That would be a morally correct political faux pas, that would result in Republicans scoring easy points just by saying "See! We told you so!"
It's the kind of suggestion someone in a leftwing political bubble would make, forgetting that to actually be effective, you have to win votes from both sides.
There's no room for tactical errors this election, even if they would make you feel morally superior. It's not a game of moral signaling, it's a game of politics. The point is not to be right, it's to win the election.
It’s the morally correct position. And running away from it will lose democrats votes they need.
They’re not gonna win republicans by going to the right. The democrats are going to lose if they try that shit. If they want to win they need to promise to bring back abortion rights, protect LGBTQ rights, and stop arming Israel. That would guarantee them a win. Especially if Kamala keeps up her economic promises she already made.
Abortion rights will take longer, because they need the Supreme Court for that.
Israel will not happen, they will likely continue to support traditional geopolitical allies who are clients of the military industrial complex.
...you would likely need to alter neoliberalism it's self to do that one.
Any other vulnerable minorities you want to throw under the bus while you're at it?
do you think winning an election is about the popular vote?
do you think the Democrats are more likely to support trans rights?
If you answered yes to both, then maybe don't suggest importing wedge issues into something that's about the popular vote?
Do you want to give Trump more voters? Because that's what you're angling for. That's what the headline is suggesting to do.
You're mistaking wanting the most minority supporting side of politics to win the election for not supporting minorities? How the fuck doesn't that even make sense.
Kamala's job is currently defensive, dodge dodge dodge, stay clean, watch Trump get dirty and sink. It's simple.
As soon as she's won, then it's time to be very very very noisy (and violent) on progressive and socialist issues again. But right now that's only going to act as a kind of sabotage.
Which is fine if you're an accelerationist who sees value to strengthening American Fascism. But I just want to try to end the Republican party.
If you answered yes to both
I answered no to both.
Do you want to give Trump more voters?
The only argument any centrist has when they move to the right like they all want to.
So you don't believe they need the popular vote to win and you believe that the Republicans would be better at defending trans rights?
I don't accept that defending trans SAFETY is a losing election issue.
Have you spent any time in right wing spaces, or listened to the new generation describing themselves as "classical liberals". They're swing voters and it's pretty important to them.
Have you spent any time in right wing spaces
Yes, let's just do everything we can to abandon every last minority centrists consider expendable in order to peel off a total of zero votes from fascists.
They're not going to vote for you, no matter how many vulnerable minorities you throw under the bus. You've had fucking decades to figure this out, and it looks like you're just throwing people under the bus because you like the thumping sounds.
All powerful me who you can attack rather than try to convince. A microcosm for your general approach of yelling. Your goals and demands, kept vague at best.
I doubt you even know what you're asking for.
There's a timeline to installing trans rights, it requires adjustments to the Supreme Court.
But I'm aware that you're not thinking that far ahead in a planned or tactical manner, and your plans are: be loud, make demands, be radical.
But you've not actually outlined much more than that, so there's nothing to debate with you.
Good day, good luck with your imaginary bus, and me as the all powerful deity controlling who gets pushed under.
No idea what you're on about unfortunately, but you seem very vocal about whatever it is.
[Edit: No, I get it, you want to create a polemic against Trump's obvious lies, treating them as if they're worth addressing rather than let him melt under the scrutiny of the general population https://i.redd.it/m2pzcfjk77md1.png... But that's not necessary. Let's not make his lies into a false balance situation. Just let him look foolish instead.]
There’s a timeline to installing trans rights,
Still settin' timeframes.
But I’m aware that you’re not thinking that far ahead in a planned or tactical manner, and your plans are: be loud, make demands, be radical.
I'm aware that you're stalling until the party can abandon trans people like it abandoned undocumented immigrants.
I'm not setting timeframes, you literally can't change Supreme Court judges during an election. You don't even understand the basics of how rights or the systems involved work.
I’m not setting timeframes, you literally can’t change Supreme Court judges during an election.
And until then, we can't acknowledge openly as a party that trans people are worth protecting. Makes sense.
It is when that's considered woke and you've got a ton of your own electors that have been brainwashed into thinking woke bad
Well fuck, if it's considered woke I guess there's nothing we can do 🤷♂️
If your goal is to not let the Republicans win? Just look at what the Democrats at the various levels of government are actually doing even though they never make it a point to talk about it while they're campaigning and understand that there's a fucking good reason why they don't.
Hell, you need to be pretty self centered to believe that trans people are the only repressed people that don't get talked about but still benefit from having the Democrats in power vs the Republicans. They can't cover every single group.
If your goal is to not let the Republicans win?
A. The goal should be to achieve progress, not win elections
B. That involves making the case for that progress, not capitulating to popular opinion that's been fabricated by conservative media
But that's only if you're not operating on a dialectical-materialist political analysis, because if you were you'd understand that real progress can't be made through simple electoral victories. Abandoning minority protections in exchange for electoral power is how America has operated since its founding.
Yeah the goal is to achieve progress and you won't do that by alienating a big part of the electorate to cater the minority of the 1% of the population that is trans and doesn't understand that open support for their cause might lead to a Republican government instead, which would be worse for them and for progress in general.
"A big part of the electorate" doesn't care one way or the other about trans rights. All throughout centrist apologists have been saying "most people don't care about Palestine enough to affect their vote", they just want kitchen table progress. But somehow when the issue is trans rights, you people think it's some vote-defining issue that will sink the election if there's a single trans speaker in a weeklong convention.
Just the same old fucking white moderates doing the white moderate things King talked about.
I 100% believe that it's the same thing with Palestine and you'll notice that no more support for Gaza was announced either. Why? Because it's not worth alienating Jewish voters when you can use their votes to win the election and then adapt the government's stance on the question.
Trans rights are never brought up during the various electoral campaigns, yet Democrats actually do something to help when they're elected at the different levels of government so maybe you should get the message that is not an issue that's popular enough to increase the popular vote and that the votes gained from mentioning it will be less than the votes lost.
cater the minority of the 1% of the population that is tens and doesn’t understand that open support for their cause might lead to a Republican instead
I'm sorry, their ""cause""? Is "we have a right to exist" the 'cause' you consider to be the thing alienating 'a big part of the electorate'?
Why are you here? Go back to reddit, jesus christ.
Yes, open support by a politician for your right to exist alienates part of the electorate even on the Democrat's side, open your eyes buddy, the trans right cause is controversial! Hell, people imagine trans everywhere at this point, just look at what happened during the Olympics! It's not fair, it's not right, it's the fucked up world we live in, sometimes it's better to shut up and guarantee a more progressive option takes power and does things to improve your situation without making a big fuss of it than to be loud and guarantee a more conservative option takes power and takes what little rights you've got at the moment. Unless you're an accelerationist in which case all I would say is fuck you, but I don't think you are!
I believe that the popular vote isn't sufficient to win, as it wasn't when Clinton lost with the popular vote.
I believe Democrats won't protect trans rights, either.
You've chosen to be dishonest as fuck about my positions.
She didn't get the popular vote where it mattered, popular vote is still what is needed
So you think it's just as likely they won't protect trans right as it is likely the Republicans won't? Because that was the question.
Looking at Democrat's States vs Republican States it's pretty clear you're wrong about that second part.
She didn’t get the popular vote where it mattered, popular vote is still what is needed
Trump won without it.
So you think it’s just as likely they won’t protect trans right as it is likely the Republicans won’t?
I don't trust either of them at all on this issue. I think they're just itching to throw another vulnerable minority under the bus like they did with the undocumented immigrants you're using Republican talking points about.
Republicans do bad thing
Democrats try but fail to completely stop it
"Why did Democrats do this bad thing??" - Ensign_Crab
Every time without fail, it's a classic
How does adopting Republican border policy count as trying and failing to stop Republican policy?
Oh wait, you don't care. You're just happy they moved to the right.
If the Democrats nominated Karl Marx himself you'd call him right wing.
If they nominated Trump, you'd expect everyone to believe that he was the most progressive candidate ever.
Again, she didn't get the popular vote WHERE IT MATTERED, first past the post still requires popular vote, just not at a national level.
Again, she didn’t get the popular vote WHERE IT MATTERED
That wasn't the question I initially answered, is it?
Tomato tomato, you need the popular vote to be elected, no matter how you want to twist it
Trump lost the popular vote. That doesn't count for some reason.
He won the popular vote where it mattered.
I bet they don't answer you.
I hope you had money riding on it.
Geez, you're a bit crabby, aren't you.
Don't call me a trumper for not trusting your shit party not to be shit, then.
I don't know what you mean by this. Progressives just need people to vote. The higher the voting turnout percentage, the better progressive candidates do. Conservative voters are the last people to stop voting due to disenfranchisement, they are practically immune to it. There are not a lot of swing voters.
Yes, and the vast majority of Americans have no interest in voting for what they consider niche culture issues. Defeating fascists will protect everyone’s rights.
You're not saying that they are disinterested, that this is an ineffective way to spend energy or something. You're saying that it will actively drive moderate Americans to hate trans people. I think you need to look into your heart.
So, to be clear, your claim is that I didn't say what I literally said?
Here, maybe an analogy will help. Suppose I run for office to fight corporate monopolies. How do I get people to vote for me?
“My fellow Americans, a strong antitrust policy will save you money at the grocery store by preventing price gouging.”
“My fellow Americans, a strong antitrust policy will save you money on Pokémon cards by preventing price gouging.”
Even though Pokémon cards will be cheaper under a good antitrust policy, that’s not a fact that will motivate average Americans to vote. They don’t hate Pokémon, you understand. They just have their own problems, living paycheck to paycheck, etc.
Hope that helps!
No, they're saying that it will actively drive some moderate Americans to not vote because they see the trans question as being a far left issue. If they have more votes to lose than to win by talking about trans rights (which trans actually know are better protected by Democrats) then why would they talk about it when their goal is to be elected?
This is a reasonable response. But generally "energizing the base" is done closer to the election. We'll see more preaching to the choir discourse around then.
I'm kind of hoping the silence on Gaza turns loud once the election is close enough that AIPAC money won't fuck the election.
I honestly don't give a shit how loud they are about it before the election, I just want to see them take action once Kamala is in office.
Right now I just want to see them win the election, because everything else I want is off-the-table otherwise. If being quiet on controversial issues right now helps, then they should do that.
Like how Biden has been taking action on it while he's been in office..?
There's zero evidence Harris will do anything she hasn't voiced support for once she's in office, and she has no actual motivation to do so once the election is over.
"We just need to win" is literally just that.
And the only time when Biden has seemed to briefly change tact on Israel was when his polling for the upcoming election was suffering. All this philosophy about "don't make a stink now, it's only going to get Trump elected" is bullshit, because it very much also might make Democrats decide trans-rights/Palestine actually matter. Quietly storing it away for after the election will do absolutely nothing.
All this philosophy about “don’t make a stink now, it’s only going to get Trump elected” is bullshit, because it very much also might make Democrats decide trans-rights/Palestine actually matter.
That's the only reason centrists don't want anyone making a fuss about it.
This eager dismissal of trans rights as just a tactical decision is entirely why people shit on liberals. Everything that isn't the rock solid universally approved "normal" is just an anxiety attack away from being bargained away under the faulty assumption it's an essential sacrifice in the name of protecting the status quo. Never mind that trans rights aren't a major issue for anyone other than the hard right or trans people and their allies, and that dodging the issue in no way protects Democrats from being assigned a role in the culture war.
You could have just said "that sucks". You could have pointed to efforts that could work the system elsewhere to protect them. You could have pointed to the myriad of trans rights issues that have majority of support that we could redirect the conversation to. You could have said literally nothing at all. But instead you wanted to broadcast how unimportant the rights of your nominal allies are.
Because to you, politics is just a game.
Bruh
I’m debating whether or not to even engage with you here given that you just gaslit a stranger because you’re upset about what the ruling class isn’t doing for you (presumably) - are you assuming maliciousness where ignorance might’ve sufficed?
You tell me. If you knew that you had all these great ideas and support for people but knew if you didn’t complete this first step, someone else’d be elected and do the opposite of those things, would you willingly lose and put those people you support at risk??
Do you really and truly think that progressives/liberals don’t care about trans rights? After all the bickering these rich assholes do on every damn channel on TV?
Give me a break.
You are valid in being frustrated
You are allowed to have feelings and emotions about your treatment/mistreatment
But none of that makes it okay for you to take it out on your neighbors during a discussion which was trying to emphasize that politics are about strategy, not only morals.
This country operates via a leader person who’s voted for by majority count. In other words, that’s one person who needs to cater to 345 MILLION people.
Sometimes that means keeping your mouth shut on a particular issue temporarily to secure the win. When you’ve won, then you can start acting on those things you held off on emphasizing.
The alternative is that the other rich asshole not only comes in and withholds support, but also comes in and takes active measures to make it worse for these groups.
If it’s between regression and stagnation, I’m not happy with either. I will still take stagnation however because walking something back after it’s been walked back will only be harder.
When I go to pride festivals/parades I’m there to show my support. That’s active support.
Just because I don’t bring up LGBTQ+ rights and arguments at work doesn’t mean I don’t support them. Sometimes, by giving new dem voters some time to acclimate to the waters, you can give them the food later and they’ll be more likely to eat then, rather than when they’re first getting in the pool.
As much as some would like it to be true, you can’t just cram “new” morals down people’s throats and expect miraculous results. You can’t just tell people they’re a POS for not believing in what you believe in and expect them to be like “yo! I am an ignorant, holier-than-thou asshole… you’re right!” There is grace (growing thinner by the election cycle) and strategy in politics. Not everything is as shallow or malicious as people want them to be.
Bruh
I’m debating whether or not to even engage with you
It was this far in where I didn't debate and just didn't read any of this wall of text. I know nothing you're going to say is at all worth reading, because if it was you would have started differently.
Figured as much. Very obvious you’re not interested in having civil discourse with anyone.
Enjoy your tantrum and lack of individual support
If democrats didn't utilize this electoral 'strategy', maybe we wouldn't have been taking steps backwards on women's and LGBTQ rights.
If democrats can't run on protecting minorities, and they can't pass popular legislation (after they've won because they didn't run on protecting minorities) because of congressional posturing, then maybe their electoral strategy is broken.
What strategy dude
Winning by not alienating new voters who came over from Trumps base??? You and the other person are acting like just because they didn’t fucking talk about YOUR issue RIGHT NOW they will NEVER support you.
New Trump voters go back to Trump: dems fault for alienating them (or worse, progressives fault for pushing dems to be progressive)
Progressive voters staying home or voting green: progressive voters fault for not being ethically flexible
This is why leftists acknowledge liberals as being adversarial, bud. Dems aren't interested in progress, they're interested in maintaining their centrist consensus.
I couldn’t disagree with you more if I wanted to.
Bernie Sanders isn’t interested in progress?
AOC isn’t interested in progress?
Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Tlaib? Not progressive? Not interested in fighting for minorities?
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying here, but your take smells a lot like “hello fellow teens, let’s go burn down some shit”, “oh look there’s a pallets of bricks here at this protest and it’s almossst dark time!”
Progressives aren’t liberals.
They’re to the left of liberals.
Stop gaslighting.
It’s a good thing we’re talking about democrats and not liberals then huh bud.
Now who’s gaslighting who
Lmao you think Bernie Sanders, AOC or Ilhan Omar are representative of the democratic party? Sanders was quite famously fucked by the party (twice), and Ilhan Omar is currently getting fucked, too. AOC is only barely more friendly with the party, but not until after she walked back her open support for Palestinan liberation and did a livestream with a Zionist AIPAC rep to explain why Israel has a right to defend itself.
The democratic party relies on the support of capitalist and reactionary interests. It's why they fund primary challenges to progressive congressmen and their extremist reactionary opponents. They're happy to include progressives in their caucus as long as they maintain their ability to govern with a center-right lean.
I’m just not going to dismiss the entire fucking democratic party under a shallow judgement of specific actions taken by specific people
Pretty simple, and should be a familiar sentiment you should hold if you’re actually progressive, ironically.
That's a lot of words to just say that you don't understand how politics works in the real world.
"Politics is when we capitulate to the most bigoted perspectives if they happen to be held by an important electoral demographic"
When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality. The person that has the most support has the most power to intact change. Sometimes that means you have to crawl through shit to get there.
I'll take any bigot, racist, or whatever vote if that means the better candidate wins in November, because that alternative is the bigot, racist, racist. Better to fluff the controversial voters and hopefully win than lose an election because of a speech. And if she doesn't win, then it doesn't matter what she said anyway.
When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality.
As though you consider any capitulation to fascism unfortunate.
Jesus christ.
If one candidate said they'd kill the jews, but the other said they'd just send them to camps (to appease that popular fascist voter), liberals would end up voting to send the jews to concentration camps.
This is how liberals end up siding with fascism
That might be true if anything even remotely close to that happened, but that is a completely different situation that what this conversation is about.
One side says no trans rights, and one side didn't bring it up in their speech, event though a couple of others did, which is far different from being anti trans.
"Sure, participating in a genocide is bad, but the other candidate would participate more"
One will actively aid in the genocide, the other may not. There's two options, one is better than the other. You can piss and moan all you want about it, but that's reality. Don't vote out of protest if that gets your rocks off, but it won't do any good for Palestine.
