222
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago

You're complaining about her saying she doesn't want to endorse Harris by accusing her of insufficient queer advocacy

it’s perfectly fine to criticize anybody who says they’ll do everything in their power to support LGBTQ+, and then refuse to endorse Harris

I'm angry with those who choose to spend their time casting accusations against LTBTQ allies simply because they refuse to endorse their political candidate.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I live in a red state. Federal protections are the single most effective way way to support LGBTQ+. So yeah, don't say you're doing "everything" if you won't even endorse.

Love what she does, I love the activism. She has no obligation to endorse. I totally get Gaza if that's the holdup. But saying you'll do "everything" in the same breath as saying you won't endorse Harris is a lie and is offensive to me as someone who lives in an impacted state who desperately does not want another Trump presidency.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Democrats haven't done anything on the federal level to protect LGBTQ rights in red states, nor is Harris running on any LGBTQ protections. Go ahead and look through her campaign website. There's not a single mention of LGBTQ or gender. There are only 2 mentions of 'minority', and only one of black americans, and only in the context of business ownership.

Don't tell me Harris is going to protect minorities in red states when she's not given a ounce of time or effort doing anything to defend them.

edit: on her website she doesn't even discuss queer, gender, or immigrant issues when discussing project 2025. It looks as if she is going out of her way to avoid the topic altogether.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I don't give a fuck what she has to say to voters to get her elected. If you don't think liberal judges over the next four years are a net positive over conservative judges, you need to pay more attention to politics more holistically.

For the record, this is also why I'm forever grateful to Joe Manchin for giving Dems a majority despite him not agreeing with Dems on many subjects. The alternative was far, far worse.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago

Why the fuck would an LGTBQ+ activist artist have any reason to endorse a candidate that can't even bring herself to utter the acronym in public?

Honest to god, what kind of partisan gremlin would go around accusing lgbtq activists of abandoning their cause because they refuse to go out of their way and endorse a candidate that doesn't even want to be associated with queer minority rights, especially when that candidate happens to also be supporting an ethno fascist regime engaged in genocide?

this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
222 points (87.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
1956 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS