this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
190 points (77.0% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2503 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 61 points 2 months ago (83 children)

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.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 months ago (8 children)

you have to win votes from both sides.

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.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (82 replies)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

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.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago (9 children)

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.

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 8 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 months ago (16 children)

"Should Have" in what sense? Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They're very different things.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Na. They did the right thing. It’s implied. Why give the trump idiots more ammo.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (24 children)

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.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Love how all the pro-trans rights people are being downvoted in this thread. You ok, Lemmy?

[–] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 6 points 2 months ago

We're not allowed to point out issues apparently.

load more comments
view more: next ›