The new faces of the neo-fascist & racist Democratic Party!

[jp55665566]

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.cBIlXMkJXrAbBVPKqtehDQHaD4&pid=Api&P=0&w=319&h=168
"Sieg Heil"

 

[JKendallDane]

JKendallDane writes:

"What I would prefer is a GOP that embodies the ideals and methods of governing that made it the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower."

WHO in their right mind would embrace the party of George McGovern (who won only one-state), Walter Mondale (who won only one-state), Bill Clinton (who lied under oath about sexually harrassing women), or Barack "Rainbow Lights" Obama? - I mean, seriously?

Interesting, Dump, that you not only went into full deflect mode there, but also totally ignored commenting on the list of Repubs that I have either voted for in the past or seriously considered voting for as President.

I suspect your lack of comments there has a lot to do with Ford, Dole, Kemp, McCain (and a few others I could add to the list like John Kasich and Steve Forbes) never ran campaigns that were centered around boarding up Planned Parenthood, shoving the LGBT community back into the closet, and blowing the GOP dog whistle every chance they could. We are all aware of what your most important hot-button-issues are, and all those people are far too moderate for you to acknowledge them in any kind of a favorable light.

"Get real, Dump. Buchanan's speech was being compared to Mein Kampf within minutes of him finally slithering off the stage...by both Dems AND Repubs alike."

If you truly believe that Pat Buchanan is anything like Hitler then you know absolutely NOTHING about the real Adolf Hitler!

"Your deflections into how YOU want to paint everyone to the left of you are duly noted...and rejected."

I'm serious, Jay-Kendall - you display a clear IGNORANCE of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party when you compare him with Republican presidential candidates! A much more REALISTIC comparison you could make would be to compare a Planned Parenthood clinic with Auschwitz.

Much like Pat Buchanan's 1992 convention spectacle, I'm sure that little rant of yours sounds better in the original German.

.

 

[JKendallDane]

YDB95 writes: "Study after study has shown in a two-way race, Clinton still would have won."

In 1988, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate (Michael Dukakis) won 45.65% of the popular vote against George H.W. Bush and lost badly. Four years later, in 1992, the Democrat candidate (Bill Clinton) won only 43.01% of the popular vote, but he STILL won the presidency. HOW is this possible? Because in '92, 3rd-party candidate Ross Perot won 18.91% of the vote, most of it from Bush!

"Okay, this is genuinely enlightening. It's all about winning for you, isn't it, Dump? Don't know why I didn't see it before."

This isn't about me, YDB95 - it's about JKendallDane - he dislikes those Republicans won WIN presidential elections.

I'm guessing I can just add this one to the "Dump's inventing his own reality again" stack.

Only in YOUR world, Dump, could an "evil lib" praise more than a half dozen prominent Republicans and have you turn that into a negative. Do you ever bother to think these kind of things through before you hit the "submit post" key?

.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Perot voters were about evenly split between Clinton, Bush and neither for their second choice."

Baloney! Ross Perot prevented a second Bush term. In '92 Bill Clinton couldn't even reach the same low percentage won by Michael Dukakis in '88!

"The scary thing is, I believe you really believe it's that simple. I must have been reading your nonsense for too long."

JKendallDane dislikes those Republican presidential candidates who defeat Democrats - it's just that simple! And it's also why he hates President Trump!

"I'm still waiting for you to provide cites on anyone comparing them with Nazi concentration camps..."

When some deranged Trump-hater in the U.S. House of Representatives uses inflammatory words like "concentration camps," they're NOT trying to bring-up comparisons with camps run by the British in South Africa during the Boer War! But yes, as you actually support deranged Trump-haters in congress I can see where you might prefer thinking that that's ALL that they're trying to do!

JKendallDane writes: "Interesting, Dump, that you not only went into full deflect mode there, but also totally ignored commenting on the list of Repubs that I have either voted for in the past or seriously considered voting for as President."

I don't believe that you have EVER voted Republican in your entire life, Jay-Kendall! You are as liberal as they come! You're pro-abortion, pro-atheist, pro-Islamic, pro-open-borders, pro-socialist, and you support transgendered guys competing in women's athletic competitions! There is NOTHING conservative about you! You won't even tell us which Democrat you want to see win the 2020 nomination because that would completely give-away your blatant (and dishonest) hypocrisy!

"Much like Pat Buchanan's 1992 convention spectacle, I'm sure that little rant of yours sounds better in the original German."

TRANSLATION: "Everybody who doesn't think the way that I do is a Nazi!"

"Do you ever bother to think these kind of things through before you hit the "submit post" key?"

You're a liberal Democrat, Jay-Kendall - just admit it! You've NEVER been a Republican! And yes, Trump is going to win again in 2020!

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Perot voters were about evenly split between Clinton, Bush and neither for their second choice."

