Domspeak Forums Discussions Off Topic & Politics Vance's Liabilities

Chuck, as I have explained, I follow things in real time. When I read about what someone said, I go out and find it immediately. Then, I watch the follow up interviews if there are any. Waiting on this often results in the actual speeches being scrubbed. I will try to find an organized way to save all possible content, that includes the original, unedited words coming from someone's own mouth. I remember Vance's speech from a few years ago in which he compares Harris, Mayor Peter and AOC to childless cat ladies. He also said, in the same interview, that he wasn't criticizing women who didn't want or couldn't have children. But, then went on to attack the Democrats for being anti family. When I try to find this interview with Tucker from a few years ago on youtube, all that comes up is a leftwing commentary and a small clip of Vance actually talking. So, I can't give you the source for my thoughts on the interview. I watched it when it happened. I thought it was clumsy and alienating to word things the way he did.

As for his commencement speech, I saw that as soon as it was being talked about. I can't find it now. I can give you MY opinion on what he said, which surprised and disappointed me. Trump was already struggling for the female vote. His support of overturning Roe v Wade set him back a lot. While I agree with some of Vance's opinions on the subject of family and the leading Democrat's policies, some of what I have heard him say is not good for Trump and, frankly, I find some of it offensive and too old school Moral Majority for my liking. Of course, the left is going to embellish it but I do agree with them to a certain degree.

It is as if you are trying to debate about a football game that you didn't watch with someone who did. I saw where you asked line item questions that I didn't get to just yet. I have a very busy today and am traveling tomorrow. But, I look forward to answering all of your questions tonight. As for responding to Yes_Goddess, Chuck, please understand I try to respond to everyone who posts on a thread that I started. I miss a few sometimes but do try to respond to everyone.

Oh, and one more thing I want to touch on, the leftwing media and big tech is over the top with hiding original content and replacing it with short clips and biased commentary. That is what I'm finding with Vance. What he said alone, I found harmful enough to the Trump campaign but the embellishment is off the charts. CBS actually brought in a so called gender expert to analyze his childless cat lady comment that was made a couple of years ago. My research skills could be better but I do try to go back and dig up original sources, many of which I watched, unedited, when it first came out. Although you may not see it, I despise MSM. I most certainly have not been run over by them or believe anything they say. I'd love to see the people who own the media outlets held accountable in a court of law for all of the lies, incitement and damage they are doing and marched off to prison. Then, the commentators who are nothing more than paid liars can have their turn in court. It will never happen but I'd be happy if it did. So, when you accuse me of believing these horrible people, it feels like a smack in the face.

I don't mean to interject. But, let me put this in my perspective. I grew in a Democrat voting household and going to Catholic Schools. I was being hammered by religion telling me, from a very young age, that something was wrong with gay people. I remember, at the tender age, of 10 making a decision to bury it deep and know that God didn't want me to suffer. By all appearances, I'm the most easy going person you'd ever meet. Deep in, that stuff is buried. The Republicans harped on the evils of gay marriage when I was a teenager coming to terms with a lot and coming out to my parents. Mike Pence had a history of being against gay rights. Now they give us Vance? I may never have children. I am not anti family. Is it so awful that my girlfriend and I have two cats? Vance is out of line in saying these things. Democrats are not anti family. My family is all about our children and each other. I was leaning toward voting for Trump, which I never thought I'd do. Now, my girlfriend would smother me in my sleep if I did.

I remember the left turned the 2008 election where Obama essentially ran against Sarah Palin. McCain was disproportionately bypassed.

Chuck,

We are beating our heads against a wall hear...both of us. I have answered all of these questions. You just don't like my answers. I disagree that you needs to watch an entire football game to discuss the outcome. There is more than one controversial play with Vance. His cat lady compassion and, when called on it 2 years later, his response was flip and alienating. As I've said, he started out with saying, "Look, I have nothing against cats," trying to downplay his remarks. Then he launched into the Democrats being anti family. In the quote you referenced, it came across that a woman's life would not be meaningful without having children. I've explained this to you before. You just don't like my read on it. Now part of a speech in which he says that people with children have more of an investment in the future of the country and should have more of a voice than people who don't have children is circulating. I don't like it when only part of a speech is presented. I'd like to hear the entire speech but can't find it. They are calling it an "Unearthed" speech. So, it is not recent. It just keeps looking worse and worse. Some of the look is spin and embellishment but he has handed them a lot to work with. Here is one of the links. If I find the entire speech on youtube, I will post it. It is better to listen to the entire speech for context.

