all 26 comments

[–]denverkris 24 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Exactly why i don't want him to win.

[–]WrongToy[S] 22 insightful - 5 fun22 insightful - 4 fun23 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

i don't either. but i also don't want trump.

jfc what a world in which we're looking to freaking Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh to actually put a stop to this...for the same reasons they want to stop abortion.

[–]redditbegay 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

jfc what a world in which we're looking to freaking Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh to actually put a stop to this...for the same reasons they want to stop abortion.

It kinda seems like Joe is going to staunchly support Abortion, but considering how most of his views are republican opinions, and in his career he was one of the only democrats to try to make Roe get effectively overturned, I don't think the PR matches his opinions on women's health.

And no matter what he says to us in PR spots, joe has a SOLID record of being in office- where he will consistently say whatever his donors want him to tell us.

The last Hope and Change campaign he was in, resulted in mostly neoliberal grifts of republican policies, growing economic inequalities, huge crackdowns on whistleblowers, THE MOST DEPORATIONS OF ANY PRESIDENT, INCLUDING THE ONE WHO HATES IMMIGRANTS that peak you're seeing - take a close look at what year it took place in, the right edge is actually ~20%+ lower than those previous numbers, Obama care, while it helped people somewhat, ended up mainly being a handout to the insurance industry, which hasnt been changed from its initial form in 2011, resulting in rising costs of care that many more people can't afford, and that was BEFORE people lost their jobs to this pandemic.

On the issue of healthcare, Joe has literally said he wont allow it to be replaced by giving everyone medicare. IF he goes into office, we will see 8 to 12 years of the staunchest defender AGAINST progressive progress that the country has ever seen- in the 80's he also ran for office, (this will be his third presidental campaign), and he was kicked out of the race for lying about his education. Joe claims he has 3 degrees, was the top of his class, got a scholarship- and it's really funny how that works out if you want to see some of his true character in this 2 minute vid.

Over his career, joe has been caught repeatedly stealing other politicians speeches, claiming he met nelson mandela, claming he marched for civil rights and after being caught for some of these things, he still kept repeating them.

Joe has a quote from when he got into office, how he asked the donors what he had to do to get more money, 'hed do anything'.

He supported the iraq war before bush was even running for office - many years before 9 11.

And lastly the democrats added banning fracking to their political platform after Sanders dropped out.... but they quickly removed even that- the lobbyists dont want to do get rid of it.

They had a platform committee with some Dem Progressives, but it adopted NONE of the things they were asking for.

So- I feel three things about this election.

Trump is bad.

The democrats cheated senator sanders.

And now the Dems have been working around the clock to get third parties kicked off the ballots- i dont consider that to be a move that deserves any respect in a democracy- but they are owned by their lobbyists so democracy is not a fond ideal of theirs anymore.

The choices in this election come down to Democrat; republican, Third Party, or other (As a write in or protest vote).

IF Joe wins - look at his health and its likely that he will step down in 1st or 2nd term- that leaves us with president kamala who is in many ways worse than joe, just look at her record and the policies SHE HERSELF CHAMPIONED to prosecute poor mothers who couldnt get their kids to school. She gets a pass from lowinfo liberals because she is part of a minority (Jamaican and Eurasia-Indian), while they ignore how her policies affected mainly the poor and her ignoring court orders to reduce her prison populations, almost causing a constitutional crisis herself- and that says NOTHING about the ways she got into office, which is a horrible example for any of our children.

So the choice becomes what they're telling us, of "you have to vote for the 'lesser' evil", take the "Harm reduction", YOU HAVE TO VOTE WHO WE SAY OR YOURE NOT PATRIOTIC/UNRACIST/[INSERT TERM HERE] ENOUGH!!!!

It's up to EVERY voter to decide what is the biggest 'harm reduction' of evil to choose for, this year. There is a lot of evidence pointing to the idea that the democrats cheated senator sanders this time around; they are kicking the green party off the ballots; they ALSO engage in Gerrimandering, but it doesnt get covered when they do, they spent all of 2018 telling us how bad kavanaugh is and trumpeting Christine's story, and then ALL at ONCE becoming silent once Tara claimed she was raped too. 2

Both parties will claim to pander for things, but only the Democrats VERBATIM said they BELIEVE ALL WOMEN. *In 2018 and through Kavanaughs hearing and then NEVER AGAIN AFTER THAT WAS DONE WITH!!!!

This is the official dem politician stance on assault in 2020-
7:35 'im satisfied with joe bidens response' (+ more word salad - hes the pErSoNiFiCaTiOn oF hOpE!!!!)

2: The lawyers behind the official MeToo group even REFUSED to represent Tara because it might hurt Joe's campaigning.

