Trump rolls back Obama-era transgender rights law

[Mori Chu]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/t ... ive-235285

[Mori Chu]

[Indy]

Serves them right. They should have to be fearful to use a restroom.

[In2ition]

This is an interesting subject. It's gone back to a States Right decision. There seems to be fear on both sides of the issue, and neither seem to have a great deal of understanding on the other's pov. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I haven't had to deal with this. The closest I've come to this was accidentally walking into the Women's restroom at the Improv. After noticing that there were no urinals the realization and fear came over me that I wasn't where I was supposed to be and I hope no one saw me.

[Indy]

This is an interesting subject. It's gone back to a States Right decision. There seems to be fear on both sides of the issue, and neither seem to have a great deal of understanding on the other's pov. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I haven't had to deal with this. The closest I've come to this was accidentally walking into the Women's restroom at the Improv. After noticing that there were no urinals the realization and fear came over me that I wasn't where I was supposed to be and I hope no one saw me.

If you are a white guy, would you also say you have no dog in the fight when it comes to the segregation fight? That is not a snarky question, although I am sure it seems like it coming from me.

[In2ition]

This is an interesting subject. It's gone back to a States Right decision. There seems to be fear on both sides of the issue, and neither seem to have a great deal of understanding on the other's pov. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I haven't had to deal with this. The closest I've come to this was accidentally walking into the Women's restroom at the Improv. After noticing that there were no urinals the realization and fear came over me that I wasn't where I was supposed to be and I hope no one saw me.

If you are a white guy, would you also say you have no dog in the fight when it comes to the segregation fight? That is not a snarky question, although I am sure it seems like it coming from me.

I don't consider myself transgender, and I don't think that when most restrooms were created and segregated by female or male it was meant to discriminate against a number of people that identify themselves as a different gender. I do think that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gender identity as it's propagated to many aspects of life, including high school sports and the Boy Scouts. I'm not a sociologist, and I'm not going to presume I know how it feels to be trans-gendered or forced to pick one restroom over the other because of how I was categorized at birth.

[Indy]

I get all that. I think my question is more about what would make you think you did have a dog in the fight. Only if you were trans-gendered?

[In2ition]

I get all that. I think my question is more about what would make you think you did have a dog in the fight. Only if you were trans-gendered?

Idk, should I be on one side or the other on this?

[carey]

States rights. The very thing used in the past to condone slavery, segregation, racism, and homophobia. You'd think the GoP would want to get on the right side of at least something.

They also rolled back prison reform today. This administration sucks.

[Nodack]

I can list a bunch of stories detailing judges taking bribes from companies owning those prisons so they will make sure those private prisons are stocked with fresh meat.

[carey]

I can list a bunch of stories detailing judges taking bribes from companies owning those prisons so they will make sure those private prisons are stocked with fresh meat.

Yes. It's common knowledge. Sessions is a paid for twat.

[In2ition]

States rights. The very thing used in the past to condone slavery, segregation, racism, and homophobia. You'd think the GoP would want to get on the right side of at least something.

They also rolled back prison reform today. This administration sucks.

Hold on there, this seems like a little rewriting history. I don't mean to call you out, but the GOP was on the right side of slavery, segregation, and racism. It was the Democrats that were on the wrong side. I'm assuming you are talking about same sex marriage when you speak of homophobia? Is bathroom segregation based on penis vs. vagina a moral equivalency of slavery? I never thought of that angle yet.

[In2ition]

I can list a bunch of stories detailing judges taking bribes from companies owning those prisons so they will make sure those private prisons are stocked with fresh meat.

Yes. It's common knowledge. Sessions is a paid for twat.

What did Sessions do?

[Nodack]

States rights. The very thing used in the past to condone slavery, segregation, racism, and homophobia. You'd think the GoP would want to get on the right side of at least something.

They also rolled back prison reform today. This administration sucks.

Hold on there, this seems like a little rewriting history. I don't mean to call you out, but the GOP was on the right side of slavery, segregation, and racism. It was the Democrats that were on the wrong side. I'm assuming you are talking about same sex marriage when you speak of homophobia? Is bathroom segregation based on penis vs. vagina a moral equivalency of slavery? I never thought of that angle yet.

I believe you are right. What happened to that party? That's not what they stand for today.

[carey]

Hold on there, this seems like a little rewriting history. I don't mean to call you out, but the GOP was on the right side of slavery, segregation, and racism. It was the Democrats that were on the wrong side. I'm assuming you are talking about same sex marriage when you speak of homophobia? Is bathroom segregation based on penis vs. vagina a moral equivalency of slavery? I never thought of that angle yet.

I believe you are right. What happened to that party? That's not what they stand for today.

He's not right. Between 1860 and 1936 the Republican party and Democratic party basically switched platforms. The party of small government became the party of big government and vice versa. So yes, technically the Democrats were on the wrong side, but those Democrats you're talking about are today's Republicans.

What did Sessions do?

Sessions rolled back Obama's prison reform.

[In2ition]

Hold on there, this seems like a little rewriting history. I don't mean to call you out, but the GOP was on the right side of slavery, segregation, and racism. It was the Democrats that were on the wrong side. I'm assuming you are talking about same sex marriage when you speak of homophobia? Is bathroom segregation based on penis vs. vagina a moral equivalency of slavery? I never thought of that angle yet.

I believe you are right. What happened to that party? That's not what they stand for today.

He's not right. Between 1860 and 1936 the Republican party and Democratic party basically switched platforms. The party of small government became the party of big government and vice versa. So yes, technically the Democrats were on the wrong side, but those Democrats you're talking about are today's Republicans.

What did Sessions do?

Sessions rolled back Obama's prison reform.

What? This is crazy, your dates and history are awfully mistaken.

[carey]

What? This is crazy, your dates and history are awfully mistaken.

So my American History texts were wrong? Google says the same thing. I honestly thought this was common knowledge. Everyone always says Honest Abe would be a Democrat today.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.

Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

[In2ition]

I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about a change in stance of Big Government vs. Small Government.

[carey]

I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about a change in stance of Big Government vs. Small Government.

But it's all related. In fact, I'd argue that everything stems from those two stances. From there you get your opinions on entitlement programs, welfare, the role of government in education and healthcare. Then you can draw the lines all the way down to where the parties currently stand diametrically opposed. Again, I thought this was well known and I'm not sure why you think I'm sorely mistaken.

[In2ition]

I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about a change in stance of Big Government vs. Small Government.

But it's all related. In fact, I'd argue that everything stems from those two stances. From there you get your opinions on entitlement programs, welfare, the role of government in education and healthcare. Then you can draw the lines all the way down to where the parties currently stand diametrically opposed. Again, I thought this was well known and I'm not sure why you think I'm sorely mistaken.

It's only partly related. The KKK was founded by Democrats and continued well into the 1970's. Truman was a KKK member. LBJ was staunchly opposed to Civil Rights, but signed the bill after JFK was assassinated. JFK was for the Civil Rights bill and was on the correct side of history. The crux of the bill was drafted and pushed through Congress by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen. Heck even Robert Byrd was a well known Klan member and was in the Democratic party until 2010.