Jesterpink Posted October 27 Posted October 27 not sure if this has been said in the 10 pages before (because who's reading all that? LOL) but honestly I think she interpreted the question as referring to transgender prisoners specifically. she referred to the ads Trump is running about transgender operations for prisoners... I don't think it was a bad answer under that lens. sure she still could/should have said yes BUT there's people even within THIS thread saying "tax payers shouldn't need to pay that!!" so I don't blame her for not wanting to give a possible sound byte. I don't think this was her glossing over state level anti-trans laws, but rather reaffirming the legality of gender affirming care for prisoners.
Richie.Valdez Posted October 27 Posted October 27 On 10/25/2024 at 5:37 AM, Windy Day said: everytime i hear this woman speak she can't answer the question properly and always say a lot of nothing MTE. Pure word salad.. she was the wrong choice for the democrats. 3
Richie.Valdez Posted October 27 Posted October 27 On 10/25/2024 at 5:37 AM, Windy Day said: everytime i hear this woman speak she can't answer the question properly and always say a lot of nothing MTE. Pure word salad.. she was the wrong choice for the democrats.
GraceRandolph Posted October 27 Posted October 27 (edited) This and that townhall of hers She needs to present an actual VISION if she wants to beat Trump and/or manage to win a second term. Edited October 27 by GraceRandolph Typo/autocorrect
GraceRandolph Posted October 27 Posted October 27 4 hours ago, Jesterpink said: not sure if this has been said in the 10 pages before (because who's reading all that? LOL) but honestly I think she interpreted the question as referring to transgender prisoners specifically. Uh no? The interviewer literally said BROADLY SPEAKING WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE. No way to interpret that as referring to prisoners. 2
réveuse Posted October 27 Posted October 27 Anyways, if you want a real pro-trans candidate, vote Jill Stein! 💚💚💚 1 3
Jesterpink Posted October 27 Posted October 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, GraceRandolph said: Uh no? The interviewer literally said BROADLY SPEAKING WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE. No way to interpret that as referring to prisoners. people misinterpret things all the time.... even when i saw the clip i thought it was about the prisoners and i had to rewatch it to realize. it's a current running point and what trump's ads are talking about, food for thought xx Edited October 27 by Jesterpink
JustHoran Posted October 28 Posted October 28 On 10/25/2024 at 7:20 AM, 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. Thank God you're not American and can not vote in our elections. 1 3
Keter Posted October 28 Posted October 28 I think she was wise to deflect. The only opinion allowed on trans healthcare is complete and total agreement and affirmation. Anything to the contrary is deemed transphobic. It's dressed as a "conversation" but it's not one. Even a question of "are you sure?" is transphobic to these people. Ima mind my gay business and support President Harris! 2
brazil Posted October 28 Posted October 28 On 10/25/2024 at 8:23 AM, ClashAndBurn said: 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. Is that surprising, most Democrats were against LGBT rights when it wasnt politically convinient up until the 2010s, with the exception of true progressives like Bernie Sanders. 1
brazil Posted October 28 Posted October 28 New law: "Trangender kids and teens to be sent to conversion centers" Kamala: I say we got to follow the law
Afterglow Posted October 29 Posted October 29 (edited) Harris is not dumb. She's walking the line because she's trying to get both sides on her side, which is the only way to win this (She has said as much). Clearly, we know what she believes in, as she is a Democrat. Don't be thick in the head, y'all. Edited October 29 by Afterglow 1 1
Johnny Cash Posted October 30 Posted October 30 If she wins, the US will be stuck for 8 years with this coward
Lil Mistee Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/27/2024 at 4:56 PM, réveuse said: Anyways, if you want a real pro-trans candidate, vote Jill Stein! 💚💚💚 A joke ?
