I've got friends and family in that camp, who will not hear any of it as long as it comes from Trump or DOGE. It does not matter how many receipts you show them or how many facts you present to them, it will simply be ignored until 'the right people' say it. It's an unfortunate situation, and I'm not going to doompost over it, but long term all of this only matters as much as the people say it does. I don't know who 'the right people' are to deliver this message, because they won't listen to the right and dems certainly aren't going to be openly questioning this anytime soon. If MSM comes out and does it? "Trump had them at gunpoint to say it" is the answer I guarantee you'd get.
These sort of rulings require emergency appeals heard immediately to put a stay on them and blocking the judge from presiding over cases against the administration once their obsurd rulings are overturned if the judiciary wants to maintain their legitimacy. We will likely never get a supreme Court based enough for that to happen, so we will just have to see how it inevitably plays out.
Libs have completely forgotten how much the power of the government rests on the perception of legitimacy. The only think stopping the President from disobeying a judge is the threat of impeachment. Impeachment is political, and Congress can only pull it off if the public perceives what the President did as bad. It's political suicide to remove your own party's president if your voters approve of what he did.
"B-B-BUT DRUMPHLER WANTS TO NUKE EVERY NON-WHITE IN THE WORLD! HE'S WACIST! HE IS LITCHERALLY KILLING ALL OF THE TRANNIES AND MEXICANS! HE'S A WARMONGER!"
To keep him from investigating further
I've gotten 5 for the secret service this week.
Elon said he was goign to be doign twitter spaces, someone NEEDS explain it needs to be video and it needs to be just a checklist of what was done. Short videos should be put out on that one 47 account that did the laken rielly act signing video shitting on the one gomez chick. That was spun up quickly, the have really good people around it should be very important to do quick explainer videos.
Well a lot of those VBNW shitlib and proggies niggerfaggots keep pretending Kamala and Biden didn't help Israel kill a lot of brown bodies.
My hot take, that's sort of part of the plan, Trump is baiting them. I feel like telling a duly confirmed treasure secretary that he can't access TREASURE DATA is just fuckign retarded as all hell. The judiciary branch is pulling some insane overreach. It needs to get slapped down very very hard.
How many agencies are waiting for an Order 66?
This shit needs to be struck down now. The Democrats only see it as a tool to power.
I don't see how you can argue troonism enables surrogacy for gay men when the regular LGB does that all just fine. I think the line of thought goes something like this: If its perfectly acceptable for two people of the same sex to date, then why isn't it perfectly acceptable for them to get married? And if its perfectly acceptable for two women to get married, why isn't it acceptable for one to get pregnant via a man's donated sperm, and raise a child together? And if it is perfectly acceptable for two married women to raise a child together, why isn't it perfectly acceptable for two married men to do so via surrogacy? Marriage exists as a social, cultural, and legal acknowledgement of the commitment between a man and a woman. The "ownership" of the children produced from that relationship also naturally flows from that commitment. This issue of gay men using surrogacy really seems to me to be a problem of viewing homosexual relations as equal to heterosexual ones. Not a problem of the mentally ill who have deluded themselves into fantasies of being the opposite sex. The argument of the link between child and parent falls apart when you consider abortion exists. Does the father's link matter? Not according to the pro-choice people. Does the mother's link matter? Only if she deems so, according to the pro-choice people. Does the child's link to either parent matter? Its not even a child according to the pro-choice people. The child via sperm donor is predicated on the father giving up any rights to the child at donation. If that is acceptable, and to be upheld, even if the father regrets it later; why isn't it acceptable for a woman to sign away her rights? If you wanna argue surrogacy is bad, then by all means, but I don't see the direct link between troons, and surrogacy. I see it more as a two front issue of A) advancing medically technology, and B) decaying sexual morality.Don't forget that troonery is also an important weapon in the fight to destroy the idea of the family as a unit with biological bonds. Think about:
"Love makes a family" "Families come in all shapes and sizes" "My wife might have carried my children but I transitioned and I'm a woman now so I'm their mother, because "mother" can mean anything!" "Parents don't have a right to control their children. Children have rights and if a parent denies their agency it's child abuse." "Children with abusive families can be welcomed by new, glitter families!"
What can be achieved by weakening or destroying all narratives related to biological bonds? We're seeing it already.
1. It makes it easier to push surrogacy. Since there's no inherent or sacred "link" between a mother and a child, it's all just an idea, then it's not wrong or weird for gay men to hire women to gestate babies for them.
2. It makes it easier to push biomedical and transhumanism experimentation, since gestating a baby is really a thing that anyone can do, and shouldn't transwomen have the chance to be mothers too? The ultimate aim was probably artificial wombs.
3. It will eventually make it easier for governments to take children away from parents who are "abusive," with an ever-widening definition of "abuse" that includes any actions that don't align with government propaganda. Families aren't real, remember, and love makes a family, and bigots obviously don't love their children. So it's not horrific for the local team of government HR ladies to come and take someone's children because he questioned the necessity of a drag queen show. They're just protecting the kids from abuse!
The end goal here isn't to steal children (that's just a bonus), it's to keep people 100% in line and crush all dissent, since the government now has the power to easily take your kids if you do anything but clap and smile for the regime.
Carry it for nine months, deliver it, look it in its eyes, feel a life in your arms and see every possible future in it, and try and give away a literal piece of yourself after all that. It doesn't take much digging to find cases of mothers who can't go through with it. More than that, why can't these couples just adopt? There are already orphans out there, and it's not like it's their flesh and blood in either the case of adoption or surrogacy, so what's the hangup?
They were already openly disregarding Trump's presidential pardon of J6rs. The deepest state is now in full conflict and things will get worse until it gets better, especially when it is time to purge the military.
The Hispano-Teutons seem pretty based. I will gladly support a galactic Mormon-Cathlic empire. At least until the Judeo-Hapas subvert it and makes us take in Neo-Shudras refugees.
We're gonna kill you dude.
Typically when a gay male couple has a kid via surrogacy, one of the men is the genetic father.
lmao nice schizobabble bud, so you're telling me the DNC had the big corpos of the agriculture industry in their pocket the entire time, and only NOW they're gonna use them to raise food prices?, why didn't they do this during his first term, that would have been a quick and easy way to make him unpopular with the normie voters, better yet, why didn't cash in some favors to lower the price of food when the dems were in control?, they could have retained the presidency and majority control of the government by doing this one simple thing.