Baloney! Ross Perot prevented a second Bush term. In '92 Bill Clinton couldn't even reach the same low percentage won by Michael Dukakis in '88!

Different elections, different numbers of votes; percentages are irrelevant. The record shows Perot drew equally from both major party candidates. At worst, he cost Bush two small states: Montana and New Hampshire. Clinton would still have won easily without either. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/

JKendallDane dislikes those Republican presidential candidates who defeat Democrats - it's just that simple! And it's also why he hates President Trump!

And it's never even crossed your mind that maybe JKD dislikes those Republicans due to their politics? Even after he said as much?

"I'm still waiting for you to provide cites on anyone comparing them with Nazi concentration camps..."

When some deranged Trump-hater in the U.S. House of Representatives uses inflammatory words like "concentration camps," they're NOT trying to bring-up comparisons with camps run by the British in South Africa during the Boer War!

First of all, YOU (and BotanyBoy and others as well) are always arguing that everything Trump says should be taken at absolute face value (remember "It wasn't racist to tell the Squad to go back where they came from because he didn't mention their ethnicities?"). So by that standard, you have no right to assume AOC et al were talking about Nazi concentration camps when they didn't actually use that exact term.

But yes, as you actually support deranged Trump-haters in congress I can see where you might prefer thinking that that's ALL that they're trying to do!

As a matter of fact, I don't think that's all they're trying to do. All I'm getting at is that you have repeatedly made that accusation without ever backing it up. This time, someone else actually did your homework for you.

But all that aside, the comparison is valid. As I and others have spelled out for you before, the Nazis did not go straight to slaughtering Jews. They started out by whipping up public opinion against them, using dehumanising language, and yes, sending them to concentration camps that didn't yet have gas chambers. That's why a LOT of people are warning that what Trump is doing is a lot like what Hitler was up to in the early-mid 1930s. And shame on us all if we don't do what we can to put a stop to it.

JKendallDane writes: "Interesting, Dump, that you not only went into full deflect mode there, but also totally ignored commenting on the list of Repubs that I have either voted for in the past or seriously considered voting for as President."

I don't believe that you have EVER voted Republican in your entire life, Jay-Kendall! You are as liberal as they come! You're pro-abortion, pro-atheist, pro-Islamic, pro-open-borders, pro-socialist, and you support transgendered guys competing in women's athletic competitions! There is NOTHING conservative about you! You won't even tell us which Democrat you want to see win the 2020 nomination because that would completely give-away your blatant (and dishonest) hypocrisy!

The only person here I've seen supporting "transgendered guys competing in women's athletic competitions" is you, Dump. I'll tell you again, if you're going to be a bigot, at least get your slurs straight.

 

[JKendallDane]

JKendallDane writes: "Interesting, Dump, that you not only went into full deflect mode there, but also totally ignored commenting on the list of Repubs that I have either voted for in the past or seriously considered voting for as President."

I don't believe that you have EVER voted Republican in your entire life, Jay-Kendall! You are as liberal as they come! (along with an extra heavy dose of the ever-expected unsupported mud-slinging you are so well known for, Dump. )

You're a liberal Democrat, Jay-Kendall - just admit it! You've NEVER been a Republican!

Did those two overplayed rants make you feel all better, Dumpy? Hope so because while you're basking in their glow, I'll help you with reality.

First week of April 1974, one way I celebrated my 18th birthday was by registering to vote. I checked the "R" box on the form.

One year later I appeared on the ballot as a Republican for one of three city council-at-large seats. That same scenario was repeated in 1977 and 1979 and always as a Republican.

Also in 1975, I was president of the Young Republicans and served on the County GOP Executive Committee. In March of that year, I attended a White House reception with Jerry & Betty Ford. Yeppers. There's some real serious "always been an uber-liberal" proof you can use against me. .

1976 was my first time voting for President. I had misgivings about Ford because of the Nixon pardon, but once in the voting booth, I confidently pulled the lever beside his name. OOPS! Jerry was a Republican!

Pay attention, Dump. This is where the change begins.

In 1980, I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Reagan for many reasons...and didn't. In '84, in spite of not being thrilled about Mondale, I was even more dead set against giving Reagan a second term.

Early on in 1988 I was still a Republican, but when the two options being offered were GHWB or Pat Robertson I decided the party was headed down a road I could no longer travel. The next year I made it official and changed my registration to "D".

The utter embarrassment Pat Buchanan brought on the party in 1992 told me my decision wasn't wrong and voting for Bill Clinton in '92 and '96 was an easy choice to make.

2000...Dubya or Al Gore? Let's just say I and a buddy from the Navy base were in charge of the rally set up for the VP's visit to Pensacola the week before the election. I let you guess who I voted for.

2004...Dubya again or John Kerry? How many guesses do I need to spot you?

