Every Debate should begin with these questions to Progressive Candidates:

[The2ndAmendment]

Do you think it's appropriate for transgender men, or men who claim to be females, to use the little girl's room?

Do you think it's ok to hack apart the limbs of 5 to 9 month old fetuses?

Do you think further restriction of firearms should be implemented on private American citizens?

Do you believe that rape accusations by women should be believed until proven false, such that the man accused is to immediately suffer the penalties and consequences until or unless he is proven innocent?

 

[theHawk]

Do you believe in free speech?

Regressives don’t. They believe the government should be able to punish people who hurt their feelings. It’s already started in Canada and Europe. If the regressive left get power here, they will do the same. That is how all dictatorships begin. It’s starts and ends with freedom of speech. Without that, the rest doesn’t even matter.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Do you believe in free speech?

Regressives don’t. They believe the government should be able to punish people who hurt their feelings. It’s already started in Canada and Europe. If the regressive left get power here, they will do the same. That is how all dictatorships begin. It’s starts and ends with freedom of speech. Without that, the rest doesn’t even matter.

That too.

Do you think censorship of non-leftist sources should be celebrated?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

USMB liberals trying to shadow kill the thread by not responding.

Proves it's a good list.

Each time someone posted in this so far, progressives quickly bumped every other thread in General Discussion to get it off the front page asap.

 

[Dragonlady]

Do you think it's appropriate for transgender men, or men who claim to be females, to use the little girl's room?

Do you think it's ok to hack apart the limbs of 5 to 9 month old fetuses?

Do you think further restriction of firearms should be implemented on private American citizens?

Do you believe that rape accusations by women should be believed until proven false, such that the man accused is to immediately suffer the penalties and consequences until or unless he is proven innocent?

None of these questions are relevant to the issues facing voters:

1. Healthcare and protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

2. The failure of Trump’s economic policies to address the issues of stagnant wages, and loss of buying power of current wages due to higher interest rates, higher fuel costs and tariffs on imports.

3. The impact on jobs and prices due to Trump’s trade war.

4. The opioid crisis.

 

[satrebil]

Do you believe in free speech?

Regressives don’t. They believe the government should be able to punish people who hurt their feelings. It’s already started in Canada and Europe. If the regressive left get power here, they will do the same. That is how all dictatorships begin. It’s starts and ends with freedom of speech. Without that, the rest doesn’t even matter.

Canada and Europe are disarmed pussies. The left would never be able to implement these draconian policies so long as the 2nd Amendment stands - and that's why they're trying their damndest to strip it away. If some gestapo ever showed up at MY door with intent to arrest me over something I said that was deemed "offensive" one of us would be leaving in body bags. And that scenario would repeat millions of times over.

 

[Wyatt earp]

These are the most important questions to ask


1 why do you support a rapist as Mueller for special prosecutor?

2. Will Beto get caught drunk driving again?

3. Why are democrat women in office so damn fugly?

.

 

[Norman]

Fuck this, I believe in free shit.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Do you think it's appropriate for transgender men, or men who claim to be females, to use the little girl's room?

Do you think it's ok to hack apart the limbs of 5 to 9 month old fetuses?

Do you think further restriction of firearms should be implemented on private American citizens?

Do you believe that rape accusations by women should be believed until proven false, such that the man accused is to immediately suffer the penalties and consequences until or unless he is proven innocent?

None of these questions are relevant to the issues facing voters:

1. Healthcare and protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

2. The failure of Trump’s economic policies to address the issues of stagnant wages, and loss of buying power of current wages due to higher interest rates, higher fuel costs and tariffs on imports.

3. The impact on jobs and prices due to Trump’s trade war.

4. The opioid crisis.

This is why you lost in 2016.

Common folk see progressives espousing and worshipping men who claim to women and use the little girl's room.

This then causes them (rightfully) to doubt every else that progressives say is a good or positive change/way forward.

Why would someone take you serious on universal healthcare (or any subject), if you think men should use the little girl's room? Even if you're right about universal healthcare...the common folk already tuned you out, because you're obviously batshit crazy for the LGBTQXXX garbage.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

lol progressive forum sliding against this thread is hilarious

Disinformation Part 1: How Trolls Control an Internet Forum - WhoWhatWhy

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum, it can be quickly removed from public view by “forum sliding.” This maneuver brings unrelated postings to the top of the forum, and the critical posting “slides” down the front page — out of public view. [Ed.: By“sensitive posting of a critical nature”, the author refers to comments that include facts that interfere with the false narrative being promoted.]

In this technique a number of harmless posts are quietly pre-positioned on the forum and allowed to “age.” This is done in anticipation of troublesome postings. Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon to trigger a “forum slide.”

Several fake accounts should be ready when called upon. To trigger a “forum slide” and “flush” the critical post out of public view, it is simply a matter of logging into each account, both real and fake, and then ”replying” to pre-positioned postings with a simple one- or two-line comment.

Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the unwanted posting, it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and useless postings. This effectively focuses the attention of forum readers on non-issue items.