Yes, I did misspeak. I find it horrible that Vance's comments singled these people out in a negative light.

I have provided my reasoning with detail multiple times. You just don't like it. I saw on a post you made to someone else that the media ran against Palin instead of McCain. To a large extent that is true. I see Vance as low hanging fruit who doesn't have much to bring to the ticket and is as eloquent as a can of paint. I liked the pick at first. But, it didn't take long of hearing him talk to change my mind. Again, my concern is that it will have a negative impact on Trump.

Cheyenne

It isn't the entire speech but it is pretty clear with words from his own mouth. Vance was advocating for people who have children to have more voting power than people who don't. I'd really like to hear the entire speech but haven't found it yet. I also can't find the commencement speech but next week when I have more time will keep looking. Vance is dragging Trump down. What a bad choice.

Of course not. That statement was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
However, I do often hear libs blaming the faults of our government on "old white men" -- and they say it seriously.

However, their party's leadership and policies are.
I watched the concept of traditional families be attacked from the "Great Society" on.
The idea that "it takes a village" has morphed into "give your child to the government."
Program after program exacerbates problems with traditional families thus allowing the government to control more and more of the child's upbringing.
As women have been made ashamed to be "just" housewives, they must limit their time with their kids and rely on daycare and extended schooling to raise them.
Daycare is expensive and the government is happy to jump in to help those families that can't afford it and instill the concept of institutionalization earlier and earlier.
As more and more control of our children transfers to institutions, we see the promotion of "inclusive" lifestyles that may be detrimental and potentially dangerous.
In extreme cases, this "inclusivity" is promoted by drag queens and teachers that come to class with Z sized bras.

That is the crux of my problem with this issue.
The left and the willing MSM are quick to divert attention from meaningful issues that they can't defend with petty red herrings -- and they avoid Trump altogether.
Is cat bashing really more important than inflation?
Is support of alternate lifestyles more important than unrestricted immigration that leads to crime and anarchy?
As more and more unvetted military aged men are allowed in, attacks on women increase.
Biden has brought the world closer to nuclear conflict than Kennedy did in the '60s.
The election of Kamala will result in the US being weaker and threat of world chaos will be a certainty.

Things have gotten so out of control under Biden, Trump may not be able to fix it.
However, he's the only one who has a chance to do so.
No one else has the financial capability and courage to try.

My advice: hide your pillows and vote for Trump.

I agree. For simplicity, I'm going to reply to just this post.
If I miss an important point in your other posts, let me know and I'll address it.

Mostly you talk around my questions.
For example:
I've repeatedly asked you to comment on my interpretation of the quote that we've agreed you feel is an indication of Vance's position.
You haven't even stated whether you agree or disagree, let alone justify your contention if you disagree.
It's as if I said Trump admitted to molesting women in the pussy tape and you explained how that is not the case.
My repeated response to your explanations would be: "Nope. I heard his exact words with my own ears," followed by "I've already answered that."

However, if you won't talk about the first controversial replay, why bother looking for more?

I appreciate your attempt to document your position.
However, to me the whole issue is moot so don't waste your time.
As I mentioned in posts in other threads, I'm indifferent to Vance.
If he is horrible, then I figure that it might be a deterrent for a potential Trump assassin who doesn't want Vance to be president.
If he is great, then great.
Either way, I'm voting for Trump because in the four years he had, he has shown he has the best chance to save the US (and perhaps the world).
That he is willing to put his fortune and life on the line to make the effort speaks well of his character.

As to my MSM remarks, I'm sorry they offended you.
It's just that when I see comments that divert attention from real issues to petty character attacks on red herring points, I feel frustrated because I'm sure they are directed by leftists in partnership with the MSM.
Isn't that just plain "weird"?

Hide the pillows! Ha. Good one.

