FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > No Kings Day 2 — the biggest U.S. protest in 50 years?
No Kings Day 2 — the biggest U.S. protest in 50 years?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 28 weeks ago
|
According to *PinkNews*, protests against the Trump administration’s authoritarian policies — including the rollback of LGBTQ+ rights, deployment of the National Guard, and dismantling of key federal protections — took place in **2,700 locations across all 50 states** on **18 October**, drawing an estimated **seven million people**.
If those figures hold, that would make “No Kings Day 2” **the biggest nationwide protest in over 50 years**, surpassing the 2017 Women’s March (approx. 4.2 million) and the first no kings (5 million).
That’s huge — and yet the media coverage has been minimal.
So what do you think?
– Are the numbers accurate?
– Why isn’t this being reported more widely?
– Do mass protests like this still carry political weight in the U.S. today?
Source: [PinkNews] |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why isn’t this being reported more widely?"
Because it's not really news?
We all know that there's a sizeable group of people that are fanatically anti-Trump, and will stand up and condemn anything he says or does. It's not really surprising that a bunch of them got together to have a bit of a shout and make themselves feel better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 28 weeks ago
|
"7 million.
wow, a whole 2% of the population. So 98 out of 100 people were not protesting this. "
Reasonable proportion for a protest. 99.85% of the UK population didn't attend Tommy TenNames' little shindig in London.
Most people aren't activists, but everyone has an opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"7 million.
wow, a whole 2% of the population. So 98 out of 100 people were not protesting this. "
You’ll find that all ‘mass protests’ are a very small percentage of the population of whatever country they are taking part in, I’d say 2% is at the top end. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 28 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"7 million.
wow, a whole 2% of the population. So 98 out of 100 people were not protesting this. "
The theory you learn in educational politics is if you can get roughly 3.5% of the population out there that is enough to make a difference, those are people actively participating
Next time…. Because these were peaceful and friendly, those who were wavering and didn’t attend may well do so
I think the republicans try to firstly, play it down, then trying to call them “hate America “ rallies, then trying to mock, then saying it’s not representative… they are worried
Think of it a snowball starting small and getting larger, the fact that this is organically people lead, rather than democrat party lead, is what will get attention |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 28 weeks ago
|
"Is anyone going to tell them the USA doesn't have monarchs?  "
They know — the slogan’s a response to Trump calling himself “a king” and pushing for king-like powers. That’s the whole point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is anyone going to tell them the USA doesn't have monarchs?"
"They know — the slogan’s a response to Trump calling himself “a king” ..."
Except that Trump hasn't called himself a king. In response to the protests he explicitly stated that he didn't consider himself a king. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 28 weeks ago
|
"Except that Trump hasn't called himself a king. In response to the protests he explicitly stated that he didn't consider himself a king."
Actually, he did publicly refer to himself as a king.
On February 19 2025, Trump posted:
“CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan and all of New York is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!”
The official White House account even shared a fake *TIME* cover of him wearing a crown to go with it.
So the slogan’s response wasn’t made up — it came *after* that self-styled “king” post.
And as for taking him at his word — this is the same man who made over **30,000 false or misleading claims** while in office, according to the Washington Post fact-checker.
Trusting his denial over the evidence seems... optimistic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Except that Trump hasn't called himself a king. In response to the protests he explicitly stated that he didn't consider himself a king."
Have you seen the AI video posted by Trump showing himself wearing a crown in a jet named King Trump dumping shit on the No Kings protesters?
Or the official White Host post of an AI photo showing Trump and Vance wearing crowns with the caption "We’re built different"?
No doubt these are just examples of childish humour but should the POTUS and White House be indulging in childish humour about the real concern that Trump's administration is becoming more and more autocratic?
Maybe you don't think it is becoming more and more autocratic but millions of American citizens are worried about real things that have happened and the direction of travel.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Except that Trump hasn't called himself a king. In response to the protests he explicitly stated that he didn't consider himself a king.
Have you seen the AI video posted by Trump showing himself wearing a crown in a jet named King Trump dumping shit on the No Kings protesters?
Or the official White Host post of an AI photo showing Trump and Vance wearing crowns with the caption "We’re built different"?
No doubt these are just examples of childish humour but should the POTUS and White House be indulging in childish humour about the real concern that Trump's administration is becoming more and more autocratic?
Maybe you don't think it is becoming more and more autocratic but millions of American citizens are worried about real things that have happened and the direction of travel.
"
Those that support MAGA dont seem to have an issue with him,
Mrs x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Except that Trump hasn't called himself a king. In response to the protests he explicitly stated that he didn't consider himself a king."
"Actually, he did publicly refer to himself as a king.
On February 19 2025 ..."
That was after the No Kings movement started. Yes, subsequently he's said a lot of things to goad the movement, but he didn't start talking about kings before the movement started. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you seen the AI video posted by Trump showing himself wearing a crown in a jet named King Trump dumping shit on the No Kings protesters?"
Yes. That was created, obviously, after the protests. Trump does like to goad his opponents, and that peurile video is an example of that.
"Maybe you don't think it is becoming more and more autocratic ...
"
Oh I do think he's becoming more autocratic, I just don't think he believes himself to be a king, or wants to be one. He's an American, and Americans think of the president being the highest level. They scoff at other countries that have kings.
I agree that Trump would like to have more terms, and I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to get another, but he doesn't want to be thought of as a king. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The thought of king Donald is quite chilling but what is the reasoning behind this claim. Don't really follow US stuff much so not sure what triggered this. I seem to recall a story that he might try to change the rules on a president allowed 2 terms only, though not heard how that went and assume he isn't talking about stopping anyone else from running against him if he was allowed another term |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 28 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The thought of king Donald is quite chilling but what is the reasoning behind this claim. Don't really follow US stuff much so not sure what triggered this. I seem to recall a story that he might try to change the rules on a president allowed 2 terms only, though not heard how that went and assume he isn't talking about stopping anyone else from running against him if he was allowed another term "
He can't change the constitution, for a 3rd term. There are many people down the rabbit hole on this, who think there are technicalities that could come into play that would afford him the 3rd term. Such as he becomes Vice, the president as an accident allowing him to become president again. all of these situations are covered off to prevent the 3rd term. To change the constitution would require the miracle of both parties agreeing that Trump should serve again.. Never going to happen..
As for wanting to be King, he feeds the trolls and they bite.
I thought Elvis was king
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The thought of king Donald is quite chilling but what is the reasoning behind this claim. Don't really follow US stuff much so not sure what triggered this. I seem to recall a story that he might try to change the rules on a president allowed 2 terms only, though not heard how that went and assume he isn't talking about stopping anyone else from running against him if he was allowed another term
He can't change the constitution, for a 3rd term. There are many people down the rabbit hole on this, who think there are technicalities that could come into play that would afford him the 3rd term. Such as he becomes Vice, the president as an accident allowing him to become president again. all of these situations are covered off to prevent the 3rd term. To change the constitution would require the miracle of both parties agreeing that Trump should serve again.. Never going to happen..
As for wanting to be King, he feeds the trolls and they bite.
I thought Elvis was king
"
Putin did it. He bent the rules to stay in power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 28 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The thought of king Donald is quite chilling but what is the reasoning behind this claim. Don't really follow US stuff much so not sure what triggered this. I seem to recall a story that he might try to change the rules on a president allowed 2 terms only, though not heard how that went and assume he isn't talking about stopping anyone else from running against him if he was allowed another term
He can't change the constitution, for a 3rd term. There are many people down the rabbit hole on this, who think there are technicalities that could come into play that would afford him the 3rd term. Such as he becomes Vice, the president as an accident allowing him to become president again. all of these situations are covered off to prevent the 3rd term. To change the constitution would require the miracle of both parties agreeing that Trump should serve again.. Never going to happen..
