Skewered on two horns

Two stories from the US. The first:

There has been an outpouring of anger in the US from politicians, celebrities and human rights groups over a report alleging the US policy on gender recognition could be changed.

A report in the New York Times on Sunday said a government memo proposed officially defining gender as biological and fixed.

The change would rescind previous policy which eased trans recognition.

Instead, it would define gender solely on the genitalia people are born with.

That this is remotely controversial says rather a lot about the times we live in.

The administration of former President Barack Obama adopted a definition of gender in federal policy which made it easier to allow individual choice and self-determination.

What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that Obama didn’t pass a law, it was one of his infamous Executive Orders; this is why it is so easy to reverse. The reason Obama didn’t pass a law was because it would never have got through Congress.

Activists fear the changes allegedly being proposed could in effect “define out of existence” Americans who currently identify as transgender – a community who are said to number at least 1.4 million people.

Obama’s policy dates from 2010. Prior to that, trans people existed, both physically and legally. The idea that 1.4m people will cease to exist because they’re categorised under their biological sex is the product of mental illness, which the BBC seems happy to propagate.

The report has generated an angry response from some people in and outside of the US, including swathes of the LGBTQ community.

Advocacy groups organised a demonstration on Sunday evening in New York and another protest is planned outside the White House in Washington DC on Monday Morning.

In a series of Tweets on Sunday, the National Centre for Transgender Equality described the changes as an “abomination” and “a reckless attack” on transgender lives.

Okay, let’s park that there for a moment.

The second story is this:

President Donald Trump has said the US will “begin cutting off” foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador because of a large convoy of migrants heading north.

Mr Trump criticised the countries on Monday for allowing people to leave the region and come “illegally” to the US.

The group is travelling through Mexico, but is still far from the US border.

The mid-terms were already going to be a struggle for the Democrats after their Brett Kavanaugh smear campaign backfired badly, and these two issues are just going to make things worse. Note how few Democrats are actually speaking about either; normally they’d be all over the media condemning Trump. The reason for their silence is they know full well that going into an election decrying a Trump administration for officially recognising only one’s birth gender, and reversing the lunacy of self-identity, will cost them heavily in terms of votes. They will be seen as mental, and rightly so. The trouble is they’ve made the headcases their base, who will be appalled their representatives aren’t standing up for them. Most will vote Democrat anyway, but some will stay at home while others will agitate for greater lunatics to oust their current representatives.

The Democrats have a similar problem with this migrant caravan. Only the most deranged anti-Trumpers and open-border advocates will see the footage on TV and think this mass of bedraggled humanity should be allowed to enter the US, not least because of the precedent it will set. It’s unlikely the caravan will reach the border before the elections, but this plays right into Trump’s hands anyway: all he has to do is say they’re not coming in. The Democrats, by contrast, have a choice of campaigning for the caravan to be let in, or staying silent. Neither is a particularly attractive choice in the run-up to critical elections. This is a problem solely of the Democrats’ own making: had a handful of them not backed open borders and mass illegal immigration (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama opposed both) they’d be able to support Trump’s position and campaign on other issues. But they decided everything Trump says must be opposed at all costs, and ended up supporting ludicrous policies which are now, at a crucial time, making them look as though they live on a wholly different planet to ordinary Americans. Their best bet is to therefore remain silent, but this will only upset their base.

I suspect the GOP will be happy to keep both issues in the press for as long as possible in the run-up to the mid-terms, hence Trump’s remarks:

Without offering evidence, Mr Trump has repeatedly suggested the caravan was politically motivated.

On Monday he urged people to blame Democrats for the border crisis, saying: “Remember the mid-terms”.

He also tweeted that the caravan contained “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners”. When he was later pressed by journalists on what this meant, he offered no origin for the claim but invited reporters to investigate for themselves.

The media think Trump will be discredited if his claims are questioned by the media. Trump knows most people only care about the thousands of people who are heading their way, and that the media would like to let them in. Not for the first time, by keeping it in the news they’re doing his job for him.