I heard Vance's cat lady remark to be loud and clear. It wasn't a joke. I agree that the Democrat's if office have policies that are not supportive of parents. But, he said Democrats are anti family. Coming from a big loving family that has always voted Democratic, that didn't go over well with me. His avocation for people with children to have more of a voice than people who don't is loud, clear and inexcusable. It is because of people like him running our government that makes it difficult for people to have children. He is against expanding the child credit tax write off. He is against government funded parental leave. More than anything, his party is the one that has advocated against people, like me, from adopting children, marrying a same sex partner and creating a stigma for a child of gay parents to grow up in. I don't like what they are teaching the kids in school about sexuality. Let them figure that out on their own. But, he is of the party that helped make life for gay people more difficult than it should have been.

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I sold my condo in the Chicago area because the city had become too crime ridden for comfort. My girl and I have been talking about getting married and having a child. In the suburb we lived in, it would be accepted. Where we are moving, in Kentucky, it probably won't be. Neither of us want a child to be treated differently for having two moms. People like Vance contribute to the non acceptance. Taking a chance on getting mugged or not being able to have a child, while being criticized for not starting a family should a choice that anyone is faced with.

If a nuclear war breaks out, it is going to anyway. Covid happened under Trump's watch. People may call me a conspiracy theory but it was obviously a lab designed weapon. How did he not know that the US was funding the research? I don't trust the Dems or Repubs when it comes to national security in that regard. I care about crime rates, illegal invasion and inflation. That is as much as I can go with thinking my vote will matter anyway.

Vance is worse than Pence and his history of wanting gay people healed instead of accepting them and letting them be. Trump choice round two of discrimination against people who don't fit the procreation mode. For me, it is either vote for Trump or not at all. Thanks to Vance, it will probably be not at all. One thing I know for sure is that I will not vote for a Democrat unless they turn themselves around.

I've maintained for years that liberal policies are detrimental to traditional families.
Those policies have been implemented by the Democratic Party for decades.
Those Democrats who believe the anti-conservative rhetoric have consistently voted Democratic even though they support the concept of family.
Education, crime, services, opportunities, etc. all suffer as a consequence.
Sadly many, like yourself, seek to get away from the blue cities.

Even if true, it pales in contrast to other factors that are turning people off from the gay agenda:
-Gays redefine genders and are insulted if someone doesn't use the right pronoun (often with penalties involved).
-Giving gays the ability to force businesses to support their lifestyle.
-Promoting inappropriate actions and lifestyles in schools and libraries.
-Manipulating and even mutilating children -- often without parental knowledge or consent.
-Taking parenting rights away from parents.
-Mocking religion (i.e. Last Supper in Paris)
-Giving gays preferences in hiring.
-redefining traditional terms such as calling mothers "birthing persons."
etc.
These kinds of issues contribute more to the nonacceptance of the gay lifestyle than any rhetoric by a politician.

That's a dangerous, fatalistic attitude.
I believe with the weakening of our military (much of the weakness is caused by "woke" policies) our adversaries are emboldened to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.
Allow Iran access to funds allowed it to support terrorism (such as the Hamas attack) as well as fund their nuclear ability and delivery vehicles.
Trump made significant strides toward peace in the Mideast.
When Trump was in office, we had leverage to discourage the Russian invasion in the first place.
Now we have spent billions and there is the threat of nuclear exchange in the Ukraine conflict.
Faced with the costs of wars that we have incurred under Biden and the threat of radioactivity around the world in even a limited use of nuclear weapons, dumping Trump because you don't like the vice-president seems ludicrous.

Good question.
We now know the federal agencies (FBI CIA DOJ IRS,etc.) are actively against Trump.
Trump threatens their power and income.
Whether launched purposely or accidentally, the Covid pandemic was weaponized to destroy the economy on Trump's watch and allow the means to steal the election if the crippling of the economy wasn't enough to keep him from being re-elected.
The government agencies fed him false, misleading, and/or incomplete information on how to handle the pandemic.

The sad part is, even if you do vote for Trump to rectify the horrible mess the Biden/Harris administrations left, your vote may be switched by a machine or cancelled by an illegal vote.

It's too bad more Democrats didn't come to that decision decades ago.
As it is, I fear Fahrenheit451's prediction of civil war may soon be a reality.

