I don't think he had is wang cut off, did he?

He had gender reassignment surgery.. If you dare to google what they did to his doodle, If you use your noodle, you'd rather have it cut off..

---

It's a gotcha question because it was preceded by a supposition that conservatives don't care how he/she/it stands on the issues. Remember stating that? So what else would you call a question that tries to reduce a choice to one question without any context?

As for the liberal thing (and your last response), I think most Americans don't really put much thought into political affiliations. For most of the US history, the parties differed on one primary issue: State or federal power. That's it. The constitution was the framework, and every other issue was simply about who got to make the final decision, the state or the federal government. In the early 1900's, you get, for the first time, a group that is pushing the bounds of the constitution, which are known as progressives.

For simplicity's sake, I am going to give a rough outline of how I think these different groups are structured. 

Conservatives: State's rights are paramount, strictly adhere to the constitution, limited federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Liberals: Federal government is supreme, adhere to the constitution, big federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Moderates/Independents: Balance between state and federal government, adhere to the constitution, mixed federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Libertarians: Individual rights are paramount, strictly adhere to the constitution, small or no federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Progressives: Federal government is sacrosanct, the constitution is oppressive, there is only the federal government, capitalism is bad and individual liberty is defined by the collective good.

One of these things is not like the others. Yet, Democrats are playing with fire by incorporating progressive thought into their platform, which is turning them into something fascist. They think they can keep the progressives at bay, but they are growing. Until the first 4 groups unite under their common cause, the progressives are going to keep morphing the Democratic party into something unrecognizable from what we have traditionally understood as American. I know you and Mike think this is just a passing fad, but it's a real danger. Tulsi Gabbard is a great example of someone who is seeing the writing on the wall. Even though she is a lifelong liberal, she is beginning to ally with conservatives because there is more common ground. Bill Maher is next. We need as many people falling under this common banner, because things are reaching a tipping point. I truly can't believe how much things have changed in the last 10 years. Biden is implementing progressive policies at a rapid pace. Our standards are disappearing. I beat this drum because we the people are losing power every day.

Regarding the bolded part- where the hell did you get that idea?  Can you quote me on that?  All I asked was, does it matter to you how she stands on the issues.  Where do you see that "supposition?"

Regarding it being a simple question with no context, if you think it deserves context, put some context in your answer.  I was just wondering whether his/her stand on the issues matter to you in your hypothetical choice to support him/her or not support him/her.  I was just wondering how strongly you (and everyone else) felt about the transgender issue and if it would override any other consideration.  No trap.  I swear.

Believe it or not, I am not always looking for a knock-down drag-out argument around here.  Sometimes, I just curious as to why people say some of the things they say.

Don't take it as an attack. I'm just pointing out the sequence of events. You stated that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy. Then you asked me if I would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they were transgendered. It's asked in a yes or no manner that is void of context, and phrasing it that way either confirms your bias, or creates an opening to attack someone for hypocrisy. Textbook "gotcha."

Generally speaking, I consider you a person who is genuinely interested in good-faith arguments, so I don't think it's a reflection of your character as much as I think it's a product of our political environment. Much of our debate ends up framed in this manner. If you want to be perceived as a person that is just seeking understanding, it's probably better to ask open ended questions.

---

Regarding the bolded part- where the hell did you get that idea?  Can you quote me on that?  All I asked was, does it matter to you how she stands on the issues.  Where do you see that "supposition?"

Regarding it being a simple question with no context, if you think it deserves context, put some context in your answer.  I was just wondering whether his/her stand on the issues matter to you in your hypothetical choice to support him/her or not support him/her.  I was just wondering how strongly you (and everyone else) felt about the transgender issue and if it would override any other consideration.  No trap.  I swear.

Believe it or not, I am not always looking for a knock-down drag-out argument around here.  Sometimes, I just curious as to why people say some of the things they say.

Don't take it as an attack. I'm just pointing out the sequence of events. You stated that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy. Then you asked me if I would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they were transgendered. It's asked in a yes or no manner that is void of context, and phrasing it that way either confirms your bias, or creates an opening to attack someone for hypocrisy. Textbook "gotcha."

