Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Trump: Rescind Obama's transgender directives, but 'protect everybody'

By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa May 16

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/16/trump-rescind-obamas-transgender-directives-but-protect-everybody/

Donald Trump vowed Monday that if elected president he would rescind the Obama administration's new directives aimed at protecting transgender people against discrimination in schools and health-care coverage.

===============================

Well, now we know.

Am I surprised? No. Can't say I think he's going to 'protect' anyone, either. But then, I will freely admit that I don't like or trust the man.

 :police:

A reminder that bashing anyone, including political candidates, violates our Terms of Service. I will quickly remove any offending posts and lock this topic if that happens.

I think this wraps it up nicely with a pretty bow on top. This guy is not on our side and he is finally showing it. I'm also not surprised.

I'm not seeing the problem. He thinks the Federal government should be leaving state's matters to states. I thought a lot of people agree with that. When he says protect everybody, I assume he means with the Federal protections we already have. Including the removal of Federal money from states that violate statutes.

Sorry, not the gloom and doom type, and I don't have a victim card anywhere in my deck.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on May 17, 2016, 10:45:49 AM
I'm not seeing the problem. He thinks the Federal government should be leaving state's matters to states. I thought a lot of people agree with that. When he says protect everybody, I assume he means with the Federal protections we already have. Including the removal of Federal money from states that violate statutes.

Sorry, not the gloom and doom type, and I don't have a victim card anywhere in my deck.

Hugs, Devlyn

If matters had been left to the states during the civil rights movement, we'd still have separate schools, bathrooms, and lunch counters for black and white folks. Leaving it to the states makes for very poor civil rights protections.

I'm not willing to throw transgender children to the wolves in Texas, Mississippi, and North Carolina (among other states). They don't need a victim card. They need our protection and help.

I guess I'm reading it differently. I think Mr Trump would use the big stick of Federal power to make States comply without any special directives. The "You made your bed, now lie in it." philosophy.

Hugs, Devlyn

I find it kind of amazing that he's where he is and you need a crystal ball to work out what his position is anything.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on May 17, 2016, 11:21:15 AM
I guess I'm reading it differently. I think Mr Trump would use the big stick of Federal power to make States comply without any special directives. The "You made your bed, now lie in it." philosophy.

Hugs, Devlyn

If he were to rescind all transgender directives that would also mean the justice department views on it, meaning that there would be no reason to deny funding to those states. Remember final rules on section 1557 of the ACA could be subject to interpretation by the executive branch. So far very little has transgender protections in it codified by the legislative process, I believe the violence against women act is one such piece but almost all of what is currently going on relates the HHS rules and the interpretation of the law by the justice department along with executive orders which Trump could easily consider "Obamas transgender directives"

My point is there are good reasons most of us are reading this as allowing states to do as they please without repercussions. I for one am also not willing to have transgender people suffering under an oppressive government in my country even if that isn't my state government, but a different state.

Hmm we need protected? I don't need the federal govt interference in my life, but then again I'm strong enough to protect myself,and having a 99mm derrenger helps. I agree with Donald trumps stance on govt and how we need less govt and more we the people. Besides Hillary Clinton is a way worse choice and voting independent will ensure she gets the white house and we the people don't need the Clintons and their crimes against we the people.So it's either Donald or we can kiss what's left of the usa goodbye and it will fall like Rome did. Guess not many read the history of the Roman empire and how it collapsed,I did and see it happening to Americans.

Well, good luck America. You're going to need it, lest you end up like your long-time eastern rival.

Quote from: Hikari on May 17, 2016, 12:46:01 PM

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on May 17, 2016, 11:21:15 AM
I guess I'm reading it differently. I think Mr Trump would use the big stick of Federal power to make States comply without any special directives. The "You made your bed, now lie in it." philosophy.

Hugs, Devlyn

If he were to rescind all transgender directives that would also mean the justice department views on it, meaning that there would be no reason to deny funding to those states. Remember final rules on section 1557 of the ACA could be subject to interpretation by the executive branch. So far very little has transgender protections in it codified by the legislative process, I believe the violence against women act is one such piece but almost all of what is currently going on relates the HHS rules and the interpretation of the law by the justice department along with executive orders which Trump could easily consider "Obamas transgender directives"

My point is there are good reasons most of us are reading this as allowing states to do as they please without repercussions. I for one am also not willing to have transgender people suffering under an oppressive government in my country even if that isn't my state government, but a different state.

We have protections that predate Pesident Obama's recent directives, that's what I was referring to. Mr Trump seems to be the type who likes winning. I predict he will take great pleasure in telling the states that enact flawed laws that the faucet of Federal monies has been turned off.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: cheryl reeves on May 17, 2016, 01:54:08 PM
I don't need the federal govt interference in my life, but then again I'm strong enough to protect myself,and having a 99mm derrenger helps. I agree with Donald trumps stance on govt and how we need less govt and more we the people.

So what do you expect the children to do who would no longer have the protections the federal government now offers? Shoot their principal when he forces them to use the wrong bathroom?

With a 99mm, she's knocking the whole building down! :laugh:

Bashing Trump is a no-no but bashing Clinton is OK?