2008. I took some serious looks at John McCain for the same reasons I looked seriously at John Glenn in 1984 (when I was still a Repub). American heroes with proven political track records. Unfortunately for McCain, he blew it all when he let Meg Whitman talk him into naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. That alone tilted everything to Obama for me. In 2012, it was even easier to help re-elect him as Romney and Ryan came across as the founding members of the Spoiled Rich Boys Club.

And 2016...you know you don't need more than one guess on that one.

But even with the change I still don't and never have voted a straight ticket. I actually voted for Joe Scarborough once and last year I cast my ballot for three Repubs on the county level at the same time I said "Oh hell, NO!" to both Matt 'I like beer even more than Brett' Gaetz and Rick 'Never met a Medicare scam I didn't love' Scott.

So while my voter registration may say DEM on it, my choice of candidate for every office is always weighed by much more. I'm not sure you can say the same thing.

So, bottom line is that your "claims" up above about what you "just know is true" are nothing but complete bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes that's what it takes to get through to people like you that want to invent their own reality.

.(Oh, and a PS for ya' Dump. Since you are "all-knowing" why don't YOU tell ME who I am supporting from the Dems for 2020? It might be good for a laugh at how many guesses it will take for you to get it right. )

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Different elections, different numbers of votes; percentages are irrelevant."

Yes, of course they are. Michael Dukakis received 45.65% of the popular vote in 1988 and got LANDSLIDED - but Bill Clinton wins 43.01% of the popular vote four years later and is elected president! THANK YOU, ROSS PEROT!

It's like Barack Obama winning 69,499,428 votes in 2008, but then four-years later his total DROPS by over three-&-a-half million votes to 65,918,507! WHERE did all of those Obama voters go? And WHY did so many of them bail on him?

"And it's never even crossed your mind that maybe JKD dislikes those Republicans due to their politics?"

JDK stopped liking the G.O.P. when it stopped supporting abortion, open borders, the transgendered political agenda, Islam, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (which predicted that our planet will be underwater by 2016). JDK implies that he quit backing Republicans after Fremont was defeated in 1856.

"...you have no right to assume AOC et al were talking about Nazi concentration camps..."

I'm just pleased to see you embracing AOC & her "Squad" of loonies as mainstream Democrats! I sincerely hope the entire country does the same!

"As I and others have spelled out for you before, the Nazis did not go straight to slaughtering Jews."

The Nazis exhibited NO RESPECT for human life! But they were smart enough to create phrases that at least sounded acceptable. For example, instead of using the word "Holocaust" - which sounds barbaric - the Nazis came up with "The Final Solution!" And in a similar fashion, instead of using the phrase "pro-abortion" - which sounds barbaric - the folks at Planned Parenthood came up with the nice-sounding phrase: "pro-choice!"

"The only person here I've seen supporting "transgendered guys competing in women's athletic competitions" is you, Dump."

You sincerely believe that a guy who decides one day to begin calling himself a woman immediately becomes a woman, despite continuing to possess the size, speed, & strength of a guy. You & the entire politically-progressive wing of the Democratic Party now believe that!

JKendallDane writes: "First week of April 1974, one way I celebrated my 18th birthday was by registering to vote. I checked the "R" box on the form."

You checked "R" for "RINO," Jay-Kendall - aligning yourself with guys like John McCain, Bob Corker, & Jeff Flake. It's really not the same thing.

"So while my voter registration may say DEM on it, my choice of candidate for every office is always weighed by much more."

Yes, I know - today you vote for those candidates who are pro-socialist, pro-abortion, pro-transgendered, pro-atheist, pro-open-borders, and pro-Islamic. Back in 1856 none of that even registered, but today they'd combine to make you a mainstream DEMOCRAT!

 

[JKendallDane]

YDB95 writes: "And it's never even crossed your mind that maybe JKD dislikes those Republicans due to their politics?"

JDK stopped liking the G.O.P. when it stopped supporting abortion, open borders, the transgendered political agenda, Islam, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (which predicted that our planet will be underwater by 2016).

Um, Dump...you're going to need to go into a LOT more detail and tell me all about this mysterious GOP that you think existed prior to 1989, which is when I officially switched parties. That "wet spaghetti against the wall" tantrum rant you just threw looks like you're trying to compact at least four decades into less than one.

JDK implies that he quit backing Republicans after Fremont was defeated in 1856.

Besides the fact I implied no such thing, going back ^up^ two posts would have cleared that all up for you...had you bothered to actually read it.

YDB said: "The only person here I've seen supporting "transgendered guys competing in women's athletic competitions" is you, Dump."

You sincerely believe that a guy who decides one day to begin calling himself a woman immediately becomes a woman, despite continuing to possess the size, speed, & strength of a guy. You & the entire politically-progressive wing of the Democratic Party now believe that!