Generally speaking, I consider you a person who is genuinely interested in good-faith arguments, so I don't think it's a reflection of your character as much as I think it's a product of our political environment. Much of our debate ends up framed in this manner. If you want to be perceived as a person that is just seeking understanding, it's probably better to ask open ended questions.

No, I did not state that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy.  Absolutely not.  You have confused me with someone else, because another person did say that.  But not me.  

I did ask if you would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered.  If you think answering that question yes or no would expose you to a charge of hypocrisy, that's an interesting take.  But that's not what I was going for.

I'll answer the question myself.   Would I refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered?  I don't know.  Transgenderism (if we can call it that) is fairly new to me.  It's jarring when I meet one.  But I used to be sort of prejudiced against gays, until I got to know a few, and became friends with them, and my attitude changed completely.  So maybe someday I'll get used to transgendered people.  

So in answer to the question, would you refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered, if you say yes or no, I'm not going to judge you.  I think your answer was most likely yes, but sometimes no.  Because you think it's a mental disorder.  But there could be a case where he/she was running against someone worse, and then you would vote for him/her.  Right?

---

I would vote for a Transgendered Republican if there were no Libertarian candidate. A mentally ill TGR is still better than a Democrat.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Don't take it as an attack. I'm just pointing out the sequence of events. You stated that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy. Then you asked me if I would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they were transgendered. It's asked in a yes or no manner that is void of context, and phrasing it that way either confirms your bias, or creates an opening to attack someone for hypocrisy. Textbook "gotcha."

Generally speaking, I consider you a person who is genuinely interested in good-faith arguments, so I don't think it's a reflection of your character as much as I think it's a product of our political environment. Much of our debate ends up framed in this manner. If you want to be perceived as a person that is just seeking understanding, it's probably better to ask open ended questions.

No, I did not state that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy.  Absolutely not.  You have confused me with someone else, because another person did say that.  But not me.  

I did ask if you would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered.  If you think answering that question yes or no would expose you to a charge of hypocrisy, that's an interesting take.  But that's not what I was going for.

I'll answer the question myself.   Would I refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered?  I don't know.  Transgenderism (if we can call it that) is fairly new to me.  It's jarring when I meet one.  But I used to be sort of prejudiced against gays, until I got to know a few, and became friends with them, and my attitude changed completely.  So maybe someday I'll get used to transgendered people.  

So in answer to the question, would you refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered, if you say yes or no, I'm not going to judge you.  I think your answer was most likely yes, but sometimes no.  Because you think it's a mental disorder.  But there could be a case where he/she was running against someone worse, and then you would vote for him/her.  Right?

What the heck does all of this have to do with Caitlyn's wang?  Stick to the topic please.

---

No, I did not state that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy.  Absolutely not.  You have confused me with someone else, because another person did say that.  But not me.  

I did ask if you would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered.  If you think answering that question yes or no would expose you to a charge of hypocrisy, that's an interesting take.  But that's not what I was going for.

I'll answer the question myself.   Would I refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered?  I don't know.  Transgenderism (if we can call it that) is fairly new to me.  It's jarring when I meet one.  But I used to be sort of prejudiced against gays, until I got to know a few, and became friends with them, and my attitude changed completely.  So maybe someday I'll get used to transgendered people.  

So in answer to the question, would you refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered, if you say yes or no, I'm not going to judge you.  I think your answer was most likely yes, but sometimes no.  Because you think it's a mental disorder.  But there could be a case where he/she was running against someone worse, and then you would vote for him/her.  Right?

What the heck does all of this have to do with Caitlyn's wang?  Stick to the topic please.

The topic is Bruce (aka "Caitlyn") Jenner running for governor of one of the worst run states.  If he was running as a democrat he would win in a landslide in that state.  The fact that he's running as a republican has California liberals confused.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

What the heck does all of this have to do with Caitlyn's wang?  Stick to the topic please.

The topic is Bruce (aka "Caitlyn") Jenner running for governor of one of the worst run states.  If he was running as a democrat he would win in a landslide in that state.  The fact that he's running as a republican has California liberals confused.

I'm sure you mean, more confused than they already are..

