141
Dems with anti-trans views are on the ballot. What should pro-trans voters do with them?
(www.helenwebberley.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2026
141 points (87.7% liked)
politics
31385 readers
2721 users here now
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Serious question, not trying to argue, I just want to understand: What do you expect to gain by not voting/voting third party in this particular election? Is it a matter of principle for you, or is there another reason? And are you really unafraid of having more Republican representatives vs Democrats?
I ask because this choice has always seemed like an obvious one to me, but I'll admit I'm looking at the question through a lens of cold logic. Also while I am a minority, I'm not trans, so I assume there is a perspective here that I'm not seeing.
No, you're looking at it through the lens of propaganda. It is not cold logic to believe that a politician in the Democrat party is inherently obviously better than a politician in the Republican party. The two parties are PR campaigns of the rich elite. The psychographics of the voting population are broadly segmentable into groupings that can be assigned to one party or the other and remain consistent enough to fit their campaign. Using cold logic, the Ds and the Rs are sharing the responsibility of maintaining an ultraviolent genocidal oligarchic international EuroCentric Christian white supremacist patriarchal empire.
Obama is literally out here this week saying the Ds need to stop campaigning on material conditions and focus on moral narratives about we can all live together in this country. He and Biden were the ones that created the policy framework, headcount, budgets, and private contractor relationships that Donald Trump is using to terrorize cities with ICE. Obama/Biden appointed the exact same man that Trump appointed to be deportation czar. And Obama came after Bush 2 but continued Bush 2's war campaign to destroy 7 countries - Libya was the 6th that Bush couldn't get to, so Obama and Clinton took care of destroying that sovereign nation. Iran was the 7th, and Obama couldn't get to it so he negotiated the JCPOA and then Trump demonstrated that the military strategists were already planning to destroy Iran they just needed more time.
What else does cold logic tell us? Did Biden know Trump was a fascist threat? Sure seemed like he was talking about it mostly openly. What did Biden do? Well, he had the full unredacted Epstein Files. He could have launched a federal criminal investigation into Trump. But he didn't. He just sat on it. And then he fucked the primaries. He did nothing at all to stop Trump, to reduce his available toolset, to play politics. Nothing. Biden saw Trump with a knife and a bunch of people saying "he's got a knife" and said "watch out for that guy, he's got a knife" and then left.
What else does cold logic tell us? Corporate profits are higher under Democrats. Democrats regularly say one thing on TV and then vote with their Republican colleagues. Democrats support mass domestic surveillance, Israel genociding Gaza, increased military spending, increased police spending, using police against the homeless, mass recialized incarceration, and yes, they even support anti-trans sentiment.
That's logic. Blue no matter who is not logic, it's emotional.
Those are all fair points; I can't argue any of them, at least not with my level of understanding. I would even agree that Republicans and establishment/neoliberalism Democrats are ultimately rolling up to the same folks to get their marching orders, even if their outward facade paints them as opposing factions. I would argue, though, that while the Democrats you describe represent the same brand of fascism as the Republicans they (ostensibly) rail against, they do push it in a noticeably slower, less heavy-handed way than Republicans do. That doesn't sound like much of a benefit, but I would think it offers progressives a chance to shift the Overton window back to the left during the eras when Democrats are in power; more of a chance than they'd have during a Republican administration like this one anyway, where people are constantly overwhelmed with the avalanche of blatant corruption and intentional cruelty directed toward them. A slower-moving disaster is an objectively better situation than a fast-moving one, because you at least have more time to try to stop it or get out of the way. That's the cold logic I was referring to in my original comment.
But like I said, I'm not really here to argue. I just wanted to ask a question, the one you skipped right over: What do you expect to gain by either not voting or voting third party in this particular election? You've given a salient explanation of why Democrats aren't much better than Republicans as leaders, but you haven't explained why picking an unlikely third option (or not picking one at all) is the best choice.
So let's answer your question. I expect to gain nothing. Which is exactly what I expect to gain if I do vote for them.
There's a sense in which the process of "power" shifting from one brand to the other brand is much like people buying store brand vs name brand of the same product made by the same manufacturer. People buy the one or the other en masse because of larger economic trends driving their buying behavior. Individuals making deliberate choices to "not pay the brand tax" is such a small component of aggregate buying behavior it's not even worth modeling.
In this way, the old adage "it's the economy, stupid" is saying that people don't really win elections because conscientious voters who are thoughtful and strategic do things - people win elections because of larger economic and social trends. Yes, in individual small swing districts conscientious voting can sometimes become large enough to have a measurable impact, but not in most races, not in most districts, and even among swing districts, not that often.
Instead what's happening is the 2 brands work to temper the psychological needs of various groups of the American population, serving to create us/them dynamics within the population that serves to divide them against each other and enlist them in maintaining the very powers who oppress them.
Like what happens in these discussions. We are all being oppressed by the entire political system, and yet some of us believe that others of us are paid Russian or Chinese trolls or that we're actually Republicans because we are trying to keep the focus on the total political system. What we need is to band together as a single group, not as separate groups who fight on the terrain of ballots, but a single unified group of the people against the oligarchs and that means fighting against their mechanisms of control. Party politics is one of those mechanisms.
The reason you can't understand this issue is because you are incapable of looking more than one election ahead into the future.