Jon Stewart Takes On, and Takes Down, Arkansas AG Over Trans Health Care Law

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-leslie-rutledge-trans-rights_n_63408e42e4b0b7f89f4bcb38

 

 

John knows how to get at the heart of the matter, and came armed with facts and great questions.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Ivy]

It's an "I've made up my mind… Don't confuse me with facts" situation, with a large side order of hypocrisy.

[Charlize]

I just love John Stewart!

 

Hugs,

 

Charlize

[VickySGV]

He did not ask her who the principal sources of her campaign money were.  It was her financiers providing the information she used along with every campaign payment.  She came to a gunfight with only a broken water pistol there.

[Ivy]

They love the sound bites

[MirandaB]

Have no idea why the Arkansas politician agreed to talk to Jon Stewart, but very glad she did. 

[Kasumi63]

Yes! This was awesome!

[awkward-yet-sweet]

Left Troll meets empty Right Mouthpiece.  Nothing new here.

 

What I'd love to see addressed (but never will be) is the double standards of both parties.  Democrats never met a restriction they didn't love, until the Republicans manage to restrict one of their pet causes.  Republicans proclaim their love of liberty and love of the family...until a family exercises liberty and does something the Theocracy doesn't like.  We don't seem to end up with a statement of values that is consistent. I get rather tired of being caught in the middle. 

 

And if folks on the Right really hate the folks on the Left...I cannot fathom why they would do interviews.  It makes no sense.  Yet here this Republican is perfectly happy to get on camera and look like an idiot.  Others are perfectly happy to do antagonistic interviews on NPR.  At least the Democrats are mostly smart in this one way...I don't think we'll ever see Nancy Pelosi doing an interview with Tucker Carlson, or Gavin Newsom hanging out on the Alex Jones show. 

[MirandaB]

I really believe that Rutledge was convinced that if she repeated a couple words ('experimental' and 'permanent') that she'd nail this interview. 

[Ivy]

2 hours ago, RhondaS said:

I really believe that Rutledge was convinced that if she repeated a couple words ('experimental' and 'permanent') that she'd nail this interview. 

Finally watched it last night.

 

It might have worked if it was only her "base" watching.  But Stewart had done his homework.  I think she really underestimated him.  She did play it out though for what that was worth.

 

When we are only around people that agree with us, it's easy to discount the others.

Stewart made some good points, but I doubt that it changed many minds.  I expect that most of her supporters just saw it as a personal attack on her.

[MirandaB]

Well, I am hoping people in my family who agree with the Jon Stewart side will watch to get some balance to the mostly anti-trans content you get even from the 'liberal' media. 

[Colleen Henderson]

You know what they say about opinions. But here's mine, for what it's worth.

 

Like so many other entirely valid issues, the transgender condition has been co-opted by well-meaning “activists” whose in-your-face approach causes people who might otherwise be supportive to adopt a defensive posture because there's simply too much information for them to handle all at once.

 

This is a nuanced subject with many aspects, but a daily barrage of stories about women's sports, bathroom access, drag queens in the library, puberty blockers, et al., coupled with an unrelenting “accept it all or you're a bigot” attitude may cause the average person to feel overwhelmed by the need to make important decisions without being allowed the time or perspective to do so properly. The natural (and easy) response to that feeling of discomfort may be to revert to a familiar right-or-wrong dichotomy.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Carolyn Marie
Reduced font size.

[Marcie Jensen]

@Colleen Henderson, you make an excellent point. It needs to be considered and discussed.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

5 hours ago, Colleen Henderson said:

This is a nuanced subject with many aspects, but a daily barrage of stories about women's sports, bathroom access, drag queens in the library, puberty blockers, et al., coupled with an unrelenting “accept it all or you're a bigot” attitude may cause the average person to feel overwhelmed by the need to make important decisions without being allowed the time or perspective to do so properly. The natural (and easy) response to that feeling of discomfort may be to revert to a familiar right-or-wrong dichotomy.

 

That's definitely a facet of it for sure. 

 

One thing I deal with is that where I live, there's a perception that LGBTQ+ folks are guaranteed Democrat voters.  There's a lot that the Democrat party stands for that simply rubs rural people the wrong way.  As soon as you identify as LGBTQ+, in their minds that just means "Democrat and enemy."  With a number of Democrats loudly adopting the "accept it all or you're a bigot" attitude, it is hard to correct the association of LGBTQ+ with the Democrat party.