As for wanting to be King, he feeds the trolls and they bite.
I thought Elvis was king
Putin did it. He bent the rules to stay in power. "
Huge difference between a constitutional democracy and an authoritarian state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 28 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
So what if protests were funded in part by soros, lots of right wing organisations and stuff on the ground is funded by a handful of billionaires… Peter thiel for example famously funded turning points , the billionaire Koch brothers, bill ackmann is basically bankrolling anyone who had a sniff of beating Zohran in the New York mayoral election
Soros is like the rights “boogeyman” and I don’t know why they fear him so much
I was trying to see how violent these no king protests were… so from what I could see, they claim 7 million people attended.. and the total number of arrests was 36
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 28 weeks ago
|
You’ve kind of mashed up civic organising, conspiracy theory, and a bit of Fox News bingo there.
The “No Kings” protests weren’t some shadowy Soros op — they were run by public, transparent groups like the ACLU, Indivisible, and MoveOn. You know, the same people who’ve been organising women’s marches and voting-rights rallies for years.
Calling that “indoctrination” doesn’t make it true — it just shows how fast any protest gets written off as a plot when it doesn’t fit the preferred narrative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 28 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
Sorry, no tin foil hat here, providing people looking at this thread references. If a good look is taken instead of a cursory look, you will find the soro's tie's.
Dismiss and deny, it is fine and ones prerogative.
Please feel free to educate us and provide references to the side you choose to follow on this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 28 weeks ago
|
"Sorry, no tin foil hat here, providing people looking at this thread references. If a good look is taken instead of a cursory look, you will find the soro's tie's.
Dismiss and deny, it is fine and ones prerogative.
Please feel free to educate us and provide references to the side you choose to follow on this "
The “Soros ties” narrative has been investigated countless times and consistently found to be a conspiracy theory pushed by bad-faith actors to discredit progressive movements.
All the named groups — ACLU, MoveOn, Indivisible, etc. — publish their funding and governance transparently. You can literally read their financial disclosures yourself.
If there’s actual evidence of wrongdoing, produce it — not “connections” or “ties” that boil down to someone once receiving a grant from a foundation that also funded a charity. That isn’t proof of coordination, it’s just how civil society funding works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 28 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
Lol, typical diversions and no proof.
I can tell you first hand soro's tie's were reported on NPR Radio for the no kings day charade. Money was reported as being funneled from soro's contributions from one fund to another with intention of funds going no kings charade.
You can believe what fits your narrative.
The consolation on this is that it appears the Justice department is looking into these groups.
Hopefully justice will be brought if warranted.
Like I have said before, lots going on with the government in the UK. Probably best to let the US do their own thing and help save the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Lol, typical diversions and no proof.
I can tell you first hand soro's tie's were reported on NPR Radio for the no kings day charade. Money was reported as being funneled from soro's contributions from one fund to another with intention of funds going no kings charade.
You can believe what fits your narrative.
The consolation on this is that it appears the Justice department is looking into these groups.
Hopefully justice will be brought if warranted.
Like I have said before, lots going on with the government in the UK. Probably best to let the US do their own thing and help save the UK."
I am laughing because I am trying to work out just exactly what the DOJ would charge anyone with because the organisations are transparent with who donated, and there records are public
Irony being all the dark money funding that goes into the right…. For example, the heritage foundation, or aipac, or the NRA… the likes of thiel, adilson, the Koch brothers, bill ackman, are just the ones we know about
The teachers union got involved because ICE started trying to use children as pawns to get parents taking them to/from schools |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
You can promise as many “investigations” as you want… but they are going to end up being as flimsy as the James comey one or the Letitia James one, or the one they are trying to trump up against Adam schiff
There is a reason why the house oversight committee has been a “few weeks away” for the last 3 years from indicting Biden as some part of crime family..then deployed a special counsel to it…. And nothing happened…. Because there is nothing there!
Bit like why the Trump/republican healthcare plan has been “a few weeks away” since 2016
Plus because of what trump has said in the past there are a shed load of selective and malicious prosecution issues
But again… as I have said, and you never answered what any donations which are all public as you trying to claim is actually illegal…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 27 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
Lol, donations in and of themselves are probably legit as you say.
However then end game that their donations go to are where the investigations go.
Believe the investigations you refer to are frustrating.
Believe them to be a bunch of useless politicians thinking they are pole dancers getting us all worked up and then not giving us the happy endings of convictions in this case as we hoped for.
A little humor that makes a strong point for you no kings charade enthusiasts.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQOl08iDOeM/?igsh=MTBsdDYxeDF4czkwYg== |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 27 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
"You can promise as many “investigations” as you want… but they are going to end up being as flimsy as the James comey one or the Letitia James one, or the one they are trying to trump up against Adam schiff
There is a reason why the house oversight committee has been a “few weeks away” for the last 3 years from indicting Biden as some part of crime family..then deployed a special counsel to it…. And nothing happened…. Because there is nothing there!
Bit like why the Trump/republican healthcare plan has been “a few weeks away” since 2016
Plus because of what trump has said in the past there are a shed load of selective and malicious prosecution issues
But again… as I have said, and you never answered what any donations which are all public as you trying to claim is actually illegal…. "
Apparently alive and well, unfortunately being a new comer to politics his ducks were not always in alignment to get things done and then the addition of being out numbered by the Dems.
Look at all the accomplishments in 10 months. His healthcare is being worked in steps.
Here is some reading for you to verify he is working on it.
Oh by the way how in seir karma doing with the NHS, not very well I see.
A bit of KSDS would be helpful to ease the pains of the fall of Britain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"You can promise as many “investigations” as you want… but they are going to end up being as flimsy as the James comey one or the Letitia James one, or the one they are trying to trump up against Adam schiff
There is a reason why the house oversight committee has been a “few weeks away” for the last 3 years from indicting Biden as some part of crime family..then deployed a special counsel to it…. And nothing happened…. Because there is nothing there!
Bit like why the Trump/republican healthcare plan has been “a few weeks away” since 2016
Plus because of what trump has said in the past there are a shed load of selective and malicious prosecution issues
But again… as I have said, and you never answered what any donations which are all public as you trying to claim is actually illegal….
Apparently alive and well, unfortunately being a new comer to politics his ducks were not always in alignment to get things done and then the addition of being out numbered by the Dems.
Look at all the accomplishments in 10 months. His healthcare is being worked in steps.
Here is some reading for you to verify he is working on it.
Oh by the way how in seir karma doing with the NHS, not very well I see.
A bit of KSDS would be helpful to ease the pains of the fall of Britain"
You mean the healthcare plan in the budget that would let some of them affordable care act provisions expire… which would take roughly a billion dollars out of Medicare and Medicaid which would mean roughly 15 million people who have insurance would lose it….
And that billions dollars basically given to the richest in tax cuts
You mean that healthcare plan?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 27 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
Lol. Same story line.... Billionaires get to benefit from the tax cut.
Billionaires, billionaires, can you change it up, and give references to your claims?
By the way how is the NHS doing?
Yep the healthy non workers, milking the system will be cut out and lose their healthcare.
That is what we voted for a king with common sense that does not put all the freebies in to buy votes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Lol. Same story line.... Billionaires get to benefit from the tax cut.
Billionaires, billionaires, can you change it up, and give references to your claims?
By the way how is the NHS doing?
Yep the healthy non workers, milking the system will be cut out and lose their healthcare.
That is what we voted for a king with common sense that does not put all the freebies in to buy votes."
How’s the NHS doing? Saved my life twice so I can’t complain!
