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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
The mainstream talking point of Democrats turned to "we need to play it safe and win all the Republican votes".
They believe only centrist moderate voters can be scared away. And claim progressives are always guaranteed to vote Democrat. Everything hangs on that assumption.
It's just a numbers game. There are far more waffling centrists and drooling fence-sitters in this country that there are people who are trans, and the latter are already likely to vote D regardless. It will always be this way: a campaign is always going to spend more resources on the larger and less sure voting bloc.
It's a pretty good assumption. You'd have to be a complete shit popsicle to vote for someone worse on all the issues you care about, because the party that gives any fucks whatsoever isn't doing enough.
Bernie Bros: "hold my beer"
Tbf, in 2016 the DNC and Clinton were so arrogant they literally said, "we don't need your votes." Like every political campaign all they needed to do was make some empty promises to try to get them on board.
In my experience, the difference between die hard Sanders supporters and other leftists or liberals is that they tend to believe that the on going class war is the single biggest issue we face in the US today. Everything else is a distraction to keep that otherwise overwhelming block of the population segmented into competing blocks of people. The Dems just foster an attitude of "competing but inter-supportive" and the GOP has one of "competing, and you should enslave your enemies." The latter of course only really appealing to white conservatives and useful idiots.
Tbf, in 2016 the DNC and Clinton were so arrogant they literally said, “we don’t need your votes.”
Lol you know it's going to be a great post when it starts with such a blatant lie.
So because of this you and other so called Dems will vote for a fascist?
Harris is sitting here telling you that she will not stop funding/supplying the genocide of Palestinians, that she will take a stricter border policy and continue building the wall, that under her the US military will be the most lethal fighting force. Not to mention her horrific track record up to this point. A vote for Harris is just as much a vote for fascism as a vote for Trump is. Not that voting out fascism in the USA was ever a realistic option to begin with.
What makes you think leftists are Dems (by choice)?
So they're Republicans then?
So because the other guy's a fascist, you'll take the opportunity to throw trans people under the bus like you and all centrists have always wanted to do?
I don't think not talking about it is the same as throwing them under the bus. The fact of the matter is the Democratic party has already vowed to protect trans rights. Also, Fox News, and other media, has portrayed the trans issue in a misleading light and it's the next big boogeyman. Them throwing away votes to assure people who already know who's on their side that they're on their side is stupid politics. Sure, it'd be great if we lived in a world where this calculation wasn't needed, but we don't.
I don’t think not talking about it is the same as throwing them under the bus. The fact of the matter is the Democratic party has already vowed to protect trans rights.
Like they did with undocumented immigrants.
ITT: we do the white moderate thing MLK talked about where we set a timetable for someone's rights. I'm sure one day it'll be politically convenient to support trans people, y'all just hang in there.
There is absolutely no deontological duty to pander to identitarians and cry-bullies.
ITT: a bunch of leftists destroying the most progressive party because it failed their purity test by not talking about something that anyone with a bit of logic would know would lose them votes even if it's known they're in favor of it.
The 'most progressive party'?? By what measure? Because they aren't as openly fascist as the Republicans? Kamala has sworn to appoint at least one Republican, to be tough on crime, increase the strength of the military, be as or more anti-immigration than Trump, has shown no interest in healthcare reform, and refused to even consider ceasing the arming of genocidaires. What does it mean to be progressive to you?
That's not the message I got at all. The message I got is that the Dems are going to continue what they did with Biden -- bringing manufacturing home so we get good jobs, take on the moneyed interests in housing so we have more housing and hopefully cheaper housing, get student loan programs in place that get the wealth extraction out and make it so that you can get college educated without a debt hanging over you for the rest of your life. And that the Dems stand against hatred of all kinds, including anti-minority hatred, anti-gay hatred, anti-trans hatred, and frankly, all other hatred.
Harris is going to appoint a single Republican to her administration? So what? Her administration is going to have 25 other people she's NOT said will be Republican, not to mention the various appointed positions that aren't the top 26 positions of the Cabinet. And maybe the Republican is in one of those lower positions, not on the cabinet. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, because I know there will be 26 not-just-Republicans-but-Qooqs-who-think-I-both-eat-and-fuck-babies if Trump wins.
America isn't very Progressive, so Dems not being progressive enough doesn't surprise me. I think we got some serious progressive ideas pushed the last admin, though. And if you want non-Progressive, well, look no further than the Republicans. Republicanism is where Progressive ideas go to die, and if Trump wins in November, I guarantee you you'll watch as your ideas are strangled in the crib.
You've got two parties that can be elected in the US, which one is the most progressive?
'Destroying' the 'most progressive' party?
In what way is anyone destroying the democratic party, and in what way are the democrats making progress?
Love how all the pro-trans rights people are being downvoted in this thread. You ok, Lemmy?
We're not allowed to point out issues apparently.
The trans community and it's supporters know they're being attacked by the right and needs to vote Dem, so they've got that locked in. What political advantage is there in making it a campaign issue for the Dems when the GOP has done all the work already?
Because Dems in power in the US have a track record of using trans rights as political bargaining chips. They have done it many times. The reality is that some democrats care about the human and civil rights of trans people, and some don't. I don't trust them with trans rights at all.
That said, for the convention dems probably saw the polling that shows that people are sick of hearing about trans issues, and decided to avoid it.
