Missouri Bill Would Put Teachers On Sex Offender Registry For Affirming Trans Kids' Identities

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds like the same thing the nanny state democrats are doing.

Tell me what's so fascist here?

It's the Christian Nationalist ideology that has taken hold of the Republican party. It is fascist, it is theocratic, amd it's very much rights for me, not for thee. This isn't like you garbage, bs claim that there's no more cheap pizza in NY (a claim that was called out amd shown false by several members), this is actually wanting to strip people of rights and liberties. Abortion and queers are just the start. If they win we'll have public prayer in school again, the state will step in between healthcare providers and patients and if they win big they're planning on rewriting the Constitution to actually make America a Conservative Evangelical Christian nation (they've even had mock constitutional conventions).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Isn't Canada a capitalist country?

Did I not say that in my post ("we still have a capitalist economy")?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I not say that in my post ("we still have a capitalist economy")?

Yeah, but you are a socialist so we know that we can't trust you

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's the Christian Nationalist ideology that has taken hold of the Republican party. It is fascist, it is theocratic, amd it's very much rights for me, not for thee. This isn't like you garbage, bs claim that there's no more cheap pizza in NY (a claim that was called out amd shown false by several members), this is actually wanting to strip people of rights and liberties. Abortion and queers are just the start. If they win we'll have public prayer in school again, the state will step in between healthcare providers and patients and if they win big they're planning on rewriting the Constitution to actually make America a Conservative Evangelical Christian nation (they've even had mock constitutional conventions).

Well, let me know if something like that is actually established, or there's some Republican somewhere yelling, "Fascism wins"!

 

[Twilight Hue]

How many of the people on those lists are currently serving? Out of how many serving in total?

Because, you see, you gave me a list of 41 Members of Congress, for example, going back to 1847. Now, I would suppose that way more than 3,000 members in all that time. since at present there are 535 members, which means you are making big claims about a tiny percentage of people.

No not really , in light not one single Democrat is openly opposed to having registered socialists as accepted and embraced members in their own party.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The 12 Early Warning Signs of Fascism | Washington Monthly

Guess how many Trump has already checked off.

washingtonmonthly.com

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Except for #1, I'd say that mirrors the Democrats to a T.

I guess we are screwed both ways to Sunday.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, let me know if something like that is actually established, or there's some Republican somewhere yelling, "Fascism wins"!

Outside of Mussolini and edgelord teens you tend not to hear anything like "fascism wins" from fascists. It's usually a race, nation and religion.

 

[We Never Know]

Did I not say that in my post ("we still have a capitalist economy")?

Just clarifying that Canada is a capitalist country.

 

[Valjean]

Plenty evidence around already that Democrats are pathological socialists and marxists that embrace communist style rule over people.

What the heck is a pathological socialist? How are you even defining socialist, and what is communist style rule?

My point is that the the Republican Party/right wing/conservative party has a history of opposing most of the social, individual rights, and public protective legislation, and rolling it back whenever possible.

Do you consider "socialist" legislation like civil rights, women's suffrage, Social security, Medicare, Pure food and drug laws, wage and hour laws, Anti-media monopoly laws, univesal education, environmental regulations, college/university subsidies, vehicular safety laws, child labor laws, &c to be oppressive, "communist style" government oppression?

 

[Unfettered]

But you have alleged that Trump and Biden are equivalent, so it's not a non sequitur to expect your detailed comparison as evidence for your claim in my view.

No, we are not discussing Donald Trump. You made this statement:

"In my view Biden is there to protect the interests of the common people"

I'm asking you to substantiate that view using the law as the standard, specifically looking at what the law authorizes a president to do in combination with the oath the president takes upon himself. IE, what does the law and his oath detail he "is there" for?

If you are using a private definition of President Biden's mandate, that's fine; you just need to disclose the standard you're using.

 

[Valjean]

How many times do I have to post this stuff before it sinks in through the layers?

List of socialist members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Democratic Socialists of America public officeholders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stop pretending you know more than Americans who actually live in this country unlike you.

How is a Democratic Socialist, or even a standard socialist, harming or exploiting anyone? Do you not support family values? Are you anti-social?

Socialism believes in the social contract. Government's are associations of, by, and for The People. Their job is to help and protect the citizens, and promote individual freedom and prosperity.

Restrictinging trade/corporations from legislating restrictive, harmful or exploitative practices -- "free trade," is not government tyranny. It's prevention of corporate exploitation and harm. Government's primary job is to serve the public interest, not the bottom line of banks and corporations.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, but we also have socialized healthcare.

No, they have Single-Payer, not socialized healthcare.
Britain has (had?) socialized healthcare. The US Veterans Administration is also socialized healthcare.

 

[Valjean]

Well, let me know if something like that is actually established, or there's some Republican somewhere yelling, "Fascism wins"!

It's happened before, and it can happen again, even in sophisticated, "first world" countries like Germany, Italy and Spain.
It's happened in some middle East countries and Afghanistan, and India and some European countries are moving in that direction.

We who haven't forgotten history are seeing worrisome signs and symptoms here in the US.

 

[Valjean]

No not really , in light not one single Democrat is openly opposed to having registered socialists as accepted and embraced members in their own party.

