Voting for Trump

[Abigail Genevieve]

Them's fighting words, but I intend to discuss this respectfully, calmly and so forth, in accordance with the forum rules.

 

Considering the one issue below in isolation:

 

There is a political calculus that trans folk may be better off under Trump than under Biden.  The argument goes that Biden has created such a backlash by moving so far to the left that red states, in particular, are reacting with a swarm of laws that negatively impact trans folk.  Some of his actions strike many people as clumsily forcing unwanted regulation on people, and some of his appointments, such as the luggage stealing bigender individual, have not helped advance trans folk but rather the reverse.  In a second term Biden would make things worse for trans folk because of the backlash and resentment his policies would create. 

 

Trump likely would have negative impacts to trans folk, as he did in his first term with respect to the military, so it is a set of tradeoffs as to which is worse.

 

Thoughts?

[Ashley0616]

The trans community won't be good under Trump at all. Biden is the one who has done more for the trans community than any other presidents. Last time Trump was in office he was at an LGBTQ rally and his support went quickly away from us because the majority of the voters are anti trans. He is going to get rid of our rights and also come after the rest of LGBTQ.  I don't know where you heard we would be better under Trump. 

 

Trump unveils sweeping attack on trans rights ahead of 2024 (axios.com)

 

Trump Promises to Go After Trans People if Re-Elected (vice.com)

 

Trump promises to ban transgender women from sports if re-elected (nbcnews.com)

[MaeBe]

Two words(?): Project 2025

 

Please provide links to the "political calculus" referred to, I'd be interested to know where this is coming from. It seems odd that anyone would be advocating to vote in a President that has stated that he will try to use the federal government to go after LGBTQ+ people because voting back Biden, that is not doing that, might cause some state legislatures to put forth more discriminatory laws.

 

LGBTQ+ people are not safe in a MAGA future.

[Abigail Genevieve]

Anybody willing to present the case for Trump? Any conservatives out there?

[Abigail Genevieve]

Not all conservatives are for Trump.  I am far from thrilled he is running.  Just wanted to make that clear.

[Carolyn Marie]

2 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

Anybody willing to present the case for Trump? Any conservatives out there?

 

I'm certain that there are some, if not many, but you would be hard pressed to find them willing to speak up on this forum.  There are many trans folk who are conservative, and believe that Biden's non-trans related policies are terrible.  Those include his economic, foreign policy, border security, and environmental policies.  I'm a lifelong Democrat, and even I don't like all of Biden's policies.  It comes down to who would do the most damage to the most people, and the most damage to America as a going democratic nation which has respect for the rule of law.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Abigail Genevieve]

32 minutes ago, Carolyn Marie said:

 

  It comes down to who would do the most damage to the most people, and the most damage to America as a going democratic nation which has respect for the rule of law.

 

Carolyn Marie

I agree.

 

Biden has been known to switch positions without notice, whether on abortion, Gaza or gay marriage.  Most of what he has done has been via executive order and decision, so it does not carry the force of lasting law and can be easily reversed.  I really do not trust him at all.

 

Trump says a lot of things.  He switches his position all the time.  Most of what he wants to do will require legislation to accomplish, some of which will simply never become law.  I do not trust him at all.

 

I'm not sure which is worse for trans people specifically because of this, and the fact that the other issues that surround trans folk which I attempted to isolate this question from, but here I go :) also affect trans people along with everyone else.

 

In either case trans folk need to be prepared. 

[Ivy]

4 hours ago, MaeBe said:

Two words(?): Project 2025

 

'Nuff said.

Yeah I'm not thrilled with Biden either.

There are some conservative ideas I'm good with.  And I do feel that the current Democratic party is too cozy with the bankers and wealthy.  But despite all their talk, when it comes down to it, so are the Republicans.  And it's not the Dems calling for our eradication.

Unfortunately, I see this election as existential for trans folks.

 

[Abigail Genevieve]

47 minutes ago, Carolyn Marie said:

 

   I'm a lifelong Democrat,

My parents were life long Democrats. 

[Abigail Genevieve]

3 minutes ago, Ivy said:

'Nuff said.

Yeah I'm not thrilled with Biden either.

