Is 2024 about trans/crime/dei vs abortion and book banning type of issues?

[Anonymous]

I'm apparently in the minority on this, but I'm hoping 2024 is a referendum on WWIII. I just don't if we'll have a "no" candidate to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being that the supreme court is conservative, is the trans issue really an issue in terms of laws? I assume it won't get too crazy with allowances simply because the supreme court is conservative. I think most people are against trans people being classified in the same way biological sex is and they are against kids getting surgeries before 18. They are for everyone feeling safe from harm.

SCOTUS is the reason federal laws are now being changed to be inclusive of trans people. With Gorsuch voting with the liberal justices, they said trans discrimination is sex discrimination in the Bostock v Clayton County decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm apparently in the minority on this, but I'm hoping 2024 is a referendum on WWIII. I just don't if we'll have a "no" candidate to choose.

Care to expand? Let me guess, you’re against helping Ukraine? I would say the majority of people are against WW3. In what ways do you want presidential candidates to avoid it?

[Anonymous]

Yes, the parties want to keep people from noticing where they stand on other issues. Particularly Republicans don't want the MAGA base to see their corporate sellouts. Democrats have the same thing, but this is has been ongoing since at least Bill Clinton, when the vast majority of the party voted against NAFTA and free trade agreements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats lenient on crime is false. Fox News is saying this which is propaganda and untrue.

If Republicans were truly worried about crime then they would strengthen gun control laws and allow abortion. Legal abortion in this country caused crime rates to decline anywhere from 20% to 45% from the early 90s.

Democrats lenient on crime is not false. It’s true.

Progressive criminal justice reform, as espoused by democrats all over, is akin to policies that lead to less incarceration, less prosecutions. It’s things like “violence interruptors” that all studies show don’t work. Or it’s the second look act or the youth Rehabiliation act. Or it’s not taking away drivers licenses from scofflaws with $12,300 in speeding tickets and then they get in a car and crush 3 people.

Those are all liberal weak on crime policies being implemented. I know you’ll retort and say “we can’t keep locking people up.”

Yea? Well we can’t let violent criminals out earlier or not charge them at all out of “fairness”. It’s not fair to marginalized communities to have violent perpetrators out on the streets much earlier. It’s not fair that they know they’ll get a slap on the wrist and be released out into the community where they can cause more harm.

Or you’ll say “we need more programs! More funding for schools! More wrap around services! We need to tackle the root causes of poverty and study it!”

We’ve done that for generations. We spend the most per pupil in the nation and have terrible scores. I’m sorry but accountability starts at home. If you punch me for my iPhone at a metro stop I want you in jail. I don’t want a fking restorative justice hug. I want you away from the community. People will get away with what they can and now all the Brandon Johnson’s of the nation are in charge and we are seeing an increase in quality of life crime and in violent crimes because they simply don’t want to send anyone to jail and every is a “victim of the system” and other infanalizing, soft bigotry of low expectations excuses.

[Anonymous]

DCUM skews super wealthy which is why you see people here making abortion their number one issue. For most of the US, economic stability is their primary concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM skews super wealthy which is why you see people here making abortion their number one issue. For most of the US, economic stability is their primary concern.

And yet every election, special election, every ballot initiative says otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM skews super wealthy which is why you see people here making abortion their number one issue. For most of the US, economic stability is their primary concern.

Abortion access is a huge economic issue, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM skews super wealthy which is why you see people here making abortion their number one issue. For most of the US, economic stability is their primary concern.

How is not being able to afford a child unrelated to “economic stability”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM skews super wealthy which is why you see people here making abortion their number one issue. For most of the US, economic stability is their primary concern.

And yet every election, special election, every ballot initiative says otherwise.

Does it? The same states where pro choice measures pass also elect republicans. Maybe abortion is just another issue among others and not the issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm apparently in the minority on this, but I'm hoping 2024 is a referendum on WWIII. I just don't if we'll have a "no" candidate to choose.

Care to expand? Let me guess, you’re against helping Ukraine? I would say the majority of people are against WW3. In what ways do you want presidential candidates to avoid it?

The Donbas and Taiwan are the two most likely flashpoints. I'd want a candidate committed to de-escalation. There are multiple paths to de-escalation and I'm open to creativity on those fronts.

To me, whether one group of Russian speakers pay taxes to Moscow or Kiev, or a group of Mandarin speakers pay taxes to Beijing or Taipei is dwarfed by domestic concerns. I just don't think the lives of friends and family are worth it.

While very few truly want WWIII, many people will let themselves get escalated into it. I want leadership that can see the path that leads to war, and get off it before its too late. We do this on a personal level, in that we all learn that some times its best to just walk away. Not every insult, threat or slight needs to be met with retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm apparently in the minority on this, but I'm hoping 2024 is a referendum on WWIII. I just don't if we'll have a "no" candidate to choose.

Care to expand? Let me guess, you’re against helping Ukraine? I would say the majority of people are against WW3. In what ways do you want presidential candidates to avoid it?

The Donbas and Taiwan are the two most likely flashpoints. I'd want a candidate committed to de-escalation. There are multiple paths to de-escalation and I'm open to creativity on those fronts.

To me, whether one group of Russian speakers pay taxes to Moscow or Kiev, or a group of Mandarin speakers pay taxes to Beijing or Taipei is dwarfed by domestic concerns. I just don't think the lives of friends and family are worth it.