So you want to suppress the free exercise of politics or religion, or restrict free speech and freedom of conscience, or institute religion-based laws? Now who's being anti-freedom, and tyrannical?

 

[Valjean]

Except for #1, I'd say that mirrors the Democrats to a T.

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism. -- Which side waves flags and shouts "USA! USA! USA!
2. Disdain for human rights -- Human rights and social protections have traditionally been supported by liberals or the left, and opposed by the conservative right.
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause -- Radical, socialist liberals! Invading, diseased murders and rapists! Welfare Queens! Commies! Anarchists!
4. Rampant sexism -- Who supported opposed women's suffrage, the Equal Rights Ammendment, and acceptance of women in government, business, law, the trades and the military? Who opposed these?
5. Controlled mass media -- who promoted media monopoly legislation or the Fairness Doctrine? Who undermined them?
6. Obsession with national security -- Who created the Police-surveillance state that Snowden and Assange revealed to the public? Who so strongly supports our military that they grant more budget support than the military itself requests?
7. Religion and government intertwined -- Who supports resuming prayer in public schools, funding religious schoolls, legislating conservative religious values? Who opposes these?
8. Corporate power protected -- Who promotes rolling back environmental regulations, workplace safety laws, wage and hour laws, child labor laws, anti-monopoly laws, banking laws, corporate tax rates, &al? Who instituted them?
9. Labor power suppressed -- Who opposes or undermines labor unions wage and hour laws, workplace safety regulations, Workman's Compensation, &c? Not the liberal left.
10. 
    
11. Disdain for intellectual and the arts -- Who reduced funding for PBS and NPR? Who cut requirements for network news broadcasting? Who usually opposes public funding for public art installations or theaters? Again, not the liberals.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment -- Which side opposes funding for prevention and rehabilitation programs? Which side promotes tough-on-crime legislation, war on drugs, increased penalties, and more prisons? Once more, not the liberals
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption -- Which side is more end justifies means, more corrupt and underhanded, and more quick to legislate self-serving regulations or laws?

 

[Unfettered]

Government's primary job is to serve the public interest

If I were rowing ashore to some new would-be home country and read that on the welcome sign, I'd turn around immediately and row away as fast as I could. I'm grateful to live in the US, where the sole job of government is to secure the unalienable rights of each human being within its boundaries. That the US government doesn't to its job perfectly is not cause to condemn the integrity of the foundation; rather it is cause for constant vigilance and continual struggle against other well-meaning, but inescapably destructive ideals. At least, though, the foundation is discernible, and not the wispy abstraction "serve the public interest," under which amorphous ideal countless lives have been snuffed out unjustly over the centuries.

 

[Valjean]

If I were rowing ashore to some new would-be home country and read that on the welcome sign, I'd turn around immediately and row away as fast as I could. I'm grateful to live in the US, where the sole job of government is to secure the unalienable rights of each human being within its boundaries. That the US government doesn't to its job perfectly is not cause to condemn the integrity of the foundation; rather it is cause for constant vigilance and continual struggle against other well-meaning, but inescapably destructive ideals. At least, though, the foundation is discernible, and not the wispy abstraction "serve the public interest," under which amorphous ideal countless lives have been snuffed out unjustly over the centuries.

Right's are fine, but you also need the means to exercise them, and a government supporting their exercise.
Would you have nothing opposing harmful pollution, adulterated foods, environmental damage, exploitation, crime, &al? Nothing building and maintaining infrastructure, or supporting health or education?

 

[Unfettered]

Right's are fine, but you also need the means to exercise them, and a government supporting their exercise.
Would you have nothing opposing harmful pollution, adulterated foods, environmental damage, exploitation, crime, &al? Nothing building and maintaining infrastructure, or supporting health or education?

Government may be leveraged by the people to do anything within the bounds of the authority granted it. But government may never infringe a human's rights—government is not granted that authority.

So all the items you mentioned may be provisioned on that basis and within those bounds. Whether or not they are...may be a different matter; each would require an independent audit.

The test, then, is simple, but solid, sound and predictable.

The "public interest" is simply a poor standard, because 1) it supplants a human's rights as the basis for defining government's purpose and 2) there is no clear metric for it. For that cause the "public interest" is often the basis for rights abuses—sometimes with good intentions, sometimes not.

 

[danieldemol]

No, we are not discussing Donald Trump.

Again, I won't call one out without calling out the others; they are all running naked through the halls of government, and far afield of what they ought to be doing with the authority they're loaned

In my view one moment you are pretending to call out both using a false equivalence you can't substantiate - flip.

The next moment you are only prepared to call out Biden - flop.

You made this statement:

"In my view Biden is there to protect the interests of the common people"

I'm asking you to substantiate that view using the law as the standard, specifically looking at what the law authorizes a president to do in combination with the oath the president takes upon himself. IE, what does the law and his oath detail he "is there" for?

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Source: Oath of Office

Now some questions for you.
1. Why do you think the US has a constitution if not to protect the common folk from tyranny?
2. How do you alledge that Biden is failing to carry out the constitution exactly (remember its your claim so you have to provide the evidence in my view).

 

[Guitar's Cry]

At least, though, the foundation is discernible, and not the wispy abstraction "serve the public interest," under which amorphous ideal countless lives have been snuffed out unjustly over the centuries.

How different is that from "promote the general welfare"?