Slashdot Mirror

Trump voters have a low IQ and his male voters have small hands.

Hillary, Sanders, Warren and their progressive friends are therefore just itching to rid society of low IQ people; it's what progressives do!.

Many of them never came to pass. That perhaps the most generic "there will be extreme weather events" is one of the few that appears to have had merit is telling in itself. Even Miss Cleo could be right once in awhile "There will be a death in your family in the next few years..."

One of the things that fuels "deniers" is the failure of the climate models to make specific, verifiable predictions that actually occur when predicted. E.g. http://thefederalist.com/2014/...

It's amazing that this recognition of the widespread malignant threat posed by Russia only seems to have become evident in the last 8 months? I guess we should thank Trump's administration for highlighting this problem to which the previous administration seemed entirely oblivious at all levels?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/...

YEAH!! Ronald Reagan was totally right when he called them an Evil Empire in the 80s.

All the Democrats stood in complete unity with him and sang God Bless America at his brave brave patriotism and standing up to those Soviets!

Just look at Teddy Kennedy's 1984 campaign for proof that he totally agreed with Reagan. Totally.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/...

1984.

The book was a warning, not a manual.

YEAH!! Ronald Reagan was totally right when he called them an Evil Empire in the 80s.

All the Democrats stood in complete unity with him and sang God Bless America at his brave brave patriotism and standing up to those Soviets!

Just look at Teddy Kennedy's 1984 campaign for proof that he totally agreed with Reagan. Totally.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/...

Clinton was ahead by double digits and it looked impossible for Trump to win, a few weeks before the vote. Then those emails leaked out, and then the FBI started another investigation a week before the vote... That's when Trump made up the huge gap.

Uh huh. What about all the other manipulation going the other direction - Comey letting Hillary off the hook for her unauthorized, unsecured email server & destruction of evidence that would have given a non-connected civil servant a few hundred years to serve in prison. The synchronized media freakouts over the stupid crap coming out of Trump's mouth while ignoring equivalent levels of verbal diarrhea from Clinton. The neat timing of the releases on year's old dirty laundry from Trump whenever Hillary stepped in it - like the 'pussy grabbing' tape. Without talking about Hillary's past dirty laundry, like when she spent months lying about being shot at by snipers in Bosnia.

And that's without even talking about the Democratic primary, and the collusion between Hillary's campaign and the DNC to coronate her.

The scientists may be smart. but as a agency, the EPA is faking research to justify regulations.

Since the job of the people on this panel is to verify research going out form the EPA, it seems like they should not keep their jobs since they are allowing nonscientific results to leave the EPA and drive policy.

Have we as a nation become so blind to science when only accept results when they seem intuitive or agree with our worldview? That is not how science is supposed to work!

Privilege theory and the concept of systemic racism dealt the death blow to the détente. In embracing these theories, minorities and progressives broke their essential rule, which was to not run around calling everyone a racist. As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of have?

Within the past few years, as privilege theory took hold, many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening. Previously there were rules. They shifted at times, but if adhered to they largely protected one from the charge of racism. Itâ(TM)s like the Morrissey lyric: âoeis evil just something you are, or something you do.â Under the détente, racism was something you did; under privilege theory it is something you are.

That shift, from carefully directed accusations of racism for direct actions to more general charges of unconscious racism, took away the carrot for whites. Worse, it led to a defensiveness and feeling of victimization that make todayâ(TM)s whites in many ways much more tribal than they were 30 years ago. White people are constantly told to examine their whiteness, not to think of themselves as racially neutral. That they did, but the result was not introspection that led to reconciliation, it was a decision that white people have just as much right to think of themselves as a special interest group as anyone else.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-americas-racial-detente/

You will not prevent this development by screaming âoeracism!â. Hereâ(TM)s a hot tip: people you dismiss as retrograde scum will not, in general, vote for you. In fact, one of the things you Democrats most urgently need to do is banish âoeracismâ and âoesexismâ from your political vocabulary.

