1 month in: The Trump Administration Kicking Ass & Taking Names

TXDirt wrote:

Your argument is nothing more than emotional projection, completely devoid of facts. Let’s break it down.  First, Twitter under the previous regime was censoring people—often in...

Your argument is nothing more than emotional projection, completely devoid of facts. Let’s break it down.  

First, Twitter under the previous regime was censoring people—often in a blatantly one-sided manner. The Twitter Files, released after Elon Musk’s acquisition, proved beyond doubt that Twitter was colluding with government agencies and political operatives to suppress certain viewpoints, shadowban conservatives, and even interfere in elections (e.g., suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story). These weren’t conspiracy theories; they were documented facts. The outrage wasn’t about “Twitter being mean to conservatives"—it was about a social media giant actively manipulating discourse under the guise of "content moderation."  

Second, your claim that Musk has turned Twitter into a "far-right sounding board" is laughable. Musk himself has stated multiple times that he supports free speech across the political spectrum, and his own political stance is more libertarian than traditionally conservative. The fact that the platform now allows voices that were once suppressed doesn’t mean it’s "far-right"; it means it's no longer an echo chamber for leftist ideology. If allowing open discussion feels like a right-wing shift to you, maybe that says more about where you stand than where Twitter does.  

Third, your whining about Rogan and Poole is just nonsense. They, like many others, called out Twitter’s previous censorship because it was real and well-documented. Now that Musk has removed many of those suppressive policies, the problem *they were fighting against no longer exists*—so why would they keep complaining? Unlike you, they actually respond to changing circumstances instead of clinging to a victim narrative.  

Finally, your attempt at a "gotcha"—"Now bow down to the billionaires!"—is pure projection. You had no issue with billionaires like Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) or Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) controlling narratives when they aligned with your views. But the moment a billionaire stops suppressing opposing opinions, suddenly it’s a problem? That’s not principled; it’s just hypocrisy.  

The truth is simple: free speech advocates fought against censorship when it was happening. The left only cares about it now because they lost their stranglehold on the narrative. You weren’t "conned"—you just can’t handle a world where your ideology is no longer the only one allowed to speak.

AZ35 wrote:

I literally laughed out loud at that one, my wife (from the other room) asked what was so funny....

Joey Bridges wrote:

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit...

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.

TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. 

His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit, I've seen anywhere on the internet. 

LoudLove wrote:

But to what end?  Long diatribes might feel good to write but they’re not changing anyone’s opinion. Especially on a motocross website. 

TXDirt wrote:

Oh no! Too many words! My brain hurts! Thinking is so hard—can’t you just sum it up in a meme or a TikTok dance? Facts are...

Oh no! Too many words! My brain hurts! Thinking is so hard—can’t you just sum it up in a meme or a TikTok dance? Facts are scary, and long posts make me sleepy. Quick, someone distract me with shiny objects before I accidentally learn something!

TXDirt wrote:

Your argument is nothing more than emotional projection, completely devoid of facts. Let’s break it down.  First, Twitter under the previous regime was censoring people—often in...

Your argument is nothing more than emotional projection, completely devoid of facts. Let’s break it down.  

First, Twitter under the previous regime was censoring people—often in a blatantly one-sided manner. The Twitter Files, released after Elon Musk’s acquisition, proved beyond doubt that Twitter was colluding with government agencies and political operatives to suppress certain viewpoints, shadowban conservatives, and even interfere in elections (e.g., suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story). These weren’t conspiracy theories; they were documented facts. The outrage wasn’t about “Twitter being mean to conservatives"—it was about a social media giant actively manipulating discourse under the guise of "content moderation."  

Second, your claim that Musk has turned Twitter into a "far-right sounding board" is laughable. Musk himself has stated multiple times that he supports free speech across the political spectrum, and his own political stance is more libertarian than traditionally conservative. The fact that the platform now allows voices that were once suppressed doesn’t mean it’s "far-right"; it means it's no longer an echo chamber for leftist ideology. If allowing open discussion feels like a right-wing shift to you, maybe that says more about where you stand than where Twitter does.  

Third, your whining about Rogan and Poole is just nonsense. They, like many others, called out Twitter’s previous censorship because it was real and well-documented. Now that Musk has removed many of those suppressive policies, the problem *they were fighting against no longer exists*—so why would they keep complaining? Unlike you, they actually respond to changing circumstances instead of clinging to a victim narrative.  