The amount of progressive one liner bumps in other threads in the past 5 mintues is very telling

 

[well named]

I'm not a progressive candidate but I'll take a stab at it, for the sake of conversation.

Do you think it's appropriate for transgender men, or men who claim to be females, to use the little girl's room?

It seems like you're loading the question a little bit by using the phrase "little girl's room." Do you just mean any women's restroom, or one specifically for children or in a context where the primary users are children? The distinction might incline us to different answers.

In any case, it makes sense to me to that different rules might make sense in different contexts. I think it's an issue where there's good reasons to allow local jurisdictions to make their own decisions, as locally as possible, rather than passing even state-wide rules, precisely because it's an issue involving changing and contested community norms. I think it's understandable that traditional norms around gender make people uncomfortable with the idea, and that matters. I don't think being uncomfortable with the idea makes someone a bad person, and I don't think it's reasonable (or even possible) to overrule those social norms by government fiat.

But I also think that making society more welcoming and inclusive of transgender people is a noble goal, and I don't find these arguments about sexual predators to be at all compelling. It's already illegal for a person of any gender to assault someone, whether in the men's or women's restroom, or elsewhere. It's not particularly difficult in practice to distinguish between people acting like normal human beings using the bathroom and sexual predators. There's no good reason to suspect that a facility that encouraged transgender bathroom use is more dangerous than any other restroom. We shouldn't accept prejudicial arguments with no real basis in fact.

Nevertheless, given the tension between those two considerations (respect for traditional norms; valuing inclusivity), I've always thought a reasonable compromise on this particular issue would just be for more locations to have some facilities available which are unisex, which would allow transgender people to use that restroom and others to feel more comfortable.

Do you think it's ok to hack apart the limbs of 5 to 9 month old fetuses?

I'm comfortable with the compromise in Roe v. Wade which recognizes the legitimacy of restrictions on late-term abortions, which are already illegal in most states and consequently also much rarer than early abortions. I do believe it's important to preserve exceptions to restrictions on late-term abortion in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy. I also think there is some evidence to suggest that the best ways to reduce abortions in general, and especially some late-term abortion, is by making sex education and contraception more widely and freely available, and to generally support programs which help people make their own decisions in a more informed way.

Do you think further restriction of firearms should be implemented on private American citizens?

Yes. Ultimately I think we ought to repeal the 2nd amendment and put much stronger restrictions on gun ownership. I think the available data on the costs of having 300+ million guns show that those costs far outweigh any benefit we get from them. I'm not particularly sympathetic to arguments that reduce to "but I really think guns are cool" (although they are), nor to the "defense against tyranny" argument (you're not winning a fire fight with the military), nor to the argument from self defense (provided we drastically reduce the numbers of guns). Nor do I believe in a "natural right" to gun ownership.

In the mean-time, we should at least pursue common-sense gun control measures which do not violate the constitution. I think any sane person looking at the volume of mass shootings and gun violence in this country should support at least some regulatory changes, like closing the gun show loophole.

Do you believe that rape accusations by women should be believed until proven false, such that the man accused is to immediately suffer the penalties and consequences until or unless he is proven innocent?

It seems to me that this question involves taking a slogan ("#BelieveWomen") too literally. I don't think anyone who uses that slogan to express support for #metoo literally means that everyone accused of sexual violence ought to be found criminally guilty without a trial. The slogan is a commentary on cultural biases faced by victims, not a demand to change the legal process. Criminal cases are not the only context in which this discussion is taking place; it's also about workplace harassment, street harassment, and so on.

In a criminal context the presumption of innocence is extremely important and shouldn't be weakened. In other contexts other standards may be appropriate, depending on the consequences being considered. Standards of evidence necessary to fire someone after a sexual harassment claim should still be pretty high, but not "proof beyond any reasonable doubt". The same is true for college administrations dealing with Title IX complaints, although I think there are reasonable arguments that placing a quasi-legal burden on universities isn't a good solution. Standards necessary to pass on a Supreme Court justice nomination should be weaker still, because of the nature of the position.

Ultimately, what #BelieveWomen means is that we should take sexual violence seriously. It doesn't mean we should abandon common sense. We should, however, try to figure out how to make the systems we have work better, given the nature of the problem, where there are often no witnesses and victims face extra trauma by pursuing justice. That's why rape is so under-reported. Taking those problems seriously doesn't mean abandoning bedrock criminal justice principles like the presumption of innocence, but it does mean being critical of the way we handle allegations.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[/quote]
nor to the "defense against tyranny" argument (you're not winning a fire fight with the military), nor to the argument from self defense (provided we drastically reduce the numbers of guns). Nor do I believe in a "natural right" to gun ownership.

[/quote]

It's bear arms, not guns. In our m current era, guns are the arms of infantry.

Infantry wins wars.

And yes, even the US military can be overcome with small firearms. Look at Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afganis. They aren't even using the latest and great guns either.

Are these countries winning the wars? No.
Are we winning those wars instead? No.

If such a stalemate occurred on our own soil, our tyranny (government) would collapse.