Jump to content
  • Welcome to the TransPulse Forums!

    We offer a safe, inclusive community for transgender and gender non-conforming folks, as well as their loved ones, to find support and information.  Join today!

The politics of 2024 and who do you think will be best for us


Willow

Recommended Posts

Couldn't read the article because, paywall.  I'm not going to pay somebody to denigrate me.

I didn't realize how right leaning The WSJ was until recently.  TBH I never paid much attention.

 

A few years ago I could vote for a conservative.  But the GOP has gradually alienated me more and more on a number of issues.  It is now becoming an issue of survival.

As much as I hate to say it, I would probably just not vote before I voted for a Republican again.

Link to comment
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Marcie Jensen

    22

  • Willow

    21

  • Ivy

    16

  • awkward-yet-sweet

    11

  • Forum Moderator

Good morning

 

i think it’s a sad state of affairs in American politics these days. I don’t watch “The View” but apparently they started taking swipes at Nikki Haley recently.  Then I read another article where someone or plural in the Air Force released us redacted information about several Republican congressional candidates to a Democratic affiliated investigative organization prior to the 2022 elections. Can you say Watergate?  Or dirty tricks?

 

I agree @Ivy it’s hard to vote for a conservative mostly because they have made use fair game with little ability to fight back.  But it’s also pretty hard to justify voting for a Democrat either.  
 

The only reason I favor Niki is historically, even though she is a Republican, she has supported, perhaps to a small degree, transgender rights.  She took a conservative anti transgender state and at least got it to allow us to live here in peace.  Even today, they haven’t made things too difficult, YET, except doctors are still wary about opening up their practices to transgender surgeries.

 

 

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator
37 minutes ago, Ivy said:

As much as I hate to say it, I would probably just not vote before I voted for a Republican again.

 

I could say just vote for the other guys, but I don't want to go there. 

 

But I hate to see someone driven out of the electorate by the absence of viable parties that align with their thoughts.  The sooner there is a breakaway moderate conservative party in the US, the better it will be for everyone, including your neighbours to the north.

 

So, I would urge you to contact the campaign managers of the Republican candidates in your district, both federal and state, and tell them why you will not be voting for their candidate.  Ask your friends to do the same. 

 

If enough movers and shakers start to realize that the Republicans are too extreme for many voters, things might change.

Link to comment

@Ivy and @Willow, I'm in agreement with you about not voting for what passes as a conservative these days. Personally, I feel the same way about what passes for a liberal. And about not voting. Frankly, an I know I've said this before, what happened here in AZ during the last election cycle left me vowing to never vote for either the GOP or the DEMs as long as I live. In my entire life I've never seen such vile, hate filled advertising from both parties. There was no discussion of ideas, no reasons given as to why we should vote for any candidate other than the other person is evil. The DEMs came off as worse, imho, but only because they spent about five times as much on advertising.

 

Now I will admit that about 10 years ago I did vote for two candidates based solely on their names. (Warning low humor alert.) There was Jeff Flake running for the US Senate and a guy named Schmuck running for the state legislature. I voted for both because I thought it was funny to say, "Yeah. We've got a Flake in the senate and a real Schmuck in the state house." I kinda wish they would both run again, because at least with names like that we'd get some truth in advertising with their campaign commercials...

 

And years ago there was a moderate conservative party in the United States--the Libertarians. Sadly, they've changed, too and are no longer viable. I gave up on them in 2016 when their candidate was being interviewed about the situation in Syria just after Bashir al Assad had used nerve gas on his own people. The interviewer asked the candidate about it (the city where the gas had been used was Aleppo) and the candidate replied, "What's Aleppo?" The reply speaks volumes.

 

The point being I've never seen a worse slate of candidates from top to bottom and that includes the 1976 election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. It's been famously said that we get the candidates we deserve. If that's true, we've scraped through the bottom of the barrel.

Link to comment

I am late to this topic, just wanted to add that don't forget your local and state elections in the midst of a national November election. Getting to personally know an elected official -- so that they know you and how diverse their constituency is -- is very powerful. Its harder to do of course for higher office, but start local and build relationships.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

And years ago there was a moderate conservative party in the United States--the Libertarians.

 

I have a problem with moderates. Usually, moderate means "I'm OK with a bit of socialism on one side, and some conservative regulations on the other."  Ugh.  Be either hot or cold.

