KJK supports Trump

[NefertitiV]

After the Trump verdict today, KJK retweeted three supportive tweets to her timeline, including one from US ex-Fox host Megyn Kelly that says "Guilty on all counts. The country is disgraced. Alvin Bragg should be disbarred. They will rue the day they released this lawfare to corrupt a presidential election."

Another tweet makes fun of President Biden's stutter.

This is someone currently up for election herself. Given her recent remarks about barring rentals to all trans people, and the fact she has received funding from US conservative political groups, does this concern you?

👆In a nutshell.

Transitioning children is abuse. Affirmation is not a neutral act. There are loads of ways to love and support gender-confused kids without affirming them and pushing them onto a medical pathway.

How can it be anything other than abuse now that we know gender-confused girls outnumber boys six to one, and young women who take testosterone are extremely likely be become incontinent quite rapidly?

It's great that KJK is brave enough to speak plainly and point out the uncomfortable truth.

We don’t need KJK to speak for us.
There are plenty of political candidates that support women’s rights to sex segregated spaces and services ...

“Thats not good enough. The idea that we should be content with balacing the rights of women to have single sex spaces with the rights of others to hide or ignore their sex is ignoring half of the issue.”

It is the height of rudeness to erase the second half of a comment and then fabricate a completely different second half Strawman. I did not say or imply any idea of balancing the rights of one against another, or against those who hide or ignore sex. It is your strawman that isn’t good enough because that is how you intended it to be.

The tories don’t speak for me.
Labour don’t speak for me.
ALL of the parties do not speak for me - but they all say they do.

They All know what’s in my best interests apparently. Do you get this het up over them?

Kelly hasn’t got a chance in hell in ever winning a seat. She knows this. It’s just to make noise and be able to ask the elected MPs questions that we can all hear.

If you don’t like what she says don’t vote for the candidate - do you vote for Reform? No? Why? Because you have a choice.

You just cannot stand another woman having different views to you so want to shut her up. Just move on

I've watched the TED talk. I'm aware of Green's history. That's not the question. It's whether a 'policy' of giving people the right to say " "transitioning" children is abuse" differentiates. She could have just said "Promoting or facilitating the transitioning of children is abuse".

Although given there is no indication of how any of this would be achieved, it is I suppose moot.

Yes that is true. But in the other hand, her Women’s Party will continue to lose elections until they too start caring about other issues. No one elects a candidate on one promise. Unless it is high school and the candidate that wins has only won by promising free ice cream with school dinners.

It is the height of rudeness to erase the second half of a comment and then fabricate a completely different second half Strawman.

A completely different second half Strawman to your own?

Just in case it wasn't clear, it was @CassieMaddox who I was saying hadn't thought this through, not you.

Agreed

To be fair @SummerFeverVenice she hasn't said "she speaks for us, the women of Britain", at least not on the party's website. That just claims she's about letting 'us' (presumably men and women) say no woman has a penis etc. The idea that she has any interest in women more widely isn't touched on. I guess if your idea of women's rights begins and ends with being able to say 'there's no such thing as non-binary', she's your gal.

That was all I was saying, she says she speaks for us and I say we don’t need her to speak for us.

If her candidates become elected officials then they will speak for their constituents in a real politics way be exercising the political power of their office.

The only person het up here is you over my opinion that we don’t need KJK’s party or her candidates to speak for us.

I share some views with KJK, but not all. That is true of every political candidate out there. I would not vote for her though as on balance the issues I do disagree with her on outweigh the ones I do agree with her on. I think there are better candidates out there for me.

I don’t think anyone has the exact same views as I do, and that has never got me ‘het up’. Perhaps you should ask yourself why my view has caused such a visceral response in you that would see fit to post numerous objections to my differing opinion?

Transitioning children is something that is done to children. It's not something children do to themselves.

Both transitioning children and promoting or facilitating the transition of children are abusive acts.

Can you give an example of how someone could transition a child without this being an abusive act? Either a real life or hypothetical example would do.

Now, this discredits you. Why is it ok in your mind to start threads criticising people who are “cruel” to Biden for “mocking” his speech (or considering his fitness to be president, depending on your perspective) but you have never been so inclined to start a thread about all the people claiming Trump has dementia, something you say is equally cruel?

The answer is the same as you’re seeking: you’re just as hypocritical. You think people are hypocritical to complain about scrutiny of an electoral candidate (KJK) if they’re not the one they’re keen on being scrutinised. Fair enough.

But you only see fit to criticise perceived “cruelty” towards a candidate if the “cruelty” is being carried out by people on the other “side” (KJK) being cruel to someone on your “side” (Biden) while ignoring “cruelty” from your “side” (left wing media) towards people on the other “side” (Trump). Unless of course I’ve missed all the threads you’ve started critical of the left wing media focus on Trump showing signs of dementia.

You can reply and say “I’m only interested in KJK” but to me that just indicates your morality compass only registers when it involves someone you have a bee in your bonnet about. You don’t care about “cruelty” just people you don’t like giving you ammunition to start a thread about. Like I said, just as hypocritical.