Dump, you are so confused about the transgender issue I'm beginning to think you prefer to remain 100% ignorant about it and keep making such embarrassing statements just so YDB and I will keep talking to you. But I guess the Constitutional right of freedom of expression does allow you to look stupid if you so choose. <shrug>

JKendallDane writes: "First week of April 1974, one way I celebrated my 18th birthday was by registering to vote. I checked the "R" box on the form."

You checked "R" for "RINO," Jay-Kendall - aligning yourself with guys like John McCain, Bob Corker, & Jeff Flake. It's really not the same thing.

Even though the term "RINO" didn't even appear in print until December of 1992, that's what I was somehow declaring almost nineteen years earlier? REALLY?

You caught me, Dump! I pulled a Mr. Peabody "Wayback Machine" thing and zapped into the mid-1990's so I could zap back to 1974 and make sure checking the "R" box wouldn't really tie me down as a real Republican, even though by doing so, I was aligning myself with Nixon, Ford, Howard Baker, John Connally, et al...along with up-and-coming Saint Ronnie.

In the words of former Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz: "That little sobriquet is so baseless and so outrageous ... [it was] ginned up by people who don't believe you can be a Republican unless you're hard right on social issues."

Don't EVER talk about Dems having "purity tests" when that's exactly what using the term RINO is on your side.

"So while my voter registration may say DEM on it, my choice of candidate for every office is always weighed by much more."

Yes, I know - today you vote for those candidates who are pro-socialist, pro-abortion, pro-transgendered, pro-atheist, pro-open-borders, and pro-Islamic. Back in 1856 none of that even registered, but today they'd combine to make you a mainstream DEMOCRAT!

This is where Judge Judy would just toss you out of the courtroom for repeatedly assuming facts not in evidence.

OH...by the way, Dump...you still haven't told me who you just know I am supporting among the declared Democratic candidates for 2020. Come on, Carnac...tear open that envelope and tell everyone the answer.

.

 

[Dumpington]

JKendallDane writes: "Um, Dump...you're going to need to go into a LOT more detail and tell me all about this mysterious GOP that you think existed prior to 1989..."

You ONLY seem to like those Republicans before 1989 who LOST elections, JKendall - if they won in landslides, you seemingly hate them, am I right?

"Besides the fact I implied no such thing, going back ^up^ two posts would have cleared that all up for you...had you bothered to actually read it."

So in WHICH presidential elections since 1856 have you actually supported the Republican candidate?

"Dump, you are so confused about the transgender issue I'm beginning to think you prefer to remain 100% ignorant about it..."

Is it NORMAL for a guy to wake-up one morning and decide that he is, in fact, a woman?

"Even though the term "RINO" didn't even appear in print until December of 1992, that's what I was somehow declaring almost nineteen years earlier?"

You're saying that there were NO RINO'S before that word was invented in 1992?

 

[YDB95]

Is it NORMAL for a guy to wake-up one morning and decide that he is, in fact, a woman?

That's extremely oversimplified, but not completely off base. My understanding is it's usually something people grapple with and ultimately accept, which isn't easy to do in this world because of people like you.

But that's entirely beside the point JKD and I were making, which is that you consistently use the term "transgendered guys" when you clearly are really thinking of trans-women. That's called misgendering, and it's just as disrespectful as the N-word. Congratulations on joining that company, I guess.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "That's extremely oversimplified, but not completely off base. My understanding is it's usually something people grapple with and ultimately accept, which isn't easy to do in this world because of people like you."

Once again, I'm going to REPEAT my very simple question:

Is it NORMAL for a guy to wake-up one morning and decide that he is, in fact, a woman?

"But that's entirely beside the point JKD and I were making, which is that you consistently use the term "transgendered guys" when you clearly are really thinking of trans-women. That's called misgendering, and it's just as disrespectful as the N-word. Congratulations on joining that company, I guess."

My OWN answer is very simple: if a guy wakes up one morning and decides that he's a woman, and he then tries out for the girl's track team - and he makes it because he's STILL got the body of a man, then he's STILL a guy - a transgendered guy - with the size, speed, & strength of a guy!

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's extremely oversimplified, but not completely off base. My understanding is it's usually something people grapple with and ultimately accept, which isn't easy to do in this world because of people like you.

No it's not easy because SEVERE mental health issues are hard to deal with.

That's called misgendering, and it's just as disrespectful as the N-word.

Not even fucking close....get a grip.

 

[JKendallDane]

OH...by the way, Dump...you still haven't told me who you just know I am supporting among the declared Democratic candidates for 2020. Come on, Carnac...tear open that envelope and tell everyone the answer.
.

I'm putting ^that one^ right up top and in bold because you keep seeming to miss it, Dump. You're not afraid to answer it are you?

You ONLY seem to like those Republicans before 1989 who LOST elections, JKendall - if they won in landslides, you seemingly hate them, am I right?