As I've shared here, I find some of the Democrat's policies to be anti family. But, long time Democrat voters are not.
Gay people are not a monolith. The representation that the entire gay community supports restriction of parental rights and gender affirmation at tender ages is repulsive. I'm a nurse and would not refuse anyone care. If I was a caterer, I wouldn't accept an event that I didn't feel good about. No one should have to. The push to divide people based on sexual orientation is causing harm in the alternative lifestyle communities. Please, don't count me on that one. I can't think about wars and hypotheticals. I can only focus on what impacts my daily life. After Harris choice a running mate that supports the very issues that have been fracturing my beloved fetish community, I won't have to hide the pillows from my girl.

I believe that many Democrat voters vote for Democrats because they are sold on the misconception that Republicans are evil.

I believe that many gays vote out of fear (rational and irrational) that Republicans will support anti-gay legislation.
That fear blinds them to the drawbacks incorporated in much of the extreme agenda promoted by Democrat elites.

The push to divide people is intentionally facilitated by those who want the US to be weakened.
Sexual issues, being emotional and personal, are the perfect vehicles for dividing one against another.

That's good.

I believe there is some truth to people voting Democrat because they believe Republicans are evil. In that there is some legitimate concern. Republicans have a history of being too harsh on limiting social benefits and imposing religious beliefs. I don't care for the nanny state ideology. But there needs to be a degree of compassion in any civilized culture for people who truly need help.

I've seen members of the gay community voting out or irrational fear and a healthy, rational concern. There were leading members of the Republican party that fought hard to prevent us from being able to marry the person we were in love with. They wanted to collect our tax money but not allow us to have the same rights as everyone else. That went on for years. It doesn't get washed away easily. After dismissing Roe, I'm not comfortable that they won't go a lot further. It is a healthy caution for the gay community to have.

Agreed on their dividing us over sexual issues. It should backfire on them. Whether it will or not, I can't say. I'm not a bitter person but I am over having to leave my home state over the Democrat's policies and pause my family plans by moving to a safer, more affordable conservative state. Both parties are getting me from both sides. It isn't right. I pay my taxes like everyone else.

Yeah, it will probably be one more vote for Trump in Kentucky this year. I changed my voter registration two days ago. I still can't believe my girl and I, both born and raised in Chicago, are living the country life now. From big city to the burbs to 3 acres and a farm house.

That has been true as long as I can remember. Sixty years ago, a liberal I just met casually look perplexed as she knew I was a conservative Republican. She said something like "you are actually nice" as if a Republican being courteous and/or polite was unthinkable.

Thinking that Republicans/conservatives lack compassion is a myth that Democrats have been able to sell for decades.
Conservatives generally feel personal responsibility should be encouraged and irresponsibility should be discouraged.

Opposing "The Great Society" was sold as an example of Republican indifference to those who suffer.
Yet, as time has shown, the Republican predictions of family breakup, government dependency, higher crime rates, etc. have come to pass.
The poverty rate was not reduced and the compassion was misplaced.

The Democrats sold the concept that they were the civil rights champions and Republicans are the racists.
If Johnson hadn't led Senate resistance to Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act that gutted it, the 1964 Civil Rights act would not have been necessary.
When Johnson found it politically expedient, he flipped and signed the 1964 act with 80% Republican backing.

As to compassion, years ago I pointed out that conservatives give more to charitable causes in both amount and percentage of wealth.
They donated more time to charitable causes including donating more blood.
My theory for this is conservatives tend to personally take action where liberals feel that is the government's responsibility.
Yes, I suspect the numbers reflect a higher percentage of church participation, but the results are compassionate.

I opposed gay marriage when it came to a vote in California.
My feeling, that the tradition of marriage shouldn't be compromised and that gays should have the ability to enter a partnership that would be legally similar, was only part of my reasoning and probably would have been overridden by the arguments supporting gay marriage.
However, my biggest concern was that once gay marriage was approved by the state, they would have a tool to incorporate and promote their lifestyle in schools where children are too young to come to grips with emotions they have yet to feel.
Obviously, the concern has been proven to be correct--much more than I had feared.

I hope you enjoy the country life. I hope the obstacles for you to have a family are not so formidable that you can't fulfill your desire.

When it comes to Republicans and lack of compassion, I'm referring to acting members of the government. I have found some of their positions to be inhumane. No child should be hungry in this country. No pregnant woman should be told they can't have an abortion and try to find help from a local church. If they want people to be responsible they should help them recover from mistakes they've made and be able to support themselves instead of families going without basics like housing, food and daycare. Although I do not like the current illegal immigration polices of the Democrats, no one should be arguing against feeding the children that were brought here. They are here now and they should be be cared for or returned home promptly and safely. They should not be separated from their parents.