While these words point at some real problems, they are also a trap. They lead you to organize your political pitch around virtue-signaling, exclusion and demonization. That, in turn, can be successful (though repulsive) politics when itâ(TM)s used against a minority to mobilize a majority or plurality. But youâ(TM)re in the opposite situation now. You were trapped by your own privilege theory. You demonized a plurality of American voters, and in return they gave you Trump.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7268

(Apologies for the mangled characters. I just don't care enough to fix them today. Click the links if they bother you.)

This analysis would seem to disagree with you. According to the Ninth Circuit, only people have privacy rights, not corporations.

California Prosecutors Don’t Have A Case Against Planned Parenthood Whistleblowers

Undercover videos are apparently fine when they record evidence of animal abuse.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/investigations

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/29/california-is-fine-with-undercover-sting-videos-that-expose-animal-cruelty/

But an undercover video related to abortion gets a different standard.

I am foursquare opposed to double standards under the law. If Mercy for Animals isn't charged for surreptitious recording, then this verdict should be overturned.

P.S. The NPR article makes the claim that the video was misleadingly edited. If so, then sue those guys for slander; lying by misleading editing is still lying. Don't selectively enforce a recording law because you are actually upset about something else.

P.P.S. "...an allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim." If we are going to hammer people with 15 felony charges for collecting evidence, I'm not surprised there's no evidence. Also, I'm always suspicious of claims like that... "don't evaluate their video evidence on its own merits, discount it because nobody else has similar evidence from other locations" makes no sense. Again, if the video really was misleadingly edited in a deceptive way, nail them for that.

Ah, and how lucrative is it to misrepresent [politifact.com] information?

Yes, sure. According to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture is incredibly efficient... Verified by that most objective of sources known as "Politifact".

or do you realize now, that you've been informed of the misapprehensions of your own source

Bullshit.

Last year FB was caught red-handed censoring political news. They can no longer be trusted with political matters (or any news for that matter) and I have no intention of using any of their political features. What is to stop FB from disabling "town hall" notices from FB members affiliated with the political opposition? The liberals have gone too far in infiltrating news outlets, social media, "fact checkers", and other internet resources as well as rigging the elections. This chicanery must end.

Searching the Web is not that hard. CSPAN video here.

Let us see if you are mature enough to stop lying, or if you close your eyes and years yelling "nuh uh"

Fortunately the alt-right has shown up the solution. A relatively small number of people working to spread disinformation worked very effectively. To counter that, we need a similar number of people willing to use subversion tactics to promote the truth.

30 years of the media in the US alone being partisan towards democrats, but it's suddenly a small number of "alt-right" spreading disinformation. Okie there. I'm sure that the mainstream media pumping out a bunch of articles in the last few months that were fake wasn't anything. Or how many times has it been now that sites like WAPO have had to publicly retract stories because of that fake news? Hate to tell you this, but the media tried to pull the fake news crap, and got their face rolled into it. It's the same reason why for over a decade that the trust in the media in the US is under 20% and even here in Canada it's under 25%

But let's look at some disinformation. Would that be like the migrant that was arrested in Edmonton, Alberta the other day. And the CBC uses the word "touched" when the person in question aggressively committed sexual assaulted a 14 year old? Under the definition of the law as sexual assault level 3, because they threatened and caused physical injury. Or is that simply massaging the truth because it paints them in a bad light. Or would that be like the underage refugees in NFLD, who physically assaulted a 15 year old girl, and the response from the media was bending over backwards to claim "cultural issues" and the two people "not knowing that assault was wrong." We don't even have to start from there, we can just look over the media like the letter networks and see how much garbage they've been pumping out over the last 15 years.

I know that the "alt-right" is some great invisible bogeyman for you. But you guys over in Europe have far more to worry about with the government engaging in active censorship, and trying to hide information from the public in order to ensure their political power remains intact.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/...