So in WHICH presidential elections since 1856 have you actually supported the Republican candidate?

One more time, Dump. All 40 years of my presidential voting history is in post #390. Here's a link:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=91280640&postcount=390

Read it and comment or don't read it and STFU. Totally your choice.

"Even though the term "RINO" didn't even appear in print until December of 1992, that's what I was somehow declaring almost nineteen years earlier?"

You're saying that there were NO RINO'S before that word was invented in 1992?

Thanks for validating what GOP Congressman Joe Schwarz said.

YDB95 writes: "That's extremely oversimplified, but not completely off base. My understanding is it's usually something people grapple with and ultimately accept, which isn't easy to do in this world because of people like you."

Once again, I'm going to REPEAT my very simple question:

Is it NORMAL for a guy to wake-up one morning and decide that he is, in fact, a woman?

"But that's entirely beside the point JKD and I were making, which is that you consistently use the term "transgendered guys" when you clearly are really thinking of trans-women. That's called misgendering, and it's just as disrespectful as the N-word. Congratulations on joining that company, I guess."

My OWN answer is very simple: if a guy wakes up one morning and decides that he's a woman, and he then tries out for the girl's track team - and he makes it because he's STILL got the body of a man, then he's STILL a guy - a transgendered guy - with the size, speed, & strength of a guy!

I think YDB has handled your question to me just as well, if not better than I would have answered, so I'll just concur with everything he stated.

I will add one thing for you and BB, however. It's obvious that neither one of you actually knows a transgendered person (probably in the same way you both were convinced you didn't know any gay people at one point in your lives) and most certainly do NOT have any real or even the most basic knowledge about gender dysphoria.

Sadly, I really believe both of you prefer to remain in that ignorance bubble.

.

 

[Tigersman]

New Republican party

is made up of neo-nazis and white supremists, both of which are hate groups so Trump fits right in.

 

[Dumpington]

JKendallDane writes: "I'm putting that one right up top and in bold because you keep seeming to miss it, Dump. You're not afraid to answer it are you?"

Who ARE you supporting for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination, Jay-Kendall? I have no idea!

"Read it and comment or don't read it and STFU."

Do you ALWAYS argue politics by being insulting & abusive? And WHY so angry all the time?

"Thanks for validating what GOP Congressman Joe Schwarz said."

Yeah... I have no idea what you're talking about - but I'm sure it's important!

"It's obvious that neither one of you actually knows a transgendered person (probably in the same way you both were convinced you didn't know any gay people at one point in your lives) and most certainly do NOT have any real or even the most basic knowledge about gender dysphoria."

A guy who wakes up one morning believing that he is a girl is STILL a guy - possessing a man's size, speed, & strength - it's BIOLOGY! If Barack Obama wants to allow him to use the girls' locker room at school THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE REMAINS A GUY! Perhaps you know some transgendered guys? Well, that doesn't change the facts any! If a guy possesses a man's body he's still a guy!

Tigersman adds: "...is made up of neo-nazis and white supremists, both of which are hate groups so Trump fits right in."

The word Nazi = "National Socialist" - and President Trump isn't at ALL a socialist (nor is he a white supremacist!)

 

[JKendallDane]

JKendallDane writes: "I'm putting that one right up top and in bold because you keep seeming to miss it, Dump. You're not afraid to answer it are you?"

Who ARE you supporting for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination, Jay-Kendall? I have no idea!

So now you're going with 45's standard fallback position of "Deny and hope there isn't proof in writing or on video" eh?

Sorry, but you made at least two such claims in posts to me in the last week or so. Plus, the additional fact that you've totally avoided answering the multiple times I've asked you to tell me, says you KNOW you posted that boast and are now looking for any way you can to keep from having to back it up.

"Read it and comment or don't read it and STFU."

Do you ALWAYS argue politics by being insulting & abusive? And WHY so angry all the time?

I'm confused. Does that response mean you are picking the first option but sidestepping the entire gist of the post? Or the second one but just wanted to pretend you got in the last word? Or is it just a new deflection technique you're trying out?

"Thanks for validating what GOP Congressman Joe Schwarz said."

Yeah... I have no idea what you're talking about - but I'm sure it's important!

That validates one of three things, Dump. That you either speed scan posts just looking for the points you can cherry pick and attack with and completely ignore everything else...OR...your reading comprehension and short-term memory sucks since I quoted Schwarz just six posts previously...OR...you are just once again lying. Those are pretty much the only options.

"It's obvious that neither one of you actually knows a transgendered person (probably in the same way you both were convinced you didn't know any gay people at one point in your lives) and most certainly do NOT have any real or even the most basic knowledge about gender dysphoria."

