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?

@RufustheFactualReindeer

And this is one of the silencing tactics posters use on this broad

Beg pardon? Do tell. Why would I silence people on my own thread? And from what I've found, there is a group of posters on here (and I'm in a tiny minority group - that is, I hold views outside of the mainstream) that are well-practiced with silencing tactics. They're commonly used against me. So that does annoy me just a little bit.

Well, she hosts open calls every week which none of these people ever use to go and talk to her.

They just post here where they know she can't, having a go at her.

That's what bullies do.

I don't agree with everything she does or says but when you dig down there is usually more to her point under the surface.

My suggestion would be to call into her on a Tuesday night and talk to her. Rather than bully from behind an effective block. They never do. They wouldn't stand a chance. And they know it.

Of course she has the right to say what she likes. However, I also like to be aware of the motivation pushing an agenda.

There is an interesting narrative about Trump which we do not really pick up in the UK. It's this: Hispanics, black Americans and many other US ethnic minorities are supporting Trump, something like 28% of Hispanics if I remember correctly (and Hispanics - people of Spanish/Mexican who are Spanish speakers - are a big demographic in the US). These are the disadvantaged and the discriminated against whom you would expect to be solid Democrats. They are not. The question is why that is the case. Biden has attacked family values in extending Section IX to cover those who 'identify as women' (or as men, but that does not cause problems for women) and rolled back the Federation requirements that single-SEX changing rooms, bathrooms (public toilets) etc can only be used by biological women and must be provided in public buildings. For Hispanics, and other ethnic minorites, family and safety for women are big deals. Trump, for all his shennanigans, pussy-pulling and paying off mistresses (truly, why bother - but it's the US!) supports single-sex spaces in all the areas that GC women do, and KJK does. So an endoresment from such quarters is not unexpected. He - and the Republicans generally - are against the trans agenda and the way it erases women. They are also for parents having a say in their children's education (this is big in some states where boys have been allowed into girls' changing rooms and there have been a couple of high-profile school rapes), and on the value of family. The Black Americans almost certainly belong to the same demographic - or in that range - as Barrack Obama, people doing well, with strong family ties. Again, not surprising they won't support Biden because of what they see as his attack on the family and also his support for the sort of 'affirmative' action that saw black-owned businesses go up in flames during the BLM riots. They may hold their nose, but they see Biden's campaign as being against their (and what they see as American) values and they don't want another four years of him.
One should also remember that 'populist' means doing what the people want rather than what a technocratic elite thinks is good for them. Many the world over (me included) are fed up with this patronising view of the general population.

@EasternStandard

Are you? Is that why you went with the ‘usual suspects’ blarney

Well, only after they didn't really offer opinions but silly 'lolls' and 'fuck offs' etc. I like all kinds of opinions - just not stupid ones. Is that okay?

This, with bells on

Nice old guy? Take it you’ve not seen the creepy handsy videos of him touching kids

And there we are. I'm bullying from behind an effective block by answering OP's question.

STFU in short.

Maybe "on the Democratic side," but it certainly isn't being said by anyone actively following or involved in US policy-making.

I have been thinking about Hegel's philosophy about ideas. Thesis, Anti-thesis and synthesis. Basically that there is an idea such as 'trans women are women and should have access to women's spaces' then there is someone positing the anti-thesis of this. After this a synthesis is achieved where we are at the new normal. I was upset by kjk's statement that trans people should be discriminated against because it doesn't reflect my views and I felt it gave more fuel to the 'bigot' claim if you are gender critical. However, it did raise the question does the anti-thesis need to be as extreme as the thesis to be able to reach an acceptable synthesis? If the TRAs are demanding men can self id as women and have instant access to women's spaces and people should be sacked for misgendering and the gender critical only offer - no they shouldn't, then the synthesis is going to be somewhere between the two. If the gender critical say being trans is an unhinged mental health issue or cult and of course you shouldn't have to employ them or rent out your property to them then the synthesis may be further towards what most gender critical people want. I have no idea if this is correct as I'm doing an arts degree not politics or philosophy but I find it an interesting thought.

@AlisonDonut

My suggestion would be to call into her on a Tuesday night and talk to her. Rather than bully from behind an effective block. They never do. They wouldn't stand a chance. And they know it.

I'm bullying KJK? How can I be doing that when she doesn't know me? I'm not saying anything vaguely controversial, either.

