American Politics

[xi0]

I'd bet with almost 100% certainty you aren't even aware MOST clinicians aren't even administering them correctly.

Source?

 

[M3J]

Source? I think you genuinely believe masks are some sort of silver bullet, when no one from the scientific community on any side of the aisle believes masks can stop this virus at this point.

You provide your sources instead, I don't need to provide anything. Stop pretending you listen to the scientific community when they all say masks help reduce the spread, if not prevent it.

No, it's proven that masks actually do help. They might not 100% prevent someone from catching covid, but they do an amazing job in protecting.

 

[xi0]

I wonder what his gimmick will be when he becomes a pro wrestler

 

[M3J]

lol. Please tell me S. Africa's vax rate, then explain how Omicron which is almost 100% of current cases there has resulted in low hospitalizations, deaths, symptoms and complications if the "preliminary data" suggests what you claim it does.

I'll wait for you to go look that up.

South Africa sees fewer hospitalisations as Omicron cases surge

Officials say fewer coronavirus patients require hospitalisation despite a rise in the number of COVID-19 infections.

www.aljazeera.com

I didn't suggest anything, the article itself did. You'd know , if you read it.

What does THIS vaccine do, how does it do it, and how well does it do it - and how did you come to know such esoteric knowledge?

Explain it to me like I'm a child.

Google it. I'm not doing your research for you when you don't care.

I'd bet with almost 100% certainty you aren't even aware MOST clinicians aren't even administering them correctly.

oh do explain, unless this is another thing you pulled out of your ass.

 

[xi0]

Source? I think you genuinely believe masks are some sort of silver bullet, when no one from the scientific community on any side of the aisle believes masks can stop this virus at this point.

Wait... so Fauci didn't lie to us after all?

 

[M3J]

Truth be told, CDC was absolutely freakin' stupid for encouraging people to not wear masks after getting vaccinated, despite the fact that the vaccine makers themselves said vaccines weren't 100% effective. Had they not done that, maybe cases wouldn't have shot back up again. jfc

 

[kkck]

That's the thing though, I don't think they really care about that as much as they care about using it to distract from topics criticizing Trump. I've had some conservative "friends" talk about that for a while last year saying we should worry about the pedophilia ring over covid, but after few days or weeks, silence even when news broke out.

I'm confident that the whole concern for pedophilia is just an attempt to get people to focus on that, given how many pedophiles seem to be in the republican party that they still support.

You are vastly underestimating the impact of silly conspiracy theories in US politics nowadays. There is no reason to think these people don't believe what they say. That said, you will definitely find people frustrated with the lack of dead "pedophiles".

 

[Hakuteiken]

Interesting *I'm* the one being evasive when you go out of your way to point out you don't have an opinion one way or another. You make a point to not weigh in on the subject at hand, although you do, sitting nicely on the fence. Congrats? You paint that as 'pragmatic' - I disagree. Another impasse on this forum, ho-hum...

I did. Saying your entire point of perspective holds no weight and is largely irrelevant in the daily lives of many people is definitely not me sitting on the fence. I just didn't know I had to be more blunt with my words on that to be perceived as one who is taking a clear side in this.

The central issue, if you'd read up (though I'm sure you have), is me taking issue with HOW glad ninja was being about the right's demise. You and your lot have attempted to spin that into a discussion of whether others 'deserve' your sympathy, whatever the hell that is worth - I'd say not much.

The issue is, if you read what said (though I'm sure you have as my post was very short, anyway), you'd see I'm not talking about who deserves sympathy and who does not. I criticized your way of putting arbitrary moral concepts above logical actions that impact other people directly. If someone is spinning, it's you, who is taking a vaccine talk into the territory of "waah evil leftists want us rights dead waah" kind of victimization post. If that's not the direction you want to go with your posts, maybe it's me misreading or you misrepresenting. If it is your desired direction, fair point; gets my -I believe- equally fair response: I think this angle you are holding is just leading to nothing of importance.

As for the walls o' text - there's a simple solution. Feel free to block my posts or just don't read 'em. Posting to complain about something you're in no way obligated to read - much less engage in - is a worthless endeavor, and yet here we are.

Just as you are free to post walls of texts, I'm free to be critical towards them, without pushing past boundaries of civil debate and I believe I did not do so.
That said, I don't enjoy getting labeled as something I'm not right from the get go in a conversation.