---

Has he always been a conservative? Or is this just for show? It is an odd thing to see a trans who is a former reality show "star" running for for office as a Republican in CA. Its like a movie where a ten spot of cliches are packed into a sitcom.

---

He's always been conservative, and he was also friends with Trump, if I recall correctly.

---

Thanks. I don't generally pay attention to the political party of "celebrities" so I had no idea. I just recently learned Kurt Russell is a Libertarian. That was a mind blown kind of moment. He and Goldie must have some interesting conversations. Lol

---

Are we talking about the issues? Because I'm pretty sure we were making a prediction that the left will demagogue a former idol. Would you like to talk about where he stands on the issues?

Basically I am asking, would you refuse to support a transgender candidate because he/she is transgender?

Yes I would same as I would not support any candidate in open denial about a mental disorder and not taking treatment. There are two genders anyone pretending to be a different gender is suffering from a mental illness. It’s a shame we as a society encourage it.

---

I would vote for a Transgendered Republican if there were no Libertarian candidate. A mentally ill TGR is still better than a Democrat.

I wouldn't vote at all until some acceptable candidates were put on the ballot. People need to stop accepting the garbage they are served.

---

He's always been conservative, and he was also friends with Trump, if I recall correctly.

I wonder if Trump ever made a pass at him once he converted?

---

Thanks. I don't generally pay attention to the political party of "celebrities" so I had no idea. I just recently learned Kurt Russell is a Libertarian. That was a mind blown kind of moment. He and Goldie must have some interesting conversations. Lol

Kurt Russell is all about personal freedoms. He's also a big outdoorsman and goes on several hunting trips every year.

---

Don't take it as an attack. I'm just pointing out the sequence of events. You stated that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy. Then you asked me if I would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they were transgendered. It's asked in a yes or no manner that is void of context, and phrasing it that way either confirms your bias, or creates an opening to attack someone for hypocrisy. Textbook "gotcha."

Generally speaking, I consider you a person who is genuinely interested in good-faith arguments, so I don't think it's a reflection of your character as much as I think it's a product of our political environment. Much of our debate ends up framed in this manner. If you want to be perceived as a person that is just seeking understanding, it's probably better to ask open ended questions.

No, I did not state that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy.  Absolutely not.  You have confused me with someone else, because another person did say that.  But not me.  

I did ask if you would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered.  If you think answering that question yes or no would expose you to a charge of hypocrisy, that's an interesting take.  But that's not what I was going for.

I'll answer the question myself.   Would I refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered?  I don't know.  Transgenderism (if we can call it that) is fairly new to me.  It's jarring when I meet one.  But I used to be sort of prejudiced against gays, until I got to know a few, and became friends with them, and my attitude changed completely.  So maybe someday I'll get used to transgendered people.  

So in answer to the question, would you refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered, if you say yes or no, I'm not going to judge you.  I think your answer was most likely yes, but sometimes no.  Because you think it's a mental disorder.  But there could be a case where he/she was running against someone worse, and then you would vote for him/her.  Right?

No, I would not. I don't think mentally ill people should be in leadership positions. If they were running against someone worse, I just wouldn't vote.

---

No, I did not state that conservatives don't care about how a transgendered person cares about policy.  Absolutely not.  You have confused me with someone else, because another person did say that.  But not me.  

I did ask if you would refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered.  If you think answering that question yes or no would expose you to a charge of hypocrisy, that's an interesting take.  But that's not what I was going for.

I'll answer the question myself.   Would I refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered?  I don't know.  Transgenderism (if we can call it that) is fairly new to me.  It's jarring when I meet one.  But I used to be sort of prejudiced against gays, until I got to know a few, and became friends with them, and my attitude changed completely.  So maybe someday I'll get used to transgendered people.  

So in answer to the question, would you refuse to vote for a transgendered person just because they are transgendered, if you say yes or no, I'm not going to judge you.  I think your answer was most likely yes, but sometimes no.  Because you think it's a mental disorder.  But there could be a case where he/she was running against someone worse, and then you would vote for him/her.  Right?

No, I would not. I don't think mentally ill people should be in leadership positions. If they were running against someone worse, I just wouldn't vote.

Not even if heshe was running against Adolph Hitler?

---

No, I would not. I don't think mentally ill people should be in leadership positions. If they were running against someone worse, I just wouldn't vote.

