

What's the timeline? For example, I always see the comments that Hillary and Bill, Obama etc were against gay marriage more than a decade ago and that's important for me to consider, but what Cruz said 5 years ago is not?

---

I'm against plenty of court decisions even if I agree with the policy their holding supports, and versa. But I'm an attorney and believe that the PROCESS of how we arrive at our laws (were a common law nation meaning judges "make" law) is way more important than the outcome itself because that ensures our structural foundations stay in tact. If you like judges for the decisions they make rather than HOW the arrived at those decisions, you're out of your depth and clearly don't care about anything other than politics.

---

So now the bar is we need to be constitutional scholars to have an opinion on this? I think the court righted a previous wrong, as they've done many times. While you and other lawyers may disagree with the decision, a majority of the Supreme Court didn't share your opinion. That's enough for me today to continue about my life, but not enough to feel comfortable my rights are so stable I should run back to a party that was most vocally against that decision in the years prior.

I'm baffled why my point of view is so hard for many of you to appreciate and that you'd trivialize what was a real gap in my rights - even if you disagree with it on religious views. It's not a boogie man point of view, it was very real, nor is it this weird Republican white Christian guy martyrdom about perceived loss of rights posted a few times here.

Anyways, I've said my peace and I think I'm done with this topic. I don't regret my vote and if anything topics like this strengthen my resolve about why I voted the way I did.

---

Me me me me me me my rights my rights my rights.

Good Lord you're a narcissist, dense individual. You completely ignore EVERYTHING ELSE that is WAY more important to your everyday life.

I never offered my opinion on the decision. The difference between you and me is that I can agree with the DECISION and still be against what the outcome is for other reasons OR VICE VERSA. I'm not an emotionally driven moron who only thinks about himself. The court deciding what they decided DOES NOT MEAN that ANY of the justices agree with gay marriage.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

My single issue is what is best for the USA?? Our republic???

---

Everyone votes in their own self interest unless they aren't smart enough to do so, which is in part how trump won with the uneducated vote.

---

Your precious single issue faces some adversity and you decry that. Then you call those who voted for Trump "uneducated". Have you figured out why your opinions are not taken seriously?

There were very real and very good reasons to vote for Trump in 16 & 20, stuff that transcends any ones single issue. You are free to support whatever you please, just as I - a Christian white male who believes the Biblical definition of marriage and one who voted for Trump as a F-You to that witch Clinton and then to the sack of dementia-riddled crap.

---

It is a fact that uneducated people, who are not representative of posters on a college sports board, voted in high numbers for trump. That comment wasn't about you, if you're offended I don't know what to tell you.

Rich guys who make six figures and have 7 figure balance sheets are who should be voting for republicans on economic issues, not poor folks. I should be voting for trump, I didn't and won't.

---

There are plenty of these "uneducated" people out there who vote one way or another. Those that voted for Trump had their reasons, whether it be that they just liked him more, or perhaps they could see the anti-American attitudes of those who were put into the White House (note that I did not say elected, as that is not at all what happened).

No, I am not offended. But given what you think you should be doing but didn't and won't, I am shaking my head at your obvious idiocy for not doing what you know you should. But hey, no more mean tweets, right? So what if we get a full dose of communism, so what if we as a nation now do everything per China's edicts - just as long as your precious single issue is not impacted. Never mind the fact that President Trump never did set up all those concentration camps for your community as many suggested would happen, nor even so much as said boo about your community. Oh, the SC justices ... you do realize that the people who are seated on that court regularly do not live up to whatever expectations are placed upon them? Look at that lily-livered Roberts - that sack of crap twisted himself in many unnatural ways to allow Obamacare to remain in place. You have no way to know how the new justices will rule on anything, but they are the boogeymen who haunt your nightmares.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

It's like we live in a two-party dominated system that incentives both parties to prey on our worst impulses in search of the prize of governance.

There were two choices in the last election. Culture war vulgarity Turd A
Sandwich v Giant ******. Political philosophy choices Liberal v Conservative. I'm more comfortable with broad government investment than most as more than worth the cost. I vote for liberal turd sandwhich. You vote for Orange ****** conservative.

By much of this board's standards Trump was intolerable and beyond the pail. Then they got drunk on owning the libs, mirroring his behavior became more common, the obvious lies tolerated or overlooked because at least he's mean to libs. And a clear shift in tone, aggression, and courtesy followed. Me being to the left had always been sort of put up

---

So you voted for a man that is at the very least every bit the equal liar of Trump (in reality a much bigger liar than Trump) who is now the leader of a party whose entire ideology and methodology is based exclusively on lies?

I'm sorry, but in no way does Joe Biden hold any kind of moral high ground over Trump. He's a corrupt degenerate piece of trash that belongs nowhere near the Whitehouse.

---

Biden, like Obama, lies about things that impact your life. Trump's "lies" were a fart in the wind, Biden's lies hit you in the pocketbook.

TXAGFAN said:

---

I didn't see a lot of Christian leaders championing Biden like Robert Jeffress at First Baptist in Dallas . Of course Biden had to keep up appearances, as all politicians do related to religion. What was bizarre about Trump and continues to baffle me was how many good people, old church ladies I grew up around, fully bought into the lunacy that he was a good Christian choice for presidency. It was nonsense.

---

His policies were good for evangelicals, even if the man is flawed.

Malibu2 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

As for DeSantis, why offer up a deplatforming judicial loser? What's the broader strategy if not to fight a culture war?

---

Take a step back from who currently controls the media, and the messages that are being blatantly suppressed.

Is blatant censorship and the silencing of contrary ideas a legitimate, ethical tool in a culture war fought within a free society? Is that really a constructive way to go as a society?

---

Well, January 6th had a hell of a lot to do with a Conspiracy Theorist in Chief rallying a social media mob and live streaming how they are beautiful people as they storm DC. At some point in time you can't enable that person to have a megaphone to use lies to destroy social order so that they can stay in power.

I'll say it, censorship of Trump post January 6th is absolutely ethically appropriate. He can't use force a private businesses to distribute conspiracy theory content that incites or approves of mobs raiding the Capitol. He can't destroy the will of the voters of some states on unproven crap lies. Yes, they can censor some voices that are damaging to our social trust in each other.

---

I am pretty sure most of the first paragraph has been proven false.

The "private businesses" in the 2nd paragraph use the internet, which is regulated by the federal government like television and radio. They receive Sec 230 protections as platforms, not editors. They don't censor the Chinese Communist Party or the mullahs of Iran.

The feds outsourcing their censorship to private companies they regulate will have to be addressed at some point.

BusterAg said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

LOL nm, this conversation just got too crazy. Congrats on your "getting more votes than Obama" and still losing.

---

I think it is incorrect to say that Trump "lost the moderates".

He just sent a lot of people that don't normally vote to the ballot box, and lost a very close and heavily contentious election. With record turnout on both sides, I see no evidence that your assertion that Trump "lost the moderates" is correct.

---

I guess we might eventually know whether there was mass fraud and ballot harvesting, but the mass mail-ouot ballots are largely responsible for the huge turnout. If there was no fraud, then ballots landed in people's mailbox, they bubbled Biden - and ONLY Biden in a lot of cases - and dropped it back in the mail. That doesn't take a lot of effort.

Then there's the prospect of cheating...

Read page 1 of this thread. Turned out exactly as expected. One person answered the OP and then a bunch of people piled on.