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?

Not on Twitter, so can't read the discourse, but Jess Phillips might well be strategic. She disagrees with the spousal exit clause and added a man to 'counting dead women'.

My understanding was a GRC couldn't be granted until the spouse consented or there was an annulment/divorce in place.
womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/

I think its an absolute mess and there must be a better way to do it. If it were me I'd make it so the spouse could choose to continue marriage or immediate annulment as part of the GRC process and then update the financial remedy order process accordingly. But IANAL.

Using emotive language like "Jess Phillips wants to force women into same sex marriages" is ridiculous hyperbole.

Also I thought the GC position was that people can't change sex, so it's also wrong.

@NotBadConsidering

Yes you answered them. Disingenuously. You say you have an academic interest but that isn’t true. It’s not “nit-picking” it’s pointing out your lack of consistency throughout your thread.

I'm not sure you can know what my interest is, apart from what I've stated. I can hold more than a few things in my head at one time, too, meaning that while I have an academic interest, I also have an opinion.

I have been honest on those things throughout the thread, and I have no reason to be disingenuous.

Yet another poster here very happy to hear from @Datun. She's always had insightful posts across the board. I've always had time for her opinion, even when I've disagreed.
Unlike other posters whose sole purpose seems to pop up to tell women off.

No surprise, KJK can do no wrong, however vile her ideas.

Stopping trans renting property? its something out of the late 1920s/early 1930's

Trump will stop arming Ukraine and probably take the US out of NATO, with no 3rd term to go for, he will have no constraints.

Bigger issues at play here.

Yep

Most MNetters are pig sick of these threads and posts. They are in favour of GC policies but the political point scoring in favour of the Tories isn’t reading the room right. In other words they aren’t single issue voters who have the privilege of being able to ride out the CoL crisis. And some are giving massive head space to this issue beyond anything else.

And yet here you are..

It doesn’t bother me if you and others start KJK threads and post as much as you like on what she’s got wrong or whatever

You're doing her work for her

They can get an interim GRC. And 'transition' is not the least bit dependent on a GRC. Anyone can transition.

It was so that the woman wasn't legally in a same-sex marriage. It's like any other contract where you change the conditions halfway through.

How can anyone speak for 'most MNetters'. What are you basing that on?

I don't think alison was making a realistic representation of JPs position.

Is there any more about what she said, other than that tweet? Because I agree the clause is "awful" and its not because I want women to be forced to stay married when their partner transitions.

Self assurance I assume besides it’s easy to see what this topic is about, the board is clear as is the thread title

Easy to avoid if they want to, hide the thread or board

I don't misrepresent her words. I literally posted a copy of her words. I've copied it again below.

She wrote the Self ID document to demand Self ID, and thinks that the spousal veto is awful.

What else do you think that represents?

I'm not sure you can know what my interest is, apart from what I've stated

I am only focused on what you stated, so there’s no need for “apart from”. You said:

I'm interested in sociology, feminism and politics and how they intersect

But you’re not. You’re interested in if the “bad thing” KJK has supposedly done “concerns” posters here. You don’t seem to be able to explain how wanting to know if something you perceive as bad (in your opinion) concerns people will also answer your apparent academic interest in “sociology, feminism and how they intersect.”

If you were genuinely interested in the latter your OP would have said:

“KJK has done this. I am interested in how the sociology, the feminism and the politics of this. What do others think?”

By starting the thread with your opinion - that what she has done is bad - you instantly negate any possible independent analysis of intersection from answers because you have taken a position. What you’re getting is answers about how sociology, feminism and politics intersect with the position that what she’s done is apparently bad.

This bias introduced in your OP means you must realise that you can’t make any form of independent academic judgment. You either realise this and are disingenuous or you don’t realise this and cannot see your own bias.

I actually have no issue with people analysing things from their own opinion position, but I do have an issue with people pretending they’re not. Just be honest: you’re interested in how sociology, feminism and politics intersect with people you don’t approve of. It’s the last part of that sentence you seem to have trouble admitting.

@EasternStandard what a justice warrior lol. Could even say a latter day suffragette. Maybe stick to knocking migrants and state school kids.

Ah your daily hate 😬 right on cue. lol

I love state school btw my dc use it. How lucky I am

At least get your line of hate right

Looks unambiguous to me

She was on the committee that proposed the changes. Saying she's behind self ID gives the impression it was all her.

For clarity

"I helped write the document that demanded changes in self ID."

"Spousal veto is awful."

Lest we get into a five page discussion over whether 'behind' means 'solely responsible for', or 'backs'.

She says she "helped write the document that demanded changes in self-ID" without saying what those changes were. And she says the "spousal veto clause is awful" without saying what she thinks is awful about it.

Neither of those statements are necessarily pro trans and I need more context before I know what she meant.

You however have written your assumption of what she tweeted as a fact.

Well, there wasn't a plan for Self ID until she helped write a document that demanded it.

There is one aim of the Spousal Veto, which is to allow women to exit a heterosexual marriage before it becomes a 'homosexual' one. So if a GRC is applied for, the wife can block it until a divorce. She thinks this is awful, that a woman is allowed to block a GRC application. What else could she think is awful about it?

So the blame lies squarely with the Tories as they held a majority of the committee seats. That would be a consistent position to hold. Right?

Yes, I read them all. It was like pulling teeth and I'm still at a loss over what the thread is about tbh, but haven't posted to that effect thus far because I didn't want my head bitten off.

The subtext premise of your OP seems to be:

"KJK supports Trump (citation needed) therefore:

a) she is bad for GC feminism
OR
b) she is bad for women
OR
c) women should know this before thinking about voting for her
OR
d) women therefore shouldn't vote for her full stop
OR
e) a vote for her is supporting Trump (its not, she's in the UK, he's in the US)
OR
f) her alleged Trump support invalidates what she has done for women
OR
Goodness knows what else.

These are all reasonable starting points for a discussion but your unwillingness to say what you think the issue with her (alleged) Trump support is, combined with your attack on anyone who doesn't immediately agree its a problem or who asks you to elaborate isn't going to lead to an informative discussion.

It's going round in circles because it's still not clear what you're saying.

It comes across like you're holding her to a standard you aren't holding other politicians to. Perhaps you aren't intending to do that, but maybe if you could explain that instead of getting the hump with people asking you to clarify, it would all become a bit clearer.

It's not about qualifications or using people's preferred words as you've said upthread, it's about words having meanings and the words you're writing down don't seem to match your intended meaning.

This is about clear communication.

Well, they haven't actually passed Self Id have they?

Labour on the other hand are planning to make the GRC even easier which moves more towards Self Id than it even is now.

So not quite sure what your point is. Mine is that Jess Phillips is a perfectly obvious person to stand against, for those that were confused about why KJK has picked her.

Back to the OP, actually tbh, it doesn't really concern me. The more KJK speaks and Tweets, the clearer her deeply conservative views about women, homophobia and transphobia are.

It's useful for the electorate to know what politicians stand for.