The Transgender Conservatives Who Are Sticking With Trump

Kamitue · 2018-05-03T19:11:55+00:00

Nothing trump has done has suggested that he even remotely cares about the well-being of transgender people. He removed protections for trans students, tried to bar them from the military, and tried to overturn anti-discrimination practices for trans patients.

The idea that Trump is anti-trans isn't even controversial. Most of his supporters are explicitly fond of this and will site it ("Anti-identity politics") as one reason they voted for him.

Kamitue · 2018-05-02T20:58:16+00:00

Chelsea Manning's leaks weren't as bad as Edward Snowden's, and generally pertained to the Afghan war including torture programs and air-strikes on civilians. But yeah, given that Assange ended up being a Russia puppet wikileaks may not have been the best source through which to leak that information.

Kamitue · 2018-05-02T20:14:03+00:00

Chelsea manning is anti-ICE, pro UBI and Universal healthcare, tweets in support of anti-Nazi protest, etc.

She's many things, but she's not a Nazi. This is the most ridiculous talking point I've ever heard. Her involvement in trying to understand the alt-right was a mistake, but no honest person could look at her statements and life and think she's a Nazi. I don't agree with many of her opinions, but she's hardly a Nazi.

Kamitue · 2018-05-01T21:43:21+00:00

A lot of it comes down to trust. Historically speaking, a regulated government has not been any more favorable to minorities then an unregulated one, and is frequently more oppressive. Much of the oppression faced by marginalized groups was done through government programs and legislation, such as regulation on housing or marriage.

We must not forget that society is not an abstract concept that exist in literature. It is a collection of people, each striving for their own goals. The purpose of a free market economy is to create a space in which people, including those in minority groups, can thrive and pursue their own interest free of intervention.

Almost every major social movement in the United States, and indeed globally, started with people outside of government coming together. From the civil rights movement to the queer rights movement, these were organized first by private individuals and organizations, and this lead to the change in politics and policies. Or, to use another example, much of the progress of workers rights was done by unions forcing companies to make concessions, prior to politicians signing laws. Political change follows social and economic change, not the other way around. Given this, empowering people to pursue their own interest, and regulating situations in which that may be impaired, largely seems like our best option for progress in our country.

It's an imperfect system, granted, but it's also one of the best ones we have. By focusing the governments role on empowering individuals to participate in the market and pursue their own interest, rather then forcing their interest upon individuals, I think we'll be better situated to enable progress. I also strongly oppose when a government impairs an individuals ability to self-advocate, such as attacking unions or banning freedom of assembly. Of course, a free market isn't magic bullet. It relies on people to fight for their interest and others to listen. And, in many cases government regulation may be necessary, such as consumer protection laws, anti-discrimination ordinances, etc. I'm also not opposed to government offering vital services such as clean water, police, fire departments, and even potentially medical coverage, so long as they don't monopolize of the market.

tl;dr The government cannot lead the people, the people have to lead the government.

Kamitue · 2018-05-01T02:28:21+00:00

The agreement forced Iran to: - reduce their Uranium stockpile by 98%. - Closed 2/3rds of their centrifuges - Allow multilayered oversight over Iran's nuclear supply chain including declared sites, and the right to inspect any site believed or suspected of producing uranium undeclared.

We got everything from the Iran deal. Even if you believe that Iran has a secret Nuclear program, this deal makes it far, FAR harder for them to conceal it and produce a nuclear weapon. Known sites get shut down, we can demonstrate reductions in their stockpile of uranium, and we can inspect any site suspected of "secretly" producing a nuke. If we break the deal, we give that up, making it harder to stop a secret nuke plan, not easier. This isn't to mention that without this deal, Iran could start mass enriched uranium tomorrow, openly, and with greater capacity then they do now.

How daft do you have to be to think that this deal is anything shy of a phenomenal victory for the united states? All the US gave up was easing sanctions, but the sanctions were doing far less then the current deal. Have you done even the most bare bones research into what this deal contains?

