Trannies for Trump

[filghy2]

Lincoln freed the slaves, Trump freed the one percent.

Nice line. It's pretty incredible that the party of the Great Emancipator is now led by a man who thought there were some very fine people at Charlottesville - another thing the Trump apologists here are very quiet about.

[johncock0]

Nick Danger's plan for this thread is NOT educational nor do you sound smart. What you are doing and is more concerned on is convincing ppl why trump is the best for America and this thread is not about that. You want to divert the subject or maybe have poor reading comprehension skills. However, what you have proven though, you like to sweep trans-rights under the rug!

If you want to educate ppl on why trump is the best thing that could of happen to America maybe perhaps start a new thread more relevant to the subject you want to discuss!

[Nick Danger]

Nick Danger's plan for this thread is NOT educational nor do you sound smart. What you are doing and is more concerned on is convincing ppl why trump is the best for America and this thread is not about that. You want to divert the subject or maybe have poor reading comprehension skills. However, what you have proven though, you like to sweep trans-rights under the rug!

If you want to educate ppl on why trump is the best thing that could of happen to America maybe perhaps start a new thread more relevant to the subject you want to discuss!

If YOU had read the thread, you'd know that I already expressed how I feel about Trump's treatment of transsexuals - it's politically necessary, and it ain't so bad. In the end, if all he gives to the religious right is keeping transgenders out of the Army and a few bathrooms, consider the LGBT community lucky. What the far right really wants is gay marriage abolished and transgender people treated as mental patients. But it looks like they are going to settle for what they're getting.

The title of this thread is "Trannies For Trump," and there actually are quite a few - trans people who understand politics and economics, and who therefore realize that a couple of token actions against them is a small price to pay for the prosperity of their country.

In an ideal world we could have liberal morality politics and conservative fiscal policy. But this isn't an ideal world, so we are, unfortunately, under our current 2-party system, required to choose one or the other.

I'm certainly not trying to educate any liberals, only the fence-sitters. Liberals cannot be educated, because everything they believe is quite fair and reasonable-sounding on the surface. "Feed the hungry, house the homeless, give money to the poor, let everyone do whatever the hell they want, and tax the rich to pay for it." That's the liberal agenda in a nutshell.

What I have personally found when debating liberals is that they will never let go of that agenda, because to them, that's what makes them good people. And I'd even go so far as to say that most liberals actually ARE good people.

Good people who don't understand politics or economics. And their reaction to President Trump's great triumph in China is just embarrassing for everyone.

[filghy2]

The title of this thread is "Trannies For Trump," and there actually are quite a few - trans people who understand politics and economics, and who therefore realize that a couple of token actions against them is a small price to pay for the prosperity of their country.

Where are they then? Name names. I googled the four TS mentioned in the article at the start of this thread and none of them seem to be defending Trump publicly any more, and one is positively against him.

I have a post-grad degree in economics by the way, and you clearly know shit about the subject. Which economic textbook describes blowing out the deficit in an already strong economy as a conservative fiscal policy? I asked a number of pertinent economic questions in an earlier post and you just made a pathetic excuse to avoid answering.

[Stavros]

I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm not among his adorers.

My apologies if you thought that, I was using the argument you cited to make a point, it didn't mean I assumed you agreed with it.

[Stavros]

Let this thread be an educational journey for any would-be liberals who are still on the fence. President Trump just achieved an HISTORIC economic accord with China, exactly as he promised he would do. And what do the liberals have to say about it? Not much. "It's a self-serving ruse," they say, even as China is literally writing legislation right this minute to adjust its own patent laws to this new trade paradigm.
Yes, you too can be a liberal. All you have to do is remember two things:
1. Everything President Trump accomplishes is just a cleverly-disguised scheme to obtain more Cheetos for himself, no matter how amazing or unprecedented it might seem.
2. Tilting your fedora to the right means you're gay, tilting it to the left means you're pansexual, wearing it straight means your food stamps are gone for the month and you'd really appreciate it if someone would toss you a sandwich.