Nicely documented and sourced. Somehow I doubt wikipedia will even bother to correct the bad dentires.

Maybe it's because civics today is less about how government does, or should, function and more about giving airtime to left leaning ideals and generally bashing the ever hated white male. relevant article: https://thefederalist.com/2017...

Won't somebody think of the white males? It's just so hard being the dominant social group.

Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime.

Why do people keep repeating this zombie talking point? I know y'all didn't flunk out of school before they covered Nixon in civics class.

Maybe it's because civics today is less about how government does, or should, function and more about giving airtime to left leaning ideals and generally bashing the ever hated white male. relevant article: https://thefederalist.com/2017...

Let me guess. You weren't aware that Trump got caught refusing to rent to people of colour. This was proven in court, and he suffered consequences as a result.

Tell that to the millions of poor blacks thrown into prison by draconian Clinton crime bills, lost their jobs due to Clinton corporate trade laws, thrown onto the streets by Clinton welfare "reform", or lost their houses because of Clinton-empowered bank fraud. Tell that to the parents of Superpredators, and to black men that yes, it's perfectly rational for white people to shit themselves at the sight of one of them in a hoody.

You see, this is the problem for partisan hack Democrats: the only complaint you can make against Trump that doesn't apply far more to the Clintons is that Hillary hasn't boasted about 'grabbing women by the pussy'. But Trump didn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern women on his hands before running for president.

So try to get out of your fantasy world once in a while, Trumpster-boy.

Ah, so not turning a blind eye to the shit record of the Clinton's means one must be a Trump supporter? And you guys wonder why you lost the election.

The Friends of Putin Club

The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

Here is, what real friendship looks like

• The idiotic "Reset" of 2009.
• The 2010 abolition of all sanctions imposed on Russia for Putin's invasion of Georgia — in the (wane) hope of gaining cooperation on Iran — thus, as predicted, inviting Putin to repeat the same scenario in Ukraine and Syria.
• In 2012 ridiculing Mitt Romney's suggestion, Russia may be hostile to the US. Hillary Clinton was particularly scathing.
• Routing billions of dollars of investment into Russian high-tech industry, some of it, obviously, with military connections.
• Getting richly rewarded by Russian companies (all of them on Kremlin's tight leash).

Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...

It may have been lobbed more frequently at the Brexit Leave folks, but the Brexit stay folks engaged in plenty of post-truthiness of their own. They were so desperate to paint the issue as racism instead of the stated purpose of a return to home rule that they weren't even listening to what the other side was saying. The linked video is a perfect example.

Civil war veterans in NC
http://thefederalist.com/2016/...

There's plenty more, how much over the reports nobody knows because the Democrats spent decades making it impossible to find out.

The dead certainly vote. Here's a list of 438 voter fraud convictions that is just a small list of the total number of voter fraud cases over the last few elections. It's a real issue. Why don't we do what Canada and Mexico do - require photo ID to vote?

I'll say it again: they have zero self awareness

They should be reading articles like this one and pondering the meaning of it all.

You just elected a Russian mole.

Sure. Because Kremlin says so... Except, they don't even claim that... It is all a product of hypotheses, suggestions, and unsubstantiated — usually anonymous — claims.

Meanwhile, a few facts about Clinton's recent past:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine (and, correspondingly, to Syria).
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset".
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

The only thing, that can be done to address the above accusations by your kind is down-modding them — facts are stubborn. So, apply some Vaseline, charge your Prius and head for Canada as you promised.

The Beautiful Wickedness finally had some water splashed on her, and us, the deplorable munchkins, are rejoicing.

All I hear is "waaaah" . You think this is the first time a Scotus nomination has been suspended or blocked? You think your party is above that? Take note especially of #5
http://thefederalist.com/2016/...
And it's now becoming evident that Obamacare is becoming a cluster-f with ever rising premiums, but no, the dems had to rush it out essentially unread so they could all pat themselves on the back. Sometimes resistance is the best course of action.