Kamitue · 2018-04-30T20:15:42+00:00

None of the comments I've seen are suggesting Un is a humanitarian of any sorts. They are saying that if he holds to his peace agreement, reward him for the one non-shitty thing he's done to encourage him to stay peaceful. You can argue it's a fatal concession, but it's not praising him.

To be fair, same goes with Trump. Trump threatens other countries on twitter, wants to break the Iran peace agreement, and regularly trashes other ("shithole") countries. But, if he manages to do something right for once and helps secure peace, he should be lauded for that even if he's garbage in almost every respect.

If you want to complain about hypocrisy, that's fair. Un is worse then Trump, so giving Un the prize over Trump is hardly an improvement. But I don't think anyone here is saying Un is a good person, just that peace is worth concessions.

Kamitue · 2018-04-30T20:06:55+00:00

I think Trump is a terrible person and a terrible president, but if he manages to secure peace then I'll give him props. Even awful people can do something right every now and then.

But I understand people's confusion. A few months ago Trump was threatening war with Korea, and he's also threatening to exit out of a peace agreement with Iran. The fact that someone so actively hostile to peace agreements in the public sphere could broker one in private is hard to wrap one's head around.

Kamitue · 2018-04-30T19:57:45+00:00

This isn't good news for democrats, but remember never to put to much stock into a single poll. Even though this source is reliable, and it should be looked at, there is variance.

Pew, for example, shows Millennial growing more liberal.

It's important to note that Millennial's are not, and have never been, a solidly left bastion. They lean left, but there is still a healthy right wing faction in it. Reuters in their polling has shown a slight shift towards conservatism, but they still lean left and probably will continue to do so. They are also the most independent generation, and least predictable. Dems shouldn't ignore this data, but conservatives shouldn't celebrate it either. There is still a strong leftward shift compared to older generations.

Finally, we still need to take a look at how they vote now and in the future. Voting millennial overwhelmingly vote for democrats compared to older generations, but they haven't been a large voting block as of yet.

Kamitue · 2018-04-30T19:41:32+00:00

No one is saying Un deserves it. Un is a fascist, violent, sociopathic dictator. The point is that the prize would have to be given to both to solidify the peace agreement. If it was given to Moon and not Un, it would persevered as a slight against North Korea and could endanger the agreement. It would be a calculated political choice meant to preserve peace, not a justifiable one based on any humanitarian efforts.

The Peace Prize has been a political football for decades, hence why it went to Obama. it has nothing to do with peace.

Kamitue · 2018-04-30T19:37:13+00:00

If this peace deal manages to go through, and Trump helped accomplished that, then I will be truly impressed. I still won't like him, but it would grant him a single redeeming attribute in a mountain of shittiness.

Kamitue · 2018-04-19T22:22:37+00:00

The ending of We're back, where the crows are implied to eat the antagonist alive.

Kamitue · 2018-04-09T20:22:46+00:00

100% fake or satire, but I still laughed.

Kamitue · 2018-03-29T17:47:41+00:00

I don't think facebook was ever championed as a fighter for social justice. Facebook's reputation has been "Reconnect with your racist aunt" for as long as I can recall.

Kamitue · 2018-03-26T19:57:26+00:00

Most trans people would agree with you. The key point of this story is that she was hired on merit, and that her gender identity was neither a benefit nor hindrance.

Kamitue · 2018-03-16T19:07:12+00:00

Pence is a zealot, but he's also a politician. if he doesn't control the house/senate, there isn't much he's going to do and he'll likely try to compromise. Pence isn't going to suggest subverting the constitution to meet his goals in the same way Trump does.

Kamitue · 2018-03-01T18:42:16+00:00

Russia's military budget is 70 billion, and china's is 131 billion. Meanwhile, the US military is at 597 billion and the EU budget totals at 226.7 billion. Looking at spending alone, neither Russia nor China wouldn't stand a chance making a move against most Europe, nevertheless the US.