Using the NHS does not mean you can’t have some sort of private healthcare if you want it! When I explain this to Americans back home, they think socialised healthcare is the only option and if you don’t like it.. tough!
God bless bupa! … I like a happy medium, but it doesn’t mean the people at the bottom go without
Interesting you should say that… because even the us government own congressional budget office concede that 97% of the benefits from the tax cuts go to there top 1% of earners
And to pay for tax… 1 billion dollars of Medicare and Medicaid cuts… 15 million people who have some healthcare coverage will lose it
And the expiry of the affordable care act subsidies means that another 40 million people will see their healthcare premiums double or triple…..
But yeah… your good! Everyone else can go and blow! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 27 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
Coming from England understand just fine about the NHS. Also understand the issues the NHS is going through and the burdens the immigrants put on it. Especially in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland as they can go for secondary care there.
Quick Google search quickly debunked your claim of the Billionaires, Billionaires getting all the dosh from the cuts.
Money saved goes back in to a general fund to cut the deficit.
Just saw a clip of S. Korea gifting a crown to President Trump.
In the world of politics it seems the left is becoming more insignificant very quickly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Coming from England understand just fine about the NHS. Also understand the issues the NHS is going through and the burdens the immigrants put on it. Especially in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland as they can go for secondary care there.
Quick Google search quickly debunked your claim of the Billionaires, Billionaires getting all the dosh from the cuts.
Money saved goes back in to a general fund to cut the deficit.
Just saw a clip of S. Korea gifting a crown to President Trump.
In the world of politics it seems the left is becoming more insignificant very quickly."
I asked chatgpt to analyse you post.
It said...
That comment reads like a grab-bag of culture-war lines, not a serious argument. You’d gain more clarity debating a foghorn. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is anyone going to tell them the USA doesn't have monarchs?
They know — the slogan’s a response to Trump calling himself “a king” ...
Except that Trump hasn't called himself a king. In response to the protests he explicitly stated that he didn't consider himself a king."
I wonder why he stated that? Of course! Because he is not acting like one! Silly 7 million people. The dictatorial activities of the Trump Administration are all fake news. Nothing to see here.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 27 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
"Coming from England understand just fine about the NHS. Also understand the issues the NHS is going through and the burdens the immigrants put on it. Especially in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland as they can go for secondary care there.
Quick Google search quickly debunked your claim of the Billionaires, Billionaires getting all the dosh from the cuts.
Money saved goes back in to a general fund to cut the deficit.
Just saw a clip of S. Korea gifting a crown to President Trump.
In the world of politics it seems the left is becoming more insignificant very quickly.
I asked chatgpt to analyse you post.
It said...
That comment reads like a grab-bag of culture-war lines, not a serious argument. You’d gain more clarity debating a foghorn."
Lol, asking questions to chatgpt without context is going to give silly answers isn't it.
It was a grab bag of points in answer to Mr. Fabios post to me.
Sorry it confused you and ai. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Coming from England understand just fine about the NHS. Also understand the issues the NHS is going through and the burdens the immigrants put on it. Especially in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland as they can go for secondary care there.
Quick Google search quickly debunked your claim of the Billionaires, Billionaires getting all the dosh from the cuts.
Money saved goes back in to a general fund to cut the deficit.
Just saw a clip of S. Korea gifting a crown to President Trump.
In the world of politics it seems the left is becoming more insignificant very quickly."
I loved the “money saved goes back to the general fund to cut the deficit “ line… because trumps tax cuts actually adds around 3 trillion dollars to the deficit
Even Elon musk said what was the point of DOGE if you are going just make the deficit bigger!
I also love the “nhs is burdened down by immigrants” line … said with no
Irony in that about 1 in 8 NHS staff is in fact an immigrant in one way or another
The budget cuts funding for Medicare and Medicare will be about 1 billion dollars
.the rules changing means 15 million people will lose healthcare entitlements…..
The expiry of the affordable care act subsidies means that move people using the cheapest healthcare exchanges will see their 2026 healthcare premiums go up by at minimum 26% for those states that took Medicare expansion money
For those states that didn’t… 2026 minimum healthcare premiums could at worst double or triple….
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 27 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
Feel like I am listening to one of baracks speeches where he pulls dollar numbers, and percentages of our if his backside. Everyone would assume it must be right but never check them.
Here you go, where was your outrage when barry started the ACA and the significant increases he brought on the American public.
Probably will get put in Fab jail for once again giving a link to prove my point.
But really don't care! Feel like I am debating a fog horn who has no proof, just an agenda.
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/obamacare-has-doubled-the-cost-individual-health-insurance#:~:text=Obamacare%20Doubled%20the%20Cost%20of,large%2Dgroup%20employer%20market).
Those immigrant workers in the NHS, are those the doctors in the rubber rafts with the engineers? Asking for a friend?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
The Heritage Foundation isn’t a credible source — it’s a far-right, ultra-conservative think tank that treats The Handmaid’s Tale like an instruction manual, not a warning.
Independent data from the CBO and Kaiser Family Foundation show the ACA cut the uninsured rate to historic lows. Premiums rose partly because insurers could no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or cap payouts — that’s the cost of protecting people, not a failure of the policy.
Immigrants make up around one in six NHS staff and more than a quarter of its doctors. Without them, the system falls apart. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Heritage Foundation isn’t a credible source — it’s a far-right, ultra-conservative think tank that treats The Handmaid’s Tale like an instruction manual, not a warning"
*Not arguing*, but, in your view, what are the top three factors that distinguish The Heritage Foundation add "far right", as opposed to simply right wing conservatism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"*Not arguing*, but, in your view, what are the top three factors that distinguish The Heritage Foundation add "far right", as opposed to simply right wing conservatism?"
Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
Heritage crosses that line in a few ways:
1. Authoritarian social control. They’ve backed total abortion bans with no exceptions, even when the mother’s life is at risk. That’s not small-government conservatism; it’s state control over people’s bodies.
2. Anti-democratic ideas. Senior figures have floated that each household should get one vote, cast by the man. That’s a direct rejection of individual suffrage — it’s patriarchy in policy form.
3. Targeting minorities. They’ve funded and promoted campaigns to roll back LGBTQIA+ rights and oppose anti-discrimination protections. That’s about enforcing moral conformity, not fiscal discipline.
So the difference isn’t tone — it’s intent. The mainstream right wants to steer society; the far right wants to control it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So the difference isn’t tone — it’s intent. The mainstream right wants to steer society; the far right wants to control it."
On that basis, would you also argue that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right? They all conform to those three above points, almost completely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"
So the difference isn’t tone — it’s intent. The mainstream right wants to steer society; the far right wants to control it.
On that basis, would you also argue that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right? They all conform to those three above points, almost completely."
I’d agree that some Islamist movements share traits with the far right — rigid hierarchy, suppression of dissent, and patriarchal control.
But it’s essential to be clear: most Muslims and most Islamic traditions are nothing like that.
Islamism is a political ideology, not a synonym for Islam. The vast majority of Muslims live ordinary, peaceful lives with democratic, pluralistic, and socially moderate values.
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
The key issue isn’t religion, it’s authoritarianism. When any ideology starts enforcing purity, policing identity, and excusing cruelty as virtue, that’s when it crosses into the far-right space. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern."
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right."
No. I said some Islamist movements fit the far-right pattern, not all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right.
No. I said some Islamist movements fit the far-right pattern, not all."
Which don't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right.
No. I said some Islamist movements fit the far-right pattern, not all.
Which don't?"