That you think Transgendered Americans are just cannon fodder in the new civil war to be discarded because their rights are not important is shocking on a forum dedicated to them, that you don't think it is a big deal to deprive those Americans of their rights is a shocking moment for your country. Again, if you are so offended by the Constitution because it gives rights to All Americans, then scrap it and replace it with the Bible, the document preferred by the 'Evangelical Christians' to whom you claim the President is delivering on his promise and who may be his core constituency (he is actually losing votes now among them).

That'll be the same people who claim to be Christian but are remote from the concept of love and forgiveness that Jesus said is non-negotiable if you want to live as God intend; fixated, indeed obsessed as they are with the Apocalypse and the End-Times, who for that reason like their President have no coherent policies in the here and now, to combat discrimination and segregation, debt, drug abuse and poverty across their own country.

Liberals are not the problem, fake Christians brandishing the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other are. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition. -To kill whom?

[Nick Danger]

Where are they then? Name names. I googled the four TS mentioned in the article at the start of this thread and none of them seem to be defending Trump publicly any more, and one is positively against him.

I have a post-grad degree in economics by the way, and you clearly know shit about the subject. Which economic textbook describes blowing out the deficit in an already strong economy as a conservative fiscal policy? I asked a number of pertinent economic questions in an earlier post and you just made a pathetic excuse to avoid answering.

Yeah, Flighty, everyone on the internet has a post-grad degree in whatever they happen to be discussing at the time. I don't recall you asking any "pertinent economic questions," I recall you calling me names and dismissing me as an asshole.

That you think Transgendered Americans are just cannon fodder in the new civil war to be discarded because their rights are not important is shocking on a forum dedicated to them, that you don't think it is a big deal to deprive those Americans of their rights is a shocking moment for your country. Again, if you are so offended by the Constitution because it gives rights to All Americans, then scrap it and replace it with the Bible, the document preferred by the 'Evangelical Christians' to whom you claim the President is delivering on his promise and who may be his core constituency (he is actually losing votes now among them).

That'll be the same people who claim to be Christian but are remote from the concept of love and forgiveness that Jesus said is non-negotiable if you want to live as God intend; fixated, indeed obsessed as they are with the Apocalypse and the End-Times, who for that reason like their President have no coherent policies in the here and now, to combat discrimination and segregation, debt, drug abuse and poverty across their own country.

Liberals are not the problem, fake Christians brandishing the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other are. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition. -To kill whom?

"Cannon fodder" seems a lot like hyperbole to me, Stavros. It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all. A slight rollback during the subsequent Republican administration doesn't make them cannon fodder, it was quite anticipated. My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be.

People who talk about human rights as if they are an entitlement lack perspective. If you ever happen to find yourself at odds with the U.S. Government or an agent thereof, you'll find out exactly how many human rights you don't have.

Everything is a negotiation, Stavros, including our "rights," which can all be taken away instantly at the whim of someone with enough power.

I agree with you that the religious right is a problem. But it's our problem, we live in a country which was built by Christians. They are still the most powerful political force in the country and therefore on the planet. They don't get everything they want, but they will be catered to for their voting power, and that's just the way it is. Might not always be that way, but that's how it is now. Again, that's realpolitik - which is nothing more than accepting reality and dealing with it pragmatically instead of idealistically.

[Stavros]

Stavros. It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all.
My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be.

I think the point is that because in the US States are allowed to make their own laws, the history shows that it is not true to claim that It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all -homosexuality as far as I know, has never been illegal in the USA, but Sodomy has been, and it was the law against Sodomy that changed when the state of Wisconsin changed its definition to allow 'consensual sodomy' in 1961, a law enacted in 1962. Some states followed Wisconsin's model while others moderated the law to lessen the punishment for Sodomy, but it was not until Lawrence -v- Texas in 2003 that the Supreme Court decision effectively made the repeal of sodomy laws universal throughout the USA, which may fall in line with the general point you made, but it was hardly a matter of negotiation, rather the Supreme Court recognizing that Sodomy laws were not applicable to American society in the 21st century.

A similar problem arises with the case of same-sex marriage because as far as I am aware, it was not illegal in US law until 1973 when a State -Maryland- actually defined marriage in law as the union of a man and a woman, rather than of people of the same sex, and did so because two men had applied for a marriage license in 1970 which was rejected by the State, with the Supreme Court later declining to hear the case for want of a substantial federal question. Other states then followed the Maryland example to make same-sex marriages illegal, a position the supposedly 'liberal' President Clinton agreed with, signing the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996.

