In theory, that would be nice. In practice, that led to Jim Crow.Originally Posted by 0ddl0t
Which was what the Civil Rights era and antidiscrimination laws were all about.
In theory, that would be nice. In practice, that led to Jim Crow.
Which was what the Civil Rights era and antidiscrimination laws were all about.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
I've asked Erin to chime in here, I don't know if she will.
#RESIST
Very cool, sending info to my family in CA. I'll send a contribution as well. Thanks for the heads up.
Is your father-in-law helping her as well? I know he served at the state level there, and is well-versed in the political landscape.
I’ve lived in the Bay Area and North of there 90% of my life unfortunately, so I know well
Well, she should probably work on her mount if she's gonna try to do well in ECQC.
Not to be nitpicky (but to ABSOLUTELY be nitpicky) only one of those links is to a semi-reputable source, the NY Times article from May 24th of this year, and it only says that the Trump administration had proposed to roll back some Obama era trans-protection measures, it doesn't say if that ever went through.
All the other sources are from pretty obviously biased trans-activism sites.
I suppose this is where I have to genuflect and say that I'm not transphobic or anything like that, and I don't particularly care if someone feels like a man or a woman or a space dragon.
I suppose this is where I have to genuflect but point out that being well known shooter doesn’t say much for a person’s research skills.
https://transequality.org/the-discri...administration - contains many links to government sources.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1MV0TO
The above proposed plan is essentially the voiding of lawful gender transitions and legal status after the fact, analogous to voiding a naturalized immigrant’s citizenship after they complied with law and became citizens. Among the sequelae of that would be absolutely no legal redress to discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere.
It isn’t hard to find evidence of this administration’s particular animus against trans persons, as Stephanie’s google search shows, and as does this slightly different search.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trum...&client=safari
So I think it’s great Ms. Smith wants to step into politics, I wish her every success against other republicans, but to be in her position and be pro trump is, in my view, to be a Quisling. I understand she would disagree and I certainly well understand that being pro2a and lgbt - though it ought to be easy - isn’t right now. I respect her advocacy efforts and hope her visible presence has some influence on Republican Party policies. I have, at times, voted republican in the past and could consider it again, but not while it is as closely associated as it is and has been for some time with anti lgbt policies. Such policies threaten lgbt people’s ability to work, receive health care, and live as equal citizens; the problems such policies create cannot be solved by the second amendment.
I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for someone who cares about this conversation. I didn't even bother clicking on any of the links that Stephanie posted except for the NYT one, because I don't need to click a link from Trans Equality to know it's going to say "orange man bad" and probably be short on thoughtful policy analysis.
Anyway I'm turning notifications off for this thread, Erin is my friend in the real world and is pretty cool shit, so please continue to dump on the Republican party or whatever the fuck it is you're doing here.
Good for you, you state the links are bad or imply bias and then admit you looked at one.
I dgaf what you do or don’t genuflect for, nor do in general. I responded with facts to your dismissive post, so, you know, those who don’t already know everything can educate themselves. Links to eg the federal register aren’t orange man bad.
I wish Erin well.
Last edited by Medusa; 12-20-2019 at 11:53 PM.
If anything, I am just happy to see more pro-gun folks of any and all flavors, colors, styles, types, etc.
The sooner that we can get both sides of the aisle out of everyone's gun safes, bedrooms, and underwear, the better.
I cannot understand how those are partisan issues, when frankly I see them all as human rights issues. Forcing advocates of any of those to saddle up with the rest of a party's line-dragging bullshit is continually aggravating.
The Republicans would gain a lot more supporters if they could get the fuck out of everyone's pants. Similarly, if the Democrats would gain a hell of a lot of middle-ground folks like myself if they swore off ever pursuing more gun control.
Reply With Quote