That kind of question always feels like a trap. I haven’t looked into every movement closely enough to give a confident list, and pretending otherwise wouldn’t be honest. What I can say is that ideology isn’t binary — even within political Islam there’s a wide range of beliefs and aims. Monoliths are rare, and treating them as uniform usually tells you more about the question than the subject. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Heritage Foundation isn’t a credible source — it’s a far-right, ultra-conservative think tank that treats The Handmaid’s Tale like an instruction manual, not a warning."
Someone round here was recently arguing that dismissing information based on its source was intellectually dishonest. Who was that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t."
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
That kind of question always feels like a trap. I haven’t looked into every movement closely enough to give a confident list, and pretending otherwise wouldn’t be honest. What I can say is that ideology isn’t binary — even within political Islam there’s a wide range of beliefs and aims. Monoliths are rare, and treating them as uniform usually tells you more about the question than the subject."
That's the second time you've used AI generated weasel words to avoid consistently applying criteria and judgement.
You're absolutely happy to call The Heritage Foundation "far right" (in your worldview, this is evil). With supreme confidence, you list three criteria for "far right". When it's pointed out that these criteria equally (almost identically) apply to "Islamism", generally and by definition, (broadly defined as the ideology that a strict interpretation of conservative Islamic values [not completely unlike conservative Christian values, often a little more killy in today's world], should be the basis for government), you cannot agree. Your inhibitor chip kicks in.
This is why people couldn't call out grooming gangs. White and Christian? The bastards deserve it. Something else? Don't be racist.
This inconsistency is a plague in society.
Perhaps you'll agree that "the vast majority of Islamist movements around the world today contain elements of the three criteria that would describe them as far right, whilst remembering that Muslims in general are not all Islamists".
Remember - we're NOT talking about the religion or its adherents: we're talking specifically about Islamism, e.g. Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right.
No. I said some Islamist movements fit the far-right pattern, not all.
Which don't?"
Baha'i |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?"
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right.
No. I said some Islamist movements fit the far-right pattern, not all.
Which don't?
Baha'i"
Baha'i aren't Islamist in the slightest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right.
No. I said some Islamist movements fit the far-right pattern, not all.
Which don't?
Baha'i
Baha'i aren't Islamist in the slightest."
It originated in Islam, but became a separate faith.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only a small minority of extremist groups — often condemned by Muslim scholars and communities themselves — fit the far-right pattern.
So you do believe that every Islamist movement (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) is, by definition, far right.
No. I said some Islamist movements fit the far-right pattern, not all.
Which don't?
Baha'i
Baha'i aren't Islamist in the slightest.
It originated in Islam, but became a separate faith.
"
We might just be the only people on this forum with Baha'i relatives.
Do you know the difference between Islam and Islamism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 27 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against. "
On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against.
On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have? "
I've already qualified - discrimination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?"
Pointing out that a source has a political agenda isn’t the same as dismissing an argument — it’s context. If someone quotes a lobbying group, the bias is part of the evidence, not separate from it. I didn’t reject the claim; I identified why the source isn’t reliable on its own.
And comparing the trans rights movement to the far right is absurd. The far right fights to restrict freedom; trans people fight to be included in it. One seeks dominance, the other equality. Those are not opposing sides of the same coin — they’re different currencies entirely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 27 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against.
On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
I've already qualified - discrimination. "
Discrimination isn’t a rights issue, it’s others behaviour and actions…
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"
That's the second time you've used AI generated weasel words to avoid consistently applying criteria and judgement.
"
No, that’s not “weaseling,” it’s intellectual honesty. I’m not going to fake expertise I don’t have, and that’s the opposite of what bad-faith debate usually looks like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have? "
This is the textbook shape of a bad-faith question. It compresses a complex legal and social issue into a single sentence that sounds reasonable while quietly erasing context.
In theory, yes, trans people already have rights. In practice, those rights are constantly undermined — from access to healthcare, safe housing, and accurate ID, to employment and public services where discrimination is still widespread. Legal protection doesn’t mean equal treatment; it just gives you something to fight back with after the damage is done.
So the gap isn’t on paper, it’s in how those rights are applied. That’s what equality movements try to close. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against.
On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
I've already qualified - discrimination.
Discrimination isn’t a rights issue, it’s others behaviour and actions…
"
Oh dear. If discrimination wasn't a rights issue, there would be no need for the Equality Act 2010.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’m not going to fake expertise I don’t have, and that’s the opposite of what bad-faith debate usually looks like."
Um... Asking AI to do research for you on some subjects, but now you won't "fake expertise"?
For someone who has been very vocal on one side of Middle Eastern politics, that word "weasel" is coming up again... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Feel like I am listening to one of baracks speeches where he pulls dollar numbers, and percentages of our if his backside. Everyone would assume it must be right but never check them.
Here you go, where was your outrage when barry started the ACA and the significant increases he brought on the American public.
Probably will get put in Fab jail for once again giving a link to prove my point.
But really don't care! Feel like I am debating a fog horn who has no proof, just an agenda.
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/obamacare-has-doubled-the-cost-individual-health-insurance#:~:text=Obamacare%20Doubled%20the%20Cost%20of,large%2Dgroup%20employer%20market).
Those immigrant workers in the NHS, are those the doctors in the rubber rafts with the engineers? Asking for a friend?
"
I think since you open the door to the heritage foundation discourse, it also needs to be mentioned that they are also the organisation behind “project 2025”….
You know, that thing the trump administration is basically using which he claimed never to have heard of, the disavowed because it became a toxic subject, but a lot of higher ups in the heritage foundation are now senior figures in the Trump administration…
For example, you know the chap who is threatening to cut all the federal staff permanently since the shutdown started….. former heritage foundation senior figure!
I am loving the how far right from normal right is the heritage foundation conversation… because they are further right from where conventional government has been in a long time… it is bordering on authoritarian
Maybe some people need to be reacquainted with the project 2025 manual… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 27 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against.
On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
I've already qualified - discrimination.
Discrimination isn’t a rights issue, it’s others behaviour and actions…
Oh dear. If discrimination wasn't a rights issue, there would be no need for the Equality Act 2010.
"
which mean s those rights exist, right?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 27 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
This is the textbook shape of a bad-faith question. It compresses a complex legal and social issue into a single sentence that sounds reasonable while quietly erasing context.
In theory, yes, trans people already have rights. In practice, those rights are constantly undermined — from access to healthcare, safe housing, and accurate ID, to employment and public services where discrimination is still widespread. Legal protection doesn’t mean equal treatment; it just gives you something to fight back with after the damage is done.
So the gap isn’t on paper, it’s in how those rights are applied. That’s what equality movements try to close."
this reads as more than others rights if I'm being honest.
You have the same right as every other person, trans shouldn't elevate those rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against.
On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
I've already qualified - discrimination.
Discrimination isn’t a rights issue, it’s others behaviour and actions…
Oh dear. If discrimination wasn't a rights issue, there would be no need for the Equality Act 2010.
which mean s those rights exist, right?
"
It means they had to be legislated for, because groups of people were being discriminated against, and still are. The rights exist because discrimination exists, and yet discrimination is still alive and well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 27 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t.
You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?
Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against.
On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
I've already qualified - discrimination.
Discrimination isn’t a rights issue, it’s others behaviour and actions…
Oh dear. If discrimination wasn't a rights issue, there would be no need for the Equality Act 2010.
which mean s those rights exist, right?
It means they had to be legislated for, because groups of people were being discriminated against, and still are. The rights exist because discrimination exists, and yet discrimination is still alive and well. "
So they have rights! What rights do they not have, lets start from there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
This is the textbook shape of a bad-faith question. It compresses a complex legal and social issue into a single sentence that sounds reasonable while quietly erasing context.
