politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Despite that, the Democratic party has a lower approval rating than Trump. People see Trump as evil. They see Democrats as shiftless empty suits that believe in nothing.
I too, am disappointed in the lack of action from the DNC, and even worse the actions the DNC are taking to bridle the DSA who are actually pushing change forward. However, a "do nothing" DNC is safer than the actively destructive GOP.
Not always. For example, I as a trans person need to vote against any transphobic Democrat. I can't afford to myopically pretend that only the election in front of me exists. If the Democrats go the way of Labor in the UK, I will lose civil rights for the rest of my life. If a Republican wins, there's always the possibility of Democrats reverting things after the next election.
For me personally, a transphobic Democrat is far more dangerous to my safety and well being than any Republican. It's more important to make sure at least one party isn't transphobic than it is to win every election.
I don't know your candidates, but if both candidates are transphobic in some way, can I safely assume that the GOP candidate is more transphobic or are you saying the DNC candidate is more transphobic than your GOP one?
Wait, let me follow your logic. Am I reading you right that you positing that voting for the GOP makes the DNC less transphobic?
You're going to vote for the GOP, which by every measure, is the more transphobic party, as a strategy to try to reduce transphobic legislation being written into law? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If anything I think it would make the DNC more transphobic because they see they are losing elections to pro-transphobia GOP candidates and the DNC would think thats what voters want.
You need to think of power coalitions and long term policy positions.
Again, you're stuck in binary short term thinking. I need to be more long term and strategic than you do.
And yes, transphobic DNC candidates losing makes the party less transphobic in the long run. We need to make transphobia completely toxic in the Democratic party, and that's only possible if transphobic candidates lose. Every win by a Dem transphobe means more transphobes winning the next primary cycle. Look at Labor in the UK now. They've been completely taken over by TERFs.
Again, you're still stuck in this thought pattern where the only election that matters is the one in front of you. I'm thinking decades into the future here.
Right now, we are seeing a transformation of the Democratic party. DSA candidates for instance are pulling the party further left than it has gone in decades. Do you think that could have ever happened without Trump being elected. (Please don't put words in my mouth and pretend I'm saying that means it's a net positive that Trump won. You're better than that.)
The only reason the DSA candidates are doing well now is that the old common sense understanding that corporate centrists are "more electable" has been completely shattered. That would not have been possible without the 2016 and 2024 elections.
Remember, parties are coalitions. There are both trans allies and TERFS in the Democratic party. And TERFS need to be seen as complete losers. Elect a TERF? Lose the general election as all the queer people sit it out.
Small minority groups have no real political power on their own. Queer people are never going to be able to win elections on their own. The only power small minority groups have is the ability to work as a spoiler. And if you're not willing to exercise that power, you will have none.
And frankly, if both parties turn transphobe, this whole country can burn to the ground as far as I care. You don't get to expect someone's political support after you've decided they don't count as a human being.
I have a trans family member. I am personally invested in their rights as a person be respected.
We disagree completely. Up until 2 years ago I think we would agree that the DNC, for the most part, supported trans rights. When did we start seeing a handful of DNC candidates shifting on this position? When the candidates winning elections, the GOP, went transphobic. So the DNC losing more elections won't make them less transphobic, it will make them more. We've seen this in real time in the last 2 years.
WTF. Its a good thing I never said anything of the sort. I don't even think you need me in this conversation when you're the one putting words in my mouth, and then criticizing me for it.
You are the one advocating for the GOP and voting for GOP candidates directly opposed to trans rights. You are directly hurting my trans sister. You are the person with the torch setting fire to the country.
It depends entirely on why they lose. Democrats didn't lose in 2024 because of transphobia. Polls show trans issues were near the bottom of voter priorities.
When a party loses an election, politicians start to innovate. They change their messaging and start modifying their platform to try out something different. If those changes improve electoral results, those changes will stick. If they're a net negative, they'll end.
What we're seeing with the Democrats is experimental transphobia. They're testing the waters to see if it improves their odds. I as a trans person need to do everything I can to make sure that experiment is a resounding failure. Most Democrats aren't openly transphobic...at least not YET. It's unusual and "innovative" to be a transphobic Democrat. If a Democrat experiments with transphobia, and they win an election, that teaches every other Democrat that transphobia is a winning strategy. If they lose in landslide because the queer vote abandoned them for their betrayal, the experiment fails, and other Democrats will be less likely to take up transphobia.