Putin wants Trump to be president.

Pathetic... Seriously... Are we supposed to believe, Trump will be better for Russia, than the alternative, who:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine.
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset"
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

You expect us to ignore all of the above and worry ourselves over "irregular pings" of a server with "Trump's name in it" originating from a Moscow bank?

Look at what happened to the Aral Sea under the Soviets. The sea doesn't really exist anymore! (except as two small pocket remnants)

Sure, we can also look at the horrible pollution in China, or environmental disasters right here at home (thankfully rarer these days). I'm not saying that there aren't real issues. But I think some caution must be employed with proclaiming potential worst-case doomsday scenarios as an expected result. The more often scientists or experts predict the end of the world and it doesn't come to pass, the more people will stop trusting science in the first place, and that seems like a very bad thing to me.

In fact, I think we're already starting to witness this phenomenon, as many, many people believe global warming is a complete hoax. It's a little hard to dissuade them when they can see for themselves that dire predictions made just a decade or two ago have been laughably overstated. Why believe the current predictions then? If earlier predictions had been even slightly more accurate, they'd have no justification in doubting the current science. Trust is earned, and climatologists have done a terrible job at earning that trust with effective predictions so far.

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

And of course, we never threaten to jail political opponents in this country. *That* would be a dictatorship!!!

I read that quote the other day, and my first response was "yeah, we totally fukken' do!".

I could think of a half dozen examples off the top, but here's a good list of previous Democratic examples.

From that article:

They seem to be forgetting that throwing the book at one’s political opponents is what Democrats do all the time. Here’s 16 times Democrats tried to prosecute their opponents for political gain, not justice.

Looking at the press bias in this election, we are totally boned as a nation. I expect we'll have rioting in several cities after the election.

This story comes up every few years, and gets roundly debunked each time. http://thefederalist.com/2016/...

As a thermal engineer who has looked at this issue fairly rigorously, I have come to the following conclusions on the climate change debate. Before I begin, I caution the reader that, though you may not like the facts or the sources, I suggest you avoid the logical fallacy "Damning the Source." The facts are easily discoverable and if you want to have a serious opinion on the debate, you need to do your homework (or else you are what is known as a useful idiot).

1. The climate changes: Go look at the global temperatures for the last 500k years or so. It has been both cooler and warmer than it is now, without the burning of fossil fuels. The climate has been changing for millennia and we have survived. There has been no earth shattering apocalypse. From a physics perspective, the earth rejects heat to space as a function of the absolute temperature of the planted (~288K) to the fourth power. A small change in temperature significantly increases heat rejection, making it hard for multiplicative-order changes in the emissivity of the earth (what the global warming people worry about) to significantly change the amount of heat rejected, thus elevating the temperature.

http://www.climate4you.com/ima...

2. The global warming "scientists" are the same "scientists" who were running around in the 70s saying that the next ice age was upon us. The reality is they are not scientists as they do not practice the scientific method, as it is impossible on a global scale and a sample of one, and many of the thermal interactions that they put into their models have not been tested or proven using the scientific method, they are educated guesses at best. They are either researchers, physics modelers, or mathematicians, but they are not scientists by definition. The public in large part has caught on to this in practice if not in theory, which is why "scientists" are not that well respected these days. True scientists should form a guild or association to guard the name more jealously, just as engineers (applied science experts) do (you can be heavily fined or even imprisoned for impersonating a civil, mechanical or structural engineer, depending on the state). The climate charlatans should be banned from the title of scientist and forced to use one of the above.

3. The climate change models have been wildly wrong for the last 30 plus years. Go back and dig out some of the old models predictions. These have been wrong at every turn. They may be getting better, but only time will tell. Based on past performance, they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially if billions of dollars or the health of the economy are on the line.

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/w...

