In the face of ‘eradication’, one trans activist is preparing to fight – and she’s sick of silence and neglect from her supposed allies. Raquel Willis tells Io Dodds why Republican bathroom bans are everybody’s problem
I’m exhausted with