Wow. It’s going to edge out biological women completely and the sport will end up being men’s and tranny’s.

Good job liberals and feminists. Once again your insanity only hurts women.

Edit: make no mistake, I want transgenders to be accepted and to live happy lives. One of my best friends was transgender. He committed suicide and drives my desire to see more research to help these people.

At the same time there is no denying that being born male endows you with greater muscle mass and more strength. It is unfair to women to complete on the same field with biological males even if they transition completely. It sounds unfair to the tranny but life isn’t always fair and this is a case of the greater good for the most people.

This sort of problem only serves to make people resent transgenders and doesn’t help their cause.

Poor little snowflake.

The world just doesn't appreciate your unbelievable wisdom and intelligence...

I can't ever remember a single communist (they call themselves democrats) EVER saying the the left shoud llisten to the right and see if their are areas of agreement, or unity...

I guess you trhink that makes you all better then the rest of us.

Unfortunately both sides are congealing too much in their own certitude and failing to find common ground. However there is a big difference. On economics, the right has already learned leftism, while the left is uneducated about rightism. What I mean is we are all exposed to academia and media and the propaganda that socialism is good and capitalism is bad. I have a degree in economics so I underwent years of them trying to teach me that government control of large pieces of the economy is desirable. But because I am capable of critical thought, I sensed a problem with these schemes. Because I had also on my own read the writings of victims of forced economic collectivism, I learned the truth.

So when a conservative seemingly fails to consider the other side, it’s because he already has, and has no need to go over the same ground again. But when a liberal fails to consider the other side, he actually has never considered the other side, if he has been raised on CNN and gone to typical public schools and universities. He has been taught that capitalism means robber barons oppressing the common man. The truth is capitalism U.S. style has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in the planet’s history.

Your typical liberal has never done a thorough study of free market economics. That’s why when they finally get around to it you see them switch over, but you rarely see a conservative turn liberal. In addition to this, people tend to grow more conservative with age because with age you gain experience of how the real world works. AKA wisdom. This is why the Democrats must indoctrinate the young and continue to try to recruit ever younger voters.

On at least two issues however - not economics - conservatives commit the same sin: failing to study the other side and standing immobile in their position to the point of spreading harmful propaganda and believing ludicrous fantasies. One of them is drugs. I listened to Sean Hannity the other day proclaim that narcotic painkillers are so evil that even if he had cancer he would not take them. He would endure the pain til death. The levels of ignorance, denial and fantasizing it must take to make such a statement, and the incredible damage such viewpoints has on the ability of sick people to get treatment for their pain, make conservatives, on this one issue, as bad as liberals in their zeal to ruin the world for the rest of us. The FACTS are: only a small portion of patients turn into drug addicts, opioids in hospice before death are miracle drugs that give the patient quality time to say goodbye to their loved ones, not to mention being of great help to chronic pain patients.

The caveat about what I just said above however is that the war on drugs is actually a massive socialist program and hence the left is as responsible as the right in propagating this cruel witch-hunt against pain patients and innocent doctors. The amount of resources (AKA tax dollars) spent on trying to dry up the supply of drugs so the fraction of people who are addicts won’t get them is providing profit for government and private entities while having NO benefit whatsoever on the problem; in fact making it much worse, and the worst part of all is that it makes it extremely difficult for innocent pain patients to get treatment, and it stigmatizes them, shames them, and worst of all, makes them victims of those same fraction of criminal addicts. Drying up the legal supply of painkillers only makes grandma the target of crime.

Putting government in charge of what you consume is leftist territory. Government limiting the amount “allowed” to be manufactured legally, and monitoring who buys and sells it, is totalitarian control of an industry: that is LEFTIST.  My criticism of the right on this issue does not absolve the left. There just might be a few more liberals than conservatives willing to admit the war on drugs is a horrible failure. There are more addicts than ever. As the population ages and requires compassionate pain relief, it gets harder and harder to give it to them as the fist tightens and we will have more and more needless human suffering. Meanwhile the addicts will continue to steal from grandma or get it on the street and end up dying from a Tylenol overdose or switching to heroin because society continues to FAIL to identify and treat the root cause of addiction.

It seems I’ve drifted into a rant. My apologies. My original point was that on a couple of issues the right are making matters worse by not considering the other side. But it seems I have actually proved that even on those issues (or at least one of them) the real problem is leftism once again.

A general litmus test would be: if it’s pro individual freedom along with individual responsibility it’s right. If it’s pro government controls and massive government spending even in the face of obvious worsening of conditions, it’s left.

I don’t see the Republican Party becoming more extreme at all. It’s very much the same as it was at the turn of the century. The Democrat party has careened off the scale left. An anecdotal example: Roseann Barr, a liberal, stated that she has not changed at all, she’s stood in one spot while the Democrat party has moved far left of her. I see no Republican claim that they have stood still while their party moved far right. If anything the reverse. I see some Republicans becoming more liberal on social issues.

In order to become more “far right” you have to become more conservative on either social issues or fiscal and economic issues or both. It’s not happening on social issues at all. They are exactly where they’ve always been on issues like gay marriage and abortion or even becoming more accepting of gays for example. And as for fiscal/economic, how are you going to be “too far right extremist”? Promote a zero tax rate? Propose repealing social security and Medicare? Show me what part of the Republican Party is floating such things.

There have always been extremist right groups such as white supremicists which aren’t actually conservative at all but just another form of totalitarianism but there is no mass flight of Republicans into these groups and no takeover of the Republican Party by these groups whatsoever.

Personally, I think all the primates were here before us and deserve to continue to be here.  If they get knocked out by climate change, well that's a pity.  But I'd hate to see them go under because of our activities.  As it is the Anthropocene (what they're calling the era of sentient humans) is seeing the largest mass extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out.

