Dr.Device

Oh, hey, look! It turns out there probably was some significant vote fraud this election. You'll never guess on the part of which party. It really sucks that once the dust settles, this will be used to "prove" that that there is a need for strict voter id laws, when no degree of strict voter id would have stopped this.

The big difference here is that the law Ivanka broke was not a law when Clinton was using her private server. The only even potential illegalities found in the entire ridiculously long investigation into Clinton's emails were mishandling of classified materials, which were mostly classified after the fact. On the other hand, Ivanka's use of a private server, when combined with the fact that she has not provided those emails as directed by the law, constitutes a clear felony violation. And the news media covered Hilary's emails more than all policy issues combined during the 2016 election. Every detail was belabored again and again. For something that wasn't even a crime.

Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has been renewed for two more seasons

This is just insane (HugeBillboard with Trump's face and the biblical quote "The Word became flesh - John 1:14") I honestly don't understand how any Christian who has even a passing familiarity with their own religion could support this.

Rpg.net bans posts in support of Trump or his administration

I've bowed out of the political threads in general to avoid exploding in rage, but I checked in to see if this had come up here, since it's super relevant to me. This is a "get out the vote" ploy, but it isn't just a "get out the vote" ploy. If you don't think that this administration will follow through on this, I believe that you are sadly mistaken. The DOJ has also filed a brief statement dating that employers should be able to discriminate based on gender identity[4]. The only reason trans folk haven't been kicked out of the military en masse is because the order is held up in court. Whether this administration hates us, or is just using us as a scapegoat, it doesn't matter. They want us gone. First, a note, transgender is an adjective, not a verb, so it's "transgender person, not "transgendered person." Not a huge deal, but I wanted to point it out. [1] Now the main question, real world effects: Immediate legal effects are minimal. The administration can interpret Title IX however they want, but they can't change the actual law. For good or ill, it's up to the courts to interpret the law, and congress to change the law if they don't care for the interpretation. That said, the administration (as noted above) can weigh in on any lawsuits brought under Title IX, and they can sway the courts. and given the new composition of the Supreme Court, I don't hold out a lot of hope for any sane decision on this topic there. There's worse the administration can do, but I'll come back to that. The government is also messing with us on passports. There was a clear cut process for changing the gender marker on one's passport, and the admin says that the process hasn't changed, but we are fining our requests rejected for spurious reasons. I ended up with only a "provisional" passport, even though every piece of my documentation was exactly as requested. Initially they declined to give me even that and I had to push. You ask if trans folk can participate in activities as individuals of their actual gender[2][3], as opposed to the gender they were assigned at birth. The answer there is a resounding "maybe." It's works differently in different places in the country. In some places, we're completely acknowledged as our actual gender. In others, they'll leave a trans girl to die in the hallways during an active shooter drill because they think a trans girl in the girls bathroom is scarier than a psycho with a gun. Various cases are winding through the courts to establish which of our rights the government will actually acknowledge. Over all, the trend has been going toward fully acknowledging our gender. And that leads us to the worse thing the DOJ can do. Armed with this (mis)interpretation of Title IX, I expect them to start filing suits against the places that do treat us as our true gender, claiming that it is sex discrimination to allow "men" in woman only spaces. They wouldn't even have to initiate the suit. They could just join one of several in progress around the country. Combined, these are a clear sign that our identities are under attack. If they invalidate my gender for federal purposes, will any of my ID even be valid? Since Real ID exists, probably not. Which makes it impossible for me to get a job. Or vote. Sure, I'd have a couple of choices. I could get a new ID with an "M" on it. I'm lucky enough to mostly pass. That would have me outing myself in every situation that I needed to present an ID. Or, I could go completely back in the closet. Walk around pretending to be a guy. Beyond all of the legal ramifications, though, there's another, more immediate effect. By further marginalizing and demonizing us, the administration is signaling to the people out there who already hate us that we do not enjoy the protection of the state. That we are fair game. It is virtually inevitable that this will ratchet up the rhetoric and even violence against us. And if they get there way, there will be bathroom bills across the country, requiring me to use the men's room. So I'd have to either not exist in public, risk my life using the wrong restroom, or break the law on a regular basis and end up in men's jail. How well do you think I'd fare there?. In conclusion, this administration wants people like me gone. I get the impression they'd prefer us dead, but they'll settle for back in the closet. Well, I'm not going back in the closet. [1] Also, some people probably do find "transsexual" offensive, so it would be rude to use it them. I think most of us just find it archaic and annoying. A few of us (but not me) even still use it to describe ourselves. Language. Go figure. [2] My paraphrase.(I don't want to put words in your mouth). [3] I'm not going to go into it here, but the sex vs. gender distinction is not as clear as many would like. The science is pretty clear that the idea of two distinct sexes is convenient shorthand, but woefully over-simplified. [4] This is actually a threat to way more than just us trans and other LGBTQfolks, but that's another discussion.[5] [5] yes, that footnote was out of order. Sorry.[6] [6] Not sorry.

Tom Hiddleston: The choices we make have a lasting impact. Not just on ourselves, but on those around us. On our communities. Even on the world. When considering the question before us, we must take into account-- Clerk, interrupting: Sir, I just need to know whether you want paper or plastic.

I don't think I have anything further constructive to add to this conversation, so I'll bow out, having said my piece.

Wow, there's a lot to unpack here, along with a lot of misunderstanding. CIs is not meant to be disrespectful. It's literally just the opposite of trans. Its shorthand for differentiating people whose gender matches the gender they were assigned at brith from those of us who weren't so lucky. The only people I have previously seen taking offense at the term cis are anti-trans activists, who almost always insist on no label other than "man" or "woman." In most cases, the terms "man" and "woman" are fine. But when one is talking about situations where there is a distinction between trans people and people who aren't trans, it' handy to have a term for each. That's really all it is to the vast majority of people who use the term. None of your other terms cover this. "Traditional" doesn't cover it. Trans folk have been around practically forever. We're not some new phenomenon under the sun. Straightness isn't helpful in this situation, since it is a descriptor of orientation, not gender identity. There are many straight trans people, and plenty of gay and bi ones, too. Cis gender is no more meant to dehumanize than trans gender. It certainly seems to have bothered you enough to go on at length about it. Especially comparing cis to the "n" word. Seriously? The "n" word has always been a pejorative, meant to denigrate those it is used against (except by those blacks who have chosen to reclaim it for themselves). It is a word used by the oppressor against the oppressed. To compare a simple, non-pejorative, technical term like cis to the n word is frankly offensive. And all words are made up at some point (just ask Thor). When they get made up no one goes around and asks every person they might apply to if they have a problem with the new term. Language evolves. What is it about the term cis (or cisgender) itself that you find offensive? Is it just that there's a term for it at all? Or is there a term that you would prefer? I'm really not out to offend anyone here. If I ever have cause to refer to your gender identity, personally, as distinct from trans men, I will use that term. In the general case, though, I will continue to use cis, or cisgender, for a couple of reasons. 1. It's generally considered disrespectful to refer to someone by what they are not, when there is a reasonable not negating term to use. (e.g., now that the term person of color is available, it's rude to refer to the grouping of people who aren't white as non-white people, rather than as people of color.) 2. Nontrans isn't specific enough. Some agender people, and some intersex people consider themselves neither trans nor cis. I have a similar question for you as I have for Duke above. Why is nontrans any better than cis? What is is about the term cis that you don't like? Assuming that you're white, how is this different from being called white, if issues of race come up? If you're straight, would you prefer to be called non-gay when issues of orientation arise? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm truly curious what it is about this term that offends you. I respect you, and do not wish to offend.

Maybe because the character wouldn't have as much of a problem with a trans man [1] teaching women's studies? At least many trans men have some relevant life experience. That's very different. Military history is not about the male experience, It's about military history. Men have not been traditionally side-lined and their experiences ignored, so there is simply no valid comparison.

I second Cygnia's question.

You keep using that terminology and I, for one, have no idea what you mean by it. You dismiss issues I and others bring up as mere policy issues, but the tax reforms you propose and your concerns about the voter rolls seem very much like just such policy issues. Like Lord Liaden, I am very curious what Libertarian party positions you find attractive. Although they are one hundred percent on board with removing the income tax, the idea of raising the capital gains tax is a complete non-starter with them. Their platform calls for the elimination of all taxes, as a matter of fact. And the removal of all environmental regulations. And anti-monopoly laws. Any economic regulation at all, actually. Oh, and they want to remove all anti-discrimination laws. Is there something in there that you find attractive? Are the Libertarian politicians playing that infinite values-based game you prize? Or is voting for them a protest? You accuse Democrats of just running against Trump, but I pointed out that they have real and meaningful policy proposals that they campaign on. Of course they attack Trump, too. He is the immediate symptom of the problem. He is actively tearing down the institutions that let the federal government functions, and enacting policies that are a real and present danger to huge number of people in this country, citizens and non-citizens alike, and to the whole world. To not fight the policies he's enacting, to not point out that he is betraying the interests of this country for his own enrichment and that of his cronies, would be irresponsible. But that isn't all they are doing. They lay out alternatives. They propose changes. Not all Democrats of course. Quite possibly not even most. But many. As I said, I think the Democrats are weak tea. They are so far to the right of me, it shocks me that I support them[1]. But they are fighting the party that is threatening the destruction of almost everything I value in America. So they get my support, for now. There's evidence that they aren't mostly bought by a foreign power, so they get my support, for now. I believe that a significant percentage of them have some integrity, even if I don't agree with them, so they get my support, for now. [1] I support the DSA, who mostly ally with the Democrats right now. I hope that they grow and can eventually be a viable third party that pulls ht eDemocrats to the left.