So, apologies for hte long post, ladies, but I'm becoming very tired of the dems double speak, only being a party that gloms on to social issues when its politically relevant, then dropping them not a second later, I'm Tired of Pres. Obama being behind the one person who would improve our healthcare system and whos always fought for women dropping out, and seeing nearly the entire media covering up to ignore Tara's story has been completely fucking enraging to see the whole democrat establishment not giving one single solitary fuck about her and the other stories of people close to biden (with tons of pictures) of him harassing total strangers, ALL THE TIME.

The choices are between one party that gets rid of others on the ballot, one that is normally reprehensible, and is currently led by someone THE DEMOCRATS promoted in a cynical ploy because they thought they would win even easier against him, and the third partys which would do well to diversity our political thought if they could only reach as little as 5% of the vote - or up to 15% where they would be automatically added to every debate going forward.

I think that if the dems win, it is likely that Joe would step down for Kamala in either the first or second terms, meanwhile, the same administration that barely moved on minimum wage or the environment, and which deported more people than even trump, will continue to enact republican policies, legislate from the right, and staunch ANY true liberal progress within the party or the country.

That would lead to easily 8-12 years of this same neoliberal administration as the last 8 (08-16) which itself led us to having a president trump.

If we get ANOTHER neolib, the next candidate will be a LITERAL fucking hitler candidate, and I dont want that. But there are no good answers, and the one politician who has actually fought for these things his entire career was undermined by every political elite in the party.

And when they'll cover up Tara's allegations, just wonder what else they would cover up for them all.

There's NO good vote in this election, decidedly chosen by the dem elites, and the lesser evil is still evil.

Between 4 more years of the trumps, or 8-12 of the obama/kamala administration, its the most impossible puzzle for us to decide which one is better, but ultimately, we must.

Thank goodness that all the bush idiots are coming out of the woodwork to tell us what we should think.

This is a little longer than amy and barrett, but when youre on a roll and theres 3 days left to potentially armagheddon 2.0- sometimes we just gotta type some things, you know?

[–]Shesstealthy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So... four more years of Trump?

[–]SharpTomorrow 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

i don't either. but i also don't want trump.

sure, and there are other candidates or parties to vote for. Biden and Trump are the status quo, or worse.

[–]Shesstealthy 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What chances do those candidates have of winning?

[–]whateverneverpine 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Zero, of course.

[–]BiologyIsReal 18 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

"I'll stand up to bullies and once more put human rights at the center of America's engagement with the world," Biden said.

Can't they leave the rest of the world alone for once?!!!

[–]aellope 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Meanwhile our troops and volunteers rape civilian women and girls in areas where they are "fighting for human rights". Human rights for men only.

[–]purrvana 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just a reminder that Joe's son Beau Biden was the first to pass transgender laws in Delaware.

[–]Archie 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

That sucks. Sadly, it still matters less than losing other women's rights, most notably abortion, so I can't not support him in front of Trump.

[–]redditbegay 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Sadly, it still matters less than losing other women's rights, most notably abortion, so I can't not

Just wait until abortion providers are having long waiting lists because of the rights for trans pretending males to be able to schedule surgeries (and abortions) at women's providers, thanks to Joe.

[–]forwardback 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

OR, since gender *identity** *will be the protected class, not biological sex, religious extremists will state TW female-identifying people don't get pregnant, and so don't need abortions, so abortions should be banned, as they serve "no one". (While continuing to find abortions for their mistresses, as always.)

Never underestimate nefarious men...

Edit suggested correction made

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The EA protects "gender identity" not gender, and defines "gender identity" as follows:

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth."

As I just pointed out in another post below, the EA doesn't define "gender" - doesn't even try to define it, in fact.

[–]Archie 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's never going to happen. Thankfully, most people consider that being trans is a mental illness.

Meanwhile, losing abortion access during the next mandate is a very real possibility. Look at what just happened in Poland, all the conditions are here to do the same.

[–]LeaveAmsgAfterBeep 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Can it be edited first?

[–]WrongToy[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Years back there was talk about making it LGB only.

since all the orgs are now tttt it failed.

[–]LeaveAmsgAfterBeep 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It’s disheartening, they really are.

They literally did this with multiple bills, congress would be almost able to pass a bill to give rights to same sex attracted people and then itd be like, “we can’t leave the T behind” well the T has separate issue? How many LGB people missed out on years of certain rights, how many died out of hopelessness, because “we can’t [pass separate laws for a group of different people].” Many of us didn’t get a say in waiting.

[–]WrongToy[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Since Oberfell, I kind of wonder what rights LGB are missing out on as the high court cases have involved wedding cakes and having religious foster-adopt agencies refuse to consider them.