No they weren't.  Non-human primates evolved parallel to us after we split from a common ancestor.  They were not here first.  As for humans taking over habitats, any one human who cuts down forest to plant crops was likely born before any monkeys in the area, so quite literally, that human was here first. Just because wild animals occupy an area at the moment doesn't give them any more right to it than any creature has ever had in the history of the planet. Life has always taken over territory from other forms of life. When you start giving animals more "right" to land than humans, you get starving humans.

I will grant that our species has had a population explosion and is indeed taking over a lot of territory, but all signs point to a limit when the developing nations advance into the first world. Bringing modern technology, electric power (fossil fuel burning) to the third world actually results in much better prognosis for the earth: Populations stabilize or even begin to reduce. The best thing we can do to save the planet and the environment is to spread first world technology to all peoples.

Species won't get knocked out by climate change, they'll evolve into other species more suited to the new climate, just like they've been doing for 4 billion years. Individual species do go extinct, hence why I feel so strongly the Bonobo needs to be protected. It is exceedingly unique. But we cannot ascribe the same value to any and every species; they're just not that special. There are "unique" species in every nook and cranny of the planet and they are there because they evolved for just that spot. If we try to save them all we will be paralyzed - it would be a disaster economically, it already is when government in the name of "protected habitat" prevents humans from growing food or using land for economic benefit.  You can make a case that almost any species is endangered, because conditions change all the time whether man made or just naturally. To use that to restrict and control human progress is disastrous.  Personally I feel it should be used only in very limited small number of cases, such as the Bonobo.

Since the bartender in congress is promoting her sexual to the communist manifesto, we should be promoting a rational new deal that is just as out of the box.

I’ll go first.

1) No government (federal, local, state, or county) shall, for any reason, interfere with the lawful ownership and possession of firearms. (Note the word ‘lawful’, please.)

2) No tax shall be levied, on any property, income, or profit in excess of ten percent, period.

3) No government of any kind shall inhibit the free expression of speech, religion, political expression.

4) No government of any kind shall seek to ‘pick winners’ such  as was so common during the obama  regime.

5) No special prosecutor shall act outside the specific crime outlined under the terms of the appointment. no sp3cial prosecutor, state, local, or federal prosecutor shall use, or seek to use trickery to trap any witness into making a manufactured crime out of attempting to answer questions put to them during the course of an investigation.

6) No federal, state, or local agency off any kind shall leak informational n to anyone, including to any member of the media for the purpose of political attack, gain, or personal attack.

7) No person shall serve in any elect3doffice longer than eight years.

If by "here" you mean PilotSpin, then I take issue with that logic. While I agree that many liberal positions are very hard to defend, especially on government run anything (the creep towards socialism), I think that if you start out by saying that liberal positions can't be defended, then there's no reason to even discuss it with you. After all, no matter what is said, nothing will be acceptable.

The reason we don't have many liberals here isn't because they can't defend their positions, it's because of how they're usually treated by a select few. The treatment part aside, why would they want to try and discuss their viewpoints when they won't be accepted by anyone to begin with? That seems to limit the ability to debate, I would think.

I think there’s some truth to this. I talk a lot about imbalance being bad in academia. When it gets worse than say 80% one way then the majority tends to shout down and further exclude the minority. This is a huge problem on campuses. Liberals are openly rejecting and banning conservatives. If that’s true then the reverse is true, it’s not good to have a large conservative majority who shout down and pile on anyone trying to express an opposing viewpoint. In this pilot community conservatives predominate maybe at least 80% or more. This tends to drive away liberals so that they become an even smaller minority.

When that happens a place becomes an echo chamber of rigidly held views and nobody learns or grows. I see that to a small extent here but it is happening to a very large and frightening extent by liberals in media and academia. Places like this where conservatives can be the majority may even be caused by so much anti-conservatism elsewhere.

When Michael or other liberals leave their comfort zone and come here to discuss politics, at the very least they are allowing themselves to be exposed to opposing viewpoints. That’s a big credit over those who don’t - those who close their eyes and ears completely are the dangerous ones. Even if their motivation is only to debate and oppose, at least they are giving an ear to the other side. That’s all you can ask of a person, to listen to the other side and maybe think on it. Maybe nobody is going to change their viewpoint, but if they don’t at least give a listen, they definitely never will.

I guess if Anthony can quote himself, so can I!

Donald Trump represents to liberals their shadow side. They are projecting the worst parts of themselves, which they suppress with virtue signaling, onto him.

Conservatives do the same with people like Barack Obama. The difference is that conservatives tend to admit they are not perfect, no one is, and that there can be no utopia.  This tends to keep the shadow in balance.

That’s why we can laugh at fools like Jim Acosta and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. We can admit that they are fools and point out why. Putting illegals ahead of Americans, for example.

But liberals can’t. Acosta and the dynamic duo have to be intelligent and rightly motivated. But they’re not ... so that construct has to be balanced by scourging someone not themselves ... Donald Trump.

I'd like someone to quote my post where I've said I'm against the wall, I'm against the president's immigration policy positions, or against the idea of securing the border and putting into place economic reforms that will, in conjunction with the wall, enhance our economy and secure our borders.

It was probably implied when you wanted to argue about the definition of the word invasion rather than figure out a solution to the problem.  The intention of the caravan is to overrun border patrol and show that the United State border is not secure.  Thankfully they chose to do it in Tijuana where there is a wall and that wall stopped them.  Proof that walls work, that caravan is camped in Tijuana, not San Diego.

I don't know how I can get done anything on this problem.  But I know what the solution should look like.  Democrats don't want a solution, they want to perpetuate the problem because they think it gives them political power.  Maybe that's the answer, remove their political power?