Finally, your attempt at a "gotcha"—"Now bow down to the billionaires!"—is pure projection. You had no issue with billionaires like Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) or Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) controlling narratives when they aligned with your views. But the moment a billionaire stops suppressing opposing opinions, suddenly it’s a problem? That’s not principled; it’s just hypocrisy.  

The truth is simple: free speech advocates fought against censorship when it was happening. The left only cares about it now because they lost their stranglehold on the narrative. You weren’t "conned"—you just can’t handle a world where your ideology is no longer the only one allowed to speak.

akillerwombat wrote:

It’s funny because “your argument is nothing more than emotional projection and completely devoid of facts” as well.

APLMAN99 wrote:

I’m not in favor of trans athletes automatically being able to play women’s sports. There may be a few biological exceptions out there that could be...

I’m not in favor of trans athletes automatically being able to play women’s sports. There may be a few biological exceptions out there that could be considered on an individual basis, but even that is a stretch for me. 

But philosophically, how can this be a national issue and a woman’s right to choose be a state issue?  

Not trolling, just can’t see the logic in those positions. 

TXDirt wrote:

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and...

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and state governance.  

The debate over trans athletes in women’s sports is not about personal rights or autonomy; it’s about protecting fair competition. Male puberty creates permanent physiological advantages in strength, bone density, lung capacity, and muscle mass—advantages that hormone therapy cannot fully erase. That’s why sports have sex-based categories in the first place. Allowing male-born athletes to compete against women undermines the very purpose of women’s sports. This is a matter of objective science, not personal preference.  

Abortion, on the other hand, is a legal and political issue. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruled that abortion is not a federally protected right under the Constitution, meaning states can regulate it just like they do other health and moral issues. This is a question of governance, not biology.  

Trying to link these two issues is not just illogical—it’s dishonest. One is about maintaining fair competition based on biological differences, the other is about how laws are made and who has the power to make them. If you “can’t see the logic,” it’s because you’re ignoring the facts.

TXDirt wrote:

Your argument is nothing more than emotional projection, completely devoid of facts. Let’s break it down.  First, Twitter under the previous regime was censoring people—often in...

Your argument is nothing more than emotional projection, completely devoid of facts. Let’s break it down.  

First, Twitter under the previous regime was censoring people—often in a blatantly one-sided manner. The Twitter Files, released after Elon Musk’s acquisition, proved beyond doubt that Twitter was colluding with government agencies and political operatives to suppress certain viewpoints, shadowban conservatives, and even interfere in elections (e.g., suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story). These weren’t conspiracy theories; they were documented facts. The outrage wasn’t about “Twitter being mean to conservatives"—it was about a social media giant actively manipulating discourse under the guise of "content moderation."  

Second, your claim that Musk has turned Twitter into a "far-right sounding board" is laughable. Musk himself has stated multiple times that he supports free speech across the political spectrum, and his own political stance is more libertarian than traditionally conservative. The fact that the platform now allows voices that were once suppressed doesn’t mean it’s "far-right"; it means it's no longer an echo chamber for leftist ideology. If allowing open discussion feels like a right-wing shift to you, maybe that says more about where you stand than where Twitter does.  

Third, your whining about Rogan and Poole is just nonsense. They, like many others, called out Twitter’s previous censorship because it was real and well-documented. Now that Musk has removed many of those suppressive policies, the problem *they were fighting against no longer exists*—so why would they keep complaining? Unlike you, they actually respond to changing circumstances instead of clinging to a victim narrative.  

Finally, your attempt at a "gotcha"—"Now bow down to the billionaires!"—is pure projection. You had no issue with billionaires like Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) or Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) controlling narratives when they aligned with your views. But the moment a billionaire stops suppressing opposing opinions, suddenly it’s a problem? That’s not principled; it’s just hypocrisy.  

The truth is simple: free speech advocates fought against censorship when it was happening. The left only cares about it now because they lost their stranglehold on the narrative. You weren’t "conned"—you just can’t handle a world where your ideology is no longer the only one allowed to speak.

akillerwombat wrote:

It’s funny because “your argument is nothing more than emotional projection and completely devoid of facts” as well.

TXDirt wrote:

Oh, that’s adorable—you just repeated my words like a parrot and thought that counted as a rebuttal. Cute. The difference? I backed my argument with actual...

Oh, that’s adorable—you just repeated my words like a parrot and thought that counted as a rebuttal. Cute. The difference? I backed my argument with actual facts, while you just threw out a lazy “no u” like a kid on a playground. Try again, but this time, bring something of substance.