"May not" meaning, definitely will and currently is? Lol fuck off already
That would be a morally correct political faux pas, that would result in Republicans scoring easy points just by saying "See! We told you so!"
It's the kind of suggestion someone in a leftwing political bubble would make, forgetting that to actually be effective, you have to win votes from both sides.
There's no room for tactical errors this election, even if they would make you feel morally superior. It's not a game of moral signaling, it's a game of politics. The point is not to be right, it's to win the election.
It’s the morally correct position. And running away from it will lose democrats votes they need.
They’re not gonna win republicans by going to the right. The democrats are going to lose if they try that shit. If they want to win they need to promise to bring back abortion rights, protect LGBTQ rights, and stop arming Israel. That would guarantee them a win. Especially if Kamala keeps up her economic promises she already made.
I hope Tim Walz can talk some sense into her.
Biden administration restores protections for gay and transgender Americans seeking health care
Abortion rights will take longer, because they need the Supreme Court for that.
Israel will not happen, they will likely continue to support traditional geopolitical allies who are clients of the military industrial complex.
...you would likely need to alter neoliberalism it's self to do that one.
Any other vulnerable minorities you want to throw under the bus while you're at it?
do you think winning an election is about the popular vote?
do you think the Democrats are more likely to support trans rights?
If you answered yes to both, then maybe don't suggest importing wedge issues into something that's about the popular vote?
Do you want to give Trump more voters? Because that's what you're angling for. That's what the headline is suggesting to do.
You're mistaking wanting the most minority supporting side of politics to win the election for not supporting minorities? How the fuck doesn't that even make sense.
Kamala's job is currently defensive, dodge dodge dodge, stay clean, watch Trump get dirty and sink. It's simple.
As soon as she's won, then it's time to be very very very noisy (and violent) on progressive and socialist issues again. But right now that's only going to act as a kind of sabotage.
Which is fine if you're an accelerationist who sees value to strengthening American Fascism. But I just want to try to end the Republican party.
I answered no to both.
The only argument any centrist has when they move to the right like they all want to.
So you don't believe they need the popular vote to win and you believe that the Republicans would be better at defending trans rights?
I don't accept that defending trans SAFETY is a losing election issue.
Have you spent any time in right wing spaces, or listened to the new generation describing themselves as "classical liberals". They're swing voters and it's pretty important to them.
Yes, let's just do everything we can to abandon every last minority centrists consider expendable in order to peel off a total of zero votes from fascists.
They're not going to vote for you, no matter how many vulnerable minorities you throw under the bus. You've had fucking decades to figure this out, and it looks like you're just throwing people under the bus because you like the thumping sounds.
All powerful me who you can attack rather than try to convince. A microcosm for your general approach of yelling. Your goals and demands, kept vague at best.
I doubt you even know what you're asking for.
There's a timeline to installing trans rights, it requires adjustments to the Supreme Court.
But I'm aware that you're not thinking that far ahead in a planned or tactical manner, and your plans are: be loud, make demands, be radical.
But you've not actually outlined much more than that, so there's nothing to debate with you.
Good day, good luck with your imaginary bus, and me as the all powerful deity controlling who gets pushed under.
No idea what you're on about unfortunately, but you seem very vocal about whatever it is.
[Edit: No, I get it, you want to create a polemic against Trump's obvious lies, treating them as if they're worth addressing rather than let him melt under the scrutiny of the general population https://i.redd.it/m2pzcfjk77md1.png... But that's not necessary. Let's not make his lies into a false balance situation. Just let him look foolish instead.]
Still settin' timeframes.
I'm aware that you're stalling until the party can abandon trans people like it abandoned undocumented immigrants.
I'm not setting timeframes, you literally can't change Supreme Court judges during an election. You don't even understand the basics of how rights or the systems involved work.
And until then, we can't acknowledge openly as a party that trans people are worth protecting. Makes sense.
Actually it already happened 5 days ago:
Biden administration restores protections for gay and transgender Americans seeking health care.
It is when that's considered woke and you've got a ton of your own electors that have been brainwashed into thinking woke bad
Well fuck, if it's considered woke I guess there's nothing we can do 🤷♂️
If your goal is to not let the Republicans win? Just look at what the Democrats at the various levels of government are actually doing even though they never make it a point to talk about it while they're campaigning and understand that there's a fucking good reason why they don't.