In theory, yes, trans people already have rights. In practice, those rights are constantly undermined — from access to healthcare, safe housing, and accurate ID, to employment and public services where discrimination is still widespread. Legal protection doesn’t mean equal treatment; it just gives you something to fight back with after the damage is done.
So the gap isn’t on paper, it’s in how those rights are applied. That’s what equality movements try to close.
this reads as more than others rights if I'm being honest.
You have the same right as every other person, trans shouldn't elevate those rights. "
You understand how discrimination works, I believe. In principle, the Equality Act 2010 provided protections for the groups of people that were disadvantaged. Those disadvantages are still present, but the Equality Act 2010 provides a legal basis to bring individuals or organisations to account if they continue to discriminate.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Um... Asking AI to do research for you on some subjects, but now you won't "fake expertise"?
For someone who has been very vocal on one side of Middle Eastern politics, that word "weasel" is coming up again..."
There’s a difference between using AI to help format or cross-check facts and pretending to be an expert. I’ve always been transparent about that. What I won’t do is bluff knowledge I don’t have just to sound confident. That’s not “weaseling,” it’s integrity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good question. “Far-right” isn’t just a louder version of “conservative.” It’s when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t."
"You mean like the trans movement, who have decided that they should have rights, and other people should lose some of theirs to make way?"
"Trans people don't want other people to lose any rights, they want to be afforded the same rights as cis people and not be discriminated against."
I'm sure that not all trans people think the same way, but a significant number of them think that trans women should have the right to use women-only toilets, so that they can avoid dangerous men. A non-trivial number of cis women think that trans women shouldn't be allowed in, because they also want to avoid men. The trans group want their rights to be enforced, and the other group's rights to be denied.
Yes, I know that these aren't actual "rights", but that's the language people use. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 27 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"On the other thread discussing the same content it was mentioned that cis was offensive to some people, and it is their right to be called women or men. I will respect that view below.
I'm interested in understanding what rights trans women and men don't have that women and men have?
This is the textbook shape of a bad-faith question. It compresses a complex legal and social issue into a single sentence that sounds reasonable while quietly erasing context.
In theory, yes, trans people already have rights. In practice, those rights are constantly undermined — from access to healthcare, safe housing, and accurate ID, to employment and public services where discrimination is still widespread. Legal protection doesn’t mean equal treatment; it just gives you something to fight back with after the damage is done.
So the gap isn’t on paper, it’s in how those rights are applied. That’s what equality movements try to close.
this reads as more than others rights if I'm being honest.
You have the same right as every other person, trans shouldn't elevate those rights.
You understand how discrimination works, I believe. In principle, the Equality Act 2010 provided protections for the groups of people that were disadvantaged. Those disadvantages are still present, but the Equality Act 2010 provides a legal basis to bring individuals or organisations to account if they continue to discriminate.
"
I'm going to stop posting in this thread, there is a another thread dedicated to this subject. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And comparing the trans rights movement to the far right is absurd..."
I didn't compare the trans movement to the far right. I compared the trans movement to your definition of 'far right', which was "when a group moves from arguing about policy to trying to impose hierarchy — deciding who should have rights and who shouldn’t".
If you don't like the result of that comparison, maybe your definition of 'far right' wasn't very good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"I'm sure that not all trans people think the same way, but a significant number of them think that trans women should have the right to use women-only toilets, so that they can avoid dangerous men. A non-trivial number of cis women think that trans women shouldn't be allowed in, because they also want to avoid men. The trans group want their rights to be enforced, and the other group's rights to be denied.
Yes, I know that these aren't actual "rights", but that's the language people use."
Except that’s not what’s happening. Trans people aren’t asking for new privileges — they’re trying to keep using the same facilities they’ve always used, usually without issue until others made it one.
What we’re campaigning for is the same dignity, safety, and privacy as anyone else. As I said in the EHRC guidance thread, we can be excluded from women’s spaces, but only if there’s a genuinely non-discriminatory alternative. That’s already what the Equality Act requires — fairness, not special treatment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Um... Asking AI to do research for you on some subjects, but now you won't "fake expertise"?
For someone who has been very vocal on one side of Middle Eastern politics, that word "weasel" is coming up again...
There’s a difference between using AI to help format or cross-check facts and pretending to be an expert. I’ve always been transparent about that. What I won’t do is bluff knowledge I don’t have just to sound confident. That’s not “weaseling,” it’s integrity."
So your expertise in The Heritage Foundation and the definition of what constitutes "far right" vastly exceeds your expertise in the definition of Islamism. Therefore you're happy to confidently call one "far right", but couldn't hazard a guess on whether the other one is, despite having the same characteristics that you identified.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"So your expertise in The Heritage Foundation and the definition of what constitutes "far right" vastly exceeds your expertise in the definition of Islamism. Therefore you're happy to confidently call one "far right", but couldn't hazard a guess on whether the other one is, despite having the same characteristics that you identified.
"
Correct. I’m not going to call a group far right unless I’m confident the label fits. I haven’t said all Islamist movements aren’t — I’ve said I don’t have enough knowledge to judge either way. That’s called being accurate, not evasive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 27 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
"The Heritage Foundation isn’t a credible source — it’s a far-right, ultra-conservative think tank that treats The Handmaid’s Tale like an instruction manual, not a warning.
Independent data from the CBO and Kaiser Family Foundation show the ACA cut the uninsured rate to historic lows. Premiums rose partly because insurers could no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or cap payouts — that’s the cost of protecting people, not a failure of the policy.
Immigrants make up around one in six NHS staff and more than a quarter of its doctors. Without them, the system falls apart."
So the pink party and the other ones you sight are the approved left ones and all others don't fit your agenda.
So with the left condescending manner all others are dismissed.
Living in America, living through the hillary's attempts to socialize health care, then barrack comes along and promises cheaper health care and keeping your doctors.
Guess what, lied on all accounts and turned healthcare into a shambles over here.
This is where you are at a disadvantage.
What you read, you are not living it to authenticate it.
I am not living in England. I do visit every year, have family there and talk to friends when they come back to understand what is happening.
Definitely have a more definitive grasp on the state of the UK than you would have on American Health Care. Do not have a hate for the Orange King to shroud my judgement, and know that he is taking steps to improve on the ACA with a new plan.
Crack on with your reply, going to have more fun with a fog horn.
But will say you might be better off caring more about the UK and what you can do there, than what you can't do in the US.
Do nothing and it will not be long before you will be shopping for a burka.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So your expertise in The Heritage Foundation and the definition of what constitutes "far right" vastly exceeds your expertise in the definition of Islamism. Therefore you're happy to confidently call one "far right", but couldn't hazard a guess on whether the other one is, despite having the same characteristics that you identified.
Correct. I’m not going to call a group far right unless I’m confident the label fits. I haven’t said all Islamist movements aren’t — I’ve said I don’t have enough knowledge to judge either way. That’s called being accurate, not evasive."
Fair enough.
Could we agree that a political movement based upon conservative religious doctrine, which aims to restrict autonomy over freedom of expression, treats men and women differently politically, socially or economically, which proscribes LGBTQ activities... is far right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Fair enough.
Could we agree that a political movement based upon conservative religious doctrine, which aims to restrict autonomy over freedom of expression, treats men and women differently politically, socially or economically, which proscribes LGBTQ activities... is far right? "
In broad terms, yes — if a political movement enforces rigid hierarchy, restricts personal autonomy, and polices identity or expression, that fits the definition of far right.
But applying that definition still depends on evidence and context, not just the presence of conservative religion. Authoritarianism is the key factor, not theology. That’s why I’m cautious about generalising — the label has to fit the facts, not just the vibe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fair enough.
Could we agree that a political movement based upon conservative religious doctrine, which aims to restrict autonomy over freedom of expression, treats men and women differently politically, socially or economically, which proscribes LGBTQ activities... is far right?