And again, I repeat: she's a politician and activist.

Interesting post, thanks.

Well, I used to be a Labour supporter and am not now, just like KJK. One is allowed to change one's mind and currently the treatment of Diane Abbott (who I loathe, but she has been badly treated) and Labour's TWAW attitude that meant Rosie Duffield was apparently not even invited to the election event in Canterbury, has turned me right off them. I will probably vote Labour (I live in a safe seat anyway) because I am worried about the NHS and tired of the 'we now believe/know private companies run utilities and energy companies better' narrative. It's bloody obvious they do not, but we cannot get away from that at all. But I, and my late DH, thought Trump a better bet than Biden (better of two evils, as before) even though I find his personal attitudes unpalatable.

Very much this. And it's doubly unfortunate given the obvious intellectual shortcomings of his opponent who even when in office from day one was unable/unwilling to even read his briefing papers and hasn't been able two string two coherent sentences together in roughly as long.

Firstly Trump doesn’t give a shit about women. So save us he cares about their erasure.

Secondly the vast majority of Black & Hispanic voters won’t vote for Trump, so I’m not sure what their apparently homogeneous view of family values tells us.

I am hard pushed these days to find any one political party, or even politician that i fully align with. for the last 20 or so years it hasn't bothered me. But now i get to vote again (so yaay to the Tories for that).

So i look at party policies and also my local candidates. It gets a tad complicated there because i live in a Tory ward which will remain so, but the MP is Miriam Cates with whom i align with on 2 issues (one very much so one sort of) but everything else she says makes my blood run cold. I haven't yet checked the other candidates in my area, but i can't imagine it will be more than a couple of things with most of them, including labour.

So it is hardly surprising that now KJK is a politician that i have differences with her. In fact i have always had differences with her starting with her statement that she's not a feminist. But she believes in the rights of women to have their own spaces, to be defined as a woman and that nobody can change sex. Beyond that? meh. and her recent pronouncements on allowing people to discriminate? from a class of person that has been discriminated against (legally for many things up until very recently) since time began? No.

Do i appreciate what she's done with LWS? you bet. I am guessing she may turn up relatively local to me when the GE is over and i will go along to see what happens. But aside of that? Thanks, but no thanks. I also worry, like other pp, that she may become "the face of GC women" (i prefer Sex Realist these days) and i don't really know what to do about that.

I don't think I've ever seen you post on anything other than KJK threads on this board, OP. Apologies if I'm wrong but that's all I've seen you post on.

Many posters on here agree with KJK on some things and not others. I'm not sure why we need to keep going through this. Why do we need thread after thread to say the same things?

They're commonly used against me. So that does annoy me just a little bit

which is why i said it was used by posters ‘on both sides’

Well played there. 👏Are you a politician?

"Do you agree with her that men, no matter how they identify should not be allowed in women's prisons, refugees, showers,changing rooms, sports etc.?"

You say agree with this, but how do you define a woman? If you are a true believer then trans identified men ARE women, so they aren't men, so they SHOULD have access to women's spaces.

Please answer clearly, do you think trans identified men (transwomen) are women, so they should have access to women's spaces?

Oh dear,how dreadful.

What a to do.

Yes it does. She seems unhinged.

Demonising her though, is a sure fire way of undermining campaigns against the trans agenda, a homophobic and misogynist agenda, as can be seen by Wadral's attitude to suggesting that raped women have some right to be counselled by another (real) woman. The Roz Adams case at Edinburgh Rape Crisis, revealed that the trans agenda does not want single-sex spaces for women because this entirely invalidates their position.

No,it doesn't bother me. I agree with her on some things,other things I may not. We don't all have to think the same and agree with everything someone does. I find it very odd that people expect this.

On other threads people regularly tell us we must choose to vote Labour despite not agreeing with them on everything (like women should have rights) because they are the lesser of 2 evils. Yet the same people get really offended at the idea that women might vote for KJK as the lesser of several evils. Hypocrites.

I dont follow American politics closely but even I can see that they dont have brilliant options to choose from. Biden does not support women's rights. Trump is a convicted criminal who gropes women. They need a third option.

I haven't "demonised" her at all, or "bullied" her. I don't think anyone on this thread has. I have posted reasonable thoughts and challenges, similar to how I might post about any political or public figure. I find this type of over blown response to rational questions eerily familiar. I am expecting people to start bleating on about feeling unsafe any moment now.