A guy who wakes up one morning believing that he is a girl is STILL a guy - possessing a man's size, speed, & strength - it's BIOLOGY! If Barack Obama wants to allow him to use the girls' locker room at school THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE REMAINS A GUY! Perhaps you know some transgendered guys? Well, that doesn't change the facts any! If a guy possesses a man's body he's still a guy!

Yes, I currently do, and have had, a number of transgendered guys as friends over the last 30+ years. Transgendered gals too.

One of those gals is now a senior citizen but is also a highly decorated Marine combat vet that survived three tours of Vietnam. If you were behind her in line at the grocery store, you'd just think she was the stereotypical "little old lady buying cans of cat food for her collection of kitties, and a couple steaks for her husband to grill."

In actuality she would be a transgendered gal well into her 70's, buying cat food for her elderly Pomeranian with no teeth, and she is the one that does the grilling for her and her lesbian wife.

On the flip side, most of the transgendered guys I know are so male that you wouldn't even give them a second glance if they were behind you going into the mens locker room. And with you being an all-America, red-blooded, lesbian-porn-lovin' 100% straight male and all, I'm sure you wouldn't be taking any sneak peeks at them while they changed.

But that all is most likely far more than your mind can wrap around since you have YET to ever get it right as to what a transgendered gal or guy even is.

Dump, seriously...it's okay if you don't understand. It's even okay if you don't WANT to understand. What is NOT okay is you bashing transgendered people and saying they MUST fit into one of the pigeonhole slots you fetishize about creating for everyone and then being irrationally outraged at any law or simple public policy that might protect anyone that isn't just like you.

.

 

[jp55665566]

I get the feeling that your antagonist will support any candidate that supports baby killing.

 

[badbabysitter]

I get the feeling that your antagonist will support any candidate that supports baby killing.

I get the feeling that your protagonist will love support from anyone who doesnt understand that a fetus is not a baby

 

[jp55665566]

Court implicitly approves new, at-home "late-term" abortion:

Ex-Cheerleader Found ‘Not Guilty’ of Killing Newborn Daughter Buried in Backyard:

Brooke Skylar Richardson, 20, was acquitted Thursday of aggravated murder and involuntary manslaughter in the death of her newborn daughter who was found buried in her family’s backyard.
The young Ohio woman, who was accused of killing her baby girl and burying her in the backyard, was, nevertheless, found guilty of abuse of a corpse and scheduled for sentencing Friday, reported NBC affiliate WDTN.

Richardson potentially faced life in prison had she been convicted of the murder charge. She now faces a potential sentence of up to one year in prison, but could be placed on probation since she is a first-time offender.

Richardson’s lawyers argued in her defense that she named her newborn daughter Annabelle and was scared and saddened because her baby was stillborn, reported NBC affiliate WLWT.

According to that report, Richardson’s case created a firestorm in her hometown of Carlisle, “with Facebook pages devoted to it and some critics trying to record the Richardson family’s comings and goings for social media.”

On two occasions, Richardson’s attorneys requested to move the trial that was receiving daily coverage on Court TV, arguing the intensified publicity had been driven by prosecutors. The judge denied these motions, however.

Prosecutors argued Richardson was upset she became pregnant and wanted to live out her “perfect life,” including her plan to attend the University of Cincinnati. They claimed the former cheerleader hid her pregnancy and buried the newborn in her family’s backyard in May 2017, soon after the senior prom.

Assistant prosecutor Steven Knippen said Richardson sent two text messages in the days after her daughter’s birth, reported WDTN:

“Shortly, after murdering her daughter and placing her daughter in the dirt, and not even having the decency to cover it with a blanket, she sent two elated text messages: My belly is back, my belly is back,” Knippen said.

Knippen painted Richardson as being obsessed with her appearance and ‘perfect life.’

He focused on her actions during the night of the birth and said it was proof she planned on killing the baby.

“If it came out not breathing, why didn’t she try to get it help?” Knippen asked. “If she thinks something is wrong, why didn’t she get her parents, her brother, call 911 or go to the hospital.”

The baby’s remains were discovered about two months after Richardson gave birth. A forensic pathologist testified the baby died from “homicidal violence.”

According to the news report, prosecutors said Richardson had searched online for “how to get rid of a baby.”

Stuart Bassman, a Cincinnati psychologist, however, described Richardson as vulnerable, immature, and exhibiting signs of a dependent personality disorder that causes her to want to please those in authority. He said, “Skylar was being manipulated” into making false statements during interrogations.

Assistant prosecutor Julie Kraft, however, suggested that Richardson’s fear of abandonment by her family and boyfriend may have motivated her to commit such extreme acts.

 

[icanhelp1]

Different elections, different numbers of votes; percentages are irrelevant. The record shows Perot drew equally from both major party candidates. At worst, he cost Bush two small states: Montana and New Hampshire. Clinton would still have won easily without either. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/



And it's never even crossed your mind that maybe JKD dislikes those Republicans due to their politics? Even after he said as much?