 

[M3J]

You are vastly underestimating the impact of silly conspiracy theories in US politics nowadays. There is no reason to think these people don't believe what they say. That said, you will definitely find people frustrated with the lack of dead "pedophiles".

But often I see them say "why are we focused on this or that when there are pedophilic rings?!" or something of that sort. Do you think they'd really talk about the issue if/when cops are exposed to be part of the ring? Trump was part of Epstein's circle as well but it didn't hurt his support at all.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

I did. Saying your entire point of perspective holds no weight and is largely irrelevant in the daily lives of many people is definitely not me sitting on the fence. I just didn't know I had to be more blunt with my words on that to be perceived as one who is taking a clear side in this.

Wait, so when did the discussion become what you think I seem to believe the weight my perspective holds - here or otherwise? I don't believe I made any representation about that one way or another. FWIW, your perspective is just as shit, no?

The issue is, if you read what said (though I'm sure you have as my post was very short, anyway), you'd see I'm not talking about who deserves sympathy and who does not. I criticized your way of putting arbitrary moral concepts above logical actions that impact other people directly. If someone is spinning, it's you, who is taking a vaccine talk into the territory of "waah evil leftists want us rights dead waah" kind of victimization post. If that's not the direction you want to go with your posts, maybe it's me misreading or you misrepresenting. If it is your desired direction, fair point; gets my -I believe- equally fair response: I think this angle you are holding is just leading to nothing of importance.

Read this response very slowly (maybe it will stick this time): I wasn't talking about vaccines. The person I quoted wasn't talking about vaccines as a topic. The CONTEXT was the waning amount of those on the right (to include a new generation and what I can presume is a reference to the shift in the Overton window/changing views), and ninja made an aside about covid ALSO diminishing those on the right. I didn't co-opt a conversation about vaccines to push this narrative. I merely pointed it out.

The. Topic. Was. Not. Vaccines. (you can add audible claps in between each word, I know lefties love doing that just as much aS tHiS and other childish shit)

The laughing at the notion of political enemies dying horribly is shit-tier, disgusting (talk about being a 'deplorable') filth for the sake of filth and sooooooo funny to boot (/s). THAT was my point. Spin harder.

And now entire pages have been devoted to the concept that those types (once again, including those in the progressive black caucus...! *crickets*) are either deserving of death, or don't deserve sympathy in the first place, or both in an attempt to justify a shit-tier 'joke'. Oh, and there's absolutely zero truth in humor, right? It's not like it exposes true feelings or anything.

FWIW, I could give two shits that extremists on both sides wish (laud and applaud) death on the others as filthy unwashed disposables. You act like I'm surprised at all. I just like to point out the most egregious examples so the roaches can crawl out of the woodwork to dog-pile about how it's NBD, and an overreaction on my part (as opposing to being exactly what it is - disgusting on its face). It's a great exposé, and thanks for showing up.

Just as you are free to post walls of texts, I'm free to be critical towards them, without pushing past boundaries of civil debate and I believe I did not do so.
That said, I don't enjoy getting labeled as something I'm not right from the get go in a conversation.

Agreed. And in that spirit I also reserve the right to point out that people do silly shit, wastes of time, such as complaining about the length of someone's posts that they aren't required to read. By all means - you do you. I mean, it's very a substantive addition to the conversation; 10/10 would read again.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2021, Original Post Date: Dec 22, 2021 ---

Wait... so Fauci didn't lie to us after all?

You tell me... at what point in time? He flipped then he flopped. It doesn't matter what your take is on masks - as he publicly has been all over the place about just masks, masks indoors, masks in conjunction with vaccines, etc



But, yes, by his own admission he lied. Leaked emails further show he was knowingly being disingenuous.


And ofc he's on record saying NOT to wear a mask the the onset just to later admit he actually thought they were helpful but he was lying for our own good lol. Which runs counter to the above email. So, pick a mask position, and Fauci has not only lied about it but mislead and confused the public.

Would blood then not be on his hands, particularly if they are effective?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2021 ---

South Africa sees fewer hospitalisations as Omicron cases surge

Officials say fewer coronavirus patients require hospitalisation despite a rise in the number of COVID-19 infections.

www.aljazeera.com

I didn't suggest anything, the article itself did. You'd know , if you read it.

lol, soooo... just to be clear - S. Africa has a vax rate of about 25% (since you didn't actually post any data), and everything is flat-lined (deaths, hospitalizations, symptoms) even over the 4-week OMGicron scare?