Yeah, that’s a lie.
Protection of democracy is paramount. Everything else - everything - is secondary. There are a hundred things that need to be fixed, and that has to happen after.
After.
Yes, even for that. Because secondary.
The fact that this needs to be said is a testament to the efficacy of Republican culture war bullshit. Instead of discussing the numerous unprecedented existential threats to human civilization, everything from pollution to the end of democracy, we’re focused on… trans rights.
Fuck off with the dismissal of human rights.
If that’s what you got from my comment the Republicans have radicalized you.
There's a difference between recognizing that defending democracy is absolutely the #1 thing to be talking about and doing that and entirely going "blah blah" at basic human rights
Trans rights are literally human rights. I’m fairly certain the Democratic platform is to protect human rights. How would it benefit us to focus on one particular niche right among the others, many of which are way more important?
the right to clean air
the right to clean water
the right to medical care
the right to free speech
the right to choose your own gender
the right to remain silent
the right to eat pizza in the shower
the right to affordable housing
the right to education
the right to stick things in your butt
the right to listen to music
the right to eat random debris
the right to have cats
the right to own blankets
etcetera
I’m fairly certain the Democratic platform is to protect human rights.
*offer void for Palestinians and trans people.
Oh so Democrats are adopting policies to intentionally harm trans people now? To you not campaigning on something automatically means the candidate will work against that thing?
Oh so Democrats are adopting policies to intentionally harm teams people now?
They came around on immigration. They'll come around on trans rights. Wonder who's next.
What is the cost of trans to society? Because there is in fact a cost to not keeping a minimum of control over how many people and who can immigrate to a country, so it's perfectly normal to want people to get in through the regular process instead of jumping a wall.
You've adopted Republican talking points about immigration. You'll do the same with trans people.
It's not a Republican talking point, it's a pragmatic talking point. Just like you don't give birth without the State knowing about it so they know who lives where and is entitled to what, you don't want people immigrating without knowing about it and filtering the people coming in to catch the few that shouldn't be allowed in the country at all.
Progressive parties all over the world have the same point of view, immigration needs to happen but it needs to be done correctly.
I swear these threads are here only to sow division and help Trump. We all know Harris and the Dems support trans rights why do we need them to yell it out loud at every event?
Nothing the Dems do is ever good enough for these people who actually, secretly want Trump to win
The problem is so much bigger than who said what at what convention. The Democratic party needs to actually do something other than pay lip service to the trans population. Unfortunately trans people are less than 1% of voters. Even if all of their friends and family were allies, that's still not enough votes to matter.
The average cis democrat would be perfectly happy with Not-Trump. No one wants trans people to die (at least hopefully), but if it was supporting trans rights or beating Trump? His evangelical base is getting tired of his shit. But if the scary brown lady started talking about transgenders that might be enough to bring them back into the fold.
Meanwhile in most red states the trans population will be ground into a fine paste regardless of who lives in the white house. Unless dems and pull a hat trick and take the presidency, house, and senate (next to impossible this year) that won't change.
It kills me to write, but not talking about trans rights makes sense. That is not a problem within the power of POTUS to solve. A federal law or constitutional amendment is going to be the only way to protect trans rights, abortion access, and gay or interracial marriage. Plus, more cynically, she's got the trans vote regardless, so best case she just says some words. Worst case she loses the paper thin margin because the jesus freaks who were going to stay home have a reason to vote.
Oh my god. This account finds something to nitpick at the Dems and posts every five minutes. Notice how they barely - if ever - post anything critical of Republicans?
Every. Five. Minutes.
You want a seat ta the table? Learn how politics works. Otherwise, I don't know, go back to purity testing the Dems every five minutes. See where that gets you.
Gurl... I don't oppose Democrats because I'm on the same side as Republicans. I oppose Democrats because they're on the same side as Republicans.
Ah that's right. When we're tired of nitpicking and purity testing we can always fall back on the "both sides" argument. It's so transparent at this point.
Aren't you ignoring the article and engaging in an ad hominem attack on OP? Block them if it bothers you.
As a trans woman trapped in a red state, I would feel a lot safer if the dems would actually take a concrete position of whether I can continue existing. It might actually be important enough that I stay home in November, because so far Biden has done almost nothing (some easily undone executive actions and guidelines) and Kamala isn't talking about it at all (at least more than empty validation and hug boxing)
The dems are not just as bad as the right, but they're bad enough on some key issues (trans rights, the supreme court, and the US backed genocide of Palestine) blue no matter who is just ignorant and naive.
I understand this issue is a matter of personal safety for you... but hopefully you can understand why the Biden administration "has done almost nothing". The way the US government is set up has several branches, where the Presidency under the Executive Branch is just one of them, for most issues he's done what can be expected of a typical President and more.
The Legislative Branch has been taken over by the Republican House Circus. That's where normally laws are supposed to be written. The Judicial Branch Supreme Court's faults are with Roberts, Trump's appointees, and ultra-corrupt Thomas. They are interpreting the Constitution and the rules Congress wrote in whatever way fits their oligarch friends' needs. That's 2 out of 3 government branches, that aren't Blue, if they were, Biden would have been able to do a hell of a lot more.
