[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-26-2022).]

quote Originally posted by randye: So THAT is supposed to be your "big refutation" that LEFTIST / DEMORATS aren't currently supporting sexual grooming of children in schools? Good God Skippy, how much weaker can your argument get? Instead of addressing THE ISSUE, (which you obviously can't), you do the usual LEFTIST stunt by deflecting off into some tangential, "whataboutism", nonsense about politician sex crime arrests and convictions, which of course is obviously our laws working just like they are intended to. While you're busy desperately searching for imaginary hypocrisy, every blue check LEFTIST - DEMORAT is still honking and hooting in support of SEXUAL GROOMING OF OTHER PEOPLE'S SMALL CHILDREN NO, Predator Psaki, the correct answer is: GO TALK TO YOUR PARENTS ABOUT IT. Leftists gotta Leftist SICK CULT

First, you need to prove that Democrats are "currently supporting sexual grooming of children in schools." Your video doesn't support it. As she says, there isn't currently some big issue where kids are being indoctrinated in public schools today, so if that's the intent of the law, it's a needless law, but more importantly, the law is written so ambiguously as to seemingly ban plenty of normal conversations. Tom has two moms and Susie asks about it, why should the teacher say "Go talk to your parents about it" when it can be answered pretty simply without any "grooming"?

The law doesn't explicitly ban a quick "Some parents have two moms, some two dads, some with one of each, some with one, and some with none," but that's the problem. The law is ambiguous, just like how most Jim Crow laws never explicitly mentioned race. It's a red herring, one designed by Christopher Rufo to stir the exact emotions you're having over it.

You've fallen for the strategy hook, line, and sinker.

[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 04-27-2022).]