How exactly does that lend credence to the need for vaccinations, at least when it comes to Omicron and future variants?

Sounds like a nothingburger in a mostly-unvaccinated population. IOW, for the 3/4's of those in S. Africa without a vaccine, they aren't in any particular risk (very similar to most elsewhere that aren't in the high-risk populations).

This doesn't even get into early indications that those that ARE vaccinated don't seem to have much protection from something that's extremely contagious (R factor = 3-5 range).

Google it. I'm not doing your research for you when you don't care.

So, you CAN'T explain it then. Figures.

oh do explain, unless this is another thing you pulled out of your ass.

Nope. But thanks for confirming what I already knew.

As I'm working back to your previous post of non-scientific articles, I'm going to ask for any references to, say, where the 6 foot rule came to be explained as you stated earlier. Sources, please.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2021 ---

You provide your sources instead, I don't need to provide anything. Stop pretending you listen to the scientific community when they all say masks help reduce the spread, if not prevent it.

No, it's proven that masks actually do help. They might not 100% prevent someone from catching covid, but they do an amazing job in protecting.

If it's so painfully obvious, why not just post a good scientifically-backed source to change my mind? Why the theatrics and continued appeal to 'just believe me'?

I have sources ready to go when you do.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2021 ---

Source?

How about this, because I understand that's a pretty big claim...

I'll send my source(s) to you. Call it an escrow of sorts. Being the admin that also is asking for a source on this, you'll have your answer. I have no reason to withhold.

I'll let you be the judge of whether I'm talking out of my ass or not, or if there's any merit to what I said, particularly of a scientific nature. You can report back if you'd like, or not, whatever. But at least since you asked, I'm willing to give.

That said, I'd like to retain them from posting here because I'm still waiting on sources from the individual that is also asking for a source on this, but refuses to back up his purported scientific claims that I've repeatedly asked for a source on, which I find - you guessed it - hypocritical.

 

[M3J]

lol, soooo... just to be clear - S. Africa has a vax rate of about 25% (since you didn't actually post any data), and everything is flat-lined (deaths, hospitalizations, symptoms) even over the 4-week OMGicron scare?

How exactly does that lend credence to the need for vaccinations, at least when it comes to Omicron and future variants?

Sounds like a nothingburger in a mostly-unvaccinated population. IOW, for the 3/4's of those in S. Africa without a vaccine, they aren't in any particular risk (very similar to most elsewhere that aren't in the high-risk populations).

This doesn't even get into early indications that those that ARE vaccinated don't seem to have much protection from something that's extremely contagious (R factor = 3-5 range).

As the article I posted said, majority of the South Africans who got it were vaccinated, hence the mild symptoms. Feel free to post sources that say otherwise. There's even early indications that those who are vaccinated are much better protected against omicron and recover quickly. So there's that protection, but also, vaccines aren't 100% effective, they don't make you 100% immune, and most of these drug companies made that clear.

However, the vaccinated who did get covid did recover quickly and were able to take care of themselves and do stuff like cook. THey were not hospitalized either. Vaccine is doing its job, or it was prior to omicron.

So, you CAN'T explain it then. Figures.

I can and I have to others. Again, go google it if you really care that much, because I have no reason to believe you're actually genuine.

Nope. But thanks for confirming what I already knew.

As I'm working back to your previous post of non-scientific articles, I'm going to ask for any references to, say, where the 6 foot rule came to be explained as you stated earlier. Sources, please.

Do you not really know where the six-foot rule came from? For real? How do you not know that?

And why do you want scientific articles when there's data and proof of more republicans getting sick? I mean, scientific articles aren't going to say anything differently.

You definitely pulled it out of your ass though.

If it's so painfully obvious, why not just post a good scientifically-backed source to change my mind? Why the theatrics and continued appeal to 'just believe me'?

I have sources ready to go when you do.

I don't care if you believe me or not, but I provided sources few posts ago as to why more republicans are affected by covid than democrats. You don't seem to understand science well enough for me to bother looking for a source though.