You were almost certainly going to. After all, you just said I advocated for the GOP. Which should be pretty obvious I don't support. Whenever I point out that sometimes trans people need to vote against some Democrats for larger strategic reasons, someone with a room temperature IQ will come out of the woodwork and say, "well that must mean you love Trump!" I wasn't accusing you of putting words in my mouth. I was asking you not to do that. However, you still did it anyway when you accused me of advocating for the GOP.
That is not the case. In almost all scenarios, I support voting for a Democrat over a Republican. But a Democrat experimenting with transphobia against a Republican? Regardless of how that race goes, a transphobe is going to win. From my perspective, that particular election is already lost. At that point my priority is making sure the transphobic Democrat has as little credibility as possible. And that's achieved by making sure they lose by the largest margin possible.
You will only see this as advocating against trans issues if you have the future time horizon of a fruit fly.
Voting for the GOP is showing support in a very meaningful way with repurcussions. You're voting to put a party in power that has an active agenda opposed to your interests.
Your perspective is empowering a party with a transphobic agenda is better than a single trnasphobic voice that is part of a party platform that does not support their stance? One of those is a lot more likely to be able to enact harmful legislation a d you're directly responsible for any harm that candidate will cause.
Unless you're trans, I don't want to hear your perspective on this. I don't listen to entitled cis people who tell trans people how to think. We know our needs better than you do.
I helped my trans friends flee the midwest to the PNW because they weren't safe here, so I do have stakes and I am involved in constructive actions helping the community as opposed to supporting the opposition.
Using your trans status to ignore others is almost as short sided as your single issue voting support for the GOP.
Sorry. Allies and trans allies share some commonalities, but you will never feel this in your bones. Part of being an ally is not talking over those you claim to be allies with. When a trans person speaks on a trans issue, if an ally disagrees with that, it's best to keep your opinions to yourself.
This is one reason trans-dedicated spaces have to be very careful with how many allies they let into the space. If you're not careful, the actual trans people will be outnumbered by the allies, and actual trans people will have their voices shouted down when the opinions of trans folks and their supposed allies disagree.
There's a reason Native American tribes carefully control their member lists. If they're not careful, friendly and supportive white people who have an enthusiasm for Native culture will end up taking over the place.
I'm white myself, but I do have a great affinity for the struggles of our black brothers, sisters, and siblings. I consider myself an ally to the black community. But at the same time, I would never talk over a black person if they shared a perspective on the black experience that differed from my thoughts on it. Obviously they know these subjects better than I do.
They're the ones that decided to be trans-exclusive when their voting has harmful implications and results for both the group they're proclaiming support for as well as many others.
If they're voting for Nazis as part of a grand plan, they're voting for Nazis.
I had a half written post responding to what you wrote before I realized just how far off we are from one another in both ideology and tone. Clearly I've deleted all of it. I feel sorry for you, but worse, I feel bad knowing the damage your actions will have on your cause and that of my family. Still, I wish you good luck in life and hope you don't end up regretting your choices of who you vote for.
Feel free to respond to my final post to you if you like if you want to put a coda on this thread for others, but I'll never see it.
My fellow, there's a nonzero chance we engage in civil war in the next 2 years. What the heck do you mean "long run"?
Take it from one marginalized community to another; your issues will not be won in a campaign trail. It will be fought for through years, decades of demonstration to a point that the public outcry can't be ignored. If there's one thing about the establishment, it's their policies shift with the sand. Trans support increases from the public and establishment dems will eventually get the message.
eurh, uh, trying to parse your first sentence a few times and coming up short. help me out:
you need to vote against any transphobic candidate, right?
because if you vote for a republican, even if they claim to be trans-tolerant, you gotta know they're lying?
I <3 my trans brothers sisters mothers and fathers, and would never ask anyone to vote against their values. but also, I see time after time how LGB folk are treated by the GOP and have no doubt they would throw transfolk right onto the same pyres given the opportunity. They openly despise their own pick-me trans person, Caitlyn Jenner. I cannot fathom how someone like Jenner justifies supporting conservatives.
If you don't support a strong democratic party, they may very well go the way of Labor, but I fail to understand how that means you might support an opposing candidate.
I guess there's green party? jill whatsername?
No. I said Democrat for a reason. Stop thinking in terms of a single election. I'm talking about coalitions and power balance within parties. You need to get past "Democrats good, Republicans bad." Both parties are themselves coalitions, coalitions whose fortunes can rise and fall within the party.
Republicans are always going to be evil. But if the Democrats turn against us, now both parties are out to get us. That is the real threat, where trans persecution gains bipartisan support. We're completely and utterly fucked if that happens. I fear a future where transphobia becomes so entrenched in both parties, that advocating for trans rights becomes as politically radioactive as a politican advocating for the rights of pedophiles in today's world. I am willing to lose an individual election to Republicans if it means transphobic Democrats do not gain power within the party.
A transphobic Republican winning means pain for a few years. For me, ensuring that at least one party is not militantly transphobic is a far higher priority than winning a single election. I personally had to flee my home to escape Republican political persecution. I became an internally displaced refugee in my own country because of them. But at least now I live in a blue state with solid protections at the state level. If Democrats turn the way of Republicans, I will have to flee the country entirely.
Again, stop thinking of things just between parties. Parties are not a monolith.
lol, no. did you not see what happened in kansas? if you let them have their way, they'll have you hunted down.
this isn't hyperbole.
wow
A lot of us who disapprove of the party are still going to vote for them. It doesn't mean anything.
That's what Kamala said.
Everything Kamala said turned out to be true. If people have seen 2 years of this and still think "both sides are the same", they clearly already picked their side.
One should not slander people who simply have stricter ethics than oneself as "both sides are the same." That's how you lose elections.
Slander implies falsehood. I've said nothing false. I'm tired of being gaslit by people who want to pretend they are enlightened centrists just because they are now feeling the consequences of their actions but still can't bring themselves to say "the other side was right".
Be much better if people could be the bigger person, admit "yeah this was worse than I ever expected" and learn from their mistakes. I don't want to gloat or celebrate or anything, I just want to fix the damn broken windows. It's honestly more annoying to have people say "there's no difference between a broken/fixed window" than it is people who say "what? the window isn't broken"
The falsehood was that the election was lost because a large number of people decided "both sides are the same." That is a comforting lie.
Some people just have different ethical systems than you do. Please have the humility to acknowledge that and not be so judgy. For millions of voters, supporting the Gaza genocide was a bridge to far. And no, you cannot placate these voters just by reflexively saying Trump would be worse for the Gazans. This is about ethical lines in the sand, not a balance of the greater good. The people who voted against Kamala because of Gaza do not follow your ethical framework. They simply look at the world differently than you do. They have a different world view, and that world view is just as valid as your own. Have some respect and quit pretending your way is the only way. And if you just call them stupid, they'll continue to not vote the way you want. You don't win votes by calling your voters stupid. Kamala tried that path of arrogance already.
This has all been hashed out before. But ultimately you have an ethical system that goes for a utilitarian greater good approach. Others have a respect for persons ethical system. The latter says vote for the lesser evil. The other says, vote for lesser evil, but there are some ethical lines that simply cannot be crossed.
Yes, you can say that's stupid. But you're talking about two different ethical traditions, each with generations of scholarly work behind them. It makes you seem like a child. To just dismiss an entire ethical philosophy out of hand is not only the height of hubris, but a recipe for losing elections. If you cannot be honest about why some people didn't vote for your candidate, you're going to continue to lose.
It appears you prefer feeling morally superior over actually winning elections. Respect for persons says that there are certain actions that are simply unacceptable, regardless if they result in a net benefit to the world. We could cure a lot of diseases by involuntarily experimenting on people, and on net we probably would save lives. A utilitarian philosophy like yours would tell you that using prisoners as involuntary test subjects is perfectly ethical, as long as it results in a net good for society.
And I actually voted for Kamala. I just have the honesty to acknowledge why she lost.
I never said that. I'm talking about people still trying to set the fence 20 months after the results of the election. 2024 has come and gone and there's not much use deliberating over why or how she lost. Because I think what's happening in 2025 onward will affect elections much more than re-living 2024. Trying to argue "Kamala said that" as if she's wrong because she lost doesn't help your argument (especially when many of her predictions came true anyway).
So yeah, if you're in 2026 still arguing "both sides are the same", you picked your side.
This isn't ethical, this is simple fact checking. You're reading way too deeply into a comment that was simply doing fact checking, and not even making a political judgment call.
This isn't political, this is simple fact checking. You're reading way too deeply into a comment that was simply doing fact checking. Let's go back over the chain and see what I said:
That's all I'm saying. I also literally said "I'm not here to gloat, I want problems fixed", so thanks for ignoring that.
The political situation is way different now than it was in 2024. Running as the incumbent party in an inflationary environment is always an uphill battle. The GOP should've won by more than they did. They barely gained control of the house
Ok.
That's what Hillary said.