 

What I want are radicals...people who will go into the government as wreckers of the status quo and do everything possible to keep the Federals off our backs.  I don't know where I can find candidates who will support these things:

 

Eliminate personal income taxes at state and federal levels

Eliminate personal property taxes

Increase import tariffs to protect domestic industry

Prohibit exports of strategic resources, especially fuels and war materials

Permit expanded domestic oil production and refining to reduce prices for consumers

Completely deregulate firearms production, transport, possession, and use

Eliminate regulations for personally produced alcohol, tobacco, and natural drugs

End the "war on drugs" and replace it with a focus on substance abuse treatment at the state and local level

Get rid of the EPA, ATF, FBI, and remove the police powers of numerous other federal agencies

Get rid of federal departments of Education and Health - return those duties to the states

Stop sending monetary aid to foreign governments

Significantly reduce the defense budget, close most foreign bases, and avoid foreign wars

End US participation in formal military alliances such as NATO

Negotiate further nuclear force reduction treaties, with the goal of completely eliminating nuclear weapons globally

Get the government out of defining marriage entirely and make legal recognition of multi-partner relationships possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator

At the risk of alienating some one here, I do find some of the ideas @awkward-yet-sweetputs forth as things we tried 150 or so years ago.  
 

But while we all know isolationism didn’t work there are concepts here that are still being campaigned.  But, we need to look more closely at the concepts.

 

eliminate Federal agencies like ATF, FBI, and so on.  Let’s not for get that state’s jurisdiction end at the state border.  Without some of these agencies only cooperation between states, which isn’t always given, gets things like interstate sex trafficking and kidnapping investigated.  Same with interstate drug smuggling, gun running, and many other crimes.  
 

certainly we all have concerns about government overreach but I really think that it would be a bad idea to take any number of these ideas, regardless of how tempting the sound, and turn them into the law of the land.  I strongly believe we allowed the Obama administration to push too many things on us that just weren’t right, but the Trump administration took their own agenda and pushed to far the other way to the point of attempted insurrection.  Now, we have Biden trying to take us back towards insolvency with now plans to pay our debt.  
 

Reshoring technology and jobs back from so called low cost producers has to be a priority even if the means an international trade war.  We have allow greedy shareholders to ruin our industrial base.  We have allowed greedy corporate executives to profit without equal taxation to the point of driving the middle class, the working class down.  We allowed the government to break promise after promise to the people.  Our infrastructure is a mess.  Our heavy industry is crumbling if not all together gone.  
 

Do I believe in isolationism?  Not on your life or mine.  But do I believe it’s time we took back control of our funds and stopped supporting technology exports and aid aid to countries that don’t really need it.

 

soap box withdrawn.  Time for another speaker.

Link to comment
  • Admin

I think this topic has long since run its course.  Everyone has had a chance to express their views, in some cases several times.  The topic is locked.

Link to comment
  • Carolyn Marie locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Who's Online   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 131 Guests (See full list)

    • Ivy
    • Maddee
    • Betty K
    • Mirrabooka
    • AllieJ
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      80.7k
    • Total Posts
      768.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      12,024
    • Most Online
      8,356

    JamesyGreen
    Newest Member
    JamesyGreen
    Joined
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Alscully
      Alscully
      (35 years old)
    2. floruisse
      floruisse
      (40 years old)
    3. Jasmine25
      Jasmine25
      (22 years old)
    4. Trev0rK
      Trev0rK
      (26 years old)
  • Posts