There are some conservative ideas I'm good with.  And I do feel that the current Democratic party is too cozy with the bankers and wealthy.  But despite all their talk, when it comes down to it, so are the Republicans.  And it's not the Dems calling for our eradication.

Unfortunately, I see this election as existential for trans folks.

 

I found https://www.project2025.org/policy/

 

I will have to read it.  I have not.  What is of concern?   The link provided earlier goes back to this forum.

[Ivy]

It's a plan to basically completely take over the government by the right wing.

[Abigail Genevieve]

1 minute ago, Ivy said:

It's a plan to basically completely take over the government by the right wing.

Well, the left wing has been doing that. 

 

I read a few things while trying to find out what the problem is and liked what I read.  But I am a conservative. 

 

Is there something specific in there that is of concern?  Does it promise somewhere to erase trans folk? That would be problematic.

[Abigail Genevieve]

I found this

 

— 450 —
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
Goal #1: Protecting Life, Conscience, and Bodily Integrity. The Secretary
should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect con-
science rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.
From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity
and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development,
race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities
are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural
death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.
A robust respect for the sacred rights of conscience, both at HHS and among gov-
ernments and institutions funded by it, increases choices for patients and program
beneficiaries and furthers pluralism and tolerance. The Secretary must protect
Americans’ civil rights by ensuring that HHS programs and activities follow the
letter and spirit of religious freedom and conscience-protection laws.
Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity
politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and
bases a person’s worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities. This destructive
dogma, under the guise of “equity,” threatens American’s fundamental liberties as
well as the health and well-being of children and adults alike. The next Secretary
must ensure that HHS programs protect children’s minds and bodies and that
HHS programs respect parents’ basic right to direct the upbringing, education,
and care of their children.

 

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf

 

First, that is not much, if that is all that is of concern.  Secondly, I have seen all sorts of anti-Trump slander, including the Steele dossier and the lawfare he is now undergoing, to be cynical of any criticism against him, and indirectly this document.    He deserves some of what he is getting, but not all.  Thirdly, I bolded one statement of concern.   I don't think gender identity is subjective.  "Radical actors" is name calling, and there is a lot of that going around.  Maybe I am not seeing everything of concern or reading this right, but i would discuss with the author of this document concerning this.

[Sally Stone]

I'm tired of the two-party system.  It has degraded to a system where there are only two diametrically opposed views, neither of which supports me.  I have conservative views regarding big government and government spending but I have very liberal views when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals.  And just elections of the past, I am stuck with two choices, neither of which I support. With only two parties, each with agendas that are off the left and right scales, I am not adequately represented. 

 

Finally, I'm okay with party affiliated politicians running for office using their party views, but once elected to office, they are obligated to support the entire electorate not just the electorate members that voted for them.  Plain and simple, our government system is broken and dysfunctional.  I'll step down from my soapbox now.     

[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.

[Abigail Genevieve]

52 minutes ago, MaeBe said:

 

•  ...

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. 

[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... 

[Mirrabooka]

I have no skin in the game here, apart from the signal that a re-elected Trump sends to likeminded politicians around the world, which would result in an indirect yet detrimental effect on many people here and elsewhere. So, hopefully what I write here can be used as a reference for how he, and American politics in general, is viewed from a country that is not directly involved.

 

It seems to me that politics is not taken seriously by enough people in America. Actually, specifically the USA (America can be anywhere from Prudhoe Bay to Panama to Patagonia). Electing a celebrity to high office just wouldn't happen here, let alone one who has overseen the bankruptcy of several of his business ventures and is embroiled in hush-money scandals. I remember during my teenage years when Reagen was elected; the main point of conjecture here was that he was just a B-grade actor. Equally laughable was Arnie as governor of California, although he turned out to be somewhat more socially progressive than most Republican politicians. 

 

I simply cannot understand why the Dems cannot find a decent candidate. Biden has cognitive issues. Everyone expected Harris to step up by now, but no. Where's Jed Bartlet when you need him, lol! In my mind, if Martin Sheen threw his hat in the ring, he'd be elected in a heartbeat because many of you would actually believe that he was the real deal! Even though he's older than Biden!!!