The only thing imo Biden has no good excuse for, is the series of blank cheques he's been giving Israel to commit genocide. If that's your make-or-break, I'm sorry, you have no good options. Your best bet may be to hold your nose.
There is nothing wrong pointing out failings with the Dems. From what I've seen, only blue states are fighting to preserve trans rights. Tim Waltz has been very vocal about keeping government out of the doctors office. You seem hyper focused on the office of the presidency. The reality is the president can only do so much. We need down ballot votes to give them the power to do what needs to be done. We need to bring the fight to all levels and stop typer-focusing on the presidency. We need to build coalitions. We need to keep a seat at the table - not disengage.
The issue is this account spams the same shit non-stop day in and out. Right now I don't believe in blocking people -yet. I have mixed feelings about blocking. The reason I'm attracted to these platforms is because I want to hear different points of view.
The only people ever afforded a seat at the table are the moneyed class. And Democrats do need to be put under a microscope because they're the ones that pretend to be allies to the marginalized, While they Co opt our languages to use against us when we decide to not vote for them because they stabbed us in the back. Republicans wear their racism and their bigotry on their shoulders for all to see. For Democrats, it's covert.
"they need to be put under a microscope"
You know what they say, there's no one like someone on the left to make sure the most progressive party lose votes.
There's so much stuff politicians won't talk about on the campaign trail because they're wedge issues and because their records already show they're in favor/against those things, it's better to shut up than to alienate a lot of voters to please few voters. Spoiler alert, not all Democrats voters care about trans rights and more of them will jump ship if they believe Harris is woke than will jump in the ship if she starts talking about trans rights during the campaign because the majority of people who support trans rights already understand that the Democrats support their rights even if they don't make it a campaign issue.
Calling Democrats the "most progressive party" is like calling a carpet bombing the "most peaceful action" because the alternative is a thermonuclear bomb.
Of the two options that can be elected in the USA, which is the most progressive?
If you go by their track records, neither. One is verbally less regressive, sometimes, but only in election years.
That's a pretty ridiculous answer... One party tried to increase healthcare access the other destroys whatever progress the other party made. One party is in favor of science, the other chooses a president that suggests injecting bleach to get rid of diseases. One party tries to create digital programs, the other blocks any attempts at it...
One party is fully owned by the ultra-wealthy and will not do anything to even slightly weaken the oppression of the 99%, the other party is fully owned by the ultra-wealthy and will not do anything to even slightly weaken the oppression of the 99% and also lies about it.
Those of us on the left do not vote for Democrats because we are NOT Democrats.
it's better to shut up than to alienate a lot of voters
If they won't stand up and do what's right in the face of opposition they are not worthy of being elected. Mentioning the marginalized when it's politically convenient is self serving, and not worthy of being elected.
Sure. Except the policies they pass represent their electorate and are diametrically opposed to Republicans.
Listen, I'm for all the same things everyone on this platform wants. The issue is our generation is terminally online but doesn't bother to vote. If you want to make changes disengaging from the political system altogether is not the answer. Building coalitions and doing the hard work is. But that takes work and is not exciting, so it's just easier for accounts like @return2ozma@lemmy.world to keep spamming non-stop about how "both parties are equal" and "corpo overlords". It's just more fun, isn't it?
Gurl I'm still saying vote for Kamala but be aware their shortcomings. Fuck Trump and the GOP.
Sorry. I just don't buy it.
If you really want to enact change get politically active at the local level and build up. Get a seat at the table. Build coalitions. Run for local elections. Support your city council / school policy. Talk about what you can do.
Spamming incessantly about how bad the Dems are betrays a total lack of understanding who the main electoral base is (outside the internet) and how legislation is passed. This has been pointed out to you multiple times. You know all this. You know what you're doing. We see it.
I don't buy it.
The working class will NEVER have a seat at their table, only promises and illusions that someday we will so they can stay in power.
Many of those that chose not to vote are disenfranchised voters that do not feel represented in government, and rightfully so. Many of our lives do not fundamentally change for the better regardless which shade of fascism runs the government.
Liberals talk about building coalitions, which translates to 'do it our way otherwise you want the other team to win.' They want zero input from the marginalized groups they help keep marginalized, they do not listen to our needs.
Claiming that you want all the same things other people want is disingenuous when you demand we support the people fighting those changes.
"Should Have" in what sense? Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They're very different things.
Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They’re very different things.
Are they?
If a politician has certain morals but they set them aside to get elected, do they still hold those morals?
If a politician makes up morals they don't have to get elected, did they ever truly hold those morals?
The answer to both is a resounding NO.
If you abandon/adopt morals to get elected, you have no morals, you have self interests.
Whatever distinction you're trying to make, or why, is a you issue, there is no way to twist this in to it being ok.
Is not mentioning trans rights during an election speech the same thing as being against trans rights?
Nope. They are very different things. I'm all for trans rights, but I don't bring it up in every conversation I have about politics. That's not setting aside my morals or abandoning them.
Hypothetically, what if talking about trans rights turned off more voters than it brought in? What if that led to trump getting elected? Would it have been better to not mention it in the first place, or was the morality of mentioning it more important than trying to get elected during an election speech?
They didn't mention trans rights because they didn't want to alienate the Republicans that they're courting. They would rather shit on progressives than lose a conservative vote.
