One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Shockingly, the Trans Cult Keeps Finding Ways to Get Weirder
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Jan 18, 2023 10:31:43   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
The escalation in trans (-gender and -vestite) news in recent years has been truly mind-boggling. A fringe (don’t believe the new numbers) segment of the American public has been dominating the leftist news organizations. While it’s true that the MSM is just making it up as they go along, I would have guessed they’d go for something more leftist mainstream, like paying for everything that illegal aliens do once they arrive here.

Instead, they have decided that the woke agenda was best forced on American society via the “T” portion of the LGBTQ alphabet soup community.

The woke trans agenda is everywhere now. We’re even seeing corporations get in on the messaging.

Here’s the thing, though: the more that the Democrats try to convince us that this is all normal and well, the more outlandish the trans crowd becomes.

Now there are trans men who are freezing tomato juice to help them mimic period symptoms. I won’t go into detail about exactly what the boys are doing with the juice, but I would refer to them as “poopsicles”. There are even online forums discussing how best for a biological male who wants to pretend that he’s a woman to fake a period.

I guess it’s a rite of passage that the trans guys go through before they can “get pregnant.”

There was also a recent story about men and menstruation, but with a slightly different angle:

In a stunning victory over the patriarchy, women now have yet another transgender icon who was born with a penis to represent them and their feminine hygiene needs. A second transgender (self-identified “girl”/adult human male Dylan Mulvaney being the first) named Jeffrey Marsh just scored an endorsement deal with Tampax.

Nothing says, “This should all be normalized,” like big bucks being paid to males to help actual women with the stigma of menses. We’re apparently living in 1870, except for the whole men pretending they can get knocked up part.

We’ve been told over and over again that we’re supposed to have more sympathy for marginalized people in our society. That’s difficult to do when said people are going out of their way to be deliberately provocative and — dare I say it — triggering. Of course, if we mention that sticking frozen tomato juice in a rectum for a bit of make believe is disturbing or that guys doing tampon commercials is nonsensical and absurd, we’re called “transphobic.”

Nah, we’re just realists who know weird when we see it.

And it’s OK that we’re not OK with it.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 10:35:35   #
pegw
 
Pease talk about something, like the Republicans trying to steal SS benefits from me rather than a tirade about people who you never meet and have absolutely no bearing on your life. I have meet exactly 1 trans person in my life. Get over it.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 10:49:50   #
microphor Loc: Home is TN
 
pegw wrote:
Pease talk about something, like the Republicans trying to steal SS benefits from me rather than a tirade about people who you never meet and have absolutely no bearing on your life. I have meet exactly 1 trans person in my life. Get over it.


Please show me the policy that the republicans have presented to steal SSI benefits away. I'm waiting And I've been hearing this s*** forever so now prove it.

Reply
 
 
Jan 18, 2023 10:53:18   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
pegw wrote:
Pease talk about something, like the Republicans trying to steal SS benefits from me rather than a tirade about people who you never meet and have absolutely no bearing on your life. I have meet exactly 1 trans person in my life. Get over it.

You would have had to work for at least 40 quarters to qualify for SS benefits. You most likely don't because I can't believe someone would hire someone as ignorant as you and keep you on for 10 years at that.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 10:55:25   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
pegw wrote:
Pease talk about something, like the Republicans trying to steal SS benefits from me rather than a tirade about people who you never meet and have absolutely no bearing on your life. I have meet exactly 1 trans person in my life. Get over it.

If they're so infrequent is society why is it that's all we hear about? You're living in a vacuum.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 11:09:38   #
Liberty Tree
 
pegw wrote:
Pease talk about something, like the Republicans trying to steal SS benefits from me rather than a tirade about people who you never meet and have absolutely no bearing on your life. I have meet exactly 1 trans person in my life. Get over it.


Talk about something besides the same BS lies Democrats have been saying for over 50 years about Republicans taking away SS.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 11:10:30   #
Liberty Tree
 
Parky60 wrote:
The escalation in trans (-gender and -vestite) news in recent years has been truly mind-boggling. A fringe (don’t believe the new numbers) segment of the American public has been dominating the leftist news organizations. While it’s true that the MSM is just making it up as they go along, I would have guessed they’d go for something more leftist mainstream, like paying for everything that illegal aliens do once they arrive here.

