• 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!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ijuin said:

Fundamentally, what they're looking for is for somebody that they can get away with feeling superior to. 

They can feel superior to whoever they want, as long as they don't act on those feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troacctid said:

Too late for that. They've already baked homophobia and transphobia directly into their party platform.

...as if the party platform were anything but election season talking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Troacctid said:

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.

The Moderator: That is enough of that. I understand that there is a good deal of bitterness and anger aimed at certain politicians and parties. But bitterness and anger do not belong in this thread. This thread is meant for dispassionately (or as near thereto as is practical) discussing political issues, ideally without name-calling, accusations and otherwise depriving the opposing view of its dignity and right to exist.

It is perfectly proper to state the opinion that a political stance is hostile to a given population group. Less so to name a whole party ideologically corrupt. ANY party may at times hold corruption or have its leadership consist of questionable individuals but the assumption that an entire party is rotten from top to bottom is unfair to its membership and destructive of any form of discussion. Therefore, please end this particular argument. I do not wish to have to lock the thread, but if it persists, I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troacctid said:

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.

The Moderator: Less of the sarcasm, please. And yes, we have right wing posters here who do indeed object to these policies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, I'm being asked to oppose legislation because of what someone else thinks it says - even when it doesn't say that.

The government needn't be involved in enforcing who uses what restroom in non-government facilities. There's a perfectly good, workable, easily manageable arrangement where the government doesn't get involved except to enforce the usual, pre-existing laws regarding assault, harassment, trespass, and things like that - things that actually violate people's rights. I oppose replacing that with dictates in EITHER direction.

A city in New Jersey decided to replace the working solution with a dictate. I disapprove. The state legislature decided to supersede that with a dictate in the other direction. I disapprove of that as well.

Some cities in Texas were making noises about emulating the New Jersey city. I disapprove. The Texas state legislature decided to simply bar any such dictates by localities, and not impose one of its own. I don't see a problem.

(Not that my approval or disapproval is directly relevant - I vote in neither state.)

I also am simply amazed by the amount of stuff that didn't merit comment when Obama did it, but is a horrible outrage (and supposedly-clearly illegal) when Trump does it. Like the so-called "Muslim ban" which - like Obama's suspension of people coming from the same seven countries for twice as long - contains no mention of any religion and does not apply to over a billion Muslims who don't happen to be from those seven countries. Obama did this because - in his judgment - it seemed that the existing procedures for screening people from those countries were inadequate, and new procedures were needed. Trump did it because - in his judgment - it seemed the procedures instituted in the prior administration were still inadequate, and need at least tightening up and possibly rewritten. Essentially the same reason.

If it was okay when Obama did it, why is it wrong now? Conversely, if it's wrong now, why was it OK when Obama did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

If it was okay when Obama did it, why is it wrong now? Conversely, if it's wrong now, why was it OK when Obama did it?

I think much of it has to do with how they talk, the times that I've heard Obama talk about issues, he's been calm, to the point, polite, even when being criticized. Trump on the other hand has been quite the opposite, the tweets, the interviews, when he gets criticized, he doubles down with criticisms back, and he just comes off as unprofessional. His overall attitude just doesn't make me want to take him seriously and I've thought to myself a number of times that if he just toned it back a few notches then maybe people wouldn't go after him so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

I also am simply amazed by the amount of stuff that didn't merit comment when Obama did it, but is a horrible outrage (and supposedly-clearly illegal) when Trump does it. Like the so-called "Muslim ban" which - like Obama's suspension of people coming from the same seven countries for twice as long - contains no mention of any religion and does not apply to over a billion Muslims who don't happen to be from those seven countries.

The Moderator: Small correction to the above. Obama suspended the Visa Waiver Program for these countries. He did not include anyone already in the US and certainly not Green Card holders or people with visas. If you wish a very short version of what this program is, it allows a visit of up to 90 days length in the US without a visa or residential permit. It is only offered to certain countries and is done so as a courtesy to them. This list of countries includes Denmark and I personally have visited the US a large number of times using exactly this program. Without once performing a single act of terrorism, I might add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Like the so-called "Muslim ban" which - like Obama's suspension of people coming from the same seven countries for twice as long - contains no mention of any religion and does not apply to over a billion Muslims who don't happen to be from those seven countries.

In addition to what TOH has already pointed out, Trump wanted to include an exception for Christians, describing them as a "persecuted minority," even in areas where there was much more danger to members of Muslim minorities than to Christian ones, even some areas where Christians were not in any particular danger at all.  So your assertion that there is no mention of religion is not exactly accurate, or at least not a reflection of Trump's intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Without once performing a single act of terrorism, I might add.

Just as long as they don't catch you holding a banana, you'll be fine. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

The thing is, I'm being asked to oppose legislation because of what someone else thinks it says - even when it doesn't say that.