I'm sorry to hear that you opposed gay marriage. The irresponsible and divisive push from lawmakers to teach children age inappropriate material in school did not come from the gay community. We should not have to suffer for it or be treated like second class citizens. I'm appalled by what is going on in public schools in states like California. That does not, however, mean I should pay the price for it.

Thank you for your nice wishes on country life. So far, it has been refreshing. There is a lot of work and adjustment to do. I hope we find the area suitable to raise a child in a same sex marriage. We've got a few years to get a good read on that. So far, everyone has been friendly with us. I'll be working in a large hospital and coming into contact with a lot of people. You'd be surprised how much of a feel you get for the local area from being in a busy hospital environment.

I was referring to the perception of Democrats about the average "deplorable" Republican.
Outside personal gain and political expediency, Republican policy generally favors the producers where Democratic policy favors the takers.
The fact that when production is discouraged, the resources available are reduced.

That is not the function of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government should be concerned with foreign relations, security, and regulating interstate commerce.
Providing framework to prevent monopolies, predatory capitalism, and Constitutional violations is also in the federal domain.

Using abortion as a birth control method should not be encouraged.
Selling body parts gives financial incentives to perform late term abortions.
The fetus does experience pain and the methods are excruciatingly cruel.
Increase the penalties for rape and provide an environment where a girl is not pressured to "put out" because "everybody does it" and she fears losing the the love of her life if she says no.
It's her body until she conceives. Then it is a shared body.

Again the emphasis should be on preventing the mistakes in the first place.
Programs should be tailored to provide a helping hand, not dependency.
Democrats are notorious for keeping people in poverty and dependent on the government.
They are the root of the problem but take humanitarian credit for the benefits they offer to alleviate the problems they perpetuate.

The MSM is quick to demonize any actions taken by Republicans and overlook the actions by Democrats.
For example, the "cruel cages" they showed when criticizing Trump were actually photos from Obama's term.
The cruel fact is that while Trump built walls to keep people and families from making the dangerous trip, the Democrats tore down the walls and welcomed them with open arms.
Again, conservatives try to stop the problems before they get out of hand, the Democrats need to produce victims so they can acquire the reputation of being benevolent and win votes.

I'm sorry my reasons were so devastatingly affirmed.

The push was facilitated by using the gay movement whether the gay community approved or not.
The social concept of traditional family is constantly under attack.
It is not that non traditional families cannot provide a loving and strong foundation; it's just that traditional families generally have fewer challenges.
This is particularly true of single parent families.

I don't know about the people in your area, but I would not be surprised if you find conservatives more accepting than you fear.

I believe there is some legitimacy to viewing people who support the reduction, if not elimination, of social benefits to those who actually need them. It should be the function of the federal government to use tax dollars to help people that are truly in need, however that needs to be worked out with the states.

We are not talking about using abortion as birth control. I am presenting that if a woman finds herself in an unexpected pregnancy and needs help that her family is unwilling or unable to provide, tax dollars should assist. I'm an RN who has worked in a busy hospital all of my nursing career. We are constantly short staffed. Training young women to fill in positions, be it as simple as a janitor, whatever they are capable of, would be of great help to society. It is wrong to burden a young woman who made a mistake of bringing a child into the world when she has no means to provide even a very low quality of life. There should be early term options for termination and then help of preparing to be a single parent for those young women who keep their baby. I have the benefit of a big, loving family. My parents took in my cousin when she got pregnant in high school and tension was too high with her parents at that time. They helped her and even cared for the baby as she finished school and mended bridges with her parents. Not everyone has that. As a tax payer, I am strongly rooted in the belief that we should have a solid voice in where our dollars go.

I'm aware that Obama built the cages the msm ran with. This country, with all of the technology and resources, can prevent illegal immigration. As it is out of control on a record breaking scale, people will keep coming in volume. They need to be returned promptly but safely. That means emergency medical care when needed, compassion, shelter and food. on a temporary basis. Who is at fault for the young children being brought is aside the point of not separating them from their parents. My belief is get them safe, comfortable and back to the country they came from in short order.

