Elections Judge blocks Trump's child transition ban

cincymma79 said:
I’m going to let you stew in it for a while and see if you can form a thought
Click to expand...
You're talking about baby wieners getting chopped off. When did this happen in the U.S.? Bring receipts or STFU with these lies.
 
BullyKutta said:
I think I can help answer this for you.

A depraved culture that's gone TOTALLY off the fucking rails is the only way mutilating a child can make any sense.

And it's not just America.

Western culture in general has flushed itself down the toilet the past 50 years. Whatever moral glue there once was in the West is gone. Europe and America were once the envy of the world, but when moral relativism sunk its fangs in, the clock started ticking. It's an internal rot that's going to do more damage than any foreign army could possibly achieve.

Parts of the West will survive. But not all of it.

Since we're on the topic, on a fight board, I'll use a fight analogy. An apt one, IMO.

Look at McGregor.
Now look at Khabib.

When you realize that both of those guys are products of their cultures, it's easier to understand why Khabib has been sailing through retirement while Conor has been doing an Irish Tony Montana impersonation. Degeneracy is celebrated in the West, while it's still looked upon as a vice in the East. Act like a shitty human being in the West and you attract followers. Do it in the East and you become a pariah.

And this is why my daughter's boss will probably have a Chinese surname in 30 years.
Click to expand...
Poor analogy. McGregor is just a dogs hit human but khabib is as well. He just hides behind his faith.
 
Rob Battisti said:
80-20 issue. Glad democrats don’t ever want to win again.
Click to expand...
I saw YT video where it talks about the dems making a stand on 80-20 issues.This is def one of them.

This is what happens when once useful idiots gain influence.
 
Scerpi said:
Haha... Cmon say it.

You support girls getting their breasts removed? Or injecting girls with testosterone and all the side effects that to with it? You know what those irreversible side effects are right? Those changes are PERMANENT

Or blocking boys from maturing and they never delopment as nature intended.

Please... just say it and you support what this judge did.

You really think that's the correct decision for someone suffering from mental health issues?

Dumbass... This is type of parent you choosing sides with


Weirdo
Click to expand...


It's ok.

No one here thought you'd be able to speak intelligently about the judges decision either.

I'm still open to any of you chuds actually discussing the law. But I don't expect any takers.
 
UberHere said:
Why would you even entertain that weirdo? If the law allows sex changes for minors (surgical or chemical) then it needs to be changed. Simple as
Click to expand...
I respectfully do not believe that the federal government should have the ability to override a medical choice made by a 17 year old, their parents, and their primary health care provider. Even if I believe that choice is wrong.
 
EndlessCritic said:
I respectfully do not believe that the federal government should have the ability to override a medical choice made by a 17 year old, their parents, and their primary health care provider. Even if I believe that choice is wrong.
Click to expand...
17 is a grey zone.
 
EndlessCritic said:
Not really. Most 17 year olds are able to understand and consent to medical procedures.

The problem of having lots of quacks giving bad advice is a separate issue, but not an easily solvable one by federal government fiat.
Click to expand...
Yeah most can but they’re still considered a minor in most states. If I was working as a hospitalist and a 17 year old was admitted on my service with a surgical disease, I’d have to consult pediatric surgeon.
 
Last edited:
UberHere said:
Why would you even entertain that weirdo?
Click to expand...

I'd gather it's because he's a lawyer and is basing his decision on the law, and not butthurt emotions.

All the judge is saying in this case was that the executive branch does not have the authority to order states to bar trans care. The decision wasn't made based on what he thinks of trans people or surgeries. It was whether or not this infringe's into states rights. And his argument is pretty sound. Just read the OP. This wasn't a difficult decision.

And to save you additional butthurt, allow me to preview my opinion on any further rulings: I'm gonna side with the Constitution. I'm not going to start ignoring it just because I agree with a particular case (and, for the record, I'm genuinely against trans surgeries/hormones for minors; not that any of you nerds took the time to puzzle that out by reading the multiple times I've said this).

And finally, if your goal is to appear above the fray, following me around and crying about a week old post that you don't even try to refute, well it's not working. Although I do get a smile knowing that simply stating federal law is enough to cause a meltdown amongst trump supporters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,264,819
Messages
57,306,025
Members
175,632
Latest member
zvornu

Share this page

Back
Top