190
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
190 points (77.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4529 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 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Should Have" in what sense? Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They're very different things.
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.
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.
It's not only Republicans voters that plan to vote for the Democrats that would be alienated by a "woke" candidate, for some it would be enough to just not go out and vote and I'm willing to bet that more people would do that than the number of people that would be convinced to vote by raising the issue.
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?
In this climate, when we are under direct and active attack? Fucking yes.
Gotta love the overinflated ego, but you aren't trying to win an election to run a fucking country, your conversations aren't relevant.
If you prioritise winning over bigots over your morals, and are willing to further compromise the safety of marginalised people for the sake of furthering your career - you are just as much of a bigot, and again - have no moral, only self interests.
Claiming that supporting trans rights will get trump elected is flat out manipulative bigotry, and makes you a liar, because you're not all for trans rights, you're only for trans rights when it's convenient for you.
You are being the "white moderate" that causes more harm than the outright bigot does, because you pretend to support the cause, but are happy to tell others to wait for their liberation until it's more convenient for you.
Do you know what the word hypothetical means? While you're searching for that, loik up what a false equivalence is as well, so that maybe you can stop using them.
It's possible for a person to not mention something during a speech and still fight for that cause. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
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?
They've never campaigned on trans rights, how do those rights compare in Democrats' States vs Republican ones?
Would you rather the bigots vote for Trump?