Why do you think that it's shitting on progressives? Can someone not mention during a speech but still work to pass legislation in support of trans rights when they have the power to do so, after an election where they need votes that may be turned off by the issue? Nobody came out against trans rights. An omission on the topic isn't anti trans.
If not talking about an issue now may mean more voters so that real change may happen, even if that means courting republicans, why is that a bad thing?
It's possible to support something without talking about it one time.
They have zero interest in protecting trans rights.
Based on what? There is zero basis in your claim.
Based on Republicans passing over 500 anti-trans bills the last several years and Democrats haven't done shit except talk about it. Democrat version of protecting their rights is telling them they're free to use whatever restroom they want, while ignoring that they don't have access to affordable Health Care or housing and may live in abject poverty while using that preferred restroom.
When did Democrats ever have the power to change any of that? Can't force change without control of Congress which didn't happen. While it seems like a weak consolation, gender neutral bathrooms is progress. Nobody as the unilateral power to make any of those changes.
What do you think could have been done over the last 4 years that would have been real change?
I'm sorry, but when there is so much at stake we have to lie. politicians have always lied. left and right. it's in their nature. they can't help it. if it's politically expedient to lie, even by omission, so the enemy doesn't use it against you and chips away at that majority, then I'm totally comfortable with that.
of course, I'd much prefer that it was illegal for politicians to lie, like they are trialing in Wales, then we'd have a very different calibre of politics. I'm all for that. bring on enforced honesty in politics. but until that's established and the enemy, and let me make this very clear, the US Nazis are very much the enemy, we have to temper our political persona a bit. once we win then we show how inclusive and caring we are.
but if saying something what could be used in an attack against our valiant cause, it's ok to hide it. for now.
look at Walz, he's an ally to the cause and we're not hiding him. he's in full view, heart on his sleeve, and from what I can tell, he's a really good man. those are the qualities we need to show off. we're not hiding those morals, we're just not shouting loudly about some of the more progressive values we hold, so they can't be twisted and used against us.
we need to win this election. fairly and absolutely convincingly.
and I'm talking as a Kiwi, a citizen of Earth, watching on in horror what could be coming and the pivot in geopolitical power that would inevitably occur. your election has way more reach than just your shores.
the good guys need to win and kick the US Nazis so hard in the nuts they remember loosing forever.
anyway. thanks for listening
The democrats didn't leave fighting for trans rights out because they fear being attacked (literally every word they say will get twisted and attacked), but because they don't intend to fight for them, and saying they do, would be the lie.
The fact that you fuckers are so willing to take it the other way and support the idea of erasing one of the main groups being targeted right now in order to win over some bigots (despite, in your own warped minds, them really truly supporting trans rights, promise!) is honestly disgusting.
"Win over bigots to beat the bigot!"
How the fuck do you think that ends for trans people?
Would you rather the bigots vote for Trump?
Too bad there's no article you could read to check. It might even say something like:
But in a stunning abdication of moral responsibility, Democrats made little mention of trans rights during this year’s Democratic National Convention (DNC). Trans people were mentioned in just two speeches, and neither speaker received prime-time speaking slots. For the first time since 2012, the DNC did not feature any trans speakers.
With all the time they allocated for Republicans, Israel, and cops there wasn't much left for actual marginalized people. At least they're finally being open and who they represent.
Na. They did the right thing. It’s implied. Why give the trump idiots more ammo.
We already knew that their support was transactional, conditional. Spineless cowards.
Not mentioning it during the campaign doesn't mean not supporting it when adopting policies.
How many US Politicians adopted trans supportive policies vs how many of them actually campaigned on it?
Mhm. Let's make the moral choice, have Republicans make more noise on the issue and turn away voters just like on Gaza, climate change, immigration, wealth inequality to ultimately help Republicans strip away protections on each.
To have Harris be the slippery target is strategic, because Republicans know how to pounce on an issue when they think they see one. They've already done it dozens of times on complete non-issues due to them having lack of real rebuttals against the Democratic party.
I'll put it bluntly: to have trans-inclusivity become the norm, we have to pitch the inclusivity part before we explain the trans part.
So you think the way to counter the Republicans using fascist tactics to demonize trans people is to not support trans people. Because if we support trans people, it will only make more people side with Republicans and attack trans people.
Fuck that. Fuck that every conceivable way.
Why do you assume that not mentioning trans rights in speeches = not supporting trans rights?
The point is that in order to win elections you campaign on things that your opponent can't use to alienate some of your base. I'm going to be blunt here but not all Democrats are progressive enough to see trans right as something important and some of them don't want a "woke" president (as the term "woke" was appropriated by the right as being a bad thing and supporting trans rights is woke) so mentioning them directly during the campaign would make more people not vote/switch back to voting for the Republicans than it will make trans people come out and vote because trans people already know they only have one party that supports their right to exist, even if it's not being campaigned on.
No, I am saying that the Dems' messaging is being kept broad in terms of inclusivity, because then it makes Republicans singling out transgender people or other minorities to hate on them look extra weird. It also brings the issue of transgenderism to voters for whom this is a foreign concept, in a way they can better understand.
Many of these voters hate trans people not because they understand the issue, but because conservative organizations have told them to constantly for years so it's made into a trigger word. The Harris campaign is showing these voters a way out from the cycle of hate, to put these divisions away, and accept trans people for the human beings they are, just like all of us, without needing to put them on a spotlight front and centre. Harris needs a large amount of these uninformed voters to support her too if she wants any hope of enacting a progressive, LGBTQ+ inclusive agenda during her term.
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 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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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?
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"
I stopped reading after this because they obviously don't understand what's being said.
The mainstream talking point of Democrats turned to "we need to play it safe and win all the Republican votes".
They believe only centrist moderate voters can be scared away. And claim progressives are always guaranteed to vote Democrat. Everything hangs on that assumption.
It's just a numbers game. There are far more waffling centrists and drooling fence-sitters in this country that there are people who are trans, and the latter are already likely to vote D regardless. It will always be this way: a campaign is always going to spend more resources on the larger and less sure voting bloc.
It's a pretty good assumption. You'd have to be a complete shit popsicle to vote for someone worse on all the issues you care about, because the party that gives any fucks whatsoever isn't doing enough.
Bernie Bros: "hold my beer"
Tbf, in 2016 the DNC and Clinton were so arrogant they literally said, "we don't need your votes." Like every political campaign all they needed to do was make some empty promises to try to get them on board.
In my experience, the difference between die hard Sanders supporters and other leftists or liberals is that they tend to believe that the on going class war is the single biggest issue we face in the US today. Everything else is a distraction to keep that otherwise overwhelming block of the population segmented into competing blocks of people. The Dems just foster an attitude of "competing but inter-supportive" and the GOP has one of "competing, and you should enslave your enemies." The latter of course only really appealing to white conservatives and useful idiots.
Lol you know it's going to be a great post when it starts with such a blatant lie.
So because of this you and other so called Dems will vote for a fascist?
Harris is sitting here telling you that she will not stop funding/supplying the genocide of Palestinians, that she will take a stricter border policy and continue building the wall, that under her the US military will be the most lethal fighting force. Not to mention her horrific track record up to this point. A vote for Harris is just as much a vote for fascism as a vote for Trump is. Not that voting out fascism in the USA was ever a realistic option to begin with.
What makes you think leftists are Dems (by choice)?
So they're Republicans then?
So because the other guy's a fascist, you'll take the opportunity to throw trans people under the bus like you and all centrists have always wanted to do?
I don't think not talking about it is the same as throwing them under the bus. The fact of the matter is the Democratic party has already vowed to protect trans rights. Also, Fox News, and other media, has portrayed the trans issue in a misleading light and it's the next big boogeyman. Them throwing away votes to assure people who already know who's on their side that they're on their side is stupid politics. Sure, it'd be great if we lived in a world where this calculation wasn't needed, but we don't.
Like they did with undocumented immigrants.
ITT: we do the white moderate thing MLK talked about where we set a timetable for someone's rights. I'm sure one day it'll be politically convenient to support trans people, y'all just hang in there.
In the words of James Baldwin... https://youtu.be/UBFDdTIYZ6Q
It's more deontologists vs consequentialists.
There is absolutely no deontological duty to pander to identitarians and cry-bullies.
ITT: a bunch of leftists destroying the most progressive party because it failed their purity test by not talking about something that anyone with a bit of logic would know would lose them votes even if it's known they're in favor of it.
The 'most progressive party'?? By what measure? Because they aren't as openly fascist as the Republicans? Kamala has sworn to appoint at least one Republican, to be tough on crime, increase the strength of the military, be as or more anti-immigration than Trump, has shown no interest in healthcare reform, and refused to even consider ceasing the arming of genocidaires. What does it mean to be progressive to you?
That's not the message I got at all. The message I got is that the Dems are going to continue what they did with Biden -- bringing manufacturing home so we get good jobs, take on the moneyed interests in housing so we have more housing and hopefully cheaper housing, get student loan programs in place that get the wealth extraction out and make it so that you can get college educated without a debt hanging over you for the rest of your life. And that the Dems stand against hatred of all kinds, including anti-minority hatred, anti-gay hatred, anti-trans hatred, and frankly, all other hatred.
Harris is going to appoint a single Republican to her administration? So what? Her administration is going to have 25 other people she's NOT said will be Republican, not to mention the various appointed positions that aren't the top 26 positions of the Cabinet. And maybe the Republican is in one of those lower positions, not on the cabinet. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, because I know there will be 26 not-just-Republicans-but-Qooqs-who-think-I-both-eat-and-fuck-babies if Trump wins.
America isn't very Progressive, so Dems not being progressive enough doesn't surprise me. I think we got some serious progressive ideas pushed the last admin, though. And if you want non-Progressive, well, look no further than the Republicans. Republicanism is where Progressive ideas go to die, and if Trump wins in November, I guarantee you you'll watch as your ideas are strangled in the crib.
You've got two parties that can be elected in the US, which one is the most progressive?
'Destroying' the 'most progressive' party?
In what way is anyone destroying the democratic party, and in what way are the democrats making progress?
Love how all the pro-trans rights people are being downvoted in this thread. You ok, Lemmy?
We're not allowed to point out issues apparently.
The trans community and it's supporters know they're being attacked by the right and needs to vote Dem, so they've got that locked in. What political advantage is there in making it a campaign issue for the Dems when the GOP has done all the work already?
Because Dems in power in the US have a track record of using trans rights as political bargaining chips. They have done it many times. The reality is that some democrats care about the human and civil rights of trans people, and some don't. I don't trust them with trans rights at all.
That said, for the convention dems probably saw the polling that shows that people are sick of hearing about trans issues, and decided to avoid it.
Yeah, that’s a lie.
Protection of democracy is paramount. Everything else - everything - is secondary. There are a hundred things that need to be fixed, and that has to happen after.
After.
Yes, even for that. Because secondary.
The fact that this needs to be said is a testament to the efficacy of Republican culture war bullshit. Instead of discussing the numerous unprecedented existential threats to human civilization, everything from pollution to the end of democracy, we’re focused on… trans rights.
Fuck off with the dismissal of human rights.
If that’s what you got from my comment the Republicans have radicalized you.
There's a difference between recognizing that defending democracy is absolutely the #1 thing to be talking about and doing that and entirely going "blah blah" at basic human rights
Trans rights are literally human rights. I’m fairly certain the Democratic platform is to protect human rights. How would it benefit us to focus on one particular niche right among the others, many of which are way more important?
*offer void for Palestinians and trans people.
Oh so Democrats are adopting policies to intentionally harm trans people now? To you not campaigning on something automatically means the candidate will work against that thing?
They came around on immigration. They'll come around on trans rights. Wonder who's next.
What is the cost of trans to society? Because there is in fact a cost to not keeping a minimum of control over how many people and who can immigrate to a country, so it's perfectly normal to want people to get in through the regular process instead of jumping a wall.
You've adopted Republican talking points about immigration. You'll do the same with trans people.
It's not a Republican talking point, it's a pragmatic talking point. Just like you don't give birth without the State knowing about it so they know who lives where and is entitled to what, you don't want people immigrating without knowing about it and filtering the people coming in to catch the few that shouldn't be allowed in the country at all.
Progressive parties all over the world have the same point of view, immigration needs to happen but it needs to be done correctly.
I swear these threads are here only to sow division and help Trump. We all know Harris and the Dems support trans rights why do we need them to yell it out loud at every event?
Nothing the Dems do is ever good enough for these people who actually, secretly want Trump to win
The problem is so much bigger than who said what at what convention. The Democratic party needs to actually do something other than pay lip service to the trans population. Unfortunately trans people are less than 1% of voters. Even if all of their friends and family were allies, that's still not enough votes to matter.
The average cis democrat would be perfectly happy with Not-Trump. No one wants trans people to die (at least hopefully), but if it was supporting trans rights or beating Trump? His evangelical base is getting tired of his shit. But if the scary brown lady started talking about transgenders that might be enough to bring them back into the fold.
Meanwhile in most red states the trans population will be ground into a fine paste regardless of who lives in the white house. Unless dems and pull a hat trick and take the presidency, house, and senate (next to impossible this year) that won't change.
It kills me to write, but not talking about trans rights makes sense. That is not a problem within the power of POTUS to solve. A federal law or constitutional amendment is going to be the only way to protect trans rights, abortion access, and gay or interracial marriage. Plus, more cynically, she's got the trans vote regardless, so best case she just says some words. Worst case she loses the paper thin margin because the jesus freaks who were going to stay home have a reason to vote.
Oh my god. This account finds something to nitpick at the Dems and posts every five minutes. Notice how they barely - if ever - post anything critical of Republicans?
Every. Five. Minutes.
You want a seat ta the table? Learn how politics works. Otherwise, I don't know, go back to purity testing the Dems every five minutes. See where that gets you.
Gurl... I don't oppose Democrats because I'm on the same side as Republicans. I oppose Democrats because they're on the same side as Republicans.
Ah that's right. When we're tired of nitpicking and purity testing we can always fall back on the "both sides" argument. It's so transparent at this point.
Aren't you ignoring the article and engaging in an ad hominem attack on OP? Block them if it bothers you.
As a trans woman trapped in a red state, I would feel a lot safer if the dems would actually take a concrete position of whether I can continue existing. It might actually be important enough that I stay home in November, because so far Biden has done almost nothing (some easily undone executive actions and guidelines) and Kamala isn't talking about it at all (at least more than empty validation and hug boxing)
The dems are not just as bad as the right, but they're bad enough on some key issues (trans rights, the supreme court, and the US backed genocide of Palestine) blue no matter who is just ignorant and naive.
I understand this issue is a matter of personal safety for you... but hopefully you can understand why the Biden administration "has done almost nothing". The way the US government is set up has several branches, where the Presidency under the Executive Branch is just one of them, for most issues he's done what can be expected of a typical President and more.
The Legislative Branch has been taken over by the Republican House Circus. That's where normally laws are supposed to be written. The Judicial Branch Supreme Court's faults are with Roberts, Trump's appointees, and ultra-corrupt Thomas. They are interpreting the Constitution and the rules Congress wrote in whatever way fits their oligarch friends' needs. That's 2 out of 3 government branches, that aren't Blue, if they were, Biden would have been able to do a hell of a lot more.
The only thing imo Biden has no good excuse for, is the series of blank cheques he's been giving Israel to commit genocide. If that's your make-or-break, I'm sorry, you have no good options. Your best bet may be to hold your nose.