As TrickstaPriest points out, if it's the debt you're worried about you should be voting for the Democrats. The Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility, but only when they aren't the ones in charge. When they are, all that goes out the window. As for the infringement of rights, what rights are the ones you are concerned about? What vital rights do you see the Democrats wanting to infringe? Because from where I sit, the Republicans consistently try to restrict the rights of the people. Restricting the right to vote. Restricting the right to bodily autonomy. Republicans accuse Democrats of attacking the Freedom of Religion, but I don't see it. What is it that you are for, that the Democrats are attacking?

Thank you.

I appreciate you making a thoughtful reply. I still disagree with your premise.You speak of the Democrats running as not-Trump, but the democrats have a solid platform. They talk about that platform. And the media ignores it in favor of the spectacle of Trump. I'm sure there are some Democrats running as simply not-Trump, but what's your basis for asserting this categorically? Here is Texas, Beto O'Rourke is running against Ted Cruz for US Senator. He is visiting every county in Texas, and talking about issues in every one. Does he talk about how he opposes many of the policies of this administration? Of course he does. But he talks about what he would do differently. Is there something he should be doing differently? How would you have the Democrats modify their behavior? What specifically are they doing that you object to? That you see the same as what the Republicans are doing? The rhetoric from the two sides does not even approach symmetrical. If you disagree, please give examples of how you think they're both the same, rather than simply asserting that they are. The right continually produces bizarre and vile conspiracy theories against the left. It may be the cranks who start them, but they get promoted by voices high in the Republican party. Show me the equivalent of pizzagate from the left. And now I feel like you're going to say I'm once again saying "my guys[1] good, their guys bad" but I have no idea what you are proposing instead. You say they're the same. I see few similarities. If it's not the rhetoric, and it's not the policies, what is it that's the same between the parties? I conceded that they are both too beholden to corporate interests, but I don't feel like that's what you're talking about. And frankly, some of us don't have the luxury of rising above mere policy disputes. Our lives are literally on the line. This administration is striving to make it legal for anyone, including medical personnel, to refuse me service because of who I am. They believe that, no matter the oath a doctor took, it's okay for that doctor to let me bleed out, because he has "religious" objections to my existence. They are trying to change rules so that I can be denied insurance coverage because of who I am. The Republicans are fighting attempts to remove "gay panic" as a defense for murder. It's not about them being "mean," it's about them taking concrete steps that are going to kill people like me, and, in the case of global warming, potentially everyone on the planet. So please, tell me what the Democrats could do differently that would show that they aren't just laying the same finite game that you say both sides are playing. [1] The democrats aren't my guys. They're a center-right party that is simply less objectionable than the other choice.

But these are not symmetrical positions. There is clear evidence that the republican policies are disenfranchising thousands, and likely tens of thousands, of minority voters. There is no evidence that the lack of those policies are causing tens, lets alone hundreds or thousands of cases of voter fraud. You can promise that all you like, but their own actions and words say otherwise. The emails that have come out in the various lawsuits around the republican efforts document republicans specifically targeting black voters. The voter registration purges going on across the country in red states at least appear to be disproportionately affecting minority voters. The claims of voter fraud that get made to justify their policies are shown again and again to be baseless. A bunch of republican voters may believe that voter fraud is a problem, and that their politicians are trying to fix it, but they are wrong. I admit that Republicans have done things in the name of religious freedom. But as far as I can see, that's just lip service. They have done nothing in actual service of religious freedom. A corporation is not a person and has no religion, so can not have religious objections to anything. If the owners don't want to comply with law, they shouldn't be in business. And why should discriminating against homosexuals be any different than discriminating against any other group. There are still churches that preach against the mixing of the races. Should a business run by a member of that church be able to discriminate against blacks? Should a business be able to refuse to hire a Mormon, or a catholic, if it's run by a Southern Baptist? Because those make just as much sense. That's certainly something that's alleged, and should be looked into. But even if it is found to be true, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea of helping traditionally underrepresented minorities. And in my original, I left out the biggest difference of all between the parties right now, at least in terms of long term effects. The Democrats want to address global warming. The Republicans claim that it doesn't exist, or that if it does, it has nothing to do with the actions of humanity, and there's nothing we can do about it. Global warming is an existential threat to human civilization, and possibly human existence. By denying it, the Republicans are threatening the human race. I know it sounds melodramatic, but every day the Republicans stay in power, the more likely human civilization faces an early end. Okay, well, that may not be true. They may have already delayed action long enough that it's too late, and there's nothing we can do. So, there's that.

