Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

The correct answer is, "The feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the states."

---

Disagree strongly with the premise that the side of an arbitrary line that a child is born on should determine whether a parent can abuse them.

I understand this way of thinking can be blown up to any scale up to the size of the globe, but the question is specifically referring to the federal governments role in the US so I responded as such.

---

The federal government has no enumerated power to dictate parents' rights. If that's what you want, work with the other poster to draft and get a constitutional amendment passed to enumerate the power to the feds.

If a minor can't get a tattoo, why are even arguing about something much more invasive?

waitwhat? said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

The correct answer is, "The feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the states."

---

Disagree strongly with the premise that the side of an arbitrary line that a child is born on should determine whether a parent can abuse them.

I understand this way of thinking can be blown up to any scale up to the size of the globe, but the question is specifically referring to the federal governments role in the US so I responded as such.

---

The federal government has no enumerated power to dictate parents' rights. If that's what you want, work with the other poster to draft and get a constitutional amendment passed to enumerate the power to the feds.

---

Who gives a ***** I don't give a ***** If a state says that kids can chemically castrate themselves, nuke that place

The state's job is to protect it's citizens, especially from other citizens. Transing kids is absolutely a place the state should step in. When they are 18, nobody will care but, until then, they must be protected from their insane parents.

Parents want to put them in a dress? Fine. But you can't hack their genitals to bits.

She killed her campaign with that statement....unless of course she wants to run on the dem ticket.

Terminus Est said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

The correct answer is, "The feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the states."

---

Disagree strongly with the premise that the side of an arbitrary line that a child is born on should determine whether a parent can abuse them.

I understand this way of thinking can be blown up to any scale up to the size of the globe, but the question is specifically referring to the federal governments role in the US so I responded as such.

---

The federal government has no enumerated power to dictate parents' rights. If that's what you want, work with the other poster to draft and get a constitutional amendment passed to enumerate the power to the feds.

---

Who gives a ***** I don't give a ***** If a state says that kids can chemically castrate themselves, nuke that place

---

Okay, then you really aren't any better than the liberals that want to use the federal government to force parents to "affirm" their kids' chosen genders. Many liberals would love to have it be considered child abuse and a federal offense to refuse to call their biological son a "she".

The correct answer is: any government body charged with protecting the physical and mental welfare of constituents should mobilize police, judicial and executive resources to stop the abuse and hold abusers accountable.

Parents, teachers, doctors, tik tok influencers - all should be held criminally accountable for their role in supporting the abuse of children

waitwhat? said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

The correct answer is, "The feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the states."

---

Disagree strongly with the premise that the side of an arbitrary line that a child is born on should determine whether a parent can abuse them.

I understand this way of thinking can be blown up to any scale up to the size of the globe, but the question is specifically referring to the federal governments role in the US so I responded as such.

---

The federal government has no enumerated power to dictate parents' rights. If that's what you want, work with the other poster to draft and get a constitutional amendment passed to enumerate the power to the feds.

---

Who gives a ***** I don't give a ***** If a state says that kids can chemically castrate themselves, nuke that place

---

Okay, then you really aren't any better than the liberals that want to use the federal government to force parents to "affirm" their kids' chosen genders. Many liberals would love to have it be considered child abuse and a federal offense to refuse to call their biological son a "she".

---

Yeah dude I am, you're letting the idea of states rights green light the abuse of children. You live in a bizarro world where using the state to protect children is the same as using the state to harm children, because both involve the state.

Liberals don't need precedent for anything, they'll do whatever they have the power to do. We need to stop thinking "we better not do x because then the liberals might". They're going to do it anyway as soon as they're able. Beat them to the punch.

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I'm fairly libertarian with conservative principles, but Haley has way too soft and idiotic of a take on this issue.

There are a significant number of bad parents out there that are ok harming their children, often for social clout, and it is morally just to protect the children from both themselves and their parents when it comes to life altering decisions such as this.

And agreed above, it's a states issue and not a federal issue.

---

Yep, it's disgusting. Charlize Theron adopted two black boys and turned them trans.




But wait...not to be outdone, the ever-competitive Megan Fox decided she would turn ALL THREE of her boys into girls.




Special place in hell for these sick and twisted freaks.

---

10 years from now those kids are going to be so unrelentingly depressed and self hating and their "parents" are going to blame the world with absolutely zero self reflection.

Didn't you guys say on the other thread that it's okay if parents refuse to allow their kids to be treated for cancer despite a 90% cure rate with treatment and a 99% death rate without treatment?

You guys are okay with letting kids die as a parental choice (or put another way, you oppose the state intervening to save a kid's life in this case). But not okay with trans treatment.

Is that correct?

Cutting off a 12 year old's ***** must be a "Reagan conservative" value

Terminus Est said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

The correct answer is, "The feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the states."

---

Disagree strongly with the premise that the side of an arbitrary line that a child is born on should determine whether a parent can abuse them.

I understand this way of thinking can be blown up to any scale up to the size of the globe, but the question is specifically referring to the federal governments role in the US so I responded as such.