The government needn't be involved in enforcing who uses what restroom in non-government facilities. There's a perfectly good, workable, easily manageable arrangement where the government doesn't get involved except to enforce the usual, pre-existing laws regarding assault, harassment, trespass, and things like that - things that actually violate people's rights. I oppose replacing that with dictates in EITHER direction.

A city in New Jersey decided to replace the working solution with a dictate. I disapprove. The state legislature decided to supersede that with a dictate in the other direction. I disapprove of that as well.

Some cities in Texas were making noises about emulating the New Jersey city. I disapprove. The Texas state legislature decided to simply bar any such dictates by localities, and not impose one of its own. I don't see a problem.

(Not that my approval or disapproval is directly relevant - I vote in neither state.)

I also am simply amazed by the amount of stuff that didn't merit comment when Obama did it, but is a horrible outrage (and supposedly-clearly illegal) when Trump does it. Like the so-called "Muslim ban" which - like Obama's suspension of people coming from the same seven countries for twice as long - contains no mention of any religion and does not apply to over a billion Muslims who don't happen to be from those seven countries. Obama did this because - in his judgment - it seemed that the existing procedures for screening people from those countries were inadequate, and new procedures were needed. Trump did it because - in his judgment - it seemed the procedures instituted in the prior administration were still inadequate, and need at least tightening up and possibly rewritten. Essentially the same reason.

If it was okay when Obama did it, why is it wrong now? Conversely, if it's wrong now, why was it OK when Obama did it?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, died today, February 20, 2017.  One day before his 65th birthday.  He suffered from cardiac arrest at the Russian Mission in New York, and died at New York's Presbyterian Hospital.

Beyond the grief of his family and the disruption of business at the UN, this is going to affect many areas of international politics and diplomacy.

Even so, all I can think is, "Are we sure this was a natural heart attack?"

Whether it was a life time of watching cold-war spy movies, or the relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin where I really don't know what each one thinks of the other, I am left wondering if this 'accident' was actually a message?  Who could have triggered the medical crisis in what, presumably, is a very secure facility?  What message was being sent?  Who was supposed to receive the message?  Was the message understood?

More than anything, it disturbs me that my mind goes to a melodramatic conspiracy so quickly.  Do I really believe that the most powerful countries on Earth are doing these things to each other, or even to their own people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Troacctid said:

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.

1. Not all private entities - not even all private schools - receive funding grants.

2. I think the government should protect civil rights. Stepping in to bar people from protecting their own civil rights, and assisting the violators, does not qualify.

3. There were a few technical screw-ups that actually affected fewer people NATIONWIDE than were disrupted and disturbed by the protesters at one major airport. Nearly all of those screw-ups were corrected within a few hours, so the people with green cards or otherwise thoroughly vetted COULD and DID come in. Oh, and under Trump's order as written, it didn't matter if you were a Muslim.

Oh, and the Obama administration suspended all processing of refugee entry requests from Iraq for six months in 2011. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2017 at 6:09 PM, CritterKeeper said:

In addition to what TOH has already pointed out, Trump wanted to include an exception for Christians, describing them as a "persecuted minority," even in areas where there was much more danger to members of Muslim minorities than to Christian ones, even some areas where Christians were not in any particular danger at all.  So your assertion that there is no mention of religion is not exactly accurate, or at least not a reflection of Trump's intentions.

Christian *are* a persecuted minority in the Mideast, Jews even moreso.  You may have a point that Trump's exemptions for religious persecution aren't inclusive enough, but making one for christianity is entirely valid.

If you're a Sunni in Shia-controlled territory you are a persecuted religious minority.  Same for if you are a Shia in Sunni-held territory.  Unfortunately for such people a muslim poses a security risk that Christians simply don't.  I'm not sure I'd make any exceptions at all, just make sure to hold christians, jews and other non-muslim minorities where muslims can't get at them till they are fully vetted and processed as usual.

Were I Trump, I wouldn't make an exception for persecuted muslims either.  Hypothetically, an ISIS fighter (sunni) in Syria caught behind a Russian/Assad advance could legitimately claim to be both a refugee and member of a persecuted religion since the Assad regime almost certainly has plenty of Hezbo (Shia) fighters around.  But you wouldn't want to fast-track them into the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2017 at 10:30 PM, Don Edwards said:

1. Not all private entities - not even all private schools - receive funding grants.

2. I think the government should protect civil rights. Stepping in to bar people from protecting their own civil rights, and assisting the violators, does not qualify.

3. There were a few technical screw-ups that actually affected fewer people NATIONWIDE than were disrupted and disturbed by the protesters at one major airport. Nearly all of those screw-ups were corrected within a few hours, so the people with green cards or otherwise thoroughly vetted COULD and DID come in. Oh, and under Trump's order as written, it didn't matter if you were a Muslim.