Who do you include in "the radical progressive 'left'"? Especially, what "morality" do you see them trying to impose on others? Because I don't see what passes for the left (i.e., the Democratic Party) in this country as being anywhere near to the GOP, in policies, tactics, or outcomes. The Democrats want to make sure every eligible person can vote. The republicans are doing their best to disenfranchise as many minorities as possible. The Democrats are trying to prevent discrimination, whether based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. The GOP is trying to enshrine discrimination into the law. The Democrats are trying to maintain a social safety net for all. The GOP is trying to tear it down. The Democrats are trying to make sure everyone has access to adequate healthcare. The GOP is fighting this tooth and nail. The Democrats are trying to secure our elections from interference by foreign entities. The GOP is stopping them. I agree that both parties are too beholden to corporate interests. I agree that many politicians in both parties are often more worried about their own reelection than their the good of their constituents, but the GOP is standing by while the current administration, at the direction of the President, sells this country off to the highest bidder. They pretend to investigate his possible connection to the interference with the 2016 elections, while keeping the Democrats from calling relevant witnesses. They take money from the NRA, which, has become essentially a front for funneling money from Russian oligarchs to political campaigns here. There is not an ounce of integrity left in the national Republican Party. So, are the Democrats perfect? Not even close. But to group them as even close to the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not supportable.

I want to see him throw a polar bear at a bad guy

In the last supers campaign I ran (lo those many years ago) I had this. Super powers (and a bunch of other weirdness) were relatively new, and the government was trying to figure things out. A decent chunk of one session was spent with the group taking the FAA inspector on a test flight in their flying car [1] so she could license it. If the players hadn't been into it, it would have been a few minutes of the game, but they seemed to enjoy it, so we played the whole thing out. They were also targeted by assassins[2] sent by De Boers because of their Gemerator 3000™[3]. It was a bit of a wacky game. [1] It was a 1960s looking station wagon (wood paneling and all) that they had received as a boon from an extra dimensional entity when they requested a vehicle that could take them "anywhere on Earth". [2] One of the assassins made the mistake of trying to blow up the car. [3] Another boon from the entity. All the boons they got were excuses to spend character points.

No, as I wrote above, program expenses consist of the money spent on the actual programs and services the charity exists to deliver. As BolofOfEarth pointed out, those other expenses are administrative expenses. Administrative expenses for the Clinton Foundation are 9.5%. You can get the data on just about any (maybe even all) U.S. charities from Charity Navigator. Here's the link for the Clinton Foundation's data. The idea that the Clinton Foundation was a scam was entirely campaign propaganda. It's a serious charity that does serious work. If you want to continue this discussion, we should probably take it to the politics thread, or its own thread.

That general statement is true, especially for the Red Cross, but that's not accurate on the Clinton Foundation. 86.9% of its funds go to program expenses, that is, the actual programs and services it exists to deliver. That's pretty dang high as non-profits go.

Well, that's that. I honestly doubt our nation will survive the next few years. Not in any form that's worth calling America, anyway.

Understandable. I remember that incident and was thinking about it after I wrote this. So, for the record, This is me two and a half years ago, right before I came out to myself: And this is me three days ago: I look a little different, but I think you can see me there in both. And, just to be thorough, here's a video of me saying who I am. (But also, look at my join date on my profile. I'd have to be playing the really long game on this)

So, recently on the Politics thread, I mentioned that I'm transgender. When I came out a couple of months ago, I changed my gender field on my profile to female, and put real pic of me as a profile pic. But I didn't post anything here. I'd considered doing it at the same time I was coming out on social media, but I didn't. I'm not sure why. I only brought it up in the politics thread because it was relevant to the argument I was making. But this evening, when I was watching a show with a trans character, I started thinking about how important representation is to me, and to all people, really. I was thinking about the fact that, until someone says something otherwise (or their name indicates otherwise) on these boards (and on the internet in general) , I tend to imagine them as a straight white male. I think a lot of people do that. I mean, I don't think we even do it consciously, but I'm aware of the times when someone says something that reveals that they aren't a SWM, and I'm a little bit surprised. I don't like that. It bothered me when I identified as a straight white male, and it bothers me now. And that's why I'm posting this. Representation is important. I want any other LGBTQ folks on the boards to know they're not alone. Also, if anyone's curious about what it's like to be trans, and to transition, I way overshare on my Tumblr, or feel free to ask me any (not too personal) questions here.

Dang it, I never did get the hang of that back when I was pretending to be a guy. It's a wonder I lasted as long as I did.