There are no moderate democrats.

submitted by Canbot from (files.catbox.moe)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BISH 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Become a national but not a citizen, and they can't take your children. Period.

[–]Canbot[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Get an arsenal and a community willing to die beside you and they can't take your children. Short of that you're fucked.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Federal law in this area is necessary for the protection of children from medical abuse at the hands of trans apologists.

Short of that, the only effective solution is to leave the state entirely.

The world is larger than America and there are many places where such things aren't so widely tolerated. The current social and economic decline of the US doesn't seem to have any end in sight imho apart from the inevitable slide into authoritarianism which is hilariously something both the left and right agree on while finger pointing at each other.

Course there's another somewhat novel idea in that the red blue split very much benefits the ruling class. You have in the red states your so called "breeder class" who turn out kids and work manual labor. Then you have in the blue states the Eunuch class who manage the more managerial and paperwork affairs of the society for the kind of soul crushing corporate positions that require some degree of education yet can be steeped in enough double think and the lack of familial ties that they are easily manipulated towards the goals of the ruling class and won't be able to band together along common lines that could threaten the current position of such ruling class.

It's all talked about in Goldstein's book the Principals of Collective Olegarchism.

One thing Orwell got wrong though is the kind of drab and boring asthetics of the inner party. The boring samely blue jumpsuits and the like. It's much more effective to stick rainbows everywhere and promote outrageous fashion choices as they keep the Eunuch class far more preoccupied with themselves rather than their overall position in the machine.

[–]Ehhhhhh 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Federal law?!

What idiot would double down and ask govt to pass more laws to protect their rights at this point?

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Unless there is an overarching authority that outright says that it's not OK to take kids away from their parents to make them Eunuchs, then there will be lesser authorities that will do so. This is the unfortunate issue with power once we reach this point. The alternative is to cede the issue the other way at the federal level which will otherwise precludr the ability to move to a state that does not have such an unjustly evil law on their books, unless you wish to move to China or Saudia Arabia or some other country that doesn't buy into the woke mind virus, which might be a good option despite the disadvantages.

I think the government has a responsibility to protect the weak and the innocent and such an "overreach" is well within their purview. I would absolutely support a federal law that prohibited transitioning children against their parents wishes, this is not an issue where it's wise to leave the decision to the purview of state governments.

We cannot put the genie back into the bottle when it comes to overreach of government power and the wielding of authority at a level where it is inappropriate. The only way to correct such overreach is by using the power itself to stop it. It's a purely Darwinian concept. It may be for the greater good of all if everyone works together and shares power equally, but that is simply not how the universe works. The strong will dominate the weak whether the weak are principled or not. It is therefore better to wield power for good against evil rather than to forgo using power to make some kind of damn fool idealistic statement on how things are "supposed to be" right before you get trampled by "how things are".

The choice towards American society today is not one of Authoritarianism vs Small Government. That choice has already been made, the move towards authoritarianism is certain and the progression in that direction cannot be halted. The choice is whether the authoritarian state demands your children become eunuchs or rather the authoritarian state forbids it.

[–]Ehhhhhh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's idiotic.

Basically trying to say that because we can't limit the govt from taking our kids we might as well hand them our kids.

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

You are opposed to a federal law that says that children cannot be taken from their parents if the parents do not agree to a gender transition?

I fail to see why.

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

In current times, creating new laws is never the answer. They trigger people to "beg" for laws and then slip in what they really want.

Creating a law to allow federal govt to overrule states laws should be watched very close.

Our rights should already cover our children anyways and their new law should be overruled by Supreme Court without additional laws being passed.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think that is a pretty naive position. What would be the constitutional basis by which you would toss out this law?

I would agree that you need to be suspicious of anyone in the federal government. But I fail to see issue with a federal law that specifically says "No government agency may seek to remove children from their parents for the reason of the parents not accepting a child's gender identity which is not congruent with their biological sex" could be abused.

If you have any examples or ideas of why such a law would be a bad idea I am happy to discuss that.

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

Naive? And you're the one trusting that they have the capacity to write a simple, accurately targeted law?