First of all, YOU (and BotanyBoy and others as well) are always arguing that everything Trump says should be taken at absolute face value (remember "It wasn't racist to tell the Squad to go back where they came from because he didn't mention their ethnicities?"). So by that standard, you have no right to assume AOC et al were talking about Nazi concentration camps when they didn't actually use that exact term.



As a matter of fact, I don't think that's all they're trying to do. All I'm getting at is that you have repeatedly made that accusation without ever backing it up. This time, someone else actually did your homework for you.

But all that aside, the comparison is valid. As I and others have spelled out for you before, the Nazis did not go straight to slaughtering Jews. They started out by whipping up public opinion against them, using dehumanising language, and yes, sending them to concentration camps that didn't yet have gas chambers. That's why a LOT of people are warning that what Trump is doing is a lot like what Hitler was up to in the early-mid 1930s. And shame on us all if we don't do what we can to put a stop to it.



The only person here I've seen supporting "transgendered guys competing in women's athletic competitions" is you, Dump. I'll tell you again, if you're going to be a bigot, at least get your slurs straight.

Trump's quote to the SQUAD!

"Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough"

To conflate the original statement with racism is in itself racist. No mention of country, that was CNN and others producing a convoluted narrative to inject racism. The point of that quote was about showing the american people how it's done, refers much more to political and managerial expertise than ethnicity. See, you lefties have your own language, there are sentences between sentences that nobody but lefties can see or decipher. You derive meaning and interpretation from statements in ways that bolster your narrative whether it's true or not!

 

[magicalmoments]

The case reported above #403:
Was that a jury trial?
Irrespective, it clearly shows that the court system is as incompetent and corrupt as the nation's security and criminal investigative agencies.

 

[YDB95]

Trump's quote to the SQUAD!

"Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough"

To conflate the original statement with racism is in itself racist. No mention of country, that was CNN and others producing a convoluted narrative to inject racism. The point of that quote was about showing the american people how it's done, refers much more to political and managerial expertise than ethnicity. See, you lefties have your own language, there are sentences between sentences that nobody but lefties can see or decipher. You derive meaning and interpretation from statements in ways that bolster your narrative whether it's true or not!

1. Context matters, no matter how hard you try to ignore it. The phrase "go back where you came from" has been used by racists for a very, very, very long time. So even in the extremely unlikely event that Trump didn't mean it that way, it was extremely easy to interpret as such.

2. Three of the four are Americans by birth, and the fourth has lived in the US since she was a teenager and is now a US citizen. "The places from which they came" are the good old USA.

3. Trump has no "managerial expertise" whatsoever. His track record shows the only thing he's any good at in business is stiffing his creditors. That's not something to be proud of, and it certainly doesn't reflect any leadership acumen on his part.

4. Avoiding the mention of countries or ethnicity is EXACTLY how the Southern strategy works. And so is calling us racists when we call them on their bullshit. That you can't see that (or more likely just WON'T see it) is nothing more than a reflection of how effective that strategy still is half a century after it was first tried. And again, even if it wasn't intentional on Trump's part (hey, when he pleads ignorance, he's always got a believer in me!), it's a boy-who-cried-wolf situation. Why should we believe he didn't mean it that way when he was following in the footsteps of 50 years of Republicans who DID mean it that way?

 

[Dumpington]

JKendallDane writes: "Sorry, but you made at least two such claims in posts to me in the last week or so. Plus, the additional fact that you've totally avoided answering the multiple times I've asked you to tell me, says you KNOW you posted that boast and are now looking for any way you can to keep from having to back it up."

I have NO IDEA what all of that's about, Jay-Kendall.

"I'm confused. Does that response mean you are picking the first option but sidestepping the entire gist of the post? Or the second one but just wanted to pretend you got in the last word? Or is it just a new deflection technique you're trying out?"

YOU'RE CONFUSED? Read what you just wrote above - what does it all mean?

"That validates one of three things, Dump. That you either speed scan posts just looking for the points you can cherry pick and attack with and completely ignore everything else...OR...your reading comprehension and short-term memory sucks since I quoted Schwarz just six posts previously...OR...you are just once again lying. Those are pretty much the only options."

I'm going to need an interpreter to explain to me what you've just now written.

"Yes, I currently do, and have had, a number of transgendered guys as friends over the last 30+ years. Transgendered gals too."

Yes, and I'm sure that ALL of your many transgendered friends love & appreciate you, Jay-Kendall - because you will readily believe them when they change their genders, without question or comment. And when a white friend wakes up believing that he's black, you will believe that, as well!

badbabysitter writes: "I get the feeling that your protagonist will love support from anyone who doesnt understand that a fetus is not a baby"

You know, the Nazi Germans passed laws saying that a Jew wasn't human, but instead of abortion clinics the Nazis built Auschwitz. Same thing.

