If this turns out to be directly because of the Trump admin that'll be... not that surprising tbh
Comparisons to Nazis are unfounded, guys
Most likely an issue with officials that were being kept in check by previous administrations no longer feeling pressure to keep their private views out of their work.
This, ICE is a prime example of agencies suddenly getting their way now that their masters basically let go of the leashes.
This is why I preferred the old rules of only credible, least biased sources.
Its a shit source, but the tweets are still proof.
https://mobile.twitter.com/zenalbatross/status/1022243883063930880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1022243883063930880&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsplinternews.com%2Fajax%2Finset%2Fiframe%3Fid%3Dtwitter-1022243883063930880%26autosize%3D1
In the tweet history, other trans people are also reporting that suddenly they have to revalidate their gender on their passports eventhough its been the same for the past 1-20 years.
Also ignoring a doctor's note as proof is disgusting considering almost all states who offer name changes take the note as proof of their transgenderisim.
How do we know the tweets aren't 'altering the truth' or not telling the whole story though
I'm not saying they ARE, but tweets aren't 'proof'
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/07/state-department-retroactively-revoking-passports-trans-citizens/
Factual Reporting: HIGH
LGBTQ Nation
https://www.themarysue.com/state-department-trans-passports/
Factual Reporting: HIGH
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-mary-sue/
https://www.bustle.com/p/trans-women-claim-trumps-admin-revoked-their-passports-after-they-changed-their-gender-marker-report-9921036
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Bustle Magazine
Thank you, working atm so couldn't search for another source.
Aye, and though the policy may not have changed some folk may now be flagrantly violating the policy.
This is the real danger of the GOP, every single time they get in power from now on they will do nothing but make people worse off. No progress will ever happen under the GOP as of the Obama administration.
I don't think it's accurate to say 'no progress'. However, all the progress we'd make is going to come at great expense. The GOP has proven itself time and time again to in fact be anti-conservative in economic policy. Their policy is to massively expand the deficit, limit controls on corporations and the private sector at large, and remove protections guaranteed by the state to its citizenry (minus exactly one or two tent-pole issues). Can progress result from corporations being given a 'license to kill' more or less? Absolutely. Will they be more reckless and potentially harm more our economy, workers' rights, and civil liberties - meanwhile further embroiling themselves and entwining themselves into the political gears of the nation? Absolutely.
"State dept denies changing policy regardless of witnesses suddenly having issues after 20 years."
Im sorry if I dont trust a department that is being ran by people who redacted trans information since inauguration.
The Mary Sue isn't even in the same hemisphere as factual supporting.
Well, then you should contact MBFC and let them know why.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/36416b2e-4f36-4b86-babc-821d7759f5ab/image.png
I mean progress in societal terms, making (non 1%) people's lives better or at least trying. I with conservatism meant anything else but the current hypocritical zombie ideology. Rich people and banks get bailouts,
poor people die in debt. States' rights on voting and abortion, but not with drugs and sanctuary cities.
As was I. New technology is new technology and new technology can always engender a great deal of progress. The rate of adoption of that technology will depend on the company in question and their strategy in its deployment - and the potential negative impact it could have is also increased in a time where there is less risk for a company to take more legal risk to make more expedient and efficient its R&D and so forth. Nonetheless, positive impacts can be made even when corporations are given a free license to do literally whatever they want.
The problem is, of course, that 'what they want' is not likely to align with 'what the American people want'.
Can this right/left bias bullshit just die? It's just people pretending to look at a website's legitimacy, when all they're actually checking is whether they're on "their side".
Centerists aren't more correct just because they're in the middle
Agreed. The Mary Sue, for instance, is listed as a highly factual source of news. They might use loaded language and so on -- but despite their political leanings they competently source their claims - and routinely so. Therefore, to degrade the source as 'not even in the same hemisphere as trustworthy' is pretty sad if you don't have evidence that demonstrates that the facts of their reporting are wrong.
They aren't any more correct, but they are far less likely to hide facts or write a story in a way that pushes their agenda.
absolutely not, they'll hide facts that support either extreme to keep their air of centrism around
That's not the state department, its a trans activism organization founded and run by a trans person. This story is nothing. We should have a forum rule about posting shit that is just sourced from less than a handful of tweets.
I hope at the very least those that grumbled and griped at the pentagon feel a pang of remorse, Obama didn't make them constantly on high alert for a declaration of war from Twitter, hell they probably didn't even know what twitter was before trump.
The woman in question gave an interview explaining what happened with the state dept blocking her physician's note as proof of her transgenderisim. Read the sources before you jump the gun screaming about how its solely based on two tweets when one of them women gave a full interview and showed pictures of what the department said. The OP is a shit source, I know, but the other sources say pretty much the same thing.
I'm responding to you misattributing a quote you replied to, not your OP.
Then what does the second part of your comment mean? The sources talked about one of the women's interviews, not just the tweet she made.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