    • Heather Shay
    • Heather Shay
      Do you have achievements you make to mark your progress to becoming the true you?
    • Heather Shay
      believing forward movement is just ahead.
    • Heather Shay
      Worry refers to the thoughts, images, emotions, and actions of a negative nature in a repetitive, uncontrollable manner that results from a proactive cognitive risk analysis made to avoid or solve anticipated potential threats and their potential consequences.
    • Heather Shay
    • Heather Shay
    • Heather Shay
    • Willow
      Good morning    Now @Abigail Genevieve and @Mmindy what makes you so certain I didn’t mean it to say bee itch certificate?  lol. Thanks Mindy. I was asleep when you saw this and fixed it, and yes Abigail, as a moderator I could have fixed it myself, or weren’t you pointing out the irony of that?   I use Alexis as my alarm to get up.  And I set the ringer to be two guys telling me to get up.  I was so sound asleep when they started telling me to get up that it scared me and my first thought were I had over slept.  Since I have a difficult time getting to sleep as early as I have to in order to get enough sleep I at least cut back my normal awake time to get ready.  But now I have to do my hair and get going.   enjoyed my coffee and a little time catching up   see you all later, for its hi ho hi ho it’s off to work I go.   Willow
    • EasyE
      Republicans have long committed grave errors by emphasizing their social agenda and moral issues instead of just focusing on the economy, lowering taxes, keeping the public safe, building a strong national defense, promoting business, touting reasonable immigration policies, etc.   The country would thrive economically under Trump's tax and business policies. That's a fact. Another four years of Biden will run this country into the ground financially (including all of our 401Ks and IRAs). But the GOP continues to play right into the Dems' hands by leading with their moral crusades instead of staying the course and trusting their fiscal policies to win the day... 
    • Carolyn Marie
      https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/hundreds-athletes-urge-ncaa-not-ban-trans-athletes-womens-sports-rcna149033     Carolyn Marie
    • KymmieL
      Well first day is over and now getting ready for bed soon. Work was OK.   Don't know why but I am feeling down. I am heading to bed. Good Night.   Kymmie
    • Adrianna Danielle
      Boyfriend and I our time at my place.Both admit our sex life is good,got intimate for the 2nd time and he is good at it
    • Abigail Genevieve
      Thanks.  I will look those up in the document, hopefully tomorrow.   I always look at the source on stuff like this, not what someone, particularly those adversarial, have to say. 
    • MaeBe
      LGBTQ rights Project 2025 takes extreme positions against LGBTQ rights, seeking to eliminate federal protections for queer people and pursue research into conversion therapies in order to encourage gender and sexuality conformity. The policy book also lays out plans to criminalize being transgender and prohibit federal programs from supporting queer people through various policies. The project partnered with anti-LGBTQ groups the Family Policy Alliance, the Center for Family and Human Rights, and the Family Research Council. Project 2025 calls for the next secretary of Health and Human Services to “immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism,” which includes removing terms related to gender and sexual identity from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.” The Trump administration proposed a similar idea in 2018 that would have resulted in trans people losing protections under anti-discrimination laws. [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; The New Republic, 2/8/24] Similarly, the policy book calls for HHS to stop all research related to gender identity unless the purpose is conformity to one's sex assigned at birth. The New Republic explains: “That is, research on gender-nonconforming children and teenagers should be funded by the government, but only for the purpose of studying what will make them conform, such as denying them gender-affirming care and instead trying to change their identities through ‘counseling,’ which is a form of conversion therapy.” [The New Republic, 2/8/24] The policy book’s foreword by Kevin Roberts describes “the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” as “pornography” that “should be outlawed,” adding, “The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned.” Roberts also says that “educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023] Roberts’ foreword states that “allowing parents or physicians to ‘reassign’ the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end.” Echoing ongoing right-wing attacks on trans athletes, Roberts also claims, “Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023; TIME magazine, 5/16/22] Dame Magazine reports that Project 2025 plans to use the Department of Justice to crack down on states that “do not charge LGBTQ people and their allies with crimes under the pretense that they are breaking federal and state laws against exposing minors to pornography.” [Dame Magazine, 8/14/23] Project 2025 also calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to repeat “its 2016 decision that CMS could not issue a National Coverage Determination (NCD) regarding ‘gender reassignment surgery’ for Medicare beneficiaries.” The policy book’s HHS chapter continues: “In doing so, CMS should acknowledge the growing body of evidence that such interventions are dangerous and acknowledge that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support such coverage in state plans.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023] Going further, Project 2025 also demands that the next GOP administration “reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military.” The policy book’s chapter on the Defense Department claims: “Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries … for servicemembers should be ended.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership, 2023]   …summaries of what’s within the rest of the document re: LGBTQ+ concerns. A person can believe their gender is fixed but incongruent with their physiology, but the authors and Trump (by his own words) just see the incongruity of an “expressed gender” that conflicts with what was/is in a person’s pants.
    • Mmindy
      Good catch… I took care of it.
  • Upcoming Events

Contact TransPulse

TransPulse can be contacted in the following ways:

Email: Click Here.

To report an error on this page.

Legal

Your use of this site is subject to the following rules and policies, whether you have read them or not.

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Community Rules

Hosting

Upstream hosting for TransPulse provided by QnEZ.

Sponsorship

Special consideration for TransPulse is kindly provided by The Breast Form Store.
×
×
  • Create New...