I'd rather see your sources first.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

As the article I posted said, majority of the South Africans who got it were vaccinated, hence the mild symptoms. Feel free to post sources that say otherwise. There's even early indications that those who are vaccinated are much better protected against omicron and recover quickly. So there's that protection, but also, vaccines aren't 100% effective, they don't make you 100% immune, and most of these drug companies made that clear.

Are you even reading what you wrote? The majority of those that got covid were vaccinated?? (that's not even what it says btw, and you should be glad that's not what it says. lol, imagine only the vaccinated as the ones being affected...)

FFS, read your own article. There's a MINORITY of people in S. Africa that are fully vaccinated. In the elderly (aka high-risk) that number is marginally above 50%.

Now, math dictates that if a simple majority of the elderly that are vaccinated are 60% then those younger than the elderly would be even less than the quarter of people across all age spectra - 25% - of the entire population. Because that 25% isn't uniformly distributed across all age groups, but weighted into older age, thus meaning less vaxxed in younger ages to get a 25% AVERAGE across the entire population of all ages.

You do realize that means that < 25% of the younger population is vaccinated. Who knows, it could be as low as 20% or even lower (since most vaccinations are weighted in the elderly).

Representing a small, small minority of non-elderly in the country that have been vaccinated.

AND YET they are largely unaffected. Hmmmmm

aka, 4 weeks in and Omicron is almost 100% of cases and if you are not high-risk you don't seem to be at risk at all, though you are likely to get infected. Infected, but no symptoms. Some with symptoms, but no hospitalizations. Fewer less requiring hospitalizations, but no deaths. Very few dying in the non-at-risk age groups, and most are exposed without a vaccine!

If the vaccine was such a necessity for those that aren't in the high-risk categories, then why aren't they dropping like flies?

However, the vaccinated who did get covid did recover quickly and were able to take care of themselves and do stuff like cook. THey were not hospitalized either. Vaccine is doing its job, or it was prior to omicron.

OR - Omicron isn't that bad as even the vast majority seem to be unaffected. You can't attribute that to the work of the vaccine for greater than 25% of the population. I'd argue they are also probably naturally inoculated, which is increasingly appearing to be superior.

I can and I have to others. Again, go google it if you really care that much, because I have no reason to believe you're actually genuine.

I don't believe that you can, that's the difference. If you want to condescend to me, then do so. Talk to me like I'm dumb so I can understand.

Do you not really know where the six-foot rule came from? For real? How do you not know that?

Nope. There's a scientific study about the 6-foot rule? Where does that exist?

And why do you want scientific articles when there's data and proof of more republicans getting sick? I mean, scientific articles aren't going to say anything differently.

I see you posted the same article about 8 times from different sources saying essentially the same thing, and I'm working on a response. I want to see the studies on mask efficacy, social distancing by way of a 6-foot rule, and lock-downs - all the things you claim as settled science. Admittedly difficult to run social experiments on, but I'd prefer to see scientists attempting to extrapolate from real-world data with limit variable changes. Not an attempt at proving a narrative and then looking for data to support it - that's literally not how science is supposed to work.

You definitely pulled it out of your ass though.

I offered to disclose to the admin as you see above. Feel free to post your sources and I'll post mine. I'll delete my account if I can't prove some level of concern over route of administration by someone credentialed enough to be able to speak on it, with the pedigree to prove as much.

I don't care if you believe me or not, but I provided sources few posts ago as to why more republicans are affected by covid than democrats. You don't seem to understand science well enough for me to bother looking for a source though.

I'd rather see your sources first.

You keep asking me for sources, but have been dodging me asking you for sources for your claims for pages now. How do you think that isn't an unreasonable form of communication? Aren't you the person that insists on a genuine discussion?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2021, Original Post Date: Dec 22, 2021 ---

I love charts. How about this one?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2021 ---

Here's one for the ages:


"Dr. Leana Wen, also known as Dr. Doom because of her constant fear-mongering, admits the masks people have been using these past 2 years are pretty much useless."

(I'm just getting started)

 

[kkck]

But often I see them say "why are we focused on this or that when there are pedophilic rings?!" or something of that sort. Do you think they'd really talk about the issue if/when cops are exposed to be part of the ring? Trump was part of Epstein's circle as well but it didn't hurt his support at all.