YDB95 writes: "Context matters, no matter how hard you try to ignore it."

You will twist whatever President Trump says into something that you claim is racist because you believe that everything Trump says or does is automatically racist. And yes, as president, Trump has lowered the black unemployment rate to its lowest levels ever, which you will now claim is somehow racist!

 

[JKendallDane]

JKendallDane writes: "Sorry, but you made at least two such claims in posts to me in the last week or so. Plus, the additional fact that you've totally avoided answering the multiple times I've asked you to tell me, says you KNOW you posted that boast and are now looking for any way you can to keep from having to back it up."

I have NO IDEA what all of that's about, Jay-Kendall.

"I'm confused. Does that response mean you are picking the first option but sidestepping the entire gist of the post? Or the second one but just wanted to pretend you got in the last word? Or is it just a new deflection technique you're trying out?"

YOU'RE CONFUSED? Read what you just wrote above - what does it all mean?

"That validates one of three things, Dump. That you either speed scan posts just looking for the points you can cherry pick and attack with and completely ignore everything else...OR...your reading comprehension and short-term memory sucks since I quoted Schwarz just six posts previously...OR...you are just once again lying. Those are pretty much the only options."

I'm going to need an interpreter to explain to me what you've just now written.

Here's the original source for all three of those, Dump.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=91286993&postcount=400

You can be your own "interpreter" with just a minimal amount of effort and reading comprehension applied to that post. Your grammar and vocabulary skills are much better than 45's, but I am beginning to wonder if you have a more serious problem than he does when it comes to attention spans and anything that is more than three sentences in length.

"Yes, I currently do, and have had, a number of transgendered guys as friends over the last 30+ years. Transgendered gals too."

Yes, and I'm sure that ALL of your many transgendered friends love & appreciate you, Jay-Kendall - because you will readily believe them when they change their genders, without question or comment. And when a white friend wakes up believing that he's black, you will believe that, as well!

I can only reply to that with the ending words of mine you didn't choose to quote from post #400.....

Dump, seriously...it's okay if you don't understand. It's even okay if you don't WANT to understand. What is NOT okay is you bashing transgendered people and saying they MUST fit into one of the pigeonhole slots you fetishize about creating for everyone and then being irrationally outraged at any law or simple public policy that might protect anyone that isn't just like you.

.

 

[icanhelp1]

1. Context matters, no matter how hard you try to ignore it. The phrase "go back where you came from" has been used by racists for a very, very, very long time. So even in the extremely unlikely event that Trump didn't mean it that way, it was easy to interpret as such.

What context? it was a direct quote. By your own definition the word COUNTRY is the predicate for insinuating racism or xenophobia, guess what? the word COUNTRY is not there. Journalist have no right to add or subtract words in a quote, when they do they lose all credibility, it also changes the meaning or intent of the author. That makes it yellow journalism


2. Three of the four are Americans by birth, and the fourth has lived in the US since she was a teenager and is now a US citizen. "The places from which they came" are the good old USA.


Again, the fact they are Americans, "back to where they came from" can only mean their hometowns or back to their constituents or areas they represent or influence. Country was never mentioned. Racism and xenophobia are a figment of your imagination.


3. Trump has no "managerial expertise" whatsoever. His track record shows the only thing he's any good at in business is stiffing his creditors. That's not something to be proud of, and it certainly doesn't reflect any leadership acumen on his part.

More deflection and innuendo, this isn't about his business savvy it's about the squad and their anti american rhetoric and affiliations.

4. Avoiding the mention of countries or ethnicity is EXACTLY how the Southern strategy works. And so is calling us racists when we call them on their bullshit. That you can't see that (or more likely just WON'T see it) is nothing more than a reflection of how effective that strategy still is half a century after it was first tried. And again, even if it wasn't intentional on Trump's part (hey, when he pleads ignorance, he's always got a believer in me!), it's a boy-who-cried-wolf situation. Why should we believe he didn't mean it that way when he was following in the footsteps of 50 years of Republicans who DID mean it that way?

Who fucking cares about 'Southern Strategy' more smoking mirrors. You have a knack of inserting your meaning which differ from the original intent. Words matter!!! You cannot add or subtract words from its original form, it changes the meaning the author wanted to convey, but then again, that's your strategy. Reconfigure the sentence to fit your narrative and project something other than the original intent. The left is the party that defines everything through identity politics. You have taking the true meaning of racism and rendered it useless. It's used as a household word, used for everything except what it truly is. Racism is an attitude, a feeling that is very hard to discern, discrimination is the crime. POC's hate it when you virtue signal on their behalf, they don't want or need your help. 'White privilege' is a feel good mechanism, used by the elitess, which has no legitimate definition or meaning, it's a manufactured rallying cry for you HOLIER THAN THOU virtue signalling, self anointed morality brigade.