this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
711 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2379 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. Ted Cruz has introduced a bill that would limit the use of preferred names by trans people.
The irony, critics point out? The senator, whose legal name is Rafael Edward Cruz, uses a preferred name himself: Ted.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 240 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Wow, now THAT will solve most of our country's problems, right, y'all? Fucking piece of shit useless mother fucker. I hate his weasly voice.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (4 children)

He's the kinda guy that leaves his tube socks on and pulls his pecker out of his whitey tighties before fucking his wife with the lights off.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This imagery just burns right though my soul and it won’t go away.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Correction, he's the kind of lizard that eats a rat while the humans aren't looking.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The majority of people who support and parrot shit like this aren't even doing it because they think it's somehow good for the country, they just think it's something that needs to be fixed because some ignorant piece of shit on FOX News or the like told them it was bad, and we should all be mad about it.

I can't imagine being so fucking bored and miserable with my life, that the sheer THOUGHT of someone else being happy and comfortable... or even just not sad and miserable in their own life, that I'd feel obligated to dedicate what precious time I have on this earth to ruining everything for everyone.

I agree with you - Ted Cruz is an absolute piece of shit, but the people who feel driven to support these types of policies and bills etc. are truly vile human beings.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

*Rafael Cruz

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Am loving the energy in this post! It's so tiring that this shit is what passes for politics around here. Like half' the fucking country seriously thinks kicking us is a worthy focus for the whole damn government? Really? REALLY? Let's just stop and have a vote on how much we all hate those people for existing! That'll make something better, won't it? ... Now here I am getting worked up too. Bleh. Of course those people have no concept of "better," only hurting people they hate.

"I hate his voice" tacked onto the end there is kinda hilarious though 🤣

Also the initialism for the act's name is SHSA which reminds me that "SHSR" is the IBM->HAL thing (letter-position-decrement?) for "TITS." So I guess this bill is about TITB? ... Nevermind, I'll show myself out :P

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Him eating his booger on the debate stage still makes me gag uncontrollably if I see the clip, and if it pops into my head sometimes I'll start gagging, which is pretty much every time I see his name

There are very few things that make me gag in disgust, this one gets me every time

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 206 points 1 year ago (2 children)

conservatives pick the weirdest most inconsequential hills to shit their pants on

[–] [email protected] 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Step 1: Pick an issue that is divisive*

Step 2: Boost it with stories about how bad the people on the wrong side are: won't someone think of the children?

Step 3: Watch the outrage donations roll on in

It's a playbook as old as time.

*Some people might call it divisive because one side is like "let's all become crabs and live in the ocean" vs the other side that's like "no let's continue using our opposable thumbs". But who am I to label whether one side is right and the other wrong?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Look, we don't get to choose if we want to be crab people, nature has just forced crab evolution on us

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh great, the crab-apologists have showed up

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Look, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own bathtub, but other people have to use the ocean and I don't want you putting any funny ideas in my kid's head about being a crab. His chitinous exoskeleton and claw are just a phase.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 104 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So he's going to start going by Rafael now right?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Either that or Fled Cruise. Either way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Assigned

Rafael

At

Birth

My god...

[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Everyone should start calling Cruz "she"/"her" and when she complains, tell her she's not allowed to use her preferred pronouns.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is not a good thing.

  1. It shows people it's okay to misgender someone you don't like

  2. It won't feel bad for him. For him it's a joke that doesn't do any harm. For trans people getting misgendered is life and can deeply hurt

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

It also semi consciously feeds into the misogynistic trope of calling/implying that men are feminine as an insult. It's just a bad look all around

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

Better to keep referring to he/him by he/his preferred pronouns, but just hammer in the point that he/him is using pronouns you keep saying both every time.

He/him being reminded of it every time is much worse, and doesn't invalidate trans peoples pronouns.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think "it" is a better pronoun for Cruz - or maybe "It" given the whole evil clown thing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No, call him by his first name at all times.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait until they hear what Nikki Haley's real name is.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well? Don't leave me hanging.

I'm much too lazy to type her name into Google. But I'm just un-lazy enough to ask you.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fucking WHAT?! Wow.

Ok. I won't make jokes about someone's name. I'll leave that to Trump and conservatives at large who judge people based on 2nd grader standards.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nimarata*, according to Wikipedia

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How could this possibly be ruled as Constitutional? Let alone any remaining shadow of 'party of small government' irony, that shipped sailed into the West a long, long time ago.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article's title presents this in a misleading way. The bill in question wouldn't prevent people from using their preferred names and pronouns. What it would do is prohibit the government from spending federal funds to implement or enforce any rules or recommendations encouraging its employees and contractors to respect those names and pronouns.

So in other words this is an attempt at protecting hate-speech, not at restricting free-speech. Shitty, but probably not unconstitutional.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No word from Rafael yet on whether he thinks enforcing preferred names if how the Pentagon lost 6 trillion dollars

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

They never meant that "small government" thing; they were just chapped that the feds interfered with their racist bullshit at the state level.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Having a stacked hyper partisan supreme court makes anything constitutional.

[–] ElBarto 41 points 1 year ago

Once again proving that when a conservative is really against something, they're doing it themselves.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hey Texas, Collin Allred is going up against Rafael Cruz. You don't have to vote for the status quo, you could shake it up and put someone in there who isn't a complete shit-bag.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

You don't have to vote for the status quo, you could shake it up and put someone in there who isn't a complete shit-bag.

But that's not how Texas does things. They only make things worse and call it freedom.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Oh my god it's already been 6 years

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rules for thee, not for me?

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago

I’ve always liked Wilhoit’s Law: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong 21 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

This is what's important of course. No need to do anything about the genocide they're funding.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Rafael thinks you peasants should not get the choice, but he does.

Typical.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

Weird how Rafael Cruz is so upset over people using different names.

I wonder why Rafael Cruz is so bothered by this?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am starting to think Mr. Cruz does not have the best interests of the LGBT in mind.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Oh, that's because he's a Christian Nationalist piece of shit.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I say that we embrace the wishes of people like Cruz, Boebert, Greene, etc and not use personal pronouns for them.

Example, "Cruz introduces bill to limit using preferred names, pronouns; critics note it uses a preferred name."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›