4. The climate change debate is now deeply intertwined with emotions, politics and research grant money on one side, and businesses and the general population on the other side. It is being fueled by politicians who see an opportunity to vilify their opposition, moral narcissists/intellectual snobs who make themselves feel better by believing that they take the moral high road and/or are smarter than their fellow citizen (hint: statistically they are smarter than some, dumber than others) and PhD's who are too stupid to get out of the rain (i.e. no common sense) but need their grant money, so they feed the pro global warming politicians more models showing warming/doom and gloom/etc. to get the next grant. It is a vicious cycle, and until we defund public research into global warming, we will continue to have this incestuous loop. I am not advocating banning climate change research, only the tax payer funding of it as a weapon for one political group to use against another, especially when intellectual fraud has been proven and the past product of the research has been junk models that have been proven inaccurate over time.

And from wha

I do think America should register guns, permits should be issued and databases should be searchable and indexable. Currently the only thing the absence of gun registration in the US does is make it more difficult to track crime.

Yes, let's just ignore that Australia used their registration database to confiscate their firearms.

Fuck your mother.

Works for Houston

http://thefederalist.com/2016/...

As to your point, I just love the idea of the politically connected driving me from my home or destroying my business.

Read the story at the link. It is very clear that libertarian principles have little to do with Johnson’s campaign. He is running as a moderate liberal, through and through.

Adding the Green Party candidate Jill Stein we now have four liberal Democrats running for President, with two (Clinton and Stein) occupying the communist wing of the party and two (Trump and Johnson) occupying the moderate liberal wing of the party.

The media in the US actually skews to the Right.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/...

Yes yes, exposing the DNC and all that Clinton corruption was the work of that "MRA" Julian Assange http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2... Because anyone against Hillary Clinton is a racist, sexist, mra, gamergater, and just kicks children, everybody knows this! Even "berniebros" were just misogynists who hated women and so instead supported an old communist jew!! Yes that's the ticket! The fact that he blew the lid open on DNC corruption, press collusion and Clinton Foundation shennigans, well why look into that, lets just call people names. Never mind the whole thing about the DNC staffer being murdered, and now fingered as the leaker.... "trump's the real danger" https://twitter.com/magnifier6... Funny how both attack/assassination attempts were on Trump, not Clinton. Most every attack/attempt to shut down a rally is by rabid leftists. Just in the last two days a man was beaten with a crowbar for wearing a Trump shirt. Anyways, things which matter The Clinton Foundation Exposed | Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux https://youtu.be/ZFcEnRu-hY8 Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/e... Clinton's private server held emails about nuclear 'spy' executed in Iran: Aides discussed scientist 'friend' and his decision to return home after defecting to the U.S. for $5m http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... http://thefederalist.com/2016/... https://youtu.be/8acghuIfLTE Julian Assange exposes Google's political ties to Hillary Clinton & Obama https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://theralphretort.com/bust... http://theralphretort.com/bust... Its no surprise people so smug get their information from 20 minute comedy news shows these days....

No, we've seen what your "steady hand" Merkel has done to europe. We've seen the neocons scurry over to support the Clinton's. We've seen people dig into things that matter https://youtu.be/ZFcEnRu-hY8 Not tweet analysis, but billions of reasons to "get rid of" people who get in the way https://twitter.com/magnifier6... Never mind the blatant incompetence when it comes to IT security, which should be something people on slashdog would be familiar with. Someone with intimate knowledge of our own cyber offense capabilities through intelligence briefings should have known better...or more disturbingly, she knew, and protecting her Clinton Foundation corruption was more important than state security. http://thefederalist.com/2016/... https://youtu.be/8acghuIfLTE

You know the federalist, NYT, WAPO and Bloomburg have all covered this and found it was true right? This is kinda the short summary on the entire thing.

They told us it was ridiculous to worry about Russia when Romney warned us about them.

Are you being ridiculous? What's today's official groupthink? Are we at war with Eastasia?