Not even if heshe was running against Adolph Hitler?

No. I would refrain from voting.

---

Not even if heshe was running against Adolph Hitler?

No. I would refrain from voting.

Well... that'll show 'em! 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So now that it is official, citizens of CA are a glutton for punishment and will probably end up retaining Newsome.

---

It's a gotcha question because it was preceded by a supposition that conservatives don't care how he/she/it stands on the issues. Remember stating that? So what else would you call a question that tries to reduce a choice to one question without any context?

As for the liberal thing (and your last response), I think most Americans don't really put much thought into political affiliations. For most of the US history, the parties differed on one primary issue: State or federal power. That's it. The constitution was the framework, and every other issue was simply about who got to make the final decision, the state or the federal government. In the early 1900's, you get, for the first time, a group that is pushing the bounds of the constitution, which are known as progressives.

For simplicity's sake, I am going to give a rough outline of how I think these different groups are structured. 

Conservatives: State's rights are paramount, strictly adhere to the constitution, limited federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Liberals: Federal government is supreme, adhere to the constitution, big federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Moderates/Independents: Balance between state and federal government, adhere to the constitution, mixed federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Libertarians: Individual rights are paramount, strictly adhere to the constitution, small or no federal government, favor individual liberty and capitalism
Progressives: Federal government is sacrosanct, the constitution is oppressive, there is only the federal government, capitalism is bad and individual liberty is defined by the collective good.

One of these things is not like the others. Yet, Democrats are playing with fire by incorporating progressive thought into their platform, which is turning them into something fascist. They think they can keep the progressives at bay, but they are growing. Until the first 4 groups unite under their common cause, the progressives are going to keep morphing the Democratic party into something unrecognizable from what we have traditionally understood as American. I know you and Mike think this is just a passing fad, but it's a real danger. Tulsi Gabbard is a great example of someone who is seeing the writing on the wall. Even though she is a lifelong liberal, she is beginning to ally with conservatives because there is more common ground. Bill Maher is next. We need as many people falling under this common banner, because things are reaching a tipping point. I truly can't believe how much things have changed in the last 10 years. Biden is implementing progressive policies at a rapid pace. Our standards are disappearing. I beat this drum because we the people are losing power every day.

Regarding the bolded part- where the hell did you get that idea?  Can you quote me on that?  All I asked was, does it matter to you how she stands on the issues.  Where do you see that "supposition?"

Regarding it being a simple question with no context, if you think it deserves context, put some context in your answer.  I was just wondering whether his/her stand on the issues matter to you in your hypothetical choice to support him/her or not support him/her.  I was just wondering how strongly you (and everyone else) felt about the transgender issue and if it would override any other consideration.  No trap.  I swear.

Believe it or not, I am not always looking for a knock-down drag-out argument around here.  Sometimes, I just curious as to why people say some of the things they say.

I read your original question as a statement. A rhetorical question. The follow up seemed to reaffirm that, but if I reread it in the context you are presenting currently, I can see how I would have been wrong in assuming that. Either way, I would rather you fixate on the latter half of my post and not the former. I tend to group moderates and liberals because they don't have a principled stand against the federal government. I tend to group libertarians and conservatives together because they do have a principled stand against the federal government. Naturally, those alliances break down depending on the issue, but, regardless, those 4 groups are FAR more in line with their way of thinking than the progressive movement. The fact that Dems keep including progressives and pushing their policies is dangerous. So, I take back any accusation of it being a "gotcha" question, but I want you to acknowledge which party is jeopardizing our republic by incorporating progressive values. You are allying with the wrong group. 

Truth be told, it's looking more and more like conservatives are breaking down on their states' rights stance.

---

So now that it is official, citizens of CA are a glutton for punishment and will probably end up retaining Newsome.

Apparently, a pastor, a porn star and the former Mayor of San Diego have decided to run as well. Finally, some variety. LOL.

---

So now that it is official, citizens of CA are a glutton for punishment and will probably end up retaining Newsome.

Apparently, a pastor, a porn star and the former Mayor of San Diego have decided to run as well. Finally, some variety. LOL.

Meh, in California it's likely that those are a single person.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato