This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
The bit I think you're missing, however, is that:
1) her opponent was an infamous bigot who was well known in the area as the author of a proposed VA bathroom bill aimed at transgender people, and
2) her opponent made it a major part of his platform that she was transgender.
It's getting attention because it's ironic as hell. You know the other story that got very nearly as much airtime as this one? The boyfriend of the VA-area newscaster who was shot to death on live television ran for a Delegate seat on a gun control platform against a noted gun rights advocate, and HE won too. That one's a little less funny since his story is kind of a tragedy (not that being transgender in VA is a walk in the park, of course), but that's also the reason that it's generated so much attention - that it's ironic that someone who was victimized by a particular platform ran for office and won.
What we're experiencing is essentially the Republicans subjecting their voting base to "Sophie's choice". They'll pick one or two items that the core supporters are uncompromising on (Guns, God, Gays, etc.) and then they'll run an absolutely abhorrent ghoul against the Democrat as basically a dare to the voters as to which which part of their conscience they'll listen to.
The whole 'tough, straight shooter' candidate thing might've worked for Trump because he has a whole cabinet of people to cushion the policy part of whatever incendiary thing he tweets, but I don't think that kind of politics works at a local level.
In fact, some people I know make it a habit to simply vote against the incumbent in local elections, since the incumbents almost always win by huge margins, as a sort of a statement, even if they know nothing about the contender.
Are you sure the right didn't push it at all? It's surprising, the idea that the Republican opposition didn't attempt to push it, and (I suspect) not actually reflective of reality itself.Yeah, only left-wing news sites are trying to push the transgender thing so much (well...and bigoted sites that are using it as a sign of the end times, of course).
I do remember a lot of white people noting that Obama was the good kind of black candidate, not being too forward with his race.That's EXACTLY what we need and is the most positive kind of representation possible. Identity politics alienates most of the country, people like her do not. I agree totally with an op-ed I saw in the NYT that was titled something like "Danica Roems is boring. That's a good thing."
Are you sure the right didn't push it at all? It's surprising, the idea that the Republican opposition didn't attempt to push it, and (I suspect) not actually reflective of reality itself.
Splitting hairs, but she's in the House of Delegates in Virginia, not in the White House. That is, unless Trump is keeping a really big secret.Look, I'm going to tell everyone now, I don't give a fuck if they're transgender or not, I saw we have a metalhead in the White House, that's all I need to know. Up the goddamn irons!
Either way, White House, House of Delegates, they're in the Government and to me, that's awesome. Won't lie, I was drunk when I made that post a few nights ago.
Your ignorant, lie/fabrication-filled, bigoted posts clearly illustrate otherwise.... My problem isnt with TG people at all, its the media. Dont agree with my comment? Dont respond to it. That simple
There's also the matter of, while you're free to have whatever opinions you want, you also need to own them and if a certain opinion generates a lot of negative backlash, part of holding that opinion is being prepared to weather that backlash. You can't say something highly controversial, and then simultaneously expect to be free from all repercussions for having that opinion.Your ignorant, lie/fabrication-filled, bigoted posts clearly illustrate otherwise.
I wanted to include that, but I thought two concepts in one email would be too much for them to handle.There's also the matter of, while you're free to have whatever opinions you want, you also need to own them.
This. Wtf does it matter what demographic they belong to? They aren't supposed to be elected to represent race, religion, sex, sexual preference or any other identity. They are elected to represent their constituents.Pretty much the last thing I care about when researching a candidate is that candidates anatomy or sexual preferences.
No it means im done. I dont even care anymore. This is a losing battle. Theres no point of posting the source of my claim because this argument will still continue to go back and forth. Im clearly in the minority here, im defending myself from several people on here. These are just little social issues, there are bigger problems than this. Big brother loves dividing the people by having them go at war with each other. Its not worth it. Im tired from it. Im done