There is nothing wrong pointing out failings with the Dems. From what I've seen, only blue states are fighting to preserve trans rights. Tim Waltz has been very vocal about keeping government out of the doctors office. You seem hyper focused on the office of the presidency. The reality is the president can only do so much. We need down ballot votes to give them the power to do what needs to be done. We need to bring the fight to all levels and stop typer-focusing on the presidency. We need to build coalitions. We need to keep a seat at the table - not disengage.
The issue is this account spams the same shit non-stop day in and out. Right now I don't believe in blocking people -yet. I have mixed feelings about blocking. The reason I'm attracted to these platforms is because I want to hear different points of view.
The only people ever afforded a seat at the table are the moneyed class. And Democrats do need to be put under a microscope because they're the ones that pretend to be allies to the marginalized, While they Co opt our languages to use against us when we decide to not vote for them because they stabbed us in the back. Republicans wear their racism and their bigotry on their shoulders for all to see. For Democrats, it's covert.
"they need to be put under a microscope"
You know what they say, there's no one like someone on the left to make sure the most progressive party lose votes.
There's so much stuff politicians won't talk about on the campaign trail because they're wedge issues and because their records already show they're in favor/against those things, it's better to shut up than to alienate a lot of voters to please few voters. Spoiler alert, not all Democrats voters care about trans rights and more of them will jump ship if they believe Harris is woke than will jump in the ship if she starts talking about trans rights during the campaign because the majority of people who support trans rights already understand that the Democrats support their rights even if they don't make it a campaign issue.
Calling Democrats the "most progressive party" is like calling a carpet bombing the "most peaceful action" because the alternative is a thermonuclear bomb.
Of the two options that can be elected in the USA, which is the most progressive?
If you go by their track records, neither. One is verbally less regressive, sometimes, but only in election years.
That's a pretty ridiculous answer... One party tried to increase healthcare access the other destroys whatever progress the other party made. One party is in favor of science, the other chooses a president that suggests injecting bleach to get rid of diseases. One party tries to create digital programs, the other blocks any attempts at it...
One party is fully owned by the ultra-wealthy and will not do anything to even slightly weaken the oppression of the 99%, the other party is fully owned by the ultra-wealthy and will not do anything to even slightly weaken the oppression of the 99% and also lies about it.
https://www.them.us/story/trans-bill-of-rights-federal-reintroduced
Really?
Those of us on the left do not vote for Democrats because we are NOT Democrats.
If they won't stand up and do what's right in the face of opposition they are not worthy of being elected. Mentioning the marginalized when it's politically convenient is self serving, and not worthy of being elected.
Sure. Except the policies they pass represent their electorate and are diametrically opposed to Republicans.
Listen, I'm for all the same things everyone on this platform wants. The issue is our generation is terminally online but doesn't bother to vote. If you want to make changes disengaging from the political system altogether is not the answer. Building coalitions and doing the hard work is. But that takes work and is not exciting, so it's just easier for accounts like @return2ozma@lemmy.world to keep spamming non-stop about how "both parties are equal" and "corpo overlords". It's just more fun, isn't it?
Gurl I'm still saying vote for Kamala but be aware their shortcomings. Fuck Trump and the GOP.
Sorry. I just don't buy it.
If you really want to enact change get politically active at the local level and build up. Get a seat at the table. Build coalitions. Run for local elections. Support your city council / school policy. Talk about what you can do.
Spamming incessantly about how bad the Dems are betrays a total lack of understanding who the main electoral base is (outside the internet) and how legislation is passed. This has been pointed out to you multiple times. You know all this. You know what you're doing. We see it.
I don't buy it.
The working class will NEVER have a seat at their table, only promises and illusions that someday we will so they can stay in power.
Many of those that chose not to vote are disenfranchised voters that do not feel represented in government, and rightfully so. Many of our lives do not fundamentally change for the better regardless which shade of fascism runs the government.
Liberals talk about building coalitions, which translates to 'do it our way otherwise you want the other team to win.' They want zero input from the marginalized groups they help keep marginalized, they do not listen to our needs.
Claiming that you want all the same things other people want is disingenuous when you demand we support the people fighting those changes.
"Should Have" in what sense? Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They're very different things.
Are they?
If a politician has certain morals but they set them aside to get elected, do they still hold those morals?
If a politician makes up morals they don't have to get elected, did they ever truly hold those morals?
The answer to both is a resounding NO.
If you abandon/adopt morals to get elected, you have no morals, you have self interests.
Whatever distinction you're trying to make, or why, is a you issue, there is no way to twist this in to it being ok.
Is not mentioning trans rights during an election speech the same thing as being against trans rights?
Nope. They are very different things. I'm all for trans rights, but I don't bring it up in every conversation I have about politics. That's not setting aside my morals or abandoning them.
Hypothetically, what if talking about trans rights turned off more voters than it brought in? What if that led to trump getting elected? Would it have been better to not mention it in the first place, or was the morality of mentioning it more important than trying to get elected during an election speech?
They didn't mention trans rights because they didn't want to alienate the Republicans that they're courting. They would rather shit on progressives than lose a conservative vote.
Why do you think that it's shitting on progressives? Can someone not mention during a speech but still work to pass legislation in support of trans rights when they have the power to do so, after an election where they need votes that may be turned off by the issue? Nobody came out against trans rights. An omission on the topic isn't anti trans.