In broad terms, yes — if a political movement enforces rigid hierarchy, restricts personal autonomy, and polices identity or expression, that fits the definition of far right.
But applying that definition still depends on evidence and context, not just the presence of conservative religion. Authoritarianism is the key factor, not theology. That’s why I’m cautious about generalising — the label has to fit the facts, not just the vibe."
Quite fair enough. You might not have the expertise to know our comment further, but this definition would apply to (specifically) the Muslim Brotherhood and all derivative groups from that (e.g. HTS, Hamas, etc.). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"So the pink party and the other ones you sight are the approved left ones and all others don't fit your agenda.
So with the left condescending manner all others are dismissed.
Living in America, living through the hillary's attempts to socialize health care, then barrack comes along and promises cheaper health care and keeping your doctors.
Guess what, lied on all accounts and turned healthcare into a shambles over here.
This is where you are at a disadvantage.
What you read, you are not living it to authenticate it.
I am not living in England. I do visit every year, have family there and talk to friends when they come back to understand what is happening.
Definitely have a more definitive grasp on the state of the UK than you would have on American Health Care. Do not have a hate for the Orange King to shroud my judgement, and know that he is taking steps to improve on the ACA with a new plan.
Crack on with your reply, going to have more fun with a fog horn.
But will say you might be better off caring more about the UK and what you can do there, than what you can't do in the US.
Do nothing and it will not be long before you will be shopping for a burka.
"
You’ve packed a lot of opinions in there, but very few facts. The data I cited came from the Congressional Budget Office and the Kaiser Family Foundation — neither is a partisan outfit. Both show the ACA expanded coverage and cut the uninsured rate to record lows. That’s not “agenda,” it’s public record.
You’re right that I don’t live in the U.S., but evidence doesn’t need a zip code to be valid. And that last line about burkas? That’s the kind of rhetoric that tells me this likely isn’t really about healthcare at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"The Heritage Foundation isn’t a credible source — it’s a far-right, ultra-conservative think tank that treats The Handmaid’s Tale like an instruction manual, not a warning.
Independent data from the CBO and Kaiser Family Foundation show the ACA cut the uninsured rate to historic lows. Premiums rose partly because insurers could no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or cap payouts — that’s the cost of protecting people, not a failure of the policy.
Immigrants make up around one in six NHS staff and more than a quarter of its doctors. Without them, the system falls apart.
So the pink party and the other ones you sight are the approved left ones and all others don't fit your agenda.
So with the left condescending manner all others are dismissed.
Living in America, living through the hillary's attempts to socialize health care, then barrack comes along and promises cheaper health care and keeping your doctors.
Guess what, lied on all accounts and turned healthcare into a shambles over here.
This is where you are at a disadvantage.
What you read, you are not living it to authenticate it.
I am not living in England. I do visit every year, have family there and talk to friends when they come back to understand what is happening.
Definitely have a more definitive grasp on the state of the UK than you would have on American Health Care. Do not have a hate for the Orange King to shroud my judgement, and know that he is taking steps to improve on the ACA with a new plan.
Crack on with your reply, going to have more fun with a fog horn.
But will say you might be better off caring more about the UK and what you can do there, than what you can't do in the US.
Do nothing and it will not be long before you will be shopping for a burka.
"
When I first moved to the UK, I lived in London…. London voted for a Muslim mayor… guess what? No implementation of sharia law!! Wow!!
I am lucky in that I am registered to vote in NYC, guess who I am voting for mayor … you can call me a veteran of seeing what a Islamophobic smear campaign looks like!
“ Definitely have a more definitive grasp on the state of the UK than you would have on American Health Care. Do not have a hate for the Orange King to shroud my judgement, and know that he is taking steps to improve on the ACA with a new plan.”
A new plan….
The same new plan that has been “3 weeks away” from being announced for the last 10 years
The same “plans….. I have concepts of a plan “ that he announced at the debates… and when asked when that would be published or made public, he said at the time “a couple of weeks away”
If we are going to be honest, then be honest and say the republicans don’t have a plan and would prefer to go back to pre ACA… everyone fend for themselves.. and if you have pre existing conditions, you either have to pay through the roof… or they deny you coverage!
Never said the ACA was perfect…can it be improved? Absolutely!
Is doubling or tripling healthcare premiums for the poorest improvement? Really? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If we are going to be honest, then be honest and say the republicans don’t have a plan and would prefer to go back to pre ACA… everyone fend for themselves.. and if you have pre existing conditions, you either have to pay through the roof… or they deny you coverage!
Never said the ACA was perfect…can it be improved? Absolutely!
Is doubling or tripling healthcare premiums for the poorest improvement? Really?"
This is so unfortunately true.
The politics on both sides is toxic, but the problems are more with the entire medical establishment and system than the politicians. The republicans have no plan for socialised healthcare. The Democrats just have a bad plan.
Remove lobbying and corruption and perhaps things will improve (not necessarily under republicans, who will need to be drawn kicking and screaming). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm sure that not all trans people think the same way, but a significant number of them think that trans women should have the right to use women-only toilets, so that they can avoid dangerous men. A non-trivial number of cis women think that trans women shouldn't be allowed in, because they also want to avoid men. The trans group want their rights to be enforced, and the other group's rights to be denied.
Yes, I know that these aren't actual "rights", but that's the language people use."
"Except that’s not what’s happening. Trans people aren’t asking for new privileges — they’re trying to keep using the same facilities they’ve always used, usually without issue until others made it one."
Now you're conflating privileges, and rights, and actions.
Yes, trans people have been using these facilities for years, by keeping quiet and not making a fuss. But now some of them have decided that this privilege isn't enough, and they must have the right to demand access.
At that point a bunch of cis women who didn't want to share toilet facilities with what they considered to be men started protesting. They also are just asking for what they see has always been their privilege, and now they also want to make it their right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Yes, trans people have been using these facilities for years, by keeping quiet and not making a fuss. But now some of them have decided that this privilege isn't enough, and they must have the right to demand access."
Most of the noise isn't being made by trans people. It's potentially well-meaning social media and keyboard warriors who have turned it into a culture war. This has, naturally, been picked up by the other side as part of their culture war.
For all practical purposes, our view (as a couple) is that if someone presents, acts and behaves as a woman, they use women's toilets. Changing rooms present extra challenges. If someone has a cock out in a women's changing room, that's obscene. This is complicated by religious requirements not to uncover in front of the opposite sex - those must be respected, but the implementation of this is tricky.
Trans people are NOT the problem, except for the few bad actors. It's the appropriation of this cause that is the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
If we are going to be honest, then be honest and say the republicans don’t have a plan and would prefer to go back to pre ACA… everyone fend for themselves.. and if you have pre existing conditions, you either have to pay through the roof… or they deny you coverage!
Never said the ACA was perfect…can it be improved? Absolutely!
Is doubling or tripling healthcare premiums for the poorest improvement? Really?
This is so unfortunately true.
The politics on both sides is toxic, but the problems are more with the entire medical establishment and system than the politicians. The republicans have no plan for socialised healthcare. The Democrats just have a bad plan.
Remove lobbying and corruption and perhaps things will improve (not necessarily under republicans, who will need to be drawn kicking and screaming)."
