https://twitter.com/richardhanania/status/1813921806149124395
Trump personally dictated the new RNC language on abortion and gay marriage. His team put the delegates in a room, took their phones, and Trump said you're going to pass this and you're going to do it quickly.
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) July 18, 2024
Night of the Long Knives for social conservatives. pic.twitter.com/IQLdu22tOy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When you pander to them and base everything you do on them, yes, it does.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you say that like
and the dems dont pander to their extremists
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/07/03/biden-trans-surgeries-for-minors/
https://gaycitynews.com/white-house-draws-criticism-lgbtq-groups-gender-affirming-care/
also clearly he is doing the opposite of pandering to the christ cucks by telling them that marriage is gay and abortions are gonna stay legal.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
what extremist postions do either of these people hold?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that children should be able to get their puberty cancelled and their peepee chopped off
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
can you show me either of them talking about this subject?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
can you not read? I supplied links.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I see neither of the people you posted in either of these articles?
One's literally the WH opposing these things lmao.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
One of the White House members was literally talking to WPATH telling them to drop ALL minimum age requirements there was a post about it
But the easy slam dunk you couldve said is that's an extreme culture war policy but still doesnt involve literally overturn elections which makes blockers look like small potatoes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ok, were the people in the pictures he linked, in either of those articles?
And at the end of the day the WH was still against it lmao.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
the first indicates tue wh opposing gender affirming csre, and rhe second is them reversing course after pressurw from their radical base
butt since you reminded me that you lack tue ability to google here
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/15/joe-biden-texas-transgender-care/
https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/rachel-levine-jon-stewart-rutledge-arkansas-insist-gender-affirming-care-minors-safe-medically-necessary-children-kids-trans-trangender-surgery-horomone-blockers
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/869807/biden-hhs-pick-rachel-levine-once-touted-chemical-s*x-changes-for-children/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/02/rachel-levine-doctors-agree-on-need-for-gender-affirming-care-for-trans-kids/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12321933/Transgender-Assistant-Secretary-Health-Rachel-Levine-claims-children-wrong-puberty-argues-gender-affirming-care-kids-evidence-based-despite-critics.html
!slots100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think puberty blockers are a thing, I don't recall or see her or either of them talking about surgery for minors though.
Either way I don't really consider this extreme, I don't really support it but it wouldn't be classified as extreme. or at least objectively extreme, such as trying to steal elections and suppress voters.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The idea that one can change their chromosomes to conform with their sexual fetishes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think either of them believe this.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Lol.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Show me them saying these things.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
So, the Biden administration doing an about-face on gender surgery and the ludicrous Supreme Court "reform" ideas in the span of what, two weeks, isn't an attempt to pander to his terminally online laptop-class base? Jfc.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How is wanting to reform the supreme court extreme, what exactly is extreme about term limits?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Propose a constitutional amendment then. The three branches are co-equal, pizza, you have to recognize that.
Also, it was very obviously an attempt to shore up donor base support following the debate considering Biden himself had fricking dropped the issue two years ago after his own commission wrote back to him.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
what is extreme about wanting term limits on the supreme court? Be specific.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well, again, you can't do it by legislation, so that's being disingenous at the threshold. However, the primary reason is the same as the Framers' rationale: it insulates the judiciary from political and popular pressure. You just disagree with the outcomes of several cases, which is fine, so be it. But applying any other kind of standard other than life tenure for the judiciary is simply asking for the Court to become what Democrats have always thought it was for them: a super-legislature.
Propose an amendment though if you're serious, otherwise you know it's naked pandering.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you can insulate the judiciary from popular pressure and also have term limits lmao.
When the framers wrote these rules lifespans were not as long my guy. It made sense in that context, it no longer makes a lot of sense when you can have 90 year olds sitting on the supreme court that were put there when they were 40.
If anything the extreme position is thinking nothing can ever be changed, the context of when the rules were written cannot be considered.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your turn: explain how. Lifespans being longer is irrelevant; the Court is a co-equal branch that unlike the other two is not elected at all. You want them to be free to make decisions on just the facts, the law, and the Constitution, not about partisan fervor or a desire to do something because they're afraid they might die.
Also, while you're at it, why not propose a constitutional amendment instead of a nakedly pandering bill that'll get torpedoed by the Court in about 6 seconds.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The term limits Biden suggested were 18 years. how is that not long enough to protect them from emotional political backlash? The issue is they aren't really making decisions based on the law at this point, as the court has been captured by conservative extremists primarily operating on "what's good for the GOP."
The term limit thing is an effort to protect the supreme court and what little credibility it has left. The country cannot function the way it currently does, the court will continue rapidly losing support and just not be taken seriously at all.
Because they don't have to, a majority of the senate, house, can change the supreme court lol. That's literally how it works.
He did propose an amendment, just not for the court:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context