you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That seems like it will just give democrats a more solid reason to reject him as a trans advocate, the way black republicans get called Uncle Toms. If they are at least liberal on their own issue then they're just "fiscally conservative" or whatever, and it's a little more complicated. But this won't be complicated - now he can be dismissed as a traitor to his own kind.

If he weren't running for office, this might have been useful, but since he's already come out as not just republican but wanting to represent the party as the governor, he'll just be seen as following the party line.

[–]RationalNeutral 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If he weren't running for office, this might have been useful, but since he's already come out as not just republican but wanting to represent the party as the governor, he'll just be seen as following the party line.

Given the history /u/MarkTwainiac pointed out in their comment, how could you not?

Alternatively, wouldn't it be cherry-picking to ignore that context and try to claim this is their true opinion uninfluenced by the party line?

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Once someone’s a republican anyway, it doesn’t matter much to committed liberals what the context or informed knowledge is, though. I could see this making people take a second look or listen to the other side if it were just a celebrity trans person with no political affiliation, but once there’s an obvious political angle, they can be easily dismissed as having selfish motivation to go against rights they’re too rich or brainwashed to grasp the need for...