 

Sorry if that sounds like I am trying to insult the intelligence of y'all. But y'all asked for it, by valuing celebrity over substance over the last five decades or so. 

 

I have no doubt that Trump will win in November, even if he is in jail. His rusted-on supporters will just say, "Yep! That's our boy!!!"

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Mirrabooka said:

I have no doubt that Trump will win in November, even if he is in jail. His rusted-on supporters will just say, "Yep! That's our boy!!!"

This is what I'm scared of.  And it's quite possible.

Apparently Chicken Little was right.

[EasyE]

2 hours ago, Mirrabooka said:

It seems to me that politics is not taken seriously by enough people in America.

You are spot on here ... but also it seems like such a rigged game for the average person that it's hard to invest energy into the political arena -- too much big money controlling too many people/organizations/narratives for the common person to fee; heard...

 

2 hours ago, Mirrabooka said:

I simply cannot understand why the Dems cannot find a decent candidate

In general, why we in America accept either candidate is baffling... for all our innovation as a nation, we can't do better than these two bozos? 

 

The problem is, the political arena is such a sham -- again with large money controlling all aspects of the system -- that a common-sense, love-your-neighbor, make-reasonable-compromises, roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-to-work candidate will never make it anywhere above the local level (if even there)... 

 

Everything is a reality show, and boring ol' decision makers that try to benefit the most people don't generate enough clicks, views and retweets... 

2 hours ago, Mirrabooka said:

But y'all asked for it, by valuing celebrity over substance over the last five decades or so. 

I am not sure it is so much about celebrity as it is about party politics at all costs - "my side must always be viewed as right and your side must always be viewed as wrong!" kind of thinking... there is no consensus building anymore because that will get used against you in campaign ads... When Obama took office and then Hilary ran again, it was like all Republicans want to do was to find someone loud enough to put them in their place. Forget issues, forget character, just win a debate and rally the base. 

 

To get back to your original point, not enough of us care about politics ... and in some ways we've become fat, happy and entitled as a nation. The yearning to achieve the "American dream", which drove my parents and their parents before them to work their tails off and sacrifice and save, is now just "give me the American dream for free while I sit here on my phone and watch tiktok..."

[awkward-yet-sweet]

While Biden may be more friendly to trans folks, I'm not a single-issue voter.  I just can't choose a Democrat candidate, as I believe their actions will destroy my community and way of life.  Biden just announced that he wants to significantly increase capital gains taxes.  Maybe he intends to "tax the rich" but that is going to affect everything from land sales to grocery prices to the cost of electricity and even folks' retirement savings, as most companies make a large amount of their profits through investing in the market.  It is absolute lunacy to think that increased cost or reduced profits won't be passed on to the rest of us.  Things are going to get way worse at this rate. 

 

Mostly, I vote in elections for state and local issues, as the national government is about as pleasant as a Porta-Potty in July.  So, either I'll do a write-in vote for president, or I'll check the box for Trump.  Anything but Biden. 

 

 

[Ivy]

26 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I'll check the box for Trump.

You do you.

You seem to be in a safe place if we end up with a 2025 situation.  But a lot of us are not.

[Abigail Genevieve]

22 minutes ago, Ivy said:

You do you.

You seem to be in a safe place if we end up with a 2025 situation.  But a lot of us are not.

I think you mean the worst possible interpretation of 2025 situation.  Keep in mind that there are those who will distort and downright lie about anything coming from conservatives - I have seen it time and time again.  It's one of the reasons I want to read the thing slowly and carefully.  They want you to be very, very afraid. 

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

I think you mean the worst possible interpretation of 2025 situation.

Well, I suppose it is possible that they don't actually plan on doing what they say.  I'm not too sure I want to take that chance.  But I kinda expect to find out.  Yet, perhaps you're right and it's all just talk.  And anyway, my state GOP is giving me enough to worry about anyway.

I remember a time when being "woke" just meant you were paying attention.  Now it means you are the antichrist.

I just don't want the government "protecting" me from my personal "delusions."

[Mirrabooka]

11 hours ago, EasyE said:

To get back to your original point, not enough of us care about politics ... and in some ways we've become fat, happy and entitled as a nation. 

Voting is compulsory here, for better or worse. Would doing the same in the US snap people out of their apathy?