Well women are routinely refused to be considered at religious hospitals if they need abortion care, so they go to somewhere that does. And if someone refused to do my wedding cake party there's like 20 other people that will.

This isn't oppression. These are ridiculous first-world situations of "microaggression" and "not validating my intersectional existence."

Males being allowed to observe females stripping and then competing with them, that's oppression. Males being put in actual prison or dv shelters with females, that's oppression. There's a thread somewhere here about how them cutting their dick off is oppression, well buddy that's the price of the pool because we're not here to see your shenis, no matter how dysphoric you feel about it.

I don't get why we have to care about transwomen at all. I have nothing in common with them as I'm a female.

[–]LeaveAmsgAfterBeep 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my state we can still be denied housing, and until the recent decision, jobs based on sexual orientation. These are the rights I am talking about. These are rights that need secured. My partner grew up in an area in a different state that was a solid 20+ years behind socially from mine, and I wouldn’t say mine was current to cities.

There’s a major difference in smaller rural towns vs even small cities for people who depending on the town may need that legal assist depending on how bad things are. Even in places with the laws they can still descriminate but at least there’s foothold to stand on if one decides to put the energy and money into a lawsuit. I saw it happen to friends over the years, with good rental history, good jobs, the only difference in them getting a place was lying saying they were friends vs saying they were two engaged women.

I want to see the EA fix things like this, not cater to trans made up problems about access to things they do not and should not have access to. There’s a reasonable right to pee but they don’t need access to the women’s changing rooms or locker rooms, they don’t need to be in women’s sports. Those are NOTHING like being LGB and I hate that they’re grouped with our movement and rights and have taken over our organizations.

Also re:cake, the cake case had to be appealed upwards then decided on by the supreme court, it was their choice to take it, they took it not because of the specifics of the case but because it likely relates to compelled and free speech. You legally may have the right to request something, but a service provider can technically refuse. This was a good move for artists and service workers and I actually support the decision.

[–]luvmyvulvaxoxo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What does the act actually do? Because I read it and I don't see what the issue is.

Edit : I went to congress' website and saw : The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

[–]forwardback 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

“(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes— “(A) a sex stereotype; “(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; “(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and “(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits. “(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. “(b) Rules.—In a covered title referred to in subsection (a)— “(1) (with respect to sex) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions; and “(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”; and

I find the given "definition" of "sex" to be particularly concerning. Sex is a stereotype or medical condition? That won't cause women problems in future? [edit: is this not replacing biological sex with gender feels? Removing legal, and soon social, recourses from women ?!]

Surprisingly, "sexual orientation" is stated as the three commonly accepted, not bastardized.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, the muddled mess of a bill that is the EA is extremely alarming coz it totally redefines sex as

A) sex stereotype (WTF?)

B) certain medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth (This gives the impression that only females have a sexed body, and female sex is contingent upon becoming pregnant and having children)

C) sexual orientation or gender identity (This suggests these two are interchangeable rather than totally different and in conflict; and glosses over the fact that gender identity erases sexual orientation as we know it, and is at once homophobic, biphobic and heterophobic)

D) sex characteristics and intersex traits (This enshrines in law the inaccurate term "intersex," and gives the impression that variations in sex characteristics - such as penis and breast size, hirsutism, missing testes or ovaries - make a person somehow more or less of the sex they are. So presumably Lance Armstrong would be less male than a guy who still has both balls. This also fails to make the crucially important distinction between natural and real sex characteristics and artificial ones and the appearance of them obtained by getting cosmetic surgeries, and taking drugs to screw up your natural hormones ).

But to make matters worse, the EA goes on to define "gender identity" as follows, specifically saying it should be given precedence over biological sex:

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth."

This worrying language means that males like Blaire White, Contrapoints, Munroe Bergdorf, Gigi Gorgeous, Bruce Jenner, or even Ru Paul and his crew when dressed in full drag and acting out their fantasies would have more right to use female spaces and services and to participate in female sports than most of us bog-standard girls and women who do not have a "gender identity" and do not spend our lives performing femininity and conforming to regressive sex stereotypes through our "appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics."

Finally, though this whole bill is built around "gender identity" and the meaning of "gender identity" in turn is dependent on having a clear definition of what the hell "gender" means, nowhere in the EA is "gender" defined. The bill doesn't even attempt to define it!

The EA has to be one of the most poorly-written, confusing, confounding pieces of legislation ever written in the English language. Yet it sailed through the House, 236-173.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can you give the link to the webpage where that particular quote is from? Thanks.

Edit: Never mind, I just found it!

[–]WrongToy[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You answered the question with the edit.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I know, that's why I said "never mind" LOL.