 

When I talk to people about politics (which isn't very often), it really surprises them that I identify with the LGBTQ+ spectrum, but I usually prefer Republican, Libertarian, and Independent candidates.  While those candidates may not always be the best for the LGBTQ+ folks, they tend to match me better on a wide variety of other issues.  I've noticed that a lot of people (no matter what party preference) become "single issue voters."  They vote based on a candidate's stance on trans rights, or war, or climate, etc.  I don't fit that mold, and it can be confusing to some. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Heather Nicole]

21 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

There's a lot that the Democrat party stands for that simply rubs rural people the wrong way.

 

Yes, things like basic civil rights, equal rights, opposing human exploitation, and valuing democracy over fundamentalist totalitarian theocracy.

[Colleen Henderson]

28 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 

As soon as you identify as LGBTQ+, in their minds that just means "Democrat and enemy." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That speaks to the macro issue I find so concerning. So many in the USA have been conditioned over time to see everyone in terms of "either/or". Now, if you're not a political "liberal" you're a "conservative" - and there's no middle ground or propensity to consider the arguments of the "other side" with an open mind.

 

Those who are younger might find it hard to believe that the citizenry hasn't always been so rigidly partisan. In a way, it flies in the face of what we're supposed to be about as a country.

 

What I see now begs the question of who has set us against one another - and why it's being done.

[Colleen Henderson]

12 minutes ago, Heather Nicole said:

 

Yes, things like basic civil rights, equal rights, opposing human exploitation, and valuing democracy over fundamentalist totalitarian theocracy.

I'm wondering if you're painting with too broad a brush here. Your statement appears to presuppose that anyone who doesn't identify as a Democrat is on the opposite side of those issues.

 

I've lived the last 75 years of my life in the Deep South, with the exception of five years in Korea.  That includes Georgia in the days of Lester Maddox and Alabama during George Wallace's heyday. I saw segregation at its worst - "Whites Only" signs everywhere in four Southeastern states. Little Rock, Freedom Riders, Emmitt Till, lunch counter sit-ins, Bull Conner, the Birmingham church bombing, James Meredith, Autherine Lucy, and so much more - it's all etched in my memory.

 

Yet somehow I grew to adulthood holding the very same values you list in your post. But I don't consider myself to be a Democrat.

 

Isn't that odd?

 

 

[Ivy]

I avoid party labels.    

The Democrats have their own problems.   Here in NC they are trying to keep the Green Party off of the ballot.  That seems like a kind of suppression.

But there doesn't seem to be much doubt that the Republicans seem to have it out for LBBTQ folk - especially trans people.  They're making it a matter of survival.

IDK.  What can ya do?

 

[Heather Nicole]

4 hours ago, Colleen Henderson said:

I'm wondering if you're painting with too broad a brush here. Your statement appears to presuppose that anyone who doesn't identify as a Democrat is on the opposite side of those issues.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. Nothing in my statement involved making any claim whatsoever about non-democrats. Or at least that was not my intent. My statement was specifically about dispelling the completely, utterly absurd myths that I keep, constantly seeing thrown at democrats.

 

And I'm frankly, incredibly tired of seeing such patent nonsense getting echoed right here, too. I even walked away from this forum for about a month not too long ago, because it got to be too much to put up with.

 

I've spent my entire life constantly surrounded by a lot of both democrats and republicans. And also centrists. (Suburbs here in Northern Ohio tend to be very politically mixed.) Two things I know full well, from a lifetime of direct personal experience with both sides:

 

1. There are some democrats who are unsavory (ex: Sinema and Manchin). And there are times when some of the left-wing can get irrational (just like everyone who's human does...even though that basic human fact tends to irritate me too).

 

2. The vast majority of the things I hear centrists and republicans claim about democrats, in my lifetime of direct personal experience with many, many democrats, are in fact, complete and utter falsehoods. And very clearly so.

 

5 hours ago, Colleen Henderson said:

Those who are younger might find it hard to believe that the citizenry hasn't always been so rigidly partisan. In a way, it flies in the face of what we're supposed to be about as a country.

 

Yes!!!! This!!!! 👍

 

[Heather Nicole]

In any case, back more on-topic, I often find myself very impressed with John Stewart, and this interview clip is just another case of that. 👏👏👏

 

Unfortunately, I do strongly agree with one thing @Ivy said above:

 

On 10/9/2022 at 9:45 AM, Ivy said:

I doubt that it changed many minds.  I expect that most of her supporters just saw it as a personal attack on her.

