Republicans are not Monolithic

[MarcieMarie12]

Hmm, this always seems to happen when a party has both congress and the executive branch. I can see two years going by quick, with little change. This will be the first test of the Trump presidency.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/willing-oppose-trump-senate-republicans-gain-leverage-110716239.html

 

I know this isn't trans specific, but it gives you a good idea of what is likely to happen. There are republicans that will most likely support us, I know they aren't as many as on the Democrat side. But we only need a few in the Senate.

[Drea]

There is no surprise there.  Correct me if I am wrong here, but your inference seems to be that some republicans are likely to support "us" by blocking Trump on trans issues?  Or is "us" referring not to us as in trans people bur rather "us" as in democrat/progressives?  Or "us" as in gay marriage advocates?

I only ask, cause there is a whole lot of presumption that Trump is some generic republican with only negatives and no positive.  While on the issue of that matters to trans it is less clear where Trump stands or what policy initiatives if any he would make in that area.

 

 

[Guest]

Slightly off topic,  but the border wall thing needs to be looked at more closely. It is my understanding that many Nationals want to immigrate legally but the red tape amounts to an average of ten years and $30,000 dollars. That is out of reach of so many common good people. Actually the most discriminatory of any other group of people.

A better plan would be to streamline good people in and quickly get bad people out. Prevent over the border flip flopping for criminals.  That might be more effective than a militant wall.

So many other issues could be solved with correct information with no knee jerk reactions and fear mongering. We shall see if this new administration can do anything like that. Clearly 2016 was an election of poor choices.

[Charlize]

This whole thing of deporting criminals is looked at incorrectly.  If any person is convicted of a crime in the US he or she pays the penalty here.  He pays the fine, goes to jail or perhaps is executed in some states.  We do not send criminals away until we have "punished " them.  Then they are deported as a matter of course.  My son, who is a public defender is amazed at the expense, cruelty and waste in our system but the idea that we will deport the criminals already happens post punishment but only then.  

 

Hugs,

 

Charlize

[Jani]

1 hour ago, Drea said:

I only ask, cause there is a whole lot of presumption that Trump is some generic republican with only negatives and no positive.

I agree that he is probably not monolithic in a negative way.  Unfortunately we ( the public) only know so much about him from his TV show since he has no political experience to consider.  That said he has been Democrat, Independent and now Republican, so his views may actually be far and wide.  What we hear is that he has a short attention span and likes to delegate details to others.  What this all means to minorities is up for conjecture.  There are many more minority groups in our country than there ever were.  He must look to the whole population or he will not be reelected and/or the mid-term congressional elections will go to the Democrats.  I am concerned about international relationships and conflict of interest.  But he has been elected and we will have to work with him, no different than any past president.  He wasn't my choice but I'll give him the benefit of doubt.  

Jani

[MarcieMarie12]

4 hours ago, Drea said:

There is no surprise there.  Correct me if I am wrong here, but your inference seems to be that some republicans are likely to support "us" by blocking Trump on trans issues?  Or is "us" referring not to us as in trans people bur rather "us" as in democrat/progressives?  Or "us" as in gay marriage advocates?

I only ask, cause there is a whole lot of presumption that Trump is some generic republican with only negatives and no positive.  While on the issue of that matters to trans it is less clear where Trump stands or what policy initiatives if any he would make in that area.

 

 

The "us" I was referring to was trans, but could be applied to LGBT issues as well. This has more to do with preventing discriminatory laws that will go to Trump's desk. It's iffy he'd veto legislation containing anti-LGBT provisions if he gets what he wants out of the bill. Congress has a habit of doing that.

[Tejana]

Yes, certainly the GOP is not a "monolithic party"; the bitter primary season and the interval running up to the general elections made that quite obvious to most (if not all) of us.  However, I do suspect that the political currents will render the party significantly more homogeneous than it has been for the past several years.

Personally, I would have preferred that the current victories would have facilitated a purge of the Republicans-in-Name-Only (RINOS), from the GOP.  Given the events transpiring since the Mr. Trump's election though, it is apparent that will be unlikely.

[Sakura]

On 11/22/2016 at 9:57 AM, JodyAnn said:

Slightly off topic,  but the border wall thing needs to be looked at more closely. It is my understanding that many Nationals want to immigrate legally but the red tape amounts to an average of ten years and $30,000 dollars. That is out of reach of so many common good people. Actually the most discriminatory of any other group of people.

A better plan would be to streamline good people in and quickly get bad people out. Prevent over the border flip flopping for criminals.  That might be more effective than a militant wall.

So many other issues could be solved with correct information with no knee jerk reactions and fear mongering. We shall see if this new administration can do anything like that. Clearly 2016 was an election of poor choices.

I agree with you Jody that the immigration policies as they stand do leave many good people out in the cold. The wall is a pipe dream that congress will never agree to if for any other reason simple cost. The problem however with laxing of immigration policies is there are no real ways to vet out the bad apples from the good ones as those countries do not keep the same kinds of records we do. And if criminals do one thing well it is exploit kindness and weakness of others. 

Many countries south of the border their economies are collapsing their people are turning to crime and violence ( and in many instances violence that makes anything going on in the middle east look like kid gloves by comparison ) There was an exit poll done of legal latinos some 60% believe that immigration laws should be tougher there are many that I know personally that have a grave fear of looser border and immigration polices allowing what is happening down there to spill over up here as many of them fled here to escape it. One girl I work with, her cousin was murdered by a drug cartel for being a snitch. They didn't just murder her they hacked her to pieces with a chain saw likely while she was still alive and placed these pieces on her familes door step for them to find. as grim and blood curdling as that may sound it is a fairly common occurrence in Mexico. The only thing that stops those cartels from conducting their business here , people mind you who have absolutely no fear of police and obviously no respect for human life are tighter borders.