On the other hand, in the same year the senior Judge in Hawaii ruled that the State had no right to deprive same-sex couples the right to marry, while in the late 1980s in San Francisco same-sex and heterosexual but non-married couples were given a form of 'spousal rights' that allowed them to register for domestic partnerships, which granted hospital visitation rights and other benefits.

What these examples show is that the question of Constitutional Rights is one that is contested on a regular basis, and that what is illegal in 1973 can be legal in 2003. But what the transition from Gay Rights to Spousal Rights to Same-Sex Marriage Rights also shows is that however much they were, and are resisted, it is difficult in law to deny one set of Americans what the law gives to others, particularly in private matters that concern human relationships.

It is in this clash between the specific and the general that over time 'States rights' have had to concede to Federal Law, but this is clearly something some States don't like, just as southern states are using existing law to roll back civil rights legislation to suppress the Black vote, now they are fighting back on same-sex marriage and abortion, especially now they have a President who ridicules political correctness which many of his supporters blame for legal changes that give rights to Transgendered Americans as if they were not 'proper rights' at all.

Thus, when you argue: My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be, in fact it is worse because this President has set himself up as a judicial activist who is eager to change as many laws as he can while trashing anyone who disagrees with him as a 'criminal', a 'traitor' and a 'liar'. The USA has gone from Stonewall to the Writing on the Wall, and the message is: this country belongs to us, not to you.

Some sources I used-
https://www.infoplease.com/us/gender...ement-timeline
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/28/u...cts/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/u...cts/index.html
http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.ph...2919&p=4182201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy...States#History
https://www.history.com/topics/gay-marriage

[Nick Danger]

I think the point is that because in the US States are allowed to make their own laws, the history shows that it is not true to claim that It was less than a decade ago that gays and transsexuals had no rights at all -homosexuality as far as I know, has never been illegal in the USA, but Sodomy has been, and it was the law against Sodomy that changed when the state of Wisconsin changed its definition to allow 'consensual sodomy' in 1961, a law enacted in 1962. Some states followed Wisconsin's model while others moderated the law to lessen the punishment for Sodomy, but it was not until Lawrence -v- Texas in 2003 that the Supreme Court decision effectively made the repeal of sodomy laws universal throughout the USA, which may fall in line with the general point you made, but it was hardly a matter of negotiation, rather the Supreme Court recognizing that Sodomy laws were not applicable to American society in the 21st century.

A similar problem arises with the case of same-sex marriage because as far as I am aware, it was not illegal in US law until 1973 when a State -Maryland- actually defined marriage in law as the union of a man and a woman, rather than of people of the same sex, and did so because two men had applied for a marriage license in 1970 which was rejected by the State, with the Supreme Court later declining to hear the case for want of a substantial federal question. Other states then followed the Maryland example to make same-sex marriages illegal, a position the supposedly 'liberal' President Clinton agreed with, signing the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996.

On the other hand, in the same year the senior Judge in Hawaii ruled that the State had no right to deprive same-sex couples the right to marry, while in the late 1980s in San Francisco same-sex and heterosexual but non-married couples were given a form of 'spousal rights' that allowed them to register for domestic partnerships, which granted hospital visitation rights and other benefits.

What these examples show is that the question of Constitutional Rights is one that is contested on a regular basis, and that what is illegal in 1973 can be legal in 2003. But what the transition from Gay Rights to Spousal Rights to Same-Sex Marriage Rights also shows is that however much they were, and are resisted, it is difficult in law to deny one set of Americans what the law gives to others, particularly in private matters that concern human relationships.

It is in this clash between the specific and the general that over time 'States rights' have had to concede to Federal Law, but this is clearly something some States don't like, just as southern states are using existing law to roll back civil rights legislation to suppress the Black vote, now they are fighting back on same-sex marriage and abortion, especially now they have a President who ridicules political correctness which many of his supporters blame for legal changes that give rights to Transgendered Americans as if they were not 'proper rights' at all.