If the Democrats want the elections to be a referendum on transsexuals’ ideas of gender identity and whether a column of ten thousand assorted south Americans should be allowed to just walk into the United States, I’m sure the Republicans won’t object. The Democrats really have painted themselves into a corner, and it’s going to be fun trying to watch them get out.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

18 thoughts on “Skewered on two horns

  1. Still not seeing a Trump surge in the house. Five Thirty Eight still says that the Dems are 6/7 to take the House, although far less so in the Senate. (80% chance of GoP control)

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/

    In Nate Silver’s models the Dems are outraising the Republicans and the voting intentions polls all show a strong Dem lead in key House battle grounds.

    And Nate Silver was far more accurate on the odds of a Trump victory than most pollsters. He didnt say it was likely, but gave it something like a 30% probability, he was berated by some idiot at HuffPo who claimed that the odds of a Hillary win was 99%, resulted in an epic twitter spat.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington-post-polls-twitter-230815

  2. Ken

    I’m touched, well, actually, bemused by your faith in Nate Silver.

    That 30% was the highest percentage chance he gave Trump, out of a range of much lower figures; his most reported commentary was that Trump’s chances were, “better than 0%, but less than 20%”. But the real point is that this mid-term will be decided in a small collection of districts and States and I don’t think the polls are being interpreted to reflect that. Sure, the Dems will pile up useless votes on the West Coast, the ACELA corridor and Illinois, but in the seats that count, they won’t do enough.

    Here’s my useless prediction: The GOP will increase its numbers in the Senate to at least 55 and may even get to the filibuster proof 60. The GOP will also retain its majority in the House, although that might have been shaved marginally.

    If that comes off, and I admit to being as useless as Nate Silver, then all bets are off for the Dems; either they get sensible and accept the new Trump dispensation is here to stay or they attempt to go ‘to the mattresses’. That would not end well for anybody.

  3. If Dems win the house they will impeach Trump, but the Senate will just laugh it away – there’s no way two thirds of the Senate would vote for it in the trial.

    However what happens once that’s happened – would the Dems keep making trumped up charges and go through impeachment again and again?

    Sounds pointless and a waste of time and energy – so I guess this will be the Dems strategy.

  4. The Dems seem to be following a base only strategy. They’re doing a good job of firing up their base, inadvertently firing up the Republican base also. We’ll see how this plays in a couple of weeks but I expect that they’ll get more votes in places they would have won anyway at the expense of less votes elsewhere.

  5. If the GOP keep the House then I’d bet on Hillary Clinton going to jail next year – and a bunch of others who bet the farm on her victory and are now horribly exposed.
    (please let it be so…)

  6. What’s the point of jailing Hillary (satisfaction apart?).
    She’s currently a net vote loser for the Dems, turning her into a martyr won’t help the Reps even slightly, and would probably cost them votes.

    Better to just periodically remind everyone how bent she is without using the offices of state to go after her.

  7. Further thought. The constant demonising of Trump and the Republicans, plus the various assaults will reduce their actual support in the election but not as much as it will reduce their standing in opinion polls. Why risk exposing yourself to that when there’s nothing to be gained? So I expect the Republicans to do better than the opinion polls predict- by how much I don’t know.

  8. He didnt say it was likely, but gave it something like a 30% probability

    30% right is still 70% wrong.

    Garbage in, garbage out. After decades of being publicly shamed for their political views, should we be surprised that conservatives and the poltiically indifferent have learned to lie about their intentions?

  9. Whenever you see the phrase “activists fear” is the Progressive media you know something is working correctly.

    “Caused a backlash on social media” is another common phrase which means the cause can be discounted as trivial and probably manufactured.

  10. Trump has made the USA into such a shithole that people from socialist paradises are desperate to be let in. How does the left explain this?

  11. @BiG in Japan on October 25, 2018 at 1:49 am

    Ah, you seem to think facts might make a difference. Sadly, facts don’t matter to a good leftie green sjw npc

  12. @theProle
    “What’s the point of jailing Hillary (satisfaction apart?)”

    The law? Justice?

  13. As regards the first point about transgenders, I believe the libertarian dream to have a social system where everybody can affirm his (her, or in this case ze/xe and whatever is created ad infinitum) own personal truth and everything goes smoothly, is a pious illusion. Giving up, step by step, inch by inch, portions of reality to screaming people in order to “preserve peace” (as the European Human Right Court likes to say) is a big blunder.

Comments are closed.