---

The federal government has no enumerated power to dictate parents' rights. If that's what you want, work with the other poster to draft and get a constitutional amendment passed to enumerate the power to the feds.

---

Who gives a ***** I don't give a ***** If a state says that kids can chemically castrate themselves, nuke that place

---

Okay, then you really aren't any better than the liberals that want to use the federal government to force parents to "affirm" their kids' chosen genders. Many liberals would love to have it be considered child abuse and a federal offense to refuse to call their biological son a "she".

---

Yeah dude I am, you're letting the idea of states rights green light the abuse of children. You live in a bizarro world where using the state to protect children is the same as using the state to harm children, because both involve the state.

Liberals don't need precedent for anything, they'll do whatever they have the power to do. We need to stop thinking "we better not do x because then the liberals might". They're going to do it anyway as soon as they're able. Beat them to the punch.

---

I think we can probably agree, whether we like it or not, that the constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to dictate when or if sex change for kids is allowed.

The question is if you want to say "screw it, I don't care if it isn't a function of the federal government, I want them to do it anyway" because you feel so strongly about the subject. If you do, then you really just support mob rule which can easily turn against you and your values.

If you care so deeply, then start an effort to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment prohibiting sex/gender surgery on minors. I would support and sign a petition for it, for the record.

But we know the damage that comes from ignoring the constitution when it gets in the way of your goals, since the liberals do it constantly, and deciding to do the same thing when it suits you isn't the answer.

Until a constitutional amendment is passed and ratified to prohibit it nationwide, it's a matter left to the states.

hph6203 said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I'm fairly libertarian with conservative principles, but Haley has way too soft and idiotic of a take on this issue.

There are a significant number of bad parents out there that are ok harming their children, often for social clout, and it is morally just to protect the children from both themselves and their parents when it comes to life altering decisions such as this.

And agreed above, it's a states issue and not a federal issue.

---

Yep, it's disgusting. Charlize Theron adopted two black boys and turned them trans.




But wait...not to be outdone, the ever-competitive Megan Fox decided she would turn ALL THREE of her boys into girls.




Special place in hell for these sick and twisted freaks.

---

10 years from now those kids are going to be so unrelentingly depressed and self hating and their "parents" are going to blame the world with absolutely zero self reflection.

---

God willing, the pendulum swings in the opposite direction for at least some of these children and they grow to see their parents as the evil enemy.

Let me give a short summary. Nikki Haley is excrement on the sidewalk of life.

TRM said:

---

She profits from this child abuse, too.

Fun Fact: @NikkiHaley owns stock in the manufacturer of Lupron, which is used to chemically castrate transgender kids. https://t.co/m9GnG02MbK

— DV (@DV2O24) December 5, 2023

---

Everyone on this thread owns Abbvie. It is a $255B healthcare company that is in every mutual fund.

You are showing your dumbs.

I don't want to like her and I don't.

It's easy not to.

Nikki is right, except that does not protect children from sick dumb ass liberal degenerate parents that evolved from the godless progressive culture bring pushed.

At beach saw a 10yo gypsy type with a huge 'family' tat on his chest. You cannot fix bad parent's decisions and maintain your rights to parent. These kids just go in the loss column of the 81MM* FJB parent types.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TRM said:

---

She profits from this child abuse, too.

Fun Fact: @NikkiHaley owns stock in the manufacturer of Lupron, which is used to chemically castrate transgender kids. https://t.co/m9GnG02MbK

— DV (@DV2O24) December 5, 2023

---

Everyone on this thread owns Abbvie. It is a $255B healthcare company that is in every mutual fund.

You are showing your dumbs.

---

This. XXX owns stock is one of the most silly gotchas.
Now if she's on the board of the company, or explicitly bought stock in the company, then its a different story. You pretty much "own stock" in most big companies if you invest in an index fund

waitwhat? said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

The correct answer is, "The feds should stay out of it and leave it up to the states."

---

Disagree strongly with the premise that the side of an arbitrary line that a child is born on should determine whether a parent can abuse them.

I understand this way of thinking can be blown up to any scale up to the size of the globe, but the question is specifically referring to the federal governments role in the US so I responded as such.

---

The federal government has no enumerated power to dictate parents' rights. If that's what you want, work with the other poster to draft and get a constitutional amendment passed to enumerate the power to the feds.

---

Who gives a ***** I don't give a ***** If a state says that kids can chemically castrate themselves, nuke that place

---

Okay, then you really aren't any better than the liberals that want to use the federal government to force parents to "affirm" their kids' chosen genders. Many liberals would love to have it be considered child abuse and a federal offense to refuse to call their biological son a "she".

---

Yeah dude I am, you're letting the idea of states rights green light the abuse of children. You live in a bizarro world where using the state to protect children is the same as using the state to harm children, because both involve the state.

Liberals don't need precedent for anything, they'll do whatever they have the power to do. We need to stop thinking "we better not do x because then the liberals might". They're going to do it anyway as soon as they're able. Beat them to the punch.

---

I think we can probably agree, whether we like it or not, that the constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to dictate when or if sex change for kids is allowed.

The question is if you want to say "screw it, I don't care if it isn't a function of the federal government, I want them to do it anyway" because you feel so strongly about the subject. If you do, then you really just support mob rule which can easily turn against you and your values.