Thus, when you argue: My point is simply that it's not nearly as bad as it could be, in fact it is worse because this President has set himself up as a judicial activist who is eager to change as many laws as he can while trashing anyone who disagrees with him as a 'criminal', a 'traitor' and a 'liar'. The USA has gone from Stonewall to the Writing on the Wall, and the message is: this country belongs to us, not to you.

Some sources I used-
https://www.infoplease.com/us/gender...ement-timeline
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/28/u...cts/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/u...cts/index.html
http://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.ph...2919&p=4182201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy...States#History
https://www.history.com/topics/gay-marriage

Great post, Stavros.

I certainly don't have any points of contention with anything you're saying here, it's all sourced and factual.

One thing I will say, though, is that when I say "no rights at all," I don't mean that gays and transgenders haven't had the right to breathe, co-habitate, vote, own guns, fuck each other, or that sort of thing. I'm talking about protection under the law, as in civil rights; i.e., protection from discrimination, status as a protected minority - the kind of rights that blacks and women have had for a very long time, relatively speaking. For transgenders, lack of this status extended as far as not even being able to legally gender-identify.

But the LGBT community has those rights now, and that has come within the last decade under President Obama. Good for him, and good for them.

The Republicans, of course, opposed all that legislation to the extent they could. And now they are in a position to squash some of it, and they are going to do that. I'm against it, but I know for a fact it's going to happen. And I also know that next time the Democrats are in power, they will reverse President Trump's policies and increase the LGBT community's standing even more than Obama already has, as a concession to THEIR voting base. Perhaps next time it will come in the form of a Constitutional amendment - something that can never be squashed. I hope so. Americans are ready for that, Obama primed the pump.

Meanwhile, I'm totally in favor of the LGBT community making a big deal out of these minor matters, because as long as they do, the religious right will see them squirming and be content.

But in the big picture, these things just don't matter much. If a trans person doesn't want to join the military and doesn't care where he/she pisses, it doesn't matter AT ALL. That's what I mean when I say the LGBT community should consider itself lucky, because it actually could be much, much worse.

You think President Trump really wants to hurt transsexuals? Please, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's been with several. The guy's definitely got a sexual appetite, and he's from the second queerest city in the USA. He's definitely had 8 inches of femboi trouser trout down his throat at some point. Keep your eye out for hard negotiations with Thailand before his term is over.

We agree more than we disagree, Stavros. But I'm making a conscious choice to take the long view. I think you are concerned that these small grievances are just the tip of an iceberg. But Trump has a lot of cross-party voters as well, and IMO, he is very cleverly giving the religious right as little as he thinks he can get away with. They're not his people, they're just his voters.

[Stavros]

The only further point I would make is that we can agree that Transgendered Americans should have the same rights under the Constitution that other Americans have, and that because Transgendered people are a minority in the USA, extending those rights in law and in practice does not threaten, or undermine the USA in any way.

It is when those rights are taken away that you see the true face of an administration and its supporters who are still unable to accept the fact that in 2009 a Black man walked into the White House as President of the USA, and so great is their resentment, so unlimited their need for revenge they are determined to reverse every law and every regulation that was passed when Obama was President.

The issue of Transgendered service personnel in the military is in reality so minor it did not need to be challenged, but the Republicans have a complete list of items they want crossed off the list, so I think you should see the attack on Transgendered Americans as both a specific, targeted attack on transgendered people, and part of the broader campaign whose slogan is Obama made it, we destroy it.

The latest being the repeal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ruling that 'dealer markups' in auto sales forcing minorities to pay more for cars, would lead to criminal prosecution. That the repeal itself violated Congressional rules on amendments to law is an example of the growing contempt for the law that the Republican Party now practices, led by a President who thinks he can instruct the Justice Department on who to investigate (and find guilty of course) -but is an example of a small matter of law that was passed in the Obama era which has real impact on minorities but, because they are minorities can have their rights discarded even though the Bureau rule on 'dealer markups' most Americans, I would like to think, was a fair one.

It is when you see rights being taken away that you should begin to worry, as each one chips away at the base of justice itself, until the edifice can no longer stand, and falls apart, leaving nothing in its place other than a gloating President demanding absolute obedience.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8362596.html