I don’t think the ACA is a bad plan as such, it did a lot of good things, got 40 million people minimum healthcare coverage, made people cover those with pre existing conditions, forced more competition through healthcare exchanges
They never used the ACA to its fullest extent… for example, the NHS is allowed to use it economy of scale to bring down drugs prices, whereas the US don’t allow Medicare, Medicaid or the VA to do the same thing! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They never used the ACA to its fullest extent… for example, the NHS is allowed to use it economy of scale to bring down drugs prices, whereas the US don’t allow Medicare, Medicaid or the VA to do the same thing! "
Corruption and lobbying. Also the state of private health insurance there is obscene. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes, trans people have been using these facilities for years, by keeping quiet and not making a fuss. But now some of them have decided that this privilege isn't enough, and they must have the right to demand access."
"Most of the noise isn't being made by trans people. It's potentially well-meaning social media and keyboard warriors who have turned it into a culture war. This has, naturally, been picked up by the other side as part of their culture war.
For all practical purposes, our view (as a couple) is that if someone presents, acts and behaves as a woman, they use women's toilets. Changing rooms present extra challenges. If someone has a cock out in a women's changing room, that's obscene. This is complicated by religious requirements not to uncover in front of the opposite sex - those must be respected, but the implementation of this is tricky.
Trans people are NOT the problem, except for the few bad actors. It's the appropriation of this cause that is the problem."
Wholeheartedly agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Now you're conflating privileges, and rights, and actions.
Yes, trans people have been using these facilities for years, by keeping quiet and not making a fuss. But now some of them have decided that this privilege isn't enough, and they must have the right to demand access.
At that point a bunch of cis women who didn't want to share toilet facilities with what they considered to be men started protesting. They also are just asking for what they see has always been their privilege, and now they also want to make it their right."
The idea that this culture war exists because trans people “wanted something” is backwards. Trans people used these spaces quietly for decades. The uproar began when far-right groups realised they could weaponise our existence to stir fear and score political points.
What’s being called a “fight over rights” is really the backlash to inclusion. Trans people didn’t start that — we responded to it. Fighting for equal dignity and safety isn’t escalation; it’s self-defence.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Most of the noise isn't being made by trans people. It's potentially well-meaning social media and keyboard warriors who have turned it into a culture war. This has, naturally, been picked up by the other side as part of their culture war.
For all practical purposes, our view (as a couple) is that if someone presents, acts and behaves as a woman, they use women's toilets. Changing rooms present extra challenges. If someone has a cock out in a women's changing room, that's obscene. This is complicated by religious requirements not to uncover in front of the opposite sex - those must be respected, but the implementation of this is tricky.
Trans people are NOT the problem, except for the few bad actors. It's the appropriation of this cause that is the problem."
I can agree with that balance. There’s definitely nuance here. If someone is behaving in a sexual or threatening way in any space, that’s a criminal issue, not a gender one. But simply having a penis, or a vagina, isn’t the problem — intent and behaviour are.
And you’re right about religion too. Plenty of cis women interpret modesty laws in ways that recognise trans women as women, so the rules apply consistently. The challenge isn’t faith itself — it’s how some people use faith as a shield for prejudice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I can agree with that balance. There’s definitely nuance here. If someone is behaving in a sexual or threatening way in any space, that’s a criminal issue, not a gender one. But simply having a penis, or a vagina, isn’t the problem — intent and behaviour are.
"
Perhaps we are not agreeing. It's not about being sexual or threatening. Some women are deeply uncomfortable being seen undressed or vulnerable by someone this that they identify as male. Having a penis visible in a changing room is neither threatening nor sexual, but is certainly inappropriate and very possibly highly distressing to many women.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Perhaps we are not agreeing. It's not about being sexual or threatening. Some women are deeply uncomfortable being seen undressed or vulnerable by someone this that they identify as male. Having a penis visible in a changing room is neither threatening nor sexual, but is certainly inappropriate and very possibly highly distressing to many women.
"
Just for clarity, what exactly makes it inappropriate? If the person isn’t behaving in a sexual way or invading anyone’s privacy, what is the issue — the body part itself, or what people assume it represents?
Because if it’s just the existence of a penis that’s considered inappropriate, then that’s not about behaviour or harm, it’s about perception. And perception alone can’t define morality or rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I can agree with that balance. There’s definitely nuance here. If someone is behaving in a sexual or threatening way in any space, that’s a criminal issue, not a gender one. But simply having a penis, or a vagina, isn’t the problem — intent and behaviour are.
Perhaps we are not agreeing. It's not about being sexual or threatening. Some women are deeply uncomfortable being seen undressed or vulnerable by someone this that they identify as male. Having a penis visible in a changing room is neither threatening nor sexual, but is certainly inappropriate and very possibly highly distressing to many women.
"
Out of curiosity if a trans woman was in a shared female changing room and their penis was on display but not in a sexual way, could that be classed as indecent exposure? It probably would outside of the changing room but does being in a changing room stop any offence being committed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Out of curiosity if a trans woman was in a shared female changing room and their penis was on display but not in a sexual way, could that be classed as indecent exposure? It probably would outside of the changing room but does being in a changing room stop any offence being committed?"
Not being a lawyer, this is just my best understanding of policy and law. It would depend entirely on context and the establishment’s policy. In UK law, indecent exposure requires intent to cause alarm or distress — simple nudity in a space where undressing is expected doesn’t meet that threshold.
So if a trans woman is using the changing room as anyone else would, and following the venue’s rules, there’s no offence. If someone deliberately exposes themselves or acts inappropriately, that’s a crime — but that’s about behaviour, not identity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps we are not agreeing. It's not about being sexual or threatening. Some women are deeply uncomfortable being seen undressed or vulnerable by someone this that they identify as male. Having a penis visible in a changing room is neither threatening nor sexual, but is certainly inappropriate and very possibly highly distressing to many women.
Just for clarity, what exactly makes it inappropriate? If the person isn’t behaving in a sexual way or invading anyone’s privacy, what is the issue — the body part itself, or what people assume it represents?
Because if it’s just the existence of a penis that’s considered inappropriate, then that’s not about behaviour or harm, it’s about perception. And perception alone can’t define morality or rights."
That’s probably about the most arrogant self centred response on this thread so far, basically you are telling women that it their problem and they need to get over it , unbelievable 🤷🏻♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"That’s probably about the most arrogant self centred response on this thread so far, basically you are telling women that it their problem and they need to get over it , unbelievable 🤷🏻♂️"
That’s not what I said at all. I’m not telling anyone to “get over it.” I’m asking where the line is between genuine safeguarding and punishing people who’ve done nothing wrong.
If someone breaks the rules or behaves inappropriately, of course they should be removed. But if a person is following policy, breaking no law, and still treated as a threat purely for existing, that’s discrimination. Respecting women’s comfort matters — so does treating trans women as people, not problems. Both can be true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That’s probably about the most arrogant self centred response on this thread so far, basically you are telling women that it their problem and they need to get over it , unbelievable 🤷🏻♂️
That’s not what I said at all. I’m not telling anyone to “get over it.” I’m asking where the line is between genuine safeguarding and punishing people who’ve done nothing wrong.
If someone breaks the rules or behaves inappropriately, of course they should be removed. But if a person is following policy, breaking no law, and still treated as a threat purely for existing, that’s discrimination. Respecting women’s comfort matters — so does treating trans women as people, not problems. Both can be true."
You are quite clearly saying that women must accept an exposed penis in a women only changing facility and if they have a problem with that then tough.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"
You are quite clearly saying that women must accept an exposed penis in a women only changing facility and if they have a problem with that then tough.
"
No, that’s not what I said. Nobody is saying women should be forced to accept indecent behaviour. What I said is that existing in a space, while following the same rules as everyone else, isn’t indecent.
A trans woman quietly changing isn’t “exposing” herself any more than any other woman in that setting. The difference is perception, not conduct. Safeguarding has to be based on actions, not assumptions — otherwise it stops being protection and starts being prejudice.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Out of curiosity if a trans woman was in a shared female changing room and their penis was on display but not in a sexual way, could that be classed as indecent exposure? It probably would outside of the changing room but does being in a changing room stop any offence being committed?"