Instead, they have decided that the woke agenda was best forced on American society via the “T” portion of the LGBTQ alphabet soup community.

The woke trans agenda is everywhere now. We’re even seeing corporations get in on the messaging.

Here’s the thing, though: the more that the Democrats try to convince us that this is all normal and well, the more outlandish the trans crowd becomes.

Now there are trans men who are freezing tomato juice to help them mimic period symptoms. I won’t go into detail about exactly what the boys are doing with the juice, but I would refer to them as “poopsicles”. There are even online forums discussing how best for a biological male who wants to pretend that he’s a woman to fake a period.

I guess it’s a rite of passage that the trans guys go through before they can “get pregnant.”

There was also a recent story about men and menstruation, but with a slightly different angle:

In a stunning victory over the patriarchy, women now have yet another transgender icon who was born with a penis to represent them and their feminine hygiene needs. A second transgender (self-identified “girl”/adult human male Dylan Mulvaney being the first) named Jeffrey Marsh just scored an endorsement deal with Tampax.

Nothing says, “This should all be normalized,” like big bucks being paid to males to help actual women with the stigma of menses. We’re apparently living in 1870, except for the whole men pretending they can get knocked up part.

We’ve been told over and over again that we’re supposed to have more sympathy for marginalized people in our society. That’s difficult to do when said people are going out of their way to be deliberately provocative and — dare I say it — triggering. Of course, if we mention that sticking frozen tomato juice in a rectum for a bit of make believe is disturbing or that guys doing tampon commercials is nonsensical and absurd, we’re called “transphobic.”

Nah, we’re just realists who know weird when we see it.

And it’s OK that we’re not OK with it.
The escalation in trans (-gender and -vestite) new... (show quote)


What is wierder is he people that support it.

Reply
 
 
Jan 18, 2023 11:18:30   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
microphor wrote:
Please show me the policy that the republicans have presented to steal SSI benefits away. I'm waiting And I've been hearing this s*** forever so now prove it.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2022/11/05/social-security-has-been-slashed-before-our-eyes-for-decades-and-voters-barely-notice/?sh=63c58e2a3ef5

Republicans Plan To Cut Social Security—Will Voters Let Them?
Teresa GhilarducciSenior Contributor
I am an economics professor focusing on retirement security and jobs.

It’s remarkable that Social Security is not the front-and-center issue in the midterm elections. Key Republicans say they will cut Social Security and Medicare if their party gains power. Some Republicans are considering raising the full retirement age to 70. These long-promised Republican policies threaten millions of older Americans, and all those who will grow old — and they will only make current economic stresses even worse.

You’d think that cutting Social Security when retirement income security is already so fragile would be a singularly unpopular position, yet it is barely discussed in congressional campaigns.

Republicans have done this before. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan and Republicans cut Social Security benefits by raising the full retirement age to age 67, which is just a way to say Congress changed the formula so benefits would be 10% to 15% smaller at every claim age. Now, Republicans want to change the formula to make 70 the so-called full retirement age, which will further cut monthly benefits.

How low is still too high for the Republicans? Social Security has be been slashed before our eyes for decades and voters have not noticed. They should.

The Social Security system was implemented nearly 87 years ago, in 1936, despite majority Republican opposition to the plan. Social Security was never designed to replace 100 percent of preretirement income, but it replaced a lot. But since Republicans began slicing it in 1982, Social Security replacement rates have fallen dramatically. Mark Miller, in his Retirement Revised blog, describes the Center for Retirement Research’s findings that average earners retiring at age 65 would have received 41 percent of their preretirement earnings from Social Security in 1995, after considering taxes and Medicare Part B premiums, but would replace only 29% of their income in 2035. The Social Security replacement rate will have fallen from 41% to 29% in 30 years. That’s a ton of lost money for seniors in need.



Reply
Jan 18, 2023 11:30:49   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
permafrost wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2022/11/05/social-security-has-been-slashed-before-our-eyes-for-decades-and-voters-barely-notice/?sh=63c58e2a3ef5

Republicans Plan To Cut Social Security—Will Voters Let Them?
Teresa GhilarducciSenior Contributor
I am an economics professor focusing on retirement security and jobs.