As for the fall of the Roman empire, I assume you mean the Western empire, and there are a myriad of theories and causes for its collapse, from natural disasters, to the over-reliance on slave labor, to the lack of interest in the military, to the prevalence of barbarian tribes and the reliance on mercenaries from those same tribes to protect the borders, to coups from their generals, to the rise of Christianity and the subsequent fall of tolerance for other religions.

Federal protections are what protect minorities, particularly at the state level. If we didn't need the federal government's intervention then their actions to protect minorities would be redundant. Modern events show otherwise, with ever-increasing legislation against us as a class on the state level.

The most believable cause of the western empire's fall was the state's exploiting German immigrants and treating them like dirt.   They finally had enough and under Alaric took control of Rome.   This of course flies over the head of the Reoublican Party who is always looking to blame someone else for the total failure of their policies and actions.


Sapere Aude

There is not a lot of data pointing to him being elected. The primaries are not the general election and the electorate goes more left every cycle. Every cycle there are more minority voters than they one before, even with voter suppression and they tend to not vote that side of the ticket.

The dem nominee is going to go after him hard, he has more holes in his life than switzerland's last year's output of cheese.

I do feel we need the protection of the federal government and i also feel that the states power should be further weakened. They are very bad at protecting human rights for the most part. This is why to date, there are only 18 states that protect us explicitly. The Federalists won, in the late 18th century, they won again during the civil war, they have continued to win civil rights for more and more people. The Feds are my hero.

He's just learning to tow the Republican line. Hasn't anyone else noticed how he has softened his view on this and other topics since meeting with Paul Ryan?

Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 17, 2016, 06:51:00 PM
Hasn't anyone else noticed how he has softened his view on this and other topics since meeting with Paul Ryan?

Honestly, no. This seems worse to me. Before he didn't even touch it. Now he openly wants to throw it to the states. After North Carolina, I don't see how that's even in the realm of good ideas for us.

Quote from: Eevee on May 17, 2016, 06:54:08 PM
Honestly, no. This seems worse to me. Before he didn't even touch it. Now he openly wants to throw it to the states. After North Carolina, I don't see how that's even in the realm of good ideas for us.

Before his meeting with Ryan, he said that "they should be able to use the bathroom they want." When asked which restroom Cait Jenner should use in his tower, he said, "She should use the bathroom she wants."

His current stance has definitely moved more in line to what the party wants. Same story for other issues. Note his change in tune concerning the great wall. Now it's a suggestion. Before it was "We're going to build a wall. You can count on that."

He's clearly been told what he can't say anymore.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 17, 2016, 06:59:44 PM
Before his meeting with Ryan, he said that "they should be able to use the bathroom they want." When asked which restroom Cait Jenner should use in his tower, he said, "She should use the bathroom she wants."

His current stance has definitely moved more in line to what the party wants. Same story for other issues. Note his change in tune concerning the great wall. Now it's a suggestion. Before it was "We're going to build a wall. You can count on that."

He's clearly been told what he can't say anymore.

Oh, you're saying that he has softened his views to be more favorable to the typical GOP stance? Well I can definitely see that. That's exactly what I was afraid of.

Uh.. yeah. I saw a strong statement softening to mush. He's moving far right which, in many circles, would be hard and not soft.

Quote from: Newfie on May 17, 2016, 05:10:21 PM
Bashing Trump is a no-no but bashing Clinton is OK?

As for the fall of the Roman empire, I assume you mean the Western empire, and there are a myriad of theories and causes for its collapse, from natural disasters, to the over-reliance on slave labor, to the lack of interest in the military, to the prevalence of barbarian tribes and the reliance on mercenaries from those same tribes to protect the borders, to coups from their generals, to the rise of Christianity and the subsequent fall of tolerance for other religions.

Federal protections are what protect minorities, particularly at the state level. If we didn't need the federal government's intervention then their actions to protect minorities would be redundant. Modern events show otherwise, with ever-increasing legislation against us as a class on the state level.

This!

Signed,

A Historian

I don't actually have a problem with federalism as a default position on government authority, although I move further from it as time goes on.  But occasionally it has been necessary for the federal government to overrule the state in order to protect the individual.  I lament each time states make it necessary for Uncle Sam to step in as it reduces their independence, but we only find ourselves in these situations when states abuse their authority over their citizens.

The Romans indeed had a long list of components in their fall. To the reasons already mentioned I'd add communication limits, budgetary constraints, questionable military "reforms", and patronage off the top of my head, but it's been a while since I read Gibbon or Luttwak.   

I'm disappointed but not surprised by Trump here.  It pretty much forces me to hold my nose and vote against him.       

So a woman who has stood bye while 4 Americans were mudered in benghazi,emails on a private server that Russia has 20,000 of. How about the Clinton foundation which is a money laundering scheme designed to help out despot leaders hide money. So this woman who is a notorious lair is a better choice then Donald Trump? Am I missing something or do I just know the Clintons background then most here? Remeber when they moved out of the white house at the end of Billy's term and stole 80,000 dollars of white house items that did not belong to them,or Billy's treatment of women, the Clinton foundation pays women 85 percent less then their male counterpart. Trump pays women more then their male counterparts,trump treats women better then the Clintons do.

 :police:

I think this thread has run its course. This is not the right platform for a political debate about which candidate is superior.

Thread locked.