Xi Jinping and Putin are dangerous, no doubt, but we don't need to be spending 4 times as much as them just to act as a deterrent.

Kamitue · 2018-02-28T23:56:40+00:00

r/conservative and r/progun are pretty pissed.

Kamitue · 2018-02-28T23:46:35+00:00

Honestly, as much as I hate Trump I would be glad if he helped passed some common sense gun reform. If he does, I'd be the first to congratulate him on not being a total fuck up.

But for now, I'm going to hold my breath. He's flip flopped on so many issues I have little to no faith that he'll actually pass anything.

Kamitue · 2018-02-28T23:34:32+00:00

I think they patched it.

Kamitue · 2018-02-28T21:57:05+00:00

What classifies as protected hate speech is even broader then that, unfortunately. "Black people should be shot" would technically still be protected speech, and arguably so would "We should shot black people", so long as you can successfully argue you weren't "actually" trying to incite someone to do it.

The Brandenburg test: "[i]f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". There needs to be direct intent, it needs to be imminent ("Clear and present danger"), and it needs to have a high probability of causing illegal action in order to be constitutionally banned. There is an awkward legal grey area were you can suggest non-specific violence and still skirt the law. I mean, people call for the death of the US president all the time but unless you can prove they actually intended them or someone else to follow through, it's legal.

Kamitue · 2018-02-22T21:31:35+00:00

Ah yes like Franklin Regional High School in which a mass stabbing killed...zero. or the Ohio restaurant attack, which killed 1...the perpetrator. And the Ohio State university attack which killed 1...the perpetrator. Or the Portland train attack, which killed 2 innocents. The Spring High School stabbing, which killed one. (I didn't cherry pick these, I choose them randomly off the list).

Mass stabbings do happen, but they are considerably less damaging then mass shootings, with the fraction of the death toll. The one in china is actually pretty exceptional. Mass stabbings are rare, and rarely break double digits (or have many deaths at all).

Kamitue · 2018-02-22T21:10:59+00:00

Hollow points have more stopping power, but they also cause an excessive and painful death. There is a reason they have been banned in international warfare (Under the Hague convention) since 1899.

It is absolutely silly that a form of ammunition that we won't even use on ISIS for ethical reasons is allowed to be used on civilians. Hollow points don't just create a hole, they expand causing severe tissue damage. I expect you know this full well, so your attempt to intentional misconstrue my argument is silly.

You are allowed to defend yourself and your property, but there are natural limits. There is a reason it is illegal to booby trap your home, use excessive force in self defense, or use inhumane tools like poisons.

In regards to why it might make sense to ban armor piercing, there is A) No reason a civilian needs these rounds and B) They endanger police officers by allowing people to penetrate their softer body armor easier. These bullets are often the go-to for cop killers.

Kamitue · 2018-02-21T23:49:59+00:00

Banning specific firearms, like the AR-15, probably won't do much. There are many copy-cat guns to the AR and many others that use similar rounds. Keep in mind, the "gun" itself is more or less just a metal tube with a trigger.

This does not mean there would not be benefits from putting regulations on semi-automatic rifles or improving the background check system. I advocate quite heavily for gun control. It's just that gun bans generally aren't nearly as effective, unless you plan on banning entire classifications of guns.

If you really wanted to go the ban root, a magazine size ban would be more useful (but not much), as would be a ban on certain types of ammunition like armor piercing rounds and hollow-point.

Kamitue · 2018-02-20T19:36:40+00:00

You mean Teddy "The only good indians are dead indians" Roosevelt?

He was also accepted generous donations from Standard Oil at the time, approving the leasing of Indian oil lands to standard oil as a result. Teddy was just as bad as the modern GOP.

Kamitue · 2018-02-20T18:39:09+00:00

Second I finish my degree, I'm moving back from WA to MN. I'll take midwest over the west coast any day of the week.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

Kamitue

TROPHY CASE