If you care so deeply, then start an effort to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment prohibiting sex/gender surgery on minors. I would support and sign a petition for it, for the record.

But we know the damage that comes from ignoring the constitution when it gets in the way of your goals, since the liberals do it constantly, and deciding to do the same thing when it suits you isn't the answer.

Until a constitutional amendment is passed and ratified to prohibit it nationwide, it's a matter left to the states.

---

Wise words. Some other thoughts:

1. There will always be casualties of our ideological war. That is unavoidable in our system. See abortion. We have to accept the short-term casualties with the hope that in the long term our ideas prevail.

2. The best thing we can do is implement our conservative, federalist values and let others come to the conclusion they are best based on results. That will continue to happen as the state and city bastions of liberalism continue to decay to the point of unsustainability.

On the other hand, we will never persuade our fellow citizens that our positions are correct by using the force of government to implement our policies. That will only foster resentment and provide excuses for why their dumbass policies didn't work--i.e., it would have worked had you conservatives not stopped it. Of course, that requires that the liberal bastions suffer the consequences of their decisions. See federalism.

3. Regarding constitutional amendments, of course the liberals screwed that up too. When they realized they couldn't persuade their fellow citizens of their dumbass positions, they ran to the courts because it was easier to convince 5 unelected people in black robes. Now the public views the judicial activism as normal, which somewhat relieves liberals of the burden of having to convince the rest of the population that they have good ideas.

We have the perfect system of government, if we would let it work the way it was intended.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TRM said:

---

She profits from this child abuse, too.

Fun Fact: @NikkiHaley owns stock in the manufacturer of Lupron, which is used to chemically castrate transgender kids. https://t.co/m9GnG02MbK

— DV (@DV2O24) December 5, 2023

---

Everyone on this thread owns Abbvie. It is a $255B healthcare company that is in every mutual fund.

You are showing your dumbs.

---

Negative ghost rider, some of us don't own mutual funds because we've taken control of our investments. I own stocks and easily outperform all mutual funds yearly. You know what they say about people that assume.

She's the Mitt Romney of this election. The choice of Paul Ryan and the Bushes. No way.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Nikki Haley was just asked on CBS what should be done if a 12 year old decides they want a sex change and she said the law should stay out of it to let parents handle it. This is 1000% disqualifying. The law must intervene when a parent abuses their child. pic.twitter.com/Pn9qL7PnOA

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) December 5, 2023

SIAP

She has way too many of these Dem-like moments for me to be comfortable voting for her in the primary.

---

From a Conservative point of view, she does have a point.

The parents must be responsible for their children, not the state.

Or does it "Take a Village" to raise your kids?

What the government (both state and federal) should do is refuse to provide any money or benefits for doing this. If the parents are this stupid, make them pay for it entirely out of their own pockets. And allow the children to sue the parents, the doctors, and the hospitals for full damages when they turn 21.

That said, it would be fine with me if the state outlawed all forms of trans medical procedures for anyone under 21 unless medically necessary for a very limited number of conditions.

ProgN said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TRM said:

---

She profits from this child abuse, too.

Fun Fact: @NikkiHaley owns stock in the manufacturer of Lupron, which is used to chemically castrate transgender kids. https://t.co/m9GnG02MbK

— DV (@DV2O24) December 5, 2023

---

Everyone on this thread owns Abbvie. It is a $255B healthcare company that is in every mutual fund.

You are showing your dumbs.

---

Negative ghost rider, some of us don't own mutual funds because we've taken control of our investments. I own stocks and easily outperform all mutual funds yearly. You know what they say about people that assume.

---

As have I. But that isn't the case for 99% of people, especially in your 401k where you typically only have fund options. If you own a stock mutual fund or index fund, you likely own Abbvie.

I don't own any mutual or index funds. I work for a finance company, so I don't need it. Haley also actually owns Abbvie stock not a percentage from a mutual fund. Look up her disclosures.

TRM said:

---

I don't own any mutual or index funds. I work for a finance company, so I don't need it. Haley also actually owns Abbvie stock not a percentage from a mutual fund. Look up her disclosures.

---

Your 401k allows you to do individual stocks? Her disclosures says she owns $1,000-$5,000. For a multi millionaire, that is a crazy small percentage of the portfolio.

Not to mention Lupron is used in cancer treatments and is generic now. Just take the L. You screwed up.

I'm sorry for having principles, but you do you.

I'm with the OP

she is a good candidate but has so many apocryphal policy positions (making it illegal to have anonymous posts on the internet?!)

TRM said:

---

I'm sorry for having principles, but you do you.

---

Again, your 401k allows investing in individual stocks?

Quote:

---

I don't own any mutual or index funds. I work for a finance company, so I don't need it.

---

I don't even know what this means.

I don't want to derail more PM me.

Reid Hoffman is backing Haley?

samurai_science said:

---

Reid Hoffman is backing Haley?

---

Gave her PAC a quarter of a mil.

aggiehawg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Reid Hoffman is backing Haley?

---

Gave her PAC a quarter of a mil.

---

That must sting for her fans