It’s remarkable that Social Security is not the front-and-center issue in the midterm elections. Key Republicans say they will cut Social Security and Medicare if their party gains power. Some Republicans are considering raising the full retirement age to 70. These long-promised Republican policies threaten millions of older Americans, and all those who will grow old — and they will only make current economic stresses even worse.

You’d think that cutting Social Security when retirement income security is already so fragile would be a singularly unpopular position, yet it is barely discussed in congressional campaigns.

Republicans have done this before. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan and Republicans cut Social Security benefits by raising the full retirement age to age 67, which is just a way to say Congress changed the formula so benefits would be 10% to 15% smaller at every claim age. Now, Republicans want to change the formula to make 70 the so-called full retirement age, which will further cut monthly benefits.

How low is still too high for the Republicans? Social Security has be been slashed before our eyes for decades and voters have not noticed. They should.

The Social Security system was implemented nearly 87 years ago, in 1936, despite majority Republican opposition to the plan. Social Security was never designed to replace 100 percent of preretirement income, but it replaced a lot. But since Republicans began slicing it in 1982, Social Security replacement rates have fallen dramatically. Mark Miller, in his Retirement Revised blog, describes the Center for Retirement Research’s findings that average earners retiring at age 65 would have received 41 percent of their preretirement earnings from Social Security in 1995, after considering taxes and Medicare Part B premiums, but would replace only 29% of their income in 2035. The Social Security replacement rate will have fallen from 41% to 29% in 30 years. That’s a ton of lost money for seniors in need.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/202... (show quote)

I'm not even going to waste my time proving what a liar you are because you've already proven yourself time and again.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 11:47:04   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Parky60 wrote:
I'm not even going to waste my time proving what a liar you are because you've already proven yourself time and again.


LOL,, darn Parky,, I never expect you guys to accept facts and truth.. Without the lies they feed you, you would have nothing and your bubble would blow away without you.. HA HA HA HA...



Reply
Jan 18, 2023 11:48:34   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
permafrost wrote:
LOL,, darn Parky,, I never expect you guys to accept facts and truth.. Without the lies they feed you, you would have nothing and your bubble would blow away without you.. HA HA HA HA...

I don't even watch Fox you lying a'hole! As a matter of fact I don't even watch TV!

Reply
 
 
Jan 18, 2023 11:51:22   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Parky60 wrote:
I don't even watch Fox you lying a'hole! As a matter of fact I don't even watch TV!


You should give it a try. not as hard to see the pictures as it is to read the print on OPPP...

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 11:56:54   #
Justice101
 
permafrost wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2022/11/05/social-security-has-been-slashed-before-our-eyes-for-decades-and-voters-barely-notice/?sh=63c58e2a3ef5

Republicans Plan To Cut Social Security—Will Voters Let Them?
Teresa GhilarducciSenior Contributor
I am an economics professor focusing on retirement security and jobs.

It’s remarkable that Social Security is not the front-and-center issue in the midterm elections. Key Republicans say they will cut Social Security and Medicare if their party gains power. Some Republicans are considering raising the full retirement age to 70. These long-promised Republican policies threaten millions of older Americans, and all those who will grow old — and they will only make current economic stresses even worse.

You’d think that cutting Social Security when retirement income security is already so fragile would be a singularly unpopular position, yet it is barely discussed in congressional campaigns.

Republicans have done this before. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan and Republicans cut Social Security benefits by raising the full retirement age to age 67, which is just a way to say Congress changed the formula so benefits would be 10% to 15% smaller at every claim age. Now, Republicans want to change the formula to make 70 the so-called full retirement age, which will further cut monthly benefits.

How low is still too high for the Republicans? Social Security has be been slashed before our eyes for decades and voters have not noticed. They should.