Wow. A human being, in a free country with free speech, is going to speak at a public event. *Why* is this news?

It's news because so few human beings want to speak at this event. They're having trouble finding people willing to show up.

Sarah Palin is staying home. Ted Nugent has turned down invitations to appear. Lynyrd Skynyrd and Kid Rock are going to be in Cleveland but are "too busy". They almost snagged Mike Ditka but he chickened out. A spokesman for Ben Sasse from Nebraska announced "Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state."

The glory days of Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair are long gone- he isn't going either.

Without knowing which things you would like to highlight I might assume you may mean this article:
Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget
or did you mean something like this: What happened to the CDC's courage on guns?

Those were chosen because they are the top 2 items that showed up in my google search on that phrase (no quotes) and they appear to be at odds with one another. I also doubt many people would know off hand who the Nazi propaganda minster was so that reference indicating how you wanted to issue to be viewed would be lost.

If they put their hands over their eyes, they can pretend the big bad scary guns don't exist.

These are the same people who blame white Christian Republican culture when a Democrat gay Muslim shoots up a gay night club, so I'm not sure logic or facts are going to weigh very heavily here....

http://thefederalist.com/2016/...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

If she thinks an FBI investigation is enough to remove people's rights, perhaps she should lose the right to run for president while she is under investigation.

I'm sure that between this and the devastating Climate Change summit, ISIS will surrender any day now.

How about not lying about the blood on your hands.

What becomes the labia in females becomes the scrotum in males.

Sure. And it all happens long before birth.

It puts transgender people at risk without increasing anyone else's safety.

BS. Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day. Without this law, police have nothing to arrest him for until he actually strikes. So the law, by giving law enforcement legal means for removing such predators does increase somebody's safety. And, sure, the brave "progressives" denounce this argument as a "myth", but it is not.

Whether protecting women (50+% of population) justifies inconveniencing the transgendered (0.5%) may be a valid question, but North Carolina answered it for themselves, following a democratic process. I see no reason to disagree with them and you are yet to explain, why Evangelicals are especially responsible for the decision you dislike.

Did you read the papers on Dick Swaab's brain-bank studies of the brains of transgender people?

I will, before talking to him. Meanwhile you are yet to explain, why person born with penis and without vagina (or with both X and Y chromosomes) calling himself a woman is any more sane, than a human calling himself a cat or Napoleon. If you wish to further argue this part, please, be sure to include a definition of the terms "man" and "woman" in your reply. For a student of biology such as yourself, this should not a burden.

it also contained provisions explicitly banning local LGBT non-discrimination ordinances

Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.

contention [...] doesn't make it a fact

Sure. It is just that I deem this particular contention self-evident and your sole attempt at a counter-example fell flat...

Here is some help with that:

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

In another discussion I provided the link below. Have you read it yet?:

Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - The White House called for tighter regulation 17 times

There is almost no funding for gun violence research because the gun lobby knows it will produce more papers like this one.

Hopefully that will change, but i think the U.S. will switch to the metric system first.

So the $16 Million in research funding by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Joyce and MacArthur Foundations is almost no funding? Prior to the Dickey Amendment, only about 3 percent of papers on gun control received US government funding. There is still plenty of "funding for gun violence research", all that changed is that CDC usage of tax money was restricted after the CDC spent millions on gun control propaganda "studies" with preordained outcomes to support a political push for more gun control laws. This was never a ban on research or statistics collection.

Mark Rosenberg, Director the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch stated on record that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” (Rolling Stone, 1993), and also “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.” (Washington Post,10/19/1994). Does this sound like unbiased scientific research, or like a politician?

If anything, the publication and funding of actual "gun violence research" has increased since the Dickey Amendment, it's just that the CDC is no longer allowed to hand out taxpayer money to their friends to help push a political agenda.

Quiet right... except that it's wrong. Thank you for your input.

Here's an example.