GraceRandolph Posted October 30 Posted October 30 7 hours ago, Afterglow said: Harris is not dumb. She's walking the line because she's trying to get both sides on her side, which is the only way to win this (She has said as much). Clearly, we know what she believes in, as she is a Democrat. Don't be thick in the head, y'all. The fact that a predominantly LGBT forum is defending this… in 2024… we are fůcked beyond belief. 4
Eternium Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/25/2024 at 6:06 AM, heckinglovato said: Reported for creating a misleading thread title. Shame on you. On 10/25/2024 at 6:13 AM, Sawk said: Yikes, this cringe pandering to maybe gain moderate/moderate-right undecided voters is very off putting. On 10/25/2024 at 6:14 AM, pigeon said: Trash. Sad that US doesn't have a real democracy and have to choose between far right and central right. On 10/25/2024 at 6:18 AM, KatyPrismSpirit said: 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. On 10/25/2024 at 6:18 AM, Communion said: 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! On 10/25/2024 at 6:20 AM, 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. On 10/25/2024 at 6:23 AM, ClashAndBurn said: 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. On 10/25/2024 at 6:25 AM, ClashAndBurn said: 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. It's a shame that literally any of you are on the first page. Gender-affirming care is not illegal federally and she states very clearly that those decisions are for a doctor to make and that is she not going to intervene with the law. I hate to break it to you, but she HAS to sound evasive so the Republican Party can't get a soundbite and use it to sway swing voters because gender-affirming care is a hot-button topic now. Y'all are going to throw our election to the Republicans with these stupid ass takes. 1 4
heckinglovato Posted October 30 Author Posted October 30 6 minutes ago, Eternium said: Reported for creating a misleading thread title. Shame on you. 1 2
Eternium Posted October 30 Posted October 30 On 10/28/2024 at 5:24 PM, brazil said: New law: "Trangender kids and teens to be sent to conversion centers" Kamala: I say we got to follow the law That's not federal law. Title IX protects trans people (and women, LGBTQIA+, etc.) and our federal law actually supports trans people. You're thinking of state law, which the president can only override with federal law. If Kamala is actively running on keeping certain hormones available (hi hi, levonorgestrel) and there are no federal laws banning gender-affirming care, why would you even ASSUME that her answer meant she was going to federally outlaw gender-affirming care? Open the schools! 8 hours ago, GraceRandolph said: The fact that a predominantly LGBT forum is defending this… in 2024… we are fůcked beyond belief. Please just watch the clip to the ******* end. Y'all are giving me Facebook Moms the way you fell for a stupid ass thread title. 1
Communion Posted October 30 Posted October 30 39 minutes ago, Eternium said: hate to break it to you, but she HAS to sound evasive so the Republican Party can't get a soundbite and use it to sway swing voters Most Americans when polled believe the issue of transition is a matter between American adults and their doctors. Please don't spread misinformation to defend poor political instincts by a candidate. Thank you.
State of Grace. Posted October 30 Posted October 30 Libs logic: It's okay if she entertains Republican and conservative talking points, it's okay if she comes off as transphobic, she's just trying to win and she has to do it!!! 1
Afterglow Posted October 30 Posted October 30 11 hours ago, GraceRandolph said: The fact that a predominantly LGBT forum is defending this… in 2024… we are fůcked beyond belief. No you just have no idea how politics work in 2024 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted October 30 ATRL Moderator Posted October 30 15 minutes ago, Afterglow said: No you just have no idea how politics work in 2024 We saw how anti-trans rhetoric was not an effective strategy for Republicans in 2022. Empirically, there is no reason for Kamala Harris to be so coy on this issue. If you think otherwise, then you are not seriously paying attention to politics and likely just have an unearned self of confidence from "conventional wisdom" (i.e., the same wisdom that said Trump couldn't win in 2016). 2
GraceRandolph Posted October 30 Posted October 30 15 minutes ago, Afterglow said: No you just have no idea how politics work in 2024 So Kamala is supposed to be unable to articulate almost any clear positions? Is that how it's supposed to work now?
Afterglow Posted October 30 Posted October 30 1 hour ago, Bloo said: We saw how anti-trans rhetoric was not an effective strategy for Republicans in 2022. Empirically, there is no reason for Kamala Harris to be so coy on this issue. If you think otherwise, then you are not seriously paying attention to politics and likely just have an unearned self of confidence from "conventional wisdom" (i.e., the same wisdom that said Trump couldn't win in 2016). Girl you said absolutely nothing here. And 2022 is not 2024 nor is it 2016. My point stands, is correct and literally talked about by the Harris camp 1 hour ago, GraceRandolph said: So Kamala is supposed to be unable to articulate almost any clear positions? Is that how it's supposed to work now? It remains, you have no idea how politics work in 2024. Sis, pay attention! 2
Recommended Posts