Welp, to me those are two different issues. Do they believe all this stuff about abortion? Absolutely. It's a central part of their religious believe to the point where it's become a gigantic part of their identity. Do they also bend themselves backwards justifying an amoral twice divorced remorseless adulterer with a pathetic obsession with IQ who only wants to talk to famous people and probably has never worked a day of his life as some sort of christian savior? Also yes. Is there a massive double standard in this? Sure but, everyone has double standards regardless of ideology.

This is something i take issue with a segment of the US left. It's a talking point that turns up from time to time that the right wing does not actually care about abortion because of whichever thing they deem as hypocritical... But it's super easy to pick at whichever inconsistency one might find in someone's ideology and claim hypocrisy or whatever. But the fact remains that abortion is actually incompatible with most Christian denominations, millions of people are raised being told every damn day of their lives that human lives start at conception to the point it's pretty much the single most important battle their religion is currently engaged in. The idea that their believe in this is merely theatrics is.... moronic.

 

[M3J]

Welp, to me those are two different issues. Do they believe all this stuff about abortion? Absolutely. It's a central part of their religious believe to the point where it's become a gigantic part of their identity. Do they also bend themselves backwards justifying an amoral twice divorced remorseless adulterer with a pathetic obsession with IQ who only wants to talk to famous people and probably has never worked a day of his life as some sort of christian savior? Also yes. Is there a massive double standard in this? Sure but, everyone has double standards regardless of ideology.

This is something i take issue with a segment of the US left. It's a talking point that turns up from time to time that the right wing does not actually care about abortion because of whichever thing they deem as hypocritical... But it's super easy to pick at whichever inconsistency one might find in someone's ideology and claim hypocrisy or whatever. But the fact remains that abortion is actually incompatible with most Christian denominations, millions of people are raised being told every damn day of their lives that human lives start at conception to the point it's pretty much the single most important battle their religion is currently engaged in. The idea that their believe in this is merely theatrics is.... moronic.

wait are we talking about abortion or pedophilia ring? Because the voters definitely do care about abortion, I don't disagree with that.

 

[Hakuteiken]

Wait, so when did the discussion become what you think I seem to believe the weight my perspective holds - here or otherwise? I don't believe I made any representation about that one way or another. FWIW, your perspective is just as shit, no?

I didn't say it's shit. I basically said it is an irrelevant tangent.

Read this response very slowly (maybe it will stick this time): I wasn't talking about vaccines. The person I quoted wasn't talking about vaccines as a topic. The CONTEXT was the waning amount of those on the right (to include a new generation and what I can presume is a reference to the shift in the Overton window/changing views), and ninja made an aside about covid ALSO diminishing those on the right. I didn't co-opt a conversation about vaccines to push this narrative. I merely pointed it out.

Yeah, I saw you merely pointing out and replied to you pointing that out. I don't think we are on different pages here.

The. Topic. Was. Not. Vaccines. (you can add audible claps in between each word, I know lefties love doing that just as much aS tHiS and other childish shit)

Yes, thanks for understanding. You pushed your narrative by using an irrelevant example (you can note how many times I used the word irrelevant by now) and I chose not to let that go. Simple as that.

The laughing at the notion of political enemies dying horribly is shit-tier, disgusting (talk about being a 'deplorable') filth for the sake of filth and sooooooo funny to boot (/s). THAT was my point. Spin harder.

Yet you are the one who chose to spin the discussion in this direction, something that you could have avoided, just like somebody else can choose to not laugh at horrible politician deaths.

And now entire pages have been devoted to the concept that those types (once again, including those in the progressive black caucus...! *crickets*) are either deserving of death, or don't deserve sympathy in the first place, or both in an attempt to justify a shit-tier 'joke'. Oh, and there's absolutely zero truth in humor, right? It's not like it exposes true feelings or anything.

FWIW, I could give two shits that extremists on both sides wish (laud and applaud) death on the others as filthy unwashed disposables. You act like I'm surprised at all. I just like to point out the most egregious examples so the roaches can crawl out of the woodwork to dog-pile about how it's NBD, and an overreaction on my part (as opposing to being exactly what it is - disgusting on its face). It's a great exposé, and thanks for showing up.

Like I said, I'm not an apologist. Conservatives don't get my sympathy if I really need to get personal to be more clear.
Like I also said, whether I offer my sympathy or not means nothing. No one is obliged to offer sympathy or get bound by intangible concepts with no effect on anybody. Just like nobody needs to respect the deceased. You don't have to respect the dead or the alive; you just need to know to act within your boundaries.
Yours is not an overreaction; it is a selective reaction, which contradicts pragmatic perspective (as you said, just as shit or not, it's my perspective).