It has not been confirmed that gay marriage lead to the woke policies that are being pushed in schools. That is as true as the arguement against gun ownership. I don't support what is going on in schools and should not have to suffer the consequences of the idiotic political agenda of it. I'm not a supporter of extreme protests but, if there should ever be one, parents need to stop supporting this and flood the streets. They need to get off their butts and run for school board positions. Just as responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished for a few idiots or mad men, either should responsible gay couple who value family and the innocence of children.

Thank you for the words of encouragement about being accepted should my girlfriend decide to start a family. I'm not so optimistic. Growing up different, even in a liberal city, I've seen and experienced a lot that would predict otherwise. We are keeping an open mind, however. Things have changed over the years. I just don't want to bring a child into the world for them to be "that kid," who's friends aren't allowed to come for play dates. Remember, this is the same state a country clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples even when it was the law. On top of that, a leading Republican who was gearing up to run for president made a special trip to support her in that effort.

And the states should work things out with the cities.
I believe the smaller the entity responsible and able to do a function, the better.

I'm talking about a fetus that is painfully ripped from the only environment it knows.
Personally, I would support very early abortion (i.e. morning after pill).
After a heartbeat and/or brain waves, the rules change.
As I indicated before, the female has the right to say no.
That is the control she has on her body. When with child, she shares that body with that child.


Trump tried and was fought and stymied by the left.
In contrast, Biden actually invited them.

That assumes you can get the resources to do so without diverting resources from citizens who may need services.

It was a tool that was already being used in Massachusetts when Prop 8 was passed in California.

There are several policies on these issues (both good and bad) that are worthy of their own thread.
I'm just trying to make the point that Republicans/conservatives are generally compassionate when taking their position.
Liberals usually focus on having the government help the victim cope with their plight while conservatives focus on reducing the number of victims--hence would-be victims don't have a plight to cope with.
An indication as to the benefits of one philosophy over the other is the migration from blue dominant states is usually to red states.

However it is handled, it should be mandated by the federal government. Any civilized society should help people who need a hand. I'm not talking about welfare as a career path for people who are capable of working. No child should be hungry in this country.

The problem with the abortion laws is that some states make no exceptions. I support first trimester and second only if there are rare, documented and clearly exceptional conditions, such as serious birth defects or life of the mother in jeopardy. I say this as someone who wants children and may not be able to have them. I'm pro family. I'm also pro common sense. Making a woman carry a child who is doomed to a low quality of life due to a defect or where the mother's life is threatened by a clear medical condition is inhumane.

Agreed on illegal immigration. It was deliberate under Biden's stint in office. It is part of the reason that I won't be voting for Harris.

Again, gay people should not be punished because of radical members of the government and elected school board members. More parents should stand up and run for school board positions. People should vote out members of the government who are jeopardizing this country's youth by radical way of radical agendas. Gay people, who are not in support of this, should not be punished. I take great exception that anyone would deny a fellow American of the right to marry because of the flaws in our government.

This country has allowed illegal immigration for many years. As you point out, the current administration invited it. It is our duty to return those who illegally cross safely and promptly. As a civilized society, this means emergency medical care, food and shelter, without separating children from their parents. As the saying goes, you made the bed now lie in it. We voted in Biden. Voters tolerated and even benefited from illegal immigration. Now, we've got to deal humanely with the consequences as we stop it.

If you don't mind me chiming in, I've got to say there is some logic in coming in with a compromise on abortion. As you've probably picked up on in the years we've been posting together, I'm very much pro life. I started volunteering for pro life efforts when I was just 20 years old. It took a long time for me to come to my stance on abortion policies but, after watching the battle over it for years, the pro life agenda is better off with a middle ground compromise. I also strongly agree with Mary that there needs to be help for women who want to keep their baby but are not in a financial position to do so. In that, I mean help getting on their feet and becoming self sustaining.

When Roe v Wade took place in the early 70's, abortion was not a political issue. But, after the court case, politicians took notice and realized they could make it one. Both sides have become so extreme. Planned Parenthood is the epitome of evil. When they get exposed for selling fetal organs, the people exposing them are the ones prosecuted! In all of this, coming to the center with term limits and requiring the agencies that receive federal funds offer prenatal care instead of abortion only options, I believe is the route to go.