TXDirt wrote:

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and...

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and state governance.  

The debate over trans athletes in women’s sports is not about personal rights or autonomy; it’s about protecting fair competition. Male puberty creates permanent physiological advantages in strength, bone density, lung capacity, and muscle mass—advantages that hormone therapy cannot fully erase. That’s why sports have sex-based categories in the first place. Allowing male-born athletes to compete against women undermines the very purpose of women’s sports. This is a matter of objective science, not personal preference.  

Abortion, on the other hand, is a legal and political issue. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruled that abortion is not a federally protected right under the Constitution, meaning states can regulate it just like they do other health and moral issues. This is a question of governance, not biology.  

Trying to link these two issues is not just illogical—it’s dishonest. One is about maintaining fair competition based on biological differences, the other is about how laws are made and who has the power to make them. If you “can’t see the logic,” it’s because you’re ignoring the facts.

APLMAN99 wrote:

There is no mandate or constitutional duty for the federal government to regulate ‘fairness’ on a sports field. You complain about people making decisions based on ‘feelings’...

There is no mandate or constitutional duty for the federal government to regulate ‘fairness’ on a sports field. 

You complain about people making decisions based on ‘feelings’, yet there is almost nothing more feeling-based than trying to regulate fairness like that. 

Again, I am not in favor of transgender athletes competing against athletes of the opposite sex they were initially born as, but there is no good argument for this being a national issue and abortion being a state issue. 

As for being dishonest, why don’t we get together over a beverage and we’ll discuss your feelings about that?  You seem to conflate someone disagreeing with you as them being dishonest, and it would be interesting to explore that hubris over a couple of drinks. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Title IX?  

Title IX gives women athletes the right to equal opportunity in sports…

APLMAN99 wrote:

I’m not in favor of trans athletes automatically being able to play women’s sports. There may be a few biological exceptions out there that could be...

I’m not in favor of trans athletes automatically being able to play women’s sports. There may be a few biological exceptions out there that could be considered on an individual basis, but even that is a stretch for me. 

But philosophically, how can this be a national issue and a woman’s right to choose be a state issue?  

Not trolling, just can’t see the logic in those positions. 

TXDirt wrote:

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and...

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and state governance.  

The debate over trans athletes in women’s sports is not about personal rights or autonomy; it’s about protecting fair competition. Male puberty creates permanent physiological advantages in strength, bone density, lung capacity, and muscle mass—advantages that hormone therapy cannot fully erase. That’s why sports have sex-based categories in the first place. Allowing male-born athletes to compete against women undermines the very purpose of women’s sports. This is a matter of objective science, not personal preference.  

Abortion, on the other hand, is a legal and political issue. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruled that abortion is not a federally protected right under the Constitution, meaning states can regulate it just like they do other health and moral issues. This is a question of governance, not biology.  

Trying to link these two issues is not just illogical—it’s dishonest. One is about maintaining fair competition based on biological differences, the other is about how laws are made and who has the power to make them. If you “can’t see the logic,” it’s because you’re ignoring the facts.

APLMAN99 wrote:

There is no mandate or constitutional duty for the federal government to regulate ‘fairness’ on a sports field. You complain about people making decisions based on ‘feelings’...

There is no mandate or constitutional duty for the federal government to regulate ‘fairness’ on a sports field. 

You complain about people making decisions based on ‘feelings’, yet there is almost nothing more feeling-based than trying to regulate fairness like that. 

Again, I am not in favor of transgender athletes competing against athletes of the opposite sex they were initially born as, but there is no good argument for this being a national issue and abortion being a state issue. 

As for being dishonest, why don’t we get together over a beverage and we’ll discuss your feelings about that?  You seem to conflate someone disagreeing with you as them being dishonest, and it would be interesting to explore that hubris over a couple of drinks. 

Joey Bridges wrote:

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit...

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.

TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. 

His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit, I've seen anywhere on the internet. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

I’m not in favor of trans athletes automatically being able to play women’s sports. There may be a few biological exceptions out there that could be...

I’m not in favor of trans athletes automatically being able to play women’s sports. There may be a few biological exceptions out there that could be considered on an individual basis, but even that is a stretch for me. 

But philosophically, how can this be a national issue and a woman’s right to choose be a state issue?  

Not trolling, just can’t see the logic in those positions. 

TXDirt wrote:

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and...

