Rand Paul Confronts Biden's Transgender Nominee Rachel Levine

[BoringGuy45]

I agree. Now that the ComDems used California style election fraud on a national level in plain view of the world, and got away with it, they will continue to do it from here on out. The courts refused to address the fraud and anyone who denounced the fraud is an insurrectionist and banished from social media and threatened with being fired/impeached/cancelled/etc......

The bigger problem is that we accept it and just stop voting. The boycott the vote thing that piece of dog shit double agent Lin Wood peddled worked in GA. Now, conservatives are just going to stay home on election day and let the left win fair and square.

[Diamondback]

The bigger problem is that we accept it and just stop voting. The boycott the vote thing that piece of dog shit double agent Lin Wood peddled worked in GA. Now, conservatives are just going to stay home on election day and let the left win fair and square.

Just as they have for years on the Left Coast after blatant thefts like Rossi v Gregoire.

[jsbhike]

On a similar note:

https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/...arning-classes

[john armond]

On a similar note:

https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/...arning-classes

If you can’t make everybody equal by bringing them all up, you can by bringing everyone down.

[Grand58742]

Well first off, Rand Pauls command of the Constitution and what it says and means compared to Trumps is truly awesome. But I think Rand Paul also discovered if you only talk about the issues and simply provide the solution already mandated by the Constitution, people get bored and walk away. So perhaps he has learned to draw a little more attention to himself but in a reverse correlation to my above statement Trumps ability to be bombastic and draw all the attention to himself compared to Paul's is absolutely staggering.

But at least Rand Paul is actually drawing attention to something very, very important. I hope this is Paul beginning a more meaningful run for the white house in 2024 than what he achieved in 2016.

I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to Rand Paul. I've said for a long time I never thought Rand was a bad candidate, but he just couldn't sell what he believed in.

In short, he was very boring. Again, nothing wrong with him or his branding, but he's got to find a better way of conveying the message in a way that appeals to a broad group of people.

I do think there was life that came out of him in the aftermath of the assault he was involved with. Kinda gives a person perspective on life when you have that kind of experience.

[Esq.]

"You have to follow the Science"



.........Except when it comes to the 869 made up "genders".

[Grand58742]

The thing is with this transsexual issue... I have evolved my thinking for the homosexuality issues (I used to think it was not natural) until a gay person explained it to me.

Basically, love and attractions are emotions. Love brings an emotional response and you sometimes don't have a choice in who you love and who you don't. It's not chemically motivated or assigned at birth, it's something that happens.

I get it. Certainly won't ever be for me, but I can understand the issue there with gay marriage, gay rights and everything else. And I really don't have a problem with it to the extent I used to. You do your thing, I do my thing, we won't meet in the middle and let each other live.

Now, on the transgender issue...

This is not an emotion, not a chemical reaction nor anything else. Sorry, but they are mentally ill people that believe they are something they are not. If I started walking about claiming I was Jesus Christ and baptizing people in the local river, I'd end up with a nice long visit with a bunch of people wearing funny coats. Or if I identified as Napoleon and tried to recruit an army to take over France. Again, I'd have some serious questions before a bunch of doctors tried to convince me I wasn't this person.

But if I identify as a female? How progressive of me!

In all three cases, I would think I was something I was not, either by biological fact or by known fact. In two out of the three, I'm deemed mentally unfit. In the other, I'm praised for making that "choice."

What's the difference here? In all three cases, only one flies in the face of science. There are two distinct biological sexes. Nothing is ever going to change your DNA away from XY to XX or vice versa. You were born with it and no amount of chemical therapy, conversion operations or lopping off any body part is ever going to change the fact you are born a male or a female (obviously, there is a distinct medical class of hermaphrodite separate from he two genders)

Regardless, these people think they are something they are not and can be scientifically proven they are not. Just like one can scientifically prove I am not Jesus Christ or Napoleon. Yet, we are supposed to be accepting of those who are delusional in thinking they should have been a boy or a girl?

[SteyrAUG]

I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to Rand Paul. I've said for a long time I never thought Rand was a bad candidate, but he just couldn't sell what he believed in.

In short, he was very boring. Again, nothing wrong with him or his branding, but he's got to find a better way of conveying the message in a way that appeals to a broad group of people.

I do think there was life that came out of him in the aftermath of the assault he was involved with. Kinda gives a person perspective on life when you have that kind of experience.

The problem isn't that he can't sell the issues, the problem is nobody cares about the issues. The election has become Survivor President and it's about drama, sound bites and "oh no he din't" more than anything else. You can't talk about specific policy points you intend to address and how. You need to discuss meaningless platitudes that can't even really be specifically defined.

Rand needs to think about messages like "a campaign of inclusion", "enabling every voter" and "participating in the success of every American." Not one of those things means anything specific or even meaningful, but that is exactly the kind of shit idiots will line up to vote for.

[SteyrAUG]

The thing is with this transsexual issue... I have evolved my thinking for the homosexuality issues (I used to think it was not natural) until a gay person explained it to me.

Basically, love and attractions are emotions. Love brings an emotional response and you sometimes don't have a choice in who you love and who you don't. It's not chemically motivated or assigned at birth, it's something that happens.

I get it. Certainly won't ever be for me, but I can understand the issue there with gay marriage, gay rights and everything else. And I really don't have a problem with it to the extent I used to. You do your thing, I do my thing, we won't meet in the middle and let each other live.

Now, on the transgender issue...

This is not an emotion, not a chemical reaction nor anything else. Sorry, but they are mentally ill people that believe they are something they are not. If I started walking about claiming I was Jesus Christ and baptizing people in the local river, I'd end up with a nice long visit with a bunch of people wearing funny coats. Or if I identified as Napoleon and tried to recruit an army to take over France. Again, I'd have some serious questions before a bunch of doctors tried to convince me I wasn't this person.

But if I identify as a female? How progressive of me!

In all three cases, I would think I was something I was not, either by biological fact or by known fact. In two out of the three, I'm deemed mentally unfit. In the other, I'm praised for making that "choice."

What's the difference here? In all three cases, only one flies in the face of science. There are two distinct biological sexes. Nothing is ever going to change your DNA away from XY to XX or vice versa. You were born with it and no amount of chemical therapy, conversion operations or lopping off any body part is ever going to change the fact you are born a male or a female (obviously, there is a distinct medical class of hermaphrodite separate from he two genders)

Regardless, these people think they are something they are not and can be scientifically proven they are not. Just like one can scientifically prove I am not Jesus Christ or Napoleon. Yet, we are supposed to be accepting of those who are delusional in thinking they should have been a boy or a girl?

I've met mentally ill people who think they are from other planets, and I mean like K-Pax crazy. But if they aren't dangerous crazy people and they can live functional lives, I kind of don't give a shit what they believe beyond "hey man I just can't talk to you about this any more." Same thing with "I'm a girl but I have the wrong body." Whatever they feel they need to do in order to accept their existence and feel "more normal" is fine with me. But that doesn't mean we put Adamski in charge of the SETI program and we don't legitimize "Hi, I'm Wendy and I'm a visitor from Jupiter" nutjobs by introducing them to the classroom.

[titsonritz]

Reality check-
License for driving is 16 years of age, with some restrictions. Under the age of 18, children are considered immature and are not normally subject to legal punishment to the same degree as adults. Once 18, using tobacco, joining the military and being tried for capital crimes is fair game. Alcohol consumption is restricted til 21, and renting cars without parental cosignatories or additional insurance happens around age 25. All these age limits are based upon the idea that people under the above listed ages are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to make life choices without fully comprehending the full scope of said choices.

Here in Oregon the tobacco age is 21.