The Social Security system was implemented nearly 87 years ago, in 1936, despite majority Republican opposition to the plan. Social Security was never designed to replace 100 percent of preretirement income, but it replaced a lot. But since Republicans began slicing it in 1982, Social Security replacement rates have fallen dramatically. Mark Miller, in his Retirement Revised blog, describes the Center for Retirement Research’s findings that average earners retiring at age 65 would have received 41 percent of their preretirement earnings from Social Security in 1995, after considering taxes and Medicare Part B premiums, but would replace only 29% of their income in 2035. The Social Security replacement rate will have fallen from 41% to 29% in 30 years. That’s a ton of lost money for seniors in need.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/202... (show quote)


https://www.princeton.edu/news/2022/05/02/how-fix-social-security-its-political-it-can-be-done

Excerpt:> Q. What are some of the options for fixing the solvency problem?

Arnold: Since we have had two solvency crises in the past — 1977 and 1983 — let’s see how legislators fixed the problem then. The first time, they simply raised the payroll tax rate by 25% and the maximum taxable wage base by 68%. Six years later, they switched course. They effectively cut benefits by raising the full retirement age from 65 to 67, phasing it in over four decades. So, those are the two basic options: raise taxes or cut benefits.

You could do similar things today. For example, to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years, legislators could raise the tax rate from 6.2% to 8.1%. According to current actuarial projections, this would fix the problem until 2095. So, it is fixable, but painful.

Alternatively, legislators could close three-quarters of the long-term deficit by immediately abolishing the maximum taxable wage base (currently $147,000), thus subjecting all wages to taxation. Or they could raise the full retirement age to 68. This would close one-seventh of the long-term actuarial deficit.

Legislators could also change the way benefits are adjusted for inflation. They are currently adjusted with the consumer price index. Some economists think this index overstates inflation. They suggest using an alternative index called the chained price index. If you switch to that index, you would solve one-fifth of the long-term deficit.

If you think about Congress as a place that reaches compromises, legislators will probably adopt some combination of these options.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 12:00:07   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
permafrost wrote:
You should give it a try. not as hard to see the pictures as it is to read the print on OPPP...

It figures you need pictures to understand instead of the printed word. It's evidenced by all your stupid memes that have nothing to do with what you say. I take what I read on OPP with a grain of salt. And I don't believe one word you a'holes on the left say.

Reply
Jan 18, 2023 12:10:05   #
microphor Loc: Home is TN
 
permafrost wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2022/11/05/social-security-has-been-slashed-before-our-eyes-for-decades-and-voters-barely-notice/?sh=63c58e2a3ef5

Republicans Plan To Cut Social Security—Will Voters Let Them?
Teresa GhilarducciSenior Contributor
I am an economics professor focusing on retirement security and jobs.

It’s remarkable that Social Security is not the front-and-center issue in the midterm elections. Key Republicans say they will cut Social Security and Medicare if their party gains power. Some Republicans are considering raising the full retirement age to 70. These long-promised Republican policies threaten millions of older Americans, and all those who will grow old — and they will only make current economic stresses even worse.

You’d think that cutting Social Security when retirement income security is already so fragile would be a singularly unpopular position, yet it is barely discussed in congressional campaigns.

Republicans have done this before. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan and Republicans cut Social Security benefits by raising the full retirement age to age 67, which is just a way to say Congress changed the formula so benefits would be 10% to 15% smaller at every claim age. Now, Republicans want to change the formula to make 70 the so-called full retirement age, which will further cut monthly benefits.

How low is still too high for the Republicans? Social Security has be been slashed before our eyes for decades and voters have not noticed. They should.

The Social Security system was implemented nearly 87 years ago, in 1936, despite majority Republican opposition to the plan. Social Security was never designed to replace 100 percent of preretirement income, but it replaced a lot. But since Republicans began slicing it in 1982, Social Security replacement rates have fallen dramatically. Mark Miller, in his Retirement Revised blog, describes the Center for Retirement Research’s findings that average earners retiring at age 65 would have received 41 percent of their preretirement earnings from Social Security in 1995, after considering taxes and Medicare Part B premiums, but would replace only 29% of their income in 2035. The Social Security replacement rate will have fallen from 41% to 29% in 30 years. That’s a ton of lost money for seniors in need.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/202... (show quote)


Show me the policies and or drafts otherwise. https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2023 IDF International Technologies, Inc.