Hell, you need to be pretty self centered to believe that trans people are the only repressed people that don't get talked about but still benefit from having the Democrats in power vs the Republicans. They can't cover every single group.
A. The goal should be to achieve progress, not win elections
B. That involves making the case for that progress, not capitulating to popular opinion that's been fabricated by conservative media
But that's only if you're not operating on a dialectical-materialist political analysis, because if you were you'd understand that real progress can't be made through simple electoral victories. Abandoning minority protections in exchange for electoral power is how America has operated since its founding.
Yeah the goal is to achieve progress and you won't do that by alienating a big part of the electorate to cater the minority of the 1% of the population that is trans and doesn't understand that open support for their cause might lead to a Republican government instead, which would be worse for them and for progress in general.
"A big part of the electorate" doesn't care one way or the other about trans rights. All throughout centrist apologists have been saying "most people don't care about Palestine enough to affect their vote", they just want kitchen table progress. But somehow when the issue is trans rights, you people think it's some vote-defining issue that will sink the election if there's a single trans speaker in a weeklong convention.
Just the same old fucking white moderates doing the white moderate things King talked about.
I 100% believe that it's the same thing with Palestine and you'll notice that no more support for Gaza was announced either. Why? Because it's not worth alienating Jewish voters when you can use their votes to win the election and then adapt the government's stance on the question.
Trans rights are never brought up during the various electoral campaigns, yet Democrats actually do something to help when they're elected at the different levels of government so maybe you should get the message that is not an issue that's popular enough to increase the popular vote and that the votes gained from mentioning it will be less than the votes lost.
I'm sorry, their ""cause""? Is "we have a right to exist" the 'cause' you consider to be the thing alienating 'a big part of the electorate'?
Why are you here? Go back to reddit, jesus christ.
Yes, open support by a politician for your right to exist alienates part of the electorate even on the Democrat's side, open your eyes buddy, the trans right cause is controversial! Hell, people imagine trans everywhere at this point, just look at what happened during the Olympics! It's not fair, it's not right, it's the fucked up world we live in, sometimes it's better to shut up and guarantee a more progressive option takes power and does things to improve your situation without making a big fuss of it than to be loud and guarantee a more conservative option takes power and takes what little rights you've got at the moment. Unless you're an accelerationist in which case all I would say is fuck you, but I don't think you are!
I believe that the popular vote isn't sufficient to win, as it wasn't when Clinton lost with the popular vote.
I believe Democrats won't protect trans rights, either.
You've chosen to be dishonest as fuck about my positions.
She didn't get the popular vote where it mattered, popular vote is still what is needed
So you think it's just as likely they won't protect trans right as it is likely the Republicans won't? Because that was the question.
Looking at Democrat's States vs Republican States it's pretty clear you're wrong about that second part.
Trump won without it.
I don't trust either of them at all on this issue. I think they're just itching to throw another vulnerable minority under the bus like they did with the undocumented immigrants you're using Republican talking points about.
Republicans do bad thing
Democrats try but fail to completely stop it
"Why did Democrats do this bad thing??" - Ensign_Crab
Every time without fail, it's a classic
How does adopting Republican border policy count as trying and failing to stop Republican policy?
Oh wait, you don't care. You're just happy they moved to the right.
If the Democrats nominated Karl Marx himself you'd call him right wing.
If they nominated Trump, you'd expect everyone to believe that he was the most progressive candidate ever.
Again, she didn't get the popular vote WHERE IT MATTERED, first past the post still requires popular vote, just not at a national level.
That wasn't the question I initially answered, is it?
Tomato tomato, you need the popular vote to be elected, no matter how you want to twist it
Trump lost the popular vote. That doesn't count for some reason.
He won the popular vote where it mattered.
I bet they don't answer you.
I hope you had money riding on it.
Geez, you're a bit crabby, aren't you.
Don't call me a trumper for not trusting your shit party not to be shit, then.
I don't know what you mean by this. Progressives just need people to vote. The higher the voting turnout percentage, the better progressive candidates do. Conservative voters are the last people to stop voting due to disenfranchisement, they are practically immune to it. There are not a lot of swing voters.
Yes, and the vast majority of Americans have no interest in voting for what they consider niche culture issues. Defeating fascists will protect everyone’s rights.
You're not saying that they are disinterested, that this is an ineffective way to spend energy or something. You're saying that it will actively drive moderate Americans to hate trans people. I think you need to look into your heart.
So, to be clear, your claim is that I didn't say what I literally said?
Here, maybe an analogy will help. Suppose I run for office to fight corporate monopolies. How do I get people to vote for me?
“My fellow Americans, a strong antitrust policy will save you money at the grocery store by preventing price gouging.”
“My fellow Americans, a strong antitrust policy will save you money on Pokémon cards by preventing price gouging.”
Even though Pokémon cards will be cheaper under a good antitrust policy, that’s not a fact that will motivate average Americans to vote. They don’t hate Pokémon, you understand. They just have their own problems, living paycheck to paycheck, etc.
Hope that helps!
No, they're saying that it will actively drive some moderate Americans to not vote because they see the trans question as being a far left issue. If they have more votes to lose than to win by talking about trans rights (which trans actually know are better protected by Democrats) then why would they talk about it when their goal is to be elected?
This is a reasonable response. But generally "energizing the base" is done closer to the election. We'll see more preaching to the choir discourse around then.
I'm kind of hoping the silence on Gaza turns loud once the election is close enough that AIPAC money won't fuck the election.
I honestly don't give a shit how loud they are about it before the election, I just want to see them take action once Kamala is in office.
Right now I just want to see them win the election, because everything else I want is off-the-table otherwise. If being quiet on controversial issues right now helps, then they should do that.
Like how Biden has been taking action on it while he's been in office..?
There's zero evidence Harris will do anything she hasn't voiced support for once she's in office, and she has no actual motivation to do so once the election is over.
"We just need to win" is literally just that.
And the only time when Biden has seemed to briefly change tact on Israel was when his polling for the upcoming election was suffering. All this philosophy about "don't make a stink now, it's only going to get Trump elected" is bullshit, because it very much also might make Democrats decide trans-rights/Palestine actually matter. Quietly storing it away for after the election will do absolutely nothing.
That's the only reason centrists don't want anyone making a fuss about it.
This eager dismissal of trans rights as just a tactical decision is entirely why people shit on liberals. Everything that isn't the rock solid universally approved "normal" is just an anxiety attack away from being bargained away under the faulty assumption it's an essential sacrifice in the name of protecting the status quo. Never mind that trans rights aren't a major issue for anyone other than the hard right or trans people and their allies, and that dodging the issue in no way protects Democrats from being assigned a role in the culture war.
You could have just said "that sucks". You could have pointed to efforts that could work the system elsewhere to protect them. You could have pointed to the myriad of trans rights issues that have majority of support that we could redirect the conversation to. You could have said literally nothing at all. But instead you wanted to broadcast how unimportant the rights of your nominal allies are.
Because to you, politics is just a game.
Bruh
I’m debating whether or not to even engage with you here given that you just gaslit a stranger because you’re upset about what the ruling class isn’t doing for you (presumably) - are you assuming maliciousness where ignorance might’ve sufficed?
You tell me. If you knew that you had all these great ideas and support for people but knew if you didn’t complete this first step, someone else’d be elected and do the opposite of those things, would you willingly lose and put those people you support at risk??
Do you really and truly think that progressives/liberals don’t care about trans rights? After all the bickering these rich assholes do on every damn channel on TV?
Give me a break.
You are valid in being frustrated You are allowed to have feelings and emotions about your treatment/mistreatment
But none of that makes it okay for you to take it out on your neighbors during a discussion which was trying to emphasize that politics are about strategy, not only morals.
This country operates via a leader person who’s voted for by majority count. In other words, that’s one person who needs to cater to 345 MILLION people.
Sometimes that means keeping your mouth shut on a particular issue temporarily to secure the win. When you’ve won, then you can start acting on those things you held off on emphasizing.
The alternative is that the other rich asshole not only comes in and withholds support, but also comes in and takes active measures to make it worse for these groups.
If it’s between regression and stagnation, I’m not happy with either. I will still take stagnation however because walking something back after it’s been walked back will only be harder.
When I go to pride festivals/parades I’m there to show my support. That’s active support.
Just because I don’t bring up LGBTQ+ rights and arguments at work doesn’t mean I don’t support them. Sometimes, by giving new dem voters some time to acclimate to the waters, you can give them the food later and they’ll be more likely to eat then, rather than when they’re first getting in the pool.