Your argument is flawed because it tries to equate two completely unrelated issues—one based on biological reality and competitive fairness, the other on constitutional interpretation and state governance.  

The debate over trans athletes in women’s sports is not about personal rights or autonomy; it’s about protecting fair competition. Male puberty creates permanent physiological advantages in strength, bone density, lung capacity, and muscle mass—advantages that hormone therapy cannot fully erase. That’s why sports have sex-based categories in the first place. Allowing male-born athletes to compete against women undermines the very purpose of women’s sports. This is a matter of objective science, not personal preference.  

Abortion, on the other hand, is a legal and political issue. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruled that abortion is not a federally protected right under the Constitution, meaning states can regulate it just like they do other health and moral issues. This is a question of governance, not biology.  

Trying to link these two issues is not just illogical—it’s dishonest. One is about maintaining fair competition based on biological differences, the other is about how laws are made and who has the power to make them. If you “can’t see the logic,” it’s because you’re ignoring the facts.

APLMAN99 wrote:

There is no mandate or constitutional duty for the federal government to regulate ‘fairness’ on a sports field. You complain about people making decisions based on ‘feelings’...

There is no mandate or constitutional duty for the federal government to regulate ‘fairness’ on a sports field. 

You complain about people making decisions based on ‘feelings’, yet there is almost nothing more feeling-based than trying to regulate fairness like that. 

Again, I am not in favor of transgender athletes competing against athletes of the opposite sex they were initially born as, but there is no good argument for this being a national issue and abortion being a state issue. 

As for being dishonest, why don’t we get together over a beverage and we’ll discuss your feelings about that?  You seem to conflate someone disagreeing with you as them being dishonest, and it would be interesting to explore that hubris over a couple of drinks. 

Joey Bridges wrote:

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit...

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.

TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. 

His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit, I've seen anywhere on the internet. 

Magoofan wrote:

While I appreciate the intelligence in his responses...it's still a horrendous waste of his precious time.    It isn't going to enlighten even one of the...

While I appreciate the intelligence in his responses...it's still a horrendous waste of his precious time.    It isn't going to enlighten even one of the dumb shits on this forum.    

I'm  just here for the latest news of WINNING and the meltdowns in the news.

 

EDITED for clarity....

LoudLove wrote:

TXDirt:  here’s the stuff that really has a direct impact on me & you:  https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/texas-legislature/texas-senate-proposal-increasing-homestead-exemption-sb-4/269-862badd0-3f8c-48f3-8f78-8cffad0775a4What goes down in DC is peanuts compared to what...

TXDirt:  here’s the stuff that really has a direct impact on me & you:  https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/texas-legislature/texas-senate-proposal-increasing-homestead-exemption-sb-4/269-862badd0-3f8c-48f3-8f78-8cffad0775a4

What goes down in DC is peanuts compared to what goes down at a state level. 

Joey Bridges wrote:

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit...

Hell, all you can do is laugh at these idiots.

TXDirt has been dismantling them with surgical precision. 

His are some of the best replies, to their bullshit, I've seen anywhere on the internet. 

Magoofan wrote:

While I appreciate the intelligence in his responses...it's still a horrendous waste of his precious time.    It isn't going to enlighten even one of the...

While I appreciate the intelligence in his responses...it's still a horrendous waste of his precious time.    It isn't going to enlighten even one of the dumb shits on this forum.    

I'm  just here for the latest news of WINNING and the meltdowns in the news.

 

EDITED for clarity....

TXDirt wrote:

So you agree with me but think engaging is a waste of time? That’s fine—spectators are always part of the game. But let’s be honest: if...

So you agree with me but think engaging is a waste of time? That’s fine—spectators are always part of the game. But let’s be honest: if no one pushes back against the nonsense, then the loudest, dumbest voices take over.  

You’re here for the “winning” and the “meltdowns”? Cool. But wins don’t just happen—someone has to fight the battles that make them possible. If you’d rather sit on the sidelines and enjoy the show, that’s your choice. Just don’t take cheap shots at the people actually doing the work.

ChurchOfBrap wrote:

This thread is a microcosm of the motocross world. Alpha males with very little education or life experience, but they think they are very intelligent. They...

This thread is a microcosm of the motocross world. Alpha males with very little education or life experience, but they think they are very intelligent. They get their news and politics from comedians and tech Bros and Twitter. It's probably the bottom 15-20% of our population when it comes to intelligence, so it makes sense who they voted for. Look up stats on who voted for who when it comes to education and income levels, you'd be startled.