asked to be part of a political system

But, you're not being asked. You already are. You don't get to pretend you're not, just because you didn't give your permission. This isn't an opt-in situation.

And I get that maybe you feel that isn't fair, and I agree it isn't. Just like none of us asked to be born, none of us asked to be part of society either. But we are, and we have to deal with that now.

His point is that some people think killing is so wrong that they'll actively advocate for a course of action that will kill waaaaay more people.

You value your own moral purity over the lives of other people.

That's his point.

The problem is that "biological man/woman" is a nonsense pseudoscientific term. There's multiple forms of sex determination: chromosomal, hormonal, and phenotypical, for example. And none of them necessarily reflect gender, which is about how the brain develops.

Chromosomal sex is what most people think of when they use terms like "biological man/woman" but the chromosomes themselves aren't nearly as important as the SRY gene which, if present and active, triggers an embryo to develop hormonally and phenotypically male sex characters and male gender. But the SRY gene isn't always where it's supposed to be or working how it's supposed to work, which can cause mismatches between sexual development and gender.

And that's only one known potential cause due somebody to be transgender. There are more that we know of, and probably more that we don't know of.

So yeah, "biological male/female" is a gross oversimplification to the point of being straight up bullshit.

Which almost everyone willing to vote for him would fucking hate if they weren't too dumb to notice.

Kyle Rittenhouse of all people recently called out Trump as being bad for the second amendment, and the folks on the right retaliated by accusing him of being trans

Seriously, there were people analyzing photos of him "proving" that he was born female. And when he retracted his comment, they dropped the whole thing.

It's fucking wild

"I'd rather let someone who actively, aggressively advocates, enables, and wants genocide domestically and abroad to win the presidency, over voting for somebody who passively enables genocide to happen abroad because actively trying to stop it could ignite WWIII" is still a bad take.

It's baffling and hypocritical.

“If nuclear war happens, we won’t be second in line pressing the button,”

Which means you'll be pressing the button first. Which means you're the one starting the nuclear war.

And the worst part is, I think that might actually be what me means.

Republicans will take away social security, blame Democrats, and their voters will believe them.

To the fascist, hypocrisy is a feature. It's a tool that removes restrictions for themselves while it restricts others. It's a flex; their strength is so great it can't be bound by internal consistency or mental consonance.

To the fascist, if hypocrisy grants them more power then it's a good thing

People love looking at the first civil war in conversations like this, but the next civil war is going to be nothing like it. For a likely comparison, you'd have to look at the Spanish Civil War and The Troubles in Ireland.

Americans have no fucking clue what they're asking for.

Great example of how fascists view the law as something to oppress others, not to restrict themselves. "Law and order (for thee not for me)"

Correct, he he follows through with his threat then he will lose when it goes to court.

So all he has to do is delay his action until right before the election, so the court can't react in time and its decision ends up coming after the election is over. At that point, because America as proven time and again that it won't redo an election no matter how flagrantly election laws are broken, it won't matter and he'll have gotten away with it.

The 14th Amendment doesn't require a conviction, and innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply because this is a civil suit.

I'll be surprised if this doesn't go all the way to SCOTUS though.