If not talking about an issue now may mean more voters so that real change may happen, even if that means courting republicans, why is that a bad thing?
It's possible to support something without talking about it one time.
They have zero interest in protecting trans rights.
Based on what? There is zero basis in your claim.
Based on Republicans passing over 500 anti-trans bills the last several years and Democrats haven't done shit except talk about it. Democrat version of protecting their rights is telling them they're free to use whatever restroom they want, while ignoring that they don't have access to affordable Health Care or housing and may live in abject poverty while using that preferred restroom.
When did Democrats ever have the power to change any of that? Can't force change without control of Congress which didn't happen. While it seems like a weak consolation, gender neutral bathrooms is progress. Nobody as the unilateral power to make any of those changes.
What do you think could have been done over the last 4 years that would have been real change?
I'm sorry, but when there is so much at stake we have to lie. politicians have always lied. left and right. it's in their nature. they can't help it. if it's politically expedient to lie, even by omission, so the enemy doesn't use it against you and chips away at that majority, then I'm totally comfortable with that. of course, I'd much prefer that it was illegal for politicians to lie, like they are trialing in Wales, then we'd have a very different calibre of politics. I'm all for that. bring on enforced honesty in politics. but until that's established and the enemy, and let me make this very clear, the US Nazis are very much the enemy, we have to temper our political persona a bit. once we win then we show how inclusive and caring we are. but if saying something what could be used in an attack against our valiant cause, it's ok to hide it. for now. look at Walz, he's an ally to the cause and we're not hiding him. he's in full view, heart on his sleeve, and from what I can tell, he's a really good man. those are the qualities we need to show off. we're not hiding those morals, we're just not shouting loudly about some of the more progressive values we hold, so they can't be twisted and used against us. we need to win this election. fairly and absolutely convincingly. and I'm talking as a Kiwi, a citizen of Earth, watching on in horror what could be coming and the pivot in geopolitical power that would inevitably occur. your election has way more reach than just your shores. the good guys need to win and kick the US Nazis so hard in the nuts they remember loosing forever. anyway. thanks for listening
The democrats didn't leave fighting for trans rights out because they fear being attacked (literally every word they say will get twisted and attacked), but because they don't intend to fight for them, and saying they do, would be the lie.
The fact that you fuckers are so willing to take it the other way and support the idea of erasing one of the main groups being targeted right now in order to win over some bigots (despite, in your own warped minds, them really truly supporting trans rights, promise!) is honestly disgusting.
"Win over bigots to beat the bigot!"
How the fuck do you think that ends for trans people?
Would you rather the bigots vote for Trump?
Too bad there's no article you could read to check. It might even say something like:
With all the time they allocated for Republicans, Israel, and cops there wasn't much left for actual marginalized people. At least they're finally being open and who they represent.
Na. They did the right thing. It’s implied. Why give the trump idiots more ammo.
We already knew that their support was transactional, conditional. Spineless cowards.
Not mentioning it during the campaign doesn't mean not supporting it when adopting policies.
How many US Politicians adopted trans supportive policies vs how many of them actually campaigned on it?
Mhm. Let's make the moral choice, have Republicans make more noise on the issue and turn away voters just like on Gaza, climate change, immigration, wealth inequality to ultimately help Republicans strip away protections on each.
To have Harris be the slippery target is strategic, because Republicans know how to pounce on an issue when they think they see one. They've already done it dozens of times on complete non-issues due to them having lack of real rebuttals against the Democratic party.
I'll put it bluntly: to have trans-inclusivity become the norm, we have to pitch the inclusivity part before we explain the trans part.
So you think the way to counter the Republicans using fascist tactics to demonize trans people is to not support trans people. Because if we support trans people, it will only make more people side with Republicans and attack trans people.
Fuck that. Fuck that every conceivable way.
Why do you assume that not mentioning trans rights in speeches = not supporting trans rights?
The point is that in order to win elections you campaign on things that your opponent can't use to alienate some of your base. I'm going to be blunt here but not all Democrats are progressive enough to see trans right as something important and some of them don't want a "woke" president (as the term "woke" was appropriated by the right as being a bad thing and supporting trans rights is woke) so mentioning them directly during the campaign would make more people not vote/switch back to voting for the Republicans than it will make trans people come out and vote because trans people already know they only have one party that supports their right to exist, even if it's not being campaigned on.
No, I am saying that the Dems' messaging is being kept broad in terms of inclusivity, because then it makes Republicans singling out transgender people or other minorities to hate on them look extra weird. It also brings the issue of transgenderism to voters for whom this is a foreign concept, in a way they can better understand.
Many of these voters hate trans people not because they understand the issue, but because conservative organizations have told them to constantly for years so it's made into a trigger word. The Harris campaign is showing these voters a way out from the cycle of hate, to put these divisions away, and accept trans people for the human beings they are, just like all of us, without needing to put them on a spotlight front and centre. Harris needs a large amount of these uninformed voters to support her too if she wants any hope of enacting a progressive, LGBTQ+ inclusive agenda during her term.
::: spoiler TruthOut - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for TruthOut:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://truthout.org/articles/instead-of-ignoring-trans-rights-at-dnc-dems-shouldve-vowed-to-protect-them/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support