As much as some would like it to be true, you can’t just cram “new” morals down people’s throats and expect miraculous results. You can’t just tell people they’re a POS for not believing in what you believe in and expect them to be like “yo! I am an ignorant, holier-than-thou asshole… you’re right!” There is grace (growing thinner by the election cycle) and strategy in politics. Not everything is as shallow or malicious as people want them to be.
It was this far in where I didn't debate and just didn't read any of this wall of text. I know nothing you're going to say is at all worth reading, because if it was you would have started differently.
Figured as much. Very obvious you’re not interested in having civil discourse with anyone.
Enjoy your tantrum and lack of individual support
If democrats didn't utilize this electoral 'strategy', maybe we wouldn't have been taking steps backwards on women's and LGBTQ rights.
If democrats can't run on protecting minorities, and they can't pass popular legislation (after they've won because they didn't run on protecting minorities) because of congressional posturing, then maybe their electoral strategy is broken.
What strategy dude
Winning by not alienating new voters who came over from Trumps base??? You and the other person are acting like just because they didn’t fucking talk about YOUR issue RIGHT NOW they will NEVER support you.
New Trump voters go back to Trump: dems fault for alienating them (or worse, progressives fault for pushing dems to be progressive)
Progressive voters staying home or voting green: progressive voters fault for not being ethically flexible
This is why leftists acknowledge liberals as being adversarial, bud. Dems aren't interested in progress, they're interested in maintaining their centrist consensus.
I couldn’t disagree with you more if I wanted to.
Bernie Sanders isn’t interested in progress?
AOC isn’t interested in progress?
Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Tlaib? Not progressive? Not interested in fighting for minorities?
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying here, but your take smells a lot like “hello fellow teens, let’s go burn down some shit”, “oh look there’s a pallets of bricks here at this protest and it’s almossst dark time!”
Progressives aren’t liberals.
They’re to the left of liberals.
Stop gaslighting.
It’s a good thing we’re talking about democrats and not liberals then huh bud.
Now who’s gaslighting who
Lmao you think Bernie Sanders, AOC or Ilhan Omar are representative of the democratic party? Sanders was quite famously fucked by the party (twice), and Ilhan Omar is currently getting fucked, too. AOC is only barely more friendly with the party, but not until after she walked back her open support for Palestinan liberation and did a livestream with a Zionist AIPAC rep to explain why Israel has a right to defend itself.
The democratic party relies on the support of capitalist and reactionary interests. It's why they fund primary challenges to progressive congressmen and their extremist reactionary opponents. They're happy to include progressives in their caucus as long as they maintain their ability to govern with a center-right lean.
I’m just not going to dismiss the entire fucking democratic party under a shallow judgement of specific actions taken by specific people
Pretty simple, and should be a familiar sentiment you should hold if you’re actually progressive, ironically.
That's a lot of words to just say that you don't understand how politics works in the real world.
"Politics is when we capitulate to the most bigoted perspectives if they happen to be held by an important electoral demographic"
When you live in a 2 party system with FPtP voting, this is the unfortunate reality. The person that has the most support has the most power to intact change. Sometimes that means you have to crawl through shit to get there.
I'll take any bigot, racist, or whatever vote if that means the better candidate wins in November, because that alternative is the bigot, racist, racist. Better to fluff the controversial voters and hopefully win than lose an election because of a speech. And if she doesn't win, then it doesn't matter what she said anyway.
As though you consider any capitulation to fascism unfortunate.
Jesus christ.
If one candidate said they'd kill the jews, but the other said they'd just send them to camps (to appease that popular fascist voter), liberals would end up voting to send the jews to concentration camps.
This is how liberals end up siding with fascism
That might be true if anything even remotely close to that happened, but that is a completely different situation that what this conversation is about.
One side says no trans rights, and one side didn't bring it up in their speech, event though a couple of others did, which is far different from being anti trans.
"Sure, participating in a genocide is bad, but the other candidate would participate more"
One will actively aid in the genocide, the other may not. There's two options, one is better than the other. You can piss and moan all you want about it, but that's reality. Don't vote out of protest if that gets your rocks off, but it won't do any good for Palestine.
"May not" meaning, definitely will and currently is? Lol fuck off already
Can you tell the future?
No but I can hear them say "we will"
So, you're full of shit? Got it.
I stopped reading after this because they obviously don't understand what's being said.
Maybe, just maybe, a system that makes doing the right thing a losing move, isn't a system that we should allow to continue to exist.
Are you an accelerationist? What’s your point?