Before Clinton's bipartisan welfare reform bill in the 90's, welfare was a fairly comfortable career path for single women with children. That is no longer the case and, it shouldn't be. But, there needs to be help. Btw, in the reform bill the GOP insisted that women who received help during their pregnancy had to live with their parents. That is the insanity of the religious right. A 17 year old gets pregnant, her parents kick her out and she can't get help when she needs it the most. How much sense did that make? It has probably been overturned by now. It makes more sense to help people get some type of education or job training, provide day care for a certain amount of time and enable them to become contributing members of society.

Just my thoughts on the subject, as the mother of six and long time pro life supporter.

We are in agreement on the obligation to provide help but disagree on where it should come from.
I think federal control leads to waste and inappropriate disbursement where local assistance is in a better position to access what assistance is best.

...and some states allow "abortions" after a live birth.
A lot of the controversy at the federal level rests on the definition of human and human rights.
That aside, if it is an overriding issue, then one has a better chance of changing a local law than a federal law.
Having a federal law locks out those in disagreement with the very-difficult-to-change federal government.
At lease in the US, one has 50 choices to select what issues one can live with or try to change.
This is true on many issues, not just abortion.

...and straight people shouldn't be "punished" by the policies implemented to satisfy the gay agenda.

I have to admit, I'm becoming less and less tolerant of gays promoting and imposing their lifestyle on society.
Their public demonstrations, such as pride month, impress policy makers of the voting impact of this block.
We've seen the White House lit up by "gay colors" and the "gay flag" flown over some of our embassies.
By presenting themselves as perpetual victims, they gain sympathy of straight people and enjoy minority status.
This political clout is used by radicals to implement the agenda we are witnessing today.

They change our language, change the meaning of "gender," and then invent new genders.
There are very real penalties if we don't use preferred pronouns.
It started out with the change of the definition of "marriage."
It used to be pretty simple: the combining of two differing entities to make something better.
The difference of the entities is key. The marrying of a bolt and nut is a physical example.
As I mentioned before, the change of the concept of marriage being recognized by the state has given the radicals the tool they needed to bring about the implementation of their agenda.
If gay people wanted the rights bestowed on married couples, they should have lobbied for a 'companion contract" to cover the appropriate needs.
Instead, they have hijacked, changed, and diluted the traditional concept of marriage.

You may have. I didn't and frankly, I don't believe the majority of legitimate voters did either.

However the funding is handled, I'd like to see it required for all states to do this. The federal government finds money to send to foreign countries, with no assurance it is even benefiting citizens in need. They can find a way to help the citizens of this country who are in need of a helping hand.

Late term abortion is tragic and should never be an option as along as the baby is alive. The remarking about allowing a baby to die after birth probably got the former Governor of Virginia bounced out of office, which was a good thing. The problem with abortion regulation coming from the state level is that some have gone completely overboard with no thought to exceptions and rational term limits. Moving based on state laws is not an option for everyone, due to employment, family, fiances. Moving out of state and uprooting one's life isn't cheap and it isn't easy.

You are getting fringe gay advocacy groups and people with a political agenda confused with the average gay person. Most of us want the same rights, no more and no less, than anyone else. I couldn't disagree any stronger about gay marriage. The pronouns are a joke. What is happening with youth and the gender game the government is playing is terrible. Gay and alternative lifestyle people are not a monolith. Many of us do not support this. Most of us are not imposing our sexual orientation onto anyone else. I simply find it unacceptable to be treated like a second class citizens. I'm not looking for special treatment. It has not been good for gays to have been thrown into the divisive DEI agenda. It has set back acceptance of allowing us to live normal lives by portraying in the light that you describe.

Yup. I've got to own that I voted for what turned out to be a very poorly functioning administration. It won't be the case this November.

On most issues, we differ on how a policy should be addressed and administered, not the end result.
You want the federal government responsible for implementing solutions.
However, If a program is flawed, it is next to impossible to change or eliminate it.
I believe local people are best suited to implement policies that cater to the local environment.
Locally, those responsible are not insulated or restricted by layers of bureaucracy inherent in big government.
They are accountable and have more flexibility to adapt.