There is no offence of Indecent Exposure any more. It was removed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Now there's just Exposure, which requires that genitals be on display, and the owner intends this to cause alarm or distress. A penis being visible is not, on its own, enough. Each case has to be judged on its circumstances. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You are quite clearly saying that women must accept an exposed penis in a women only changing facility and if they have a problem with that then tough.
No, that’s not what I said. Nobody is saying women should be forced to accept indecent behaviour. What I said is that existing in a space, while following the same rules as everyone else, isn’t indecent.
A trans woman quietly changing isn’t “exposing” herself any more than any other woman in that setting. The difference is perception, not conduct. Safeguarding has to be based on actions, not assumptions — otherwise it stops being protection and starts being prejudice.
"
You certainly don’t have any problems promoting your own prejudices, that’s for sure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"You certainly don’t have any problems promoting your own prejudices, that’s for sure. "
What prejudice, exactly? I’ve argued for equal treatment under the same rules — that’s the opposite of prejudice. Wanting policy and law applied consistently to everyone isn’t bias, it’s fairness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Out of curiosity if a trans woman was in a shared female changing room and their penis was on display but not in a sexual way, could that be classed as indecent exposure? It probably would outside of the changing room but does being in a changing room stop any offence being committed?
There is no offence of Indecent Exposure any more. It was removed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Now there's just Exposure, which requires that genitals be on display, and the owner intends this to cause alarm or distress. A penis being visible is not, on its own, enough. Each case has to be judged on its circumstances."
Thank you. I thought the fact it was a changing room would be the thing that stops it being a crime but it appears that is not the case |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
I am out on this thread as the OP started this purely to discuss the trans issue… rather than the general discussion about no kings and how it related to the general unhappiness at the trump administration
Sad that because it misses out on a good opportunity relating to the wider discussion points… the use of national guard, healthcare, the way DOJ is weaponised and ICE enforcement, the Supreme Court rulings, ect
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"I am out on this thread as the OP started this purely to discuss the trans issue… rather than the general discussion about no kings and how it related to the general unhappiness at the trump administration
Sad that because it misses out on a good opportunity relating to the wider discussion points… the use of national guard, healthcare, the way DOJ is weaponised and ICE enforcement, the Supreme Court rulings, ect
"
I genuinely didn't but any thread i am in tends to go in that direction.
And it isn't me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 27 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
They never used the ACA to its fullest extent… for example, the NHS is allowed to use it economy of scale to bring down drugs prices, whereas the US don’t allow Medicare, Medicaid or the VA to do the same thing!
Corruption and lobbying. Also the state of private health insurance there is obscene."
For example… the 2026 healthcare premiums guides came out today
This is just an average for the poorest people using the healthcare exchanges… premiums for healthcare on average are going up by 26% (the caveat to that is those states that still have the ACA subsidies that are set to expire)
For those states that don’t have the subsidies, or do expire their premiums are going up on average by approximately 104%… basically those people are paying double for their health care premiums
Now… don’t get me wrong, neither is great!!!! and that is one of the ACA bits that needs fixing! But in this government shutdown that is happening at the moment, the biggest sticking point is that the democrats want a 1 year extension to those subsidies .. and the republicans are saying no |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps we are not agreeing. It's not about being sexual or threatening. Some women are deeply uncomfortable being seen undressed or vulnerable by someone this that they identify as male. Having a penis visible in a changing room is neither threatening nor sexual, but is certainly inappropriate and very possibly highly distressing to many women.
Just for clarity, what exactly makes it inappropriate? If the person isn’t behaving in a sexual way or invading anyone’s privacy, what is the issue — the body part itself, or what people assume it represents?
Because if it’s just the existence of a penis that’s considered inappropriate, then that’s not about behaviour or harm, it’s about perception. And perception alone can’t define morality or rights."
Anyone who claims to be a woman but doesn't understand why it's inappropriate is not a woman and is simply cosplaying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
For example… the 2026 healthcare premiums guides came out today..."
The whole system needs a complete and utter overhaul. The drug companies, the insurers, the government schemes (or lack thereof), the litigation needs to be capped, the healthcare providers... Every single element of the US healthcare system exists in a delicately balanced Rube Goldberg hell designed to make money for cynical companies, lawyers and politicians. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"Anyone who claims to be a woman but doesn't understand why it's inappropriate is not a woman and is simply cosplaying."
Appeal to emotion. No True Scotsman.
Back to No Kings 2, maybe? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 27 weeks ago
|
"
For example… the 2026 healthcare premiums guides came out today...
The whole system needs a complete and utter overhaul. The drug companies, the insurers, the government schemes (or lack thereof), the litigation needs to be capped, the healthcare providers... Every single element of the US healthcare system exists in a delicately balanced Rube Goldberg hell designed to make money for cynical companies, lawyers and politicians."
Exactly. And if it were just healthcare, that would be bad enough — but in the States, end-stage capitalism is steering everything. Medicine, housing, education, even public trust — all treated as markets instead of necessities. The result is a country where profit keeps winning, and people keep losing.
No wonder so many people are protesting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone who claims to be a woman but doesn't understand why it's inappropriate is not a woman and is simply cosplaying.
Appeal to emotion. No True Scotsman.
Back to No Kings 2, maybe?"
1. It IS an emotional and not a rational thing. That's the point.
2. That's not how the "no true Scotsman" fallacy works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone who claims to be a woman but doesn't understand why it's inappropriate is not a woman and is simply cosplaying.
Appeal to emotion. No True Scotsman.
Back to No Kings 2, maybe?
1. It IS an emotional and not a rational thing. That's the point.
2. That's not how the "no true Scotsman" fallacy works."
Exactly, Mrs x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 26 weeks ago
|
No Kings 2 reportedly drew around 7 million people. That’s not a fringe protest — that’s a civic event on a national scale.
So if that still “doesn’t count,” what size would? Ten million? Twenty? At what point do we admit it’s not a small group making noise but a population demanding change? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 26 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
"No Kings 2 reportedly drew around 7 million people. That’s not a fringe protest — that’s a civic event on a national scale.
So if that still “doesn’t count,” what size would? Ten million? Twenty? At what point do we admit it’s not a small group making noise but a population demanding change?"
Interesting to see pictures of 13/9/25 in London and people running with the met police estimates.
Definitely looks like met police numbers are manipulated low in comparison to overhead pictures of other gatherings.
See pictures on the ground of the no kings parade and 7 million seems a stretch.
But to your point, seems like 13/9/25 holds significance as a civic event. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 26 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"No Kings 2 reportedly drew around 7 million people. That’s not a fringe protest — that’s a civic event on a national scale.
So if that still “doesn’t count,” what size would? Ten million? Twenty? At what point do we admit it’s not a small group making noise but a population demanding change?
Interesting to see pictures of 13/9/25 in London and people running with the met police estimates.
Definitely looks like met police numbers are manipulated low in comparison to overhead pictures of other gatherings.
See pictures on the ground of the no kings parade and 7 million seems a stretch.
But to your point, seems like 13/9/25 holds significance as a civic event."
Now you know that disingenuous… because there were 2500 protests right across the US |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 26 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
If the number is 7 million, that is a just under 10% of the Democratic vote.
I think that should be expected and would not be an unreasonable real life example of the % of activists in the party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 26 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
So superb night for the democrats last night….. chuffed that Zohran won the NYC mayoral race (have to since I voted for him!)
A good night for democrats…
A great night for progressives….
And trump after all the threats is now trying to distance himself from what happened |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