And lol? Exposé? I don't hide anything that needs to be exposed. I'm no humanitarian and I never claimed to be one.

 

[kkck]

wait are we talking about abortion or pedophilia ring? Because the voters definitely do care about abortion, I don't disagree with that.

Welp, the two are connected. It's because of their believe in abortion that they can delude themselves into believing these pedophilia rings exist. Since they are from the get go coldblooded murderers.

 

[ninjabot]

Welp, the two are connected. It's because of their believe in abortion that they can delude themselves into believing these pedophilia rings exist. Since they are from the get go coldblooded murderers.

You know what else contributes to these "pedo rings"? Over-abundance of unwanted children in the world in impoverished conditions. They're the easiest targets for kidnapping.

Anti-abortion activists are actually leading to more people being sold into sex trafficking. And with Trump making it so that adoption agencies can discriminate based on their religious beliefs now, when you take into consideration the vast majority of adoption agencies are not secular (see: Christian), we end up with gay couples that would LOVE to adopt not being allowed to because of their "sinful nature".

 

[kkck]

You know what else contributes to these "pedo rings"? Over-abundance of unwanted children in the world in impoverished conditions. They're the easiest targets for kidnapping.

Anti-abortion activists are actually leading to more people being sold into sex trafficking. And with Trump making it so that adoption agencies can discriminate based on their religious beliefs now, when you take into consideration the vast majority of adoption agencies are not secular (see: Christian), we end up with gay couples that would LOVE to adopt not being allowed to because of their "sinful nature".

Welp, sure? Though it's weird to compare the entirely imaginary pedo rings the US right wing hallucinates about to real sex trafficking. It's fair to point out that these lunatics get in the way of actually combating sex trafficking via diverting time, attention and resources to silly nonsense.

 

[xi0]

How about this, because I understand that's a pretty big claim...

I'll send my source(s) to you. Call it an escrow of sorts. Being the admin that also is asking for a source on this, you'll have your answer. I have no reason to withhold.

I'll let you be the judge of whether I'm talking out of my ass or not, or if there's any merit to what I said, particularly of a scientific nature. You can report back if you'd like, or not, whatever. But at least since you asked, I'm willing to give.

That said, I'd like to retain them from posting here because I'm still waiting on sources from the individual that is also asking for a source on this, but refuses to back up his purported scientific claims that I've repeatedly asked for a source on, which I find - you guessed it - hypocritical.

I don't require special consideration because I'm an admin. You can either make a claim and back it up with sources, or don't. No need for the bloviating.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

I don't require special consideration because I'm an admin. You can either make a claim and back it up with sources, or don't. No need for the bloviating.

Meh. OK, whatever. That's not what was happening. You being an admin was incidental. I'm attempting to answer you - incidental admin - while leveraging a person who keeps asking me for sources without providing their own. I thought he'd trust you to receive information (again, being an admin) and then maybe put up his sources since he seems to think I'm blowing smoke. I even offered him to delete my account if I couldn't back up my statement.

In short, I've done everything I know to do to try and get the answers I've been asking for that he just keeps repeating ad nauseam is 'The Science' (as opposed to the science).

I thought a trusted source would elicit a response - if he had one. Calling a bluff if you will.

The offer wasn't for your sake. But I did hope it satisfied your curiosity at the same time.

So, I guess this is just me continuing to bloviate then...

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 22, 2021, Original Post Date: Dec 22, 2021 ---

You know what else contributes to these "pedo rings"? Over-abundance of unwanted children in the world in impoverished conditions. They're the easiest targets for kidnapping.

Anti-abortion activists are actually leading to more people being sold into sex trafficking. And with Trump making it so that adoption agencies can discriminate based on their religious beliefs now, when you take into consideration the vast majority of adoption agencies are not secular (see: Christian), we end up with gay couples that would LOVE to adopt not being allowed to because of their "sinful nature".

The intriguing 'stopping abortion increases pedophilia' argument aside, why are there not more secular adoption agencies? Why do you think there are more Christian ones in that case?

Note: I'm assuming you're correct; I know nothing about the figures of who runs what, but it sure seems to be true based on nothing but feels.