While very few truly want WWIII, many people will let themselves get escalated into it. I want leadership that can see the path that leads to war, and get off it before its too late. We do this on a personal level, in that we all learn that some times its best to just walk away. Not every insult, threat or slight needs to be met with retaliation.

DP. I believe the opposite. So our votes will cancel each other out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm apparently in the minority on this, but I'm hoping 2024 is a referendum on WWIII. I just don't if we'll have a "no" candidate to choose.

Care to expand? Let me guess, you’re against helping Ukraine? I would say the majority of people are against WW3. In what ways do you want presidential candidates to avoid it?

The Donbas and Taiwan are the two most likely flashpoints. I'd want a candidate committed to de-escalation. There are multiple paths to de-escalation and I'm open to creativity on those fronts.

To me, whether one group of Russian speakers pay taxes to Moscow or Kiev, or a group of Mandarin speakers pay taxes to Beijing or Taipei is dwarfed by domestic concerns. I just don't think the lives of friends and family are worth it.

While very few truly want WWIII, many people will let themselves get escalated into it. I want leadership that can see the path that leads to war, and get off it before its too late. We do this on a personal level, in that we all learn that some times its best to just walk away. Not every insult, threat or slight needs to be met with retaliation.

+1 We should totally encourage totalitarian states to be expansionist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats lenient on crime is false. Fox News is saying this which is propaganda and untrue.

If Republicans were truly worried about crime then they would strengthen gun control laws and allow abortion. Legal abortion in this country caused crime rates to decline anywhere from 20% to 45% from the early 90s.

Democrats lenient on crime is not false. It’s true.

Progressive criminal justice reform, as espoused by democrats all over, is akin to policies that lead to less incarceration, less prosecutions. It’s things like “violence interruptors” that all studies show don’t work. Or it’s the second look act or the youth Rehabiliation act. Or it’s not taking away drivers licenses from scofflaws with $12,300 in speeding tickets and then they get in a car and crush 3 people.

Those are all liberal weak on crime policies being implemented. I know you’ll retort and say “we can’t keep locking people up.”

Yea? Well we can’t let violent criminals out earlier or not charge them at all out of “fairness”. It’s not fair to marginalized communities to have violent perpetrators out on the streets much earlier. It’s not fair that they know they’ll get a slap on the wrist and be released out into the community where they can cause more harm.

Or you’ll say “we need more programs! More funding for schools! More wrap around services! We need to tackle the root causes of poverty and study it!”

We’ve done that for generations. We spend the most per pupil in the nation and have terrible scores. I’m sorry but accountability starts at home. If you punch me for my iPhone at a metro stop I want you in jail. I don’t want a fking restorative justice hug. I want you away from the community. People will get away with what they can and now all the Brandon Johnson’s of the nation are in charge and we are seeing an increase in quality of life crime and in violent crimes because they simply don’t want to send anyone to jail and every is a “victim of the system” and other infanalizing, soft bigotry of low expectations excuses.

Judicial reform =/= being lenient on crime. Also the score for standardized testing track with SES, which is why universities are moving away from them. They do not reflect a student’s ability on anything except their ability to pick well-off parents.

It’s clear to me you know nothing about jails/prisons. But please feel free to run your uninformed mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats lenient on crime is false. Fox News is saying this which is propaganda and untrue.

If Republicans were truly worried about crime then they would strengthen gun control laws and allow abortion. Legal abortion in this country caused crime rates to decline anywhere from 20% to 45% from the early 90s.

Democrats lenient on crime is not false. It’s true.

Progressive criminal justice reform, as espoused by democrats all over, is akin to policies that lead to less incarceration, less prosecutions. It’s things like “violence interruptors” that all studies show don’t work. Or it’s the second look act or the youth Rehabiliation act. Or it’s not taking away drivers licenses from scofflaws with $12,300 in speeding tickets and then they get in a car and crush 3 people.

Those are all liberal weak on crime policies being implemented. I know you’ll retort and say “we can’t keep locking people up.”

Yea? Well we can’t let violent criminals out earlier or not charge them at all out of “fairness”. It’s not fair to marginalized communities to have violent perpetrators out on the streets much earlier. It’s not fair that they know they’ll get a slap on the wrist and be released out into the community where they can cause more harm.

Or you’ll say “we need more programs! More funding for schools! More wrap around services! We need to tackle the root causes of poverty and study it!”

We’ve done that for generations. We spend the most per pupil in the nation and have terrible scores. I’m sorry but accountability starts at home. If you punch me for my iPhone at a metro stop I want you in jail. I don’t want a fking restorative justice hug. I want you away from the community. People will get away with what they can and now all the Brandon Johnson’s of the nation are in charge and we are seeing an increase in quality of life crime and in violent crimes because they simply don’t want to send anyone to jail and every is a “victim of the system” and other infanalizing, soft bigotry of low expectations excuses.

Judicial reform =/= being lenient on crime. Also the score for standardized testing track with SES, which is why universities are moving away from them. They do not reflect a student’s ability on anything except their ability to pick well-off parents.

It’s clear to me you know nothing about jails/prisons. But please feel free to run your uninformed mouth.

That's not true - although schools are acting like it is.