True it isn’t in the party website, but I regularly listen to her on YouTube and she often says “the majority view is…” and “most mothers…” and “all women deserve…” and “all the people I know and have spoken to think…”

She often preambles a statement in a way that indicates she feels she is of a similar view to most women in Britain and that view is such and such…

Even her riposte to TRAs of “your mum is a TERF” implies she thinks most mothers agree with her.

Mine wasn’t a strawman, if you think it was then discuss that with me instead of making one up on the fly and pretending it’s not your own.

I think @CassieMaddox already gave an example. A father using preferred pronouns. We have no idea of the background. I think using the phrase 'everyone should be able to say "'transitioning' kids is abuse" is too vague. PPs have already indicated that the very act of using a child's preferred pronouns is transitioning and therefore abuse.

oh Jesus stop listening to her. Ffs. I couldn’t think of anything worse to listen to someone I didn’t like. This is getting pathetic

I do like KJK though, I like her a lot. I just don’t think her party is the best party for me when I look at all the issues that matter to me, and I don’t think she is the only party/candidate that can protect women’s rights.

I don't regularly listen to her, so I can only go by what the website says. That suggests that if anyone think the 'Party of Women' is primarily interested in the rights of women they are deluding themselves. It's just a name, like the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea*"

*Cue overwrought "OMG, you're comparing her to Kim Jong Un" posts

That's fair. I think it's common these days to struggle to find a party or candidate worth your vote.

@NotBadConsidering

Now, this discredits you. Why is it ok in your mind to start threads criticising people who are “cruel” to Biden for “mocking” his speech (or considering his fitness to be president, depending on your perspective) but you have never been so inclined to start a thread about all the people claiming Trump has dementia, something you say is equally cruel?
This thread isn't specifically about the Biden Twitter post, but a number of posts. It's only become so because KJK posted it; if she'd posted about Trump's issues too, then perhaps we could discuss them equally?*
*
The answer is the same as you’re seeking: you’re just as hypocritical. You think people are hypocritical to complain about scrutiny of an electoral candidate (KJK) if they’re not the one they’re keen on being scrutinised. Fair enough.
Sorry, I don't understand you.*
*
But you only see fit to criticise perceived “cruelty” towards a candidate if the “cruelty” is being carried out by people on the other “side” (KJK) being cruel to someone on your “side” (Biden) while ignoring “cruelty” from your “side” (left wing media) towards people on the other “side” (Trump). Unless of course I’ve missed all the threads you’ve started critical of the left wing media focus on Trump showing signs of dementia.
Nope, I already said I don't agree with that kind of cruelty.*
*
You can reply and say “I’m only interested in KJK” but to me that just indicates your morality compass only registers when it involves someone you have a bee in your bonnet about. You don’t care about “cruelty” just people you don’t like giving you ammunition to start a thread about. Like I said, just as hypocritical.
See above.

I wouldn't much care if she merely "had right-wing views". But supporting Trump here isn't about anything traditionally defined as right-wing. Indeed, it's a complete abandonment of many traditional right-wing principles. It's partisan paranoia, conspiracy-theorist, an utter lack of moral integrity.

That's not the kind of person I want representing my views in public.

The existence of KJK’s party though should make other, larger parties sit up and take notice. What usually happens is they then modify their approach to attract the voters that would go for KJK. We see that with the Tories going more right wing to attract the voters that they think would go for Reform.

Labour regularly do the same to attract voters who would vote Green.

Tories and Labour, often copy the Lib Dems for the same reason.

So her party is putting pressure on the bigger parties to shift policy and take women’s rights more seriously.

So as I said, I like KJK, I admire what she has done and is doing, I just think my vote with go to wherever responds to the presence of her party by pushing women’s rights further up the priority list than it has been.

This is your full post:

We don’t need KJK to speak for us.
There are plenty of political candidates that support women’s rights to sex segregated spaces and services that also support race equality, religious diversity, and are committed to not sacrificing other women’s rights in misguided deals with far right misogynist extremists like Trump, or Soldiers of Christ, or Tommy Robinson and others.

Its not just 'rude', its dangerous to disregard all safeguarding and talk instead of balancing rights and safe spaces.

We cannot protect children and vulnerable adults if we are expected to compromise their risks of sexual, physical and emotional harm. Women only prisions dont stop children believing they are born in the wrong body and everyone should prioritise that belief.

Politicans are trying to convince us to forget safeguarding and instead have laws that allow people to hide their sex, but then, where possible, exclude men from women only spaces. Since when is that even close to being good enough?

They'll only sit up and take notice if she attracts significant numbers of votes. Otherwise she may as well be Count Binface*.

If she's serious about shifting policy, then you'd think she'd include policies on the party site. If she was about women's rights I'd expect to see "Reform the Equality Act" or even "implement Cass" or "Repeal the GRA"

*I appreciate Count Binface gets votes, but he's not influencing policy