all 26 comments

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

The response from the Supreme Court nominee was the best possible response. She was given a trick question that was meant to start an argument about what a woman is. This is unrelated to M. Trump's comments, which reflect many of our concerns. The GOP is no longer 'conservative'. They've become radical and rabid over the past 40 years.

[–]jamesK_3rd 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's right.

The GOP is now where Democrats were when JFK was president.

Democrats, are generally communists or Marxists looking to remake the country.

Conservatives, or Lincoln Republicans who brought freedom to slaves and liberty to the people, are generally homeless. They can vote occasionally with the GOP, but they should be diametrically opposed to anything from Democrats, just as a policy.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are kidding, I hope.

This is the opposite of what's happening. The GOP are radicalized, for the past 40 years. They're NOTHING like the Ike Conservatives. 90% of Dems are far more centrist today than they've ever been.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They used to be liberals and now they are authoritarian.

They used to believe in equal opportunities, now they believe everyone should be judged on their characteristics and background.

I guess you could call that a move towards the centre.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems this is a concern about Boomers. Yes, many who were liberal in the 1960s became GOP in the 1980s, because of difficulties in the late 1970s. 'Conservative' approaches failed in 1987-1992, and 2001-present in the US and UK. The GOP have radicalized their party in the past 40 years, whereas only a far right portion (eg. UKIP &c) of the Tories have radicalised part of their party in the UK.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Woman (n.): adult human female

See how easy that was? Supposedly it was a "trick question"? In what way?

And seriously, allowing your Trump Derangement Syndrome to spill out into public like that? It's embarrassing.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Your Trump comment is idiotic.

Your definition of a woman too narrow. She was asked for a LEGAL answer, which is more than you've suggested here. Read:

[–]DirewolfGhost 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Too narrow for what? Biology? You're anti-science and anti-logic and everyhuman knows that, bot. Work on your algorithms.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems that went way over your head. Hence I must be a bot. Read the Slate article.

[–]Chipit[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Woman (n.): adult human female.

See how easy that was?

You brought up Trump out of nowhere so you could bash him. That's textbook TDS.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It's not a trick question.

That's not what a trick question is.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It was obviously a trick question. It was also a leading question and it was a highly politicised question. ANY answer that question can be heavily criticised. The LEGAL definition is not a simple 'human female' answer, which she knew very well.


[–]one1won 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So, a man and another man (who is called a “woman”) wrote to the Collins English Dictionary. Uh huh. And language influences society. Yea.

Are you claiming that because an extremely well funded faux civil rights movement, strategized over decades by billionaires, has colonized academia, media, government, public education (by stealth), NGOs, etc, that material reality no longer exists? Legally? Wow. Wealth really is power.
Terasem: the idealized new world, (soon to be?) mandated, religion.

Read their own words!

Books including:

“ The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Gender”

“ Your Life or Mine: How Geoethics Can Resolve the Conflict Between Public and Private Interests in Xenotransplantation.”

“From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form”

Denial of material reality. Genius, but nuts.

[–]Check_Check 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

A supreme court justice should know what a woman is. I wouldn't expect someone on the radical and rabid far-left to understand.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The legal answer is not simple

[–]one1won 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It was both simple and clear in the early 1970’s when legal decisions and legislation were made to address women’s rights and access in US. Sex meant sex; woman meant adult female human. Material reality.

Why is “the legal answer” “not simple” now? FeELinGs? $$$$$$$$$$$? Men’s sexual deviancies and women’s fear? ‘Cause you say so?

What is a man? What is transgender?(measurable and verifiable criteria please, personal testimony and beliefs point to a religious movement)

If we’re all “just people” then we’re on the Animal Farm, where some are more equal than others (due to the material reality of our physical bodies - influenced by reproductive function). Erasing the humanity of half the population.

The Dem party may well have broken it’s backbone fellating itself in exuberance over trans issues, losing numerous of the politically active (grunt workers) and voting backbone of the party, Dem women. More women are calling out abortion as the carrot on a string that Dems have been dangling for decades. Always shoving women to the back of the line in prioritizing issues will cost. BIG TIME.

Read the country. The other assholes are gonna sweep the elections. Left leaning Women have worked successfully with conservatives in past, and may yet again. At least the Repubs aren’t (yet) referring to women only as (bleeders, frontholes, bodies with - cervixes, vaginas, uteruses, etc.), whilst men remain men in name. Suck yourselves harder, Dems, hopefully it’ll be your last public fetishistic hoorah.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is a shit ton of red flags and suspicious details about this. I don't think anyone can prove what is actually going on, but it is definitely not what it seems.

I suspect that there are several motivations for this. Obviously none of which have anything to do with abortion because that would have come out sooner. One obvious motivation is to use fear to manipulate leftists into voting for democrats once again despite that leading the worst government in American history.

Another is to hide the news of Pfizer's forced document dump, which apparently shows the efficacy of the jab is a dismal 12%, and will likely show proof of harm.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Literally half of the articles are blaming people for not voting for Hillary when no one was talking about her at all last week.

[–]sproketboy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only reason this topic has come up is that Democrats are desperate for a win. They play on women's emotions to vote for these fucks. RvW was a bad decision and it would have no effect on anything if it were overturned.

[–]RustyFoster 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A transgender man cannot have an abortion because abortions are only for women. Read the law again. It does not apply to transgender men.

[–]ShalomEveryone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Reads like Mary Trump was listening to 2Pac's "Hit Em Up" when she wrote her tweet.



[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Just a reminder that the ShalomEveryone account wishes that underage white girls should be raped and impregnated by immigrants. That's what horrible, sick people these Jews really are.

[–]ShalomEveryone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Just a reminder that the ShalomEveryone account wishes that underage white girls

Liar, I never said that, you have a habit of intentionally twisting my words to make some obvious false narrative you want to spread.

Just a reminder to saiditers, this is not the first time he told that lie.



[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

LOL ShalomEveryone definitely said he wanted to see underage white girls raped by immigrants, on a photo I posted of 30 year old men attending a high school in Europe.

[–]ShalomEveryone 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Link the post where I specifically used the word "want" or "wish" or derivative of the word wish in regards to high school girls getting pregnant. In your first reply you said, "ShalomEveryone account wishes that underage white girls" You wont find the word wish or wishes in my reply. You also wont find the word "wanted" or "want" like you said above, now claiming I "wanted" to see them get pregnant when previously I "wished" they were to get pregnant. The least you can do is to please keep your lie straight.



[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The wish for immigrants to rape underage white girls was quite real. It's very common among hateful Jews to want to see whites ruined.