As to gays being second class citizens, they may be different, but they are not second class.
They have parades and even a "pride" month where they declare they are sexually attracted to same sex.
To me, sexual preferences and actions are private, not something to wave a flag to boast about.
Unless there is a reason for me to know, I don't want to know how one gets their rocks off.
The gay community has political clout and have allowed themselves to be used to implement radical policies.
They have hijacked our language from "gay" to "marriage" and changed the definition of gender.
Who would have guessed that not using the proper pronoun coined by gays would get you into trouble.
They feel free to ridicule and mock religion such as with the Last Supper display at the Olympics.
They enjoy minority status privileges.
To me, second class is a girl denied the chance for an athletic scholarship by a male thinking (or pretending) he is a female.
You and many others in the LGBT+ community may not approve of the direction the gay movement has taken, but you have enabled it.

Agreed. However, it is even harder to move out of country if the federal government passes intolerable laws.

Respectfully, it is becoming offensive that you insist upon putting all gays into the same category. You think most of us support the mockery at the Olympics? You are right about trans being allowed in female sports. What makes you believe that, by sake of sexual orientation, most gays support the lunacy of that? I have no problem with gay pride parades any more than any other type of celebration. I've not enabled anything. I want to live a full and happy life with the same rights that anyone else has, no more and no less. I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be a nice, reasonably minded person. But, this is getting personal and offensive. Every time a straight white Christian male does something stupid, that is on the individuals involved, not the entire demographic.

Let's move on to another topic.

I'm sorry my posts seem to indicate that.
I tend to speak of gays and the gay radicals with the same or similar terminology.
I did not mean to imply you, or the bulk of the gay community support the radicalization of the gay movement.
I sincerely appreciate your patience and tact throughout this exchange.
I don't have many gay friends and we tactfully stay away from political conversations.
This exchange has given me a chance to express some ideas and concepts that are "touchy" at best.
As I mentioned before, my view of the gay movement has become more negative over the past years as the radical policies have exploded.

My view of pride parades has changed.
My wife and I came close to participating on a float in one when we lived in San Diego.
Now I look on them as political tools to manipulate legislation.
Do all those who participate in parades support the radical policies? No, of course not.
However the radical element has used the political capital generated by such displays to push their agenda through.
That's what I was referring to when I said the radicalization was enabled.

My generalization of gays as a group is they are inclined to be artistic (music, attire, theater, etc.).
They are above average in intelligence and fun to be around.
(I can say with a misleading but true statement that I believe I have physically danced with more gays than most gay guys have.)

I haven't had that much experience with gay people so my perception is based on limited input.
I would be interested in knowing the obstacles gays face on a personal level, particularly in regards to social acceptance and ability to have and raise a family.
I hope you will share your experience and thoughts either on the board or in PM.
Unless requested, I will keep my thoughts to myself. I think of you as an online friend and I would hate to jeopardize that.

Again, I have enjoyed this exchange, Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

Gay pride parades may be different depending on the location. The ones I've participated in were all just silly fun. There would be protesters in certain spots of the parade but no one paid much attention to them. I have seen a fracture within the fetish and alternative lifestyle groups I was involved with in Chicago. In some cases, the group disbanded altogether over the political divide that DEI caused. Inclusion doesn't count when someone doesn't agree your standards of family values and protecting our precious youth, sadly enough. So, it wouldn't surprise me that your experience with a gay pride parade was much different that mine.

I'd like for you to share your thoughts and am glad that you acknowledge we all don't fit the mold that is commonly displayed in the press. Monday my girl and I start our new jobs in Kentucky. She's a vet tech and I'm an RN at a large hospital. You can always get a good read on the community through large medical settings, I found from the early days as a traveling nurse. So, far so good, in the neighbors we've met in our new country home. Maybe being in the boondocks won't mean people won't be accepting. Actually, people have been noticeably friendlier than in our Chicago burb, which could be pretentious.

Actually, I don't have any experience with gay pride parades.
Despite the fact that most of the clips I've seen are of the bazaar ones, my impression remains "just silly fun."
My primary objection to them evolved when I saw (or imagined) the political punch they provide for the radicals to use.

I can only guess at the reception you will experience when people become aware of your lifestyle.
However, I'm betting that you will be subject to more curiosity than condemnation.
And yeah, you may be a prime topic of gossip.
From your posts, you seem like a person who does not take offense when none is intended.
I think that trait will do much to win acceptance of your lifestyle with those who have had little exposure to it otherwise.