news Kamala Harris can't say that transgender people should receive gender-affirming care

[heckinglovato]

 

[Sawk]

Yikes, this cringe pandering to maybe gain moderate/moderate-right undecided voters is very off putting. 

[pigeon]

Trash. Sad that US doesn't have a real democracy and have to choose between far right and central right.

[KatyPrismSpirit]

She always comes across as incompetent. Sorry. But she literally didn't even answer the question. The interviewer asks "What is your value, do you believe trans people should have access to gender affirming care". Why would she respond with "I'm not going to position myself as a doctor" or "I think we should follow the law"? That doesn't answer the question about your personal beliefs. Those responses come across as evasive and sidestepping the actual question rather than sharing her personal stance.

[Communion]

This is electoral brain rot where she's invented a voter that doesn't exist because no actual person believes it is fine for doctors to prescribe gender-affirming care but then would get mad if a politician said they support doctors doing so because it's the agreed upon science. You can say trans affirming healthcare is scientifically backed!

[ChooseyLover]

And ATRL wants me to think this lady and her corrupted party is a better option than Jill Stein.

 

Your honor, this woman has proven herself to be useless during her campaign AND when she's held a position of power. If I were American I'd take my chances with Jill Stein.

[Brooklyn Baby]

Another interview where she doesn't answer the questions. Shocker

[Blue.]

As a non American, can someone explain what they are discussing here? Sound like she's being asked on gender affirming therapy and she is saying that medical advise should be followed, so without context I don't know exactly what's wrong.

[ClashAndBurn]

Yeah, really wild how we're currently backsliding from what a Silent Generation fossil like Biden believed in terms of protecting the most vulnerable among us.

 

Kamala gets a pass purely because she doesn't overtly want us dead, but… it's increasingly obvious that they'll drop us the moment we become politically inconvenient. If Democrats lose this election, and Obergefell gets overturned by SCOTUS, I personally wouldn't expect restoring gay marriage rights to even be on the next DNC platform afterwards.

[Sawk]

1 minute ago, Blue. said:

As a non American, can someone explain what they are discussing here? Sound like she's being asked on gender affirming therapy and she is saying that medical advise should be followed, so without context I don't know exactly what's wrong.

It's a moral question rather than a practical one. She won't give an answer about her own opinion, it comes across as very evasive. 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 minute ago, Blue. said:

As a non American, can someone explain what they are discussing here? Sound like she's being asked on gender affirming therapy and she is saying that medical advise should be followed, so without context I don't know exactly what's wrong.

She says some vague nonsense about "the law should be followed" when there are anti-LGBT laws on the books and certain states would like nothing more than to ban the ability to be publicly trans outright.

 

She's more or less telling us what we've known already. That we are on our own moving forward.

[Cloudy]

She's going to lose so hard

[Mr. Blue_Shirt]

She's doing the Selina Meyer throwing gay marriage away so she could get the an endorsement on the final season of Veep, isn't she?

 

[Sawk]

This is kinda… making me think Donald actually has a chance again… In August I was so confident he was a sure loser, but now I'm getting kinda scared, she's giving p*ssy answers instead of talking about her own stance on things. 

[Timeless]

She's always so wishy washy on where she actually stands with her politics. Trump has always been direct and clear, which is why his supporters are super loud and growing by the minute.

[Save-Me-Oprah]

She says they should follow the law.

 

Will someone go ahead and tell us what the law says

 

[Prodigal Self]

12 minutes ago, ChooseyLover said:

And ATRL wants me to think this lady and her corrupted party is a better option than Jill Stein.

 

Your honor, this woman has proven herself to be useless during her campaign AND when she's held a position of power. If I were American I'd take my chances with Jill Stein.

anyway

[Sawk]

1 minute ago, Timeless said:

She's always so wishy washy on where she actually stands with her politics. Trump has always been direct and clear, which is why his supporters are super loud and growing by the minute.

This exactly, she seems too hesitant when answering these moral questions, using an argument based on law to curve a clear response makes her look spineless 

[HausOfPunk]

This is shameful. I expected better from her.

[Windy Day]

everytime i hear this woman speak she can't answer the question properly and always say a lot of nothing

[Gelato]

UK Labour is sending over more and more staff to "help" her campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if this turn to the right and throwing trans people under the bus was because of them.

 

Any Democrat staffer who listens to the charlatans from Starmer's Labour is severely mistaken: over a six week campaign Labour's average vote share tanked by 10 percentage points and it only won a majority because the right was split between the Conservatives and Reform.

[ChooseyLover]

2 minutes ago, Prodigal Self said:

anyway

Well, what are your actual thoughts? What do you think of the OP? Anything of value to add sis?

[GraceRandolph]

They've been FUMBLING this campaign these last few weeks

[PrettyHurts]

Awful response. Can't even say her own belief 

[Suilen]

The way they are letting the GOP control the narrative around trans rights and can only provide vague ass answers instead of offering an unconditional support. So spineless.