 

[Colleen Henderson]

6 hours ago, Heather Nicole said:

The vast majority of the things I hear centrists and republicans claim about democrats, in my lifetime of direct personal experience with many, many democrats, are in fact, complete and utter falsehoods. And very clearly so.

 

And anyone else with similar broad life experience but a conservative bent would likely make the same statement about Republicans. It doesn't bode well for this country when so many people have devolved into an us-versus-them mentality and are unwilling or unable to see nuance in the belief systems of others. Like you, I want no part of that way of thinking. I refuse to get into discussions regarding politics or religion for that very reason.

[MirandaB]

The ratio of coverage of trans people to actual number of trans people is insane. I can read about the evil trans agenda every day on the website of a nearby paper and go for long stretches without seeing any trans people in real life outside of the mirror. 

 

There is one party here that is pushing to block people like me from getting the health care we need, and yes, I'll be a one issue voter on that issue. 

[Marcie Jensen]

@awkward-yet-sweetyou make some excellent points.  The resulting comments seem to underscore what you're saying, which seems be that people in this country are so politically polarized that any sort of civil discussion is impossible.  Several points need to be made to clear up some misunderstandings. FOr the record, I am registered here in AZ as "No Political Party" and have been for decades. Give me an issue and I'll give you my best answer, and I'm open to always listening to the other side; and there's always another side.

 

First, this country is NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. The United States has been, since the constitution was adopted a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. The founders weren't fans of true democracy, and some even expressed it as "Mobocracy." The best source of what the founders intended is still the Federalist Papers. They're public domain and worth a read. The term "our democracy" is bandied about like holy writ by by politicians for their own gain; this comes from both sides of the aisle.

 

Second, having lived in totalitarian countries due to my MOS in the Army and having worked out of American embassies, this country is not totalitarian, and doesn't appear to be leaning that way, although I will grant the danger exists and it comes from both sides. For those that doubt this and seem to accuse the Republicans exclusively, I point to the incident last month in ND, where a teenage boy was run over and killed because the person who ran him over simply believed him to be a Republican. The media hasn't covered that very much, but it speaks volumes toward the very issue because if a person, any person, thinks it's okay to kill folks because they believe differently we are well on our way toward totalitarianism. Period. I didn't point to a similar incident by a GOP supporter, because they have been well documented in the past. 

 

As for theocracy, has anyone objectively looked at the , albeit minor, persecution and hatred directed at Christians over the last 10 years? I'm not saying that some of it isn't deserved--there's some pretty outlandish stuff being proclaimed in the name of Christ--but again, there's virtually no coverage of entities such as The Samaritans Purse, or that when DeSantis shipped 50 migrants to Martha's Vineyard, it was the local Episcopal church that stepped up and offered shelter to them and not the local government or residents. The list goes on.

 

One book I would suggest everyone read is "The Next Civil War" by Stephen Marche. He's Canadian and a self proclaimed slightly left of center person by American standards, but what he addresses looks to be spot on and very plausible. 

And sadly, the entire LGBTQ+ community are regarded as no better than pawns by both major political parties at best, and at worst, as a wedge issue group to be exploited to rally their base. Both the Dems and the GOP do this. We're easy targets. There's an old joke that goes: 

Q:"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

A: "His/her lips are moving."

 

I suggest we all keep this in mind.

[Ivy]

3 hours ago, RhondaS said:

The ratio of coverage of trans people to actual number of trans people is insane. I can read about the evil trans agenda every day on the website of a nearby paper and go for long stretches without seeing any trans people in real life outside of the mirror. 

Yup.   It's really weird when you think about it.    But I suppose that's what makes us an easy target.  It's easier to demonize people if you don't know any of them.

[Ivy]

14 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

there's virtually no coverage of entities such as The Samaritans Purse, or that when DeSantis shipped 50 migrants to Martha's Vineyard, it was the local Episcopal church that stepped up and offered shelter to them and not the local government or residents.

I don't deny that there are many christians that do good in the name of Christ.  Some years ago in this town, it was the Episcopal church that that was willing to host a LGBTQ event.

 

Samaritans Purse is a hard one for me.  I used to be supportive.  It's hard to criticize disaster relief efforts.  But Franklin has made it hard now.  Last I heard LGBT people aren't allowed to volunteer with them.  Maybe that has changed, but with Franklin's political rhetoric it seems unlikely.

 

I was an elder in a church where the elders would not help a "unwed mother" with groceries because it would condone that lifestyle.  My wife (at the time) and I did it privately.

 

Christians are a mixed bag.  You have to look at them individually, like anyone else.