Only in America

981 posts in this topic

42 minutes ago, Janx Spirit said:

"Trans Swimmer Who Broke US Records Says Competing Against Women Is Fair"

In my youth it was still against the law for a man to impersonate a women (UK). Now men can impersonate females to become winning sportswomen. Not sure that was what was intended when laws regarding  LGBTs were liberalised.:blink:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swimming is bad enough, more concerning is trans athletes competing against women in combat sports like MMA.

I can't believe it's even a discussion to be honest.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

Honest question, does this only take place in the U.S.?

No.  Sadly not, sorry!   Did say that at that in the post.  Can provide a list of transwomen winning if you want. It was a handy.

 

Perhaps should start a thread, trans guys beating girls and women in sport.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed it. Sorry for asking. Didn't mean anything by it.

 

I feel like I should be on the fence having trans friends but I don't think it is fair.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fraufruit said:

I missed it. Sorry for asking. Didn't mean anything by it.

 

I feel like I should be on the fence having trans friends but I don't think it is fair.

Exactly.  A lot of trans people disagree with this stuff.  OK,,   Why do the sporty guys do thi without feeling embarassed?  And Lia rocks up and changes, showers naked with the "other" females   I do not get it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in less titillating news:

 

"Kanye West announces 2024 presidential bid" 

 

Quote

His latest claims came in a video posted after West was spotted at Trump's Mar-A-Lago golf club earlier this week, accompanied by Nick Fuentes, a prominent white nationalist.

 

West said his request for a running mate left the former president, who recently launched his own re-election campaign, "most perturbed".

 

In a video titled Mar-A-Lago Debrief, West claimed: "Trump started basically screaming at me at the table, telling me I'm going to lose. Has that ever worked for anyone in history?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63754702

 

Love's gonna rip them apart :) 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2022, 2:57:37, fraufruit said:

Each state has its own voting laws and processes and they are always changing. That complicates things.

 

The USA is really proud of the fact that so much is decided at country or state level. It means there's about 40k different jurisdictions and the law can change if you travel 10km.

 

Not even a top lawyer stopped by the police could be sure what laws are in effect, coupled with police lying being standard operating procedure it really does make the USA a police state.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

 

The USA is really proud of the fact that so much is decided at country or state level.

 

I don't think we are necessarily proud of it, that's just the way it is. Yes, it can be very frustrating at times.

 

But the same Federal vs State thing thing exists here. I know families with children who chose to live in SH instead of HH based on the educational system. I don't know why, cuz I don't have kids.  And during the height of corona Pinneberg was a vacation paradise for us :)

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the U.S., people usually live in one state and are familiar with the laws there. One is aware of pertinent laws in neighboring states as well.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

 One is aware of pertinent laws in neighboring states as well.

 

Like, you can't buy beer on Sunday in Minnesota, so your gotta go to 'sconsin .

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought things like whether police can demand your id without any crime being committed are decided at county level.

 

So if the police say you have to id, you really don't know if they are telling the truth or not.

Likewise the grounds for searching, or how long they can hold you before enunciating a crime or probable cause.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is topic for a whole nother thread. we were just talking about voting rights. 

 

For search and seizure, we have the 4th amendment. That is pretty clear.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of victims of "legalised highway robbery" otherwise known as civil asset forfeiture might have some comments on the (lack of) protection provided by the 4th amendment.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

I thought things like whether police can demand your id without any crime being committed are decided at county level.

 

So if the police say you have to id, you really don't know if they are telling the truth or not.

Likewise the grounds for searching, or how long they can hold you before enunciating a crime or probable cause.

 

As a former law enforcement officer, I think your incorrect views of how law enforcement works might be influenced by urban legend, TV, or other incorrect sources...but I could be wrong.

 

In no particular order to your statements:

 

1.  The grounds for searching are established by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  When I attended the law enforcement academy, this amendment was drilled into our heads and we had to memorize it verbatim.  Nearly two weeks of the eight-month academy were about the 4th Amendment, with case history examples detailing what can go wrong if we disregard it.

 

2.  Any custodial arrest, or temporary detention, follows the reason for the action.  There is no "cuff and stuff" allowed in any of the jurisdictions I worked in and with and to do otherwise is also in violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

3.  If I have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, I can demand identification on the spot.  If I have probable cause that a crime has been committed, I can make a custodial arrest and take care of the identification later.  I don't know of any jurisdiction where failure to provide adequate identification will result in the equivalent of "Right, be on your way then and have a nice day."  If a situation exists where it is necessary to positively identify a person, or persons, and any refuse, then I am obligated to take the person into custodial arrest until the identification can be determined.  This happened to me over a dozen times, and the reason for not providing identification was because there were outstanding arrest warrants for those affected and they likely thought I would not pursue the issue.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tor said:

And during the height of corona Pinneberg was a vacation paradise for us :)

 

You have my deepest sympathy...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now