Oh, and the Obama administration suspended all processing of refugee entry requests from Iraq for six months in 2011. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Troacctid said:

1. The rule in question applies to public schools, which are not private entities.

Great, so there's no problem with a state setting rules for the public schools it funds.

And, by the way, you might want to study the Constitution carefully to see precisely what authority the federal government has over education, including but not limited to public schools. I happen to support the notion that the federal government should not impose ANY rule WHATSOEVER that it doesn't have the authority to impose.

8 hours ago, Troacctid said:

2. Great, so stepping in to bar people from denying civil rights to trans people does qualify.

Yes, but we have a difference of opinion over whether stripping civil rights from law-abiding people is a good way of protecting civil rights.

A pervert who falsely claims to be genderfluid does NOT have a greater right to feel safe in the women's restroom - which he followed a little girl into - than the little girl does. And that sort of pervert is the only one who gains any actual, real-world protection from the "transgender-protecting" laws under discussion: his false claim, with those laws in place, would make his expulsion or prosecution more difficult, and might result in him being able to win a large court judgment against those who try to uphold the little girl's rights.

Which constitutes a removal of civil rights from the property owner, if applied to non-government facilities; and from the little girl's parents; and from random bystanders who attempt to intervene in defense of the little girl.

Meanwhile, a transwoman who is presenting as female goes in, goes into a stall, closes the door, does her business, comes out, washes up, and leaves the restroom, and nobody knows she's a transwoman.

(I also have this weird notion that transwomen want to be identified as, considered to be, and treated as, women. Not transwomen. And an equivalent statement also applies to transmen. Anyone who actively desires to be publicly identified as transgender, is not; their real gender identity is "politician".)

8 hours ago, Troacctid said:

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.

I accept a half-correction on that. Only half because it also explicitly excepted anyone, of any faith (including Muslims), NOT from those seven countries.  There are like 40 other Muslim-majority countries, and somewhere in the general vicinity of 60 additional countries where some Muslims live.

As for the last item... I wish I could name a credible "fact-checking" site. Politifact is one of the least credible; it rarely lets reality get in the way of its bias on anything its editors consider important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Great, so there's no problem with a state setting rules for the public schools it funds.

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?

Quote

And, by the way, you might want to study the Constitution carefully to see precisely what authority the federal government has over education, including but not limited to public schools. I happen to support the notion that the federal government should not impose ANY rule WHATSOEVER that it doesn't have the authority to impose.

There's this thing called Title IX.

Quote

Yes, but we have a difference of opinion over whether stripping civil rights from law-abiding people is a good way of protecting civil rights.

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?

Quote

A pervert who falsely claims to be genderfluid does NOT have a greater right to feel safe in the women's restroom - which he followed a little girl into - than the little girl does. And that sort of pervert is the only one who gains any actual, real-world protection from the "transgender-protecting" laws under discussion: his false claim, with those laws in place, would make his expulsion or prosecution more difficult, and might result in him being able to win a large court judgment against those who try to uphold the little girl's rights.

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?

Quote

Which constitutes a removal of civil rights from the property owner, if applied to non-government facilities; and from the little girl's parents; and from random bystanders who attempt to intervene in defense of the little girl.

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.

Quote

Meanwhile, a transwoman who is presenting as female goes in, goes into a stall, closes the door, does her business, comes out, washes up, and leaves the restroom, and nobody knows she's a transwoman.

Apparently not, if you're forcing a trans girl presenting as female to use the men's room and out herself.

2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

(I also have this weird notion that transwomen want to be identified as, considered to be, and treated as, women. Not transwomen. And an equivalent statement also applies to transmen. Anyone who actively desires to be publicly identified as transgender, is not; their real gender identity is "politician".)

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.

2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I accept a half-correction on that. Only half because it also explicitly excepted anyone, of any faith (including Muslims), NOT from those seven countries.  There are like 40 other Muslim-majority countries, and somewhere in the general vicinity of 60 additional countries w

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.

2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Politifact is one of the least credible; it rarely lets reality get in the way of its bias on anything its editors consider important

I could point directly to the State Department Summary of Refugee Admission from 2011 if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

A transwoman who is presenting as female goes in, goes into a stall, closes the door, does her business, comes out, washes up, and leaves the restroom, and nobody knows she's a transwoman.

That only works if every transwoman is able to pass absolutely and perfectly as a woman, with no one who is bigoted against them able to tell that they're trans.  In reality, many transwomen either cannot afford the extensive cosmetic surgery that would require, or are too early in the transition process to look exactly like a ciswoman yet, and some even choose not to undergo the very real risk that such surgeries pose just to let bigots pretend they don't exist by becoming invisible.  A transwoman who is 6' 2" and has a five o'clock shadow and an Adam's apple is not going to be able to use the women's room in peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now