• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!

Troacctid

Members
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Troacctid

  1. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    How? How are you removing rights? Heck, how is it even a problem if a cis woman pretends to be trans so she can use the men's room while minding her own business and not disturbing anyone?
  2. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    It doesn't mean you're transphobic. It just means you are valuing the rights of transphobic people to persecute trans people above the rights of trans people to not be victims of persecution. Either that or you just have no idea what you're talking about and are holding a position based on misinformation. Or both, I guess. They're not mutually exclusive. The Constitution explicitly allows the federal government to intervene to protect civil rights. You may have heard of something called the 14th Amendment. It is part of the Constitution. And by the way, I don't know if you realized this, but you are implying here that trans people are more likely to be perverts, which is actually very offensive.
  3. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Well, like I said, it's just 100% naked transphobia with no other justification, so the only real acceptable solution is for them to bugger off and leave trans people alone instead of senselessly persecuting them.
  4. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    It sure was great back when states were allowed to set rules saying that black students weren't allowed. Totally nothing wrong with that at all. Too bad the federal government shut that down, right? There's this thing called Title IX. I'm sorry, how is letting trans kids use the correct bathroom a violation of cis kids' rights? What right is this exactly? The right to not have to look at or be in the same room as a trans person? Forcing trans people to use the wrong restroom does zilch to prevent harassment and sexual assault. In fact, it actually increases incidences of harassment and assault against trans people. But hey, I guess as long as your one cis girl is safe, it doesn't matter that a few thousand trans kids were beaten up, bullied, psychologically injured, and put at significantly increased risk of suicide? What in the Nine Hells are you even talking about. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Defending this little girl from what? From being in the same room as a transgender person? Oh, the horror. Apparently not, if you're forcing a trans girl presenting as female to use the men's room and out herself. Okay, for one thing, no, you don't know what you're talking about. And for another thing, I don't know if you failed to realize that you're currently defending policies that treat trans women as men and trans men as women. Pretty sure it's a full correction, since I said non-Muslims were exempt, and then you said no, it didn't matter if you're Muslim, and then I corrected you. I could point directly to the State Department Summary of Refugee Admission from 2011 if you like.
  5. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    1. The rule in question applies to public schools, which are not private entities. 2. Great, so stepping in to bar people from denying civil rights to trans people does qualify. It sounds like we are in agreement that Trump's policy is terrible. 3. Section 5, subsections b and e. Members of a religious minority in the country (and all the countries are majority-Muslim) are explicitly called out as exceptions to the ban. 4. Fact check. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
  6. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    I understand it's not at all unusual in Putin's Russia. Of course it's difficult to prove anything, but... http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2016/jan/04/does-vladimir-putin-kill-journalists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/21/the-complicated-reality-behind-trumps-claim-that-theres-no-proof-putin-had-journalists-killed/
  7. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    1. Hey guess what the rule in question applies to public schools, which are funded and overseen by...the government. Also to private schools that receive funding grants from...that's right, the government again. 2. You don't believe the government should step in to protect civil rights? Would you also have opposed the 14th amendment? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Don't tell me you're against the Civil Rights Act. How can you be against the Civil Rights Act? What is the government even for if it's not going to defend its citizens' individual liberties? 3. Trump's order ditched the screening process and replaced it with a red rubber stamp that says "Rejected." It doesn't matter how much you have been vetted under Trump's order. If you are a Muslim from those countries, you cannot come into the United States. Have a green card? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Have a visa? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Went through an intense three-year vetting process that, so far, according to the data we have, has never allowed a terrorist through? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Oh, but wait, hang on, you're not a Muslim? Never mind, come right in, friend. Oh, and Obama did not ban refugees. Not at any point in his presidency. That did not happen.
  8. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Hey, that part wasn't sarcastic, it was just passive-aggressive! Totally different. For serious, though, I know y'all aren't transphobic. And that's why you need to hold your representatives accountable. Call your congresspeople and tell them you won't stand for that ****. And if they're supporting legislation like that—don't vote for them! Vote for their opponent in their next election (primary or general, or both, why not). Get their butts out of your Senate seats. Because that should be a dealbreaker, plain and simple. I mean maybe you're already doing that, in which case...uh...keep it up, I guess.
  9. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Okay, fine, revised statement, the Republican Party is not anti-LGBT, its elected officials overwhelmingly just happen to hold anti-LGBT stances, sponsor anti-LGBT legislation, and vehemently oppose pro-LGBT policies. As evidenced by the things they are doing right now, like, actual current events that are happening. And of course I have every confidence that the Republicans HERE are good people who do not condone such things and in fact are probably calling their representatives right now to complain about these reprehensible policies, like for example this recent instance of naked transphobia with no tangible benefits or practical purpose other than to discriminate against trans people.
  10. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    I mean, since they've translated it into actual policies, yes, it does mean more than election season talking points. And even if it were just election season talking points—that's what the party wants to broadcast that they stand for. They are proud to be anti-LGBT.
  11. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Too late for that. They've already baked homophobia and transphobia directly into their party platform.
  12. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    It's just naked transphobia. It serves no other purpose and provides zero practical benefit. All it does is persecute trans kids. This is what today's Republican Party stands for.
  13. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Obama issued a guideline to public schools telling them to allow transgender students to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity. On Friday, after the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, the Trump administration announced it was abandoning this policy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trump-administration-signals-change-in-policy-for-transgender-students/2017/02/11/c2fd138e-f051-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html
  14. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Meanwhile, this past week, the Trump administration has already started rolling back Obama's protections for transgender rights.
  15. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    That's incorrect—Obama did not ban travel from those countries. He only made them ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program, which allows people to travel into the United States without a visa if they stay for less than 90 days. You could still come to the United States, but you would need a visa. Obama also did not include an exemption for non-Muslims. Trump's ban includes an exemption for non-Muslims, and affects Muslims even if they have already been vetted and given a visa. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/ Both of them have voted with Trump 100% of the time. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ The Trump administration has not offered any evidence or any rational basis to believe that there is anything wrong with the current vetting system that we already have. Why the shutdown? What's the justification?
  16. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    So far you don't seem to have actually taken issue with any particular point of evidence. For example—people are already going through intense vetting in order to enter the United States. The process for vetting refugees, for instance, is long, rigorous, and extremely arduous, and typically takes years to complete. Is there any part of that process that you can single out as being ineffective or insufficient? To my knowledge, the Trump administration has not offered any examples of deficiencies in the current standards. I don't think you've presented any evidence of your own, either. And do you not consider John McCain and Lindsey Graham to be sufficiently conservative?
  17. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Are they conservative luminaries with considerable experience and expertise in the fields in question? Are their claims backed up by evidence? Because that would certainly make me take notice. Okay, whatever, you don't trust these various high-ranking national security people. How about John McCain and Lindsey Graham, notable Republican members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, who issued a joint statement saying basically the same thing?
  18. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    So you agree that the ban is actually harmful to national security, not helpful?
  19. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Well how about things that don't protect us, and in fact are counterproductive to our anti-terrorism efforts? Like, for example, a blanket ban on travel from countries that the president happens to dislike, none of whose citizens have been responsible for any terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a bipartisan group of some of the highest-ranking national security officials of the past few decades, who released this statement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here's an excerpt: This goes on for about three more pages explaining why a Muslim ban is nonsense.
  20. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    I believe Trump has said he would like to eliminate the federal minimum wage, if that counts.
  21. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Clinton said in the third debate that she opposed the Heller decision because she felt it went too far in preventing regulations to protect toddlers from guns. I don't see how that's bad. Obamacare isn't perfect, but it represented an incremental improvement over what we had before. Clinton supported the good bits and the general idea, and offered plans on how to improve the parts that haven't been working. What's wrong with that? I keep hearing this "warmongering" thing and it bothers me. There's a difference between intervention and warmongering. Just because we're not involved in a conflict doesn't mean people magically stop dying. Now I don't know what specific wars you're thinking of, but personally, I think we can promote world peace more effectively if we use our military power to help end conflicts like the ones in Syria. It's a complicated issue, and there's a lot of room for debate, but IMO any candidate who takes a black-and-white stance on it probably hasn't really thought it through. It's one of the most difficult decisions that the President has to make, and you can't just reduce it to "War is bad, don't go to war." I don't see the problem with legal immigration, and I'm pretty sure Clinton never supported non-enforcement of immigration laws, so I don't know what you're talking about on those last two.
  22. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    You don't like letting kids stay on their parents' plans for longer, stopping insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and/or subsidizing insurance for millions of struggling middle-income families? You don't think we should have universal background checks, enforce existing gun laws, and/or prevent the sale of guns to domestic abusers, suspected terrorists, and the mentally ill?
  23. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Hillary was a fantastic candidate. You all keep talking about her like, "Oh, she's so terrible, they're both terrible, Giant Meteor 2016," but I bet you can't even name two actual policies of hers that you don't like.
  24. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    Pre-election polls are actually pretty close to the popular vote projections.
  25. Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

    There is no danger of Clinton's executive orders being overturned by Congress. She can veto any attempt to do so. The Republicans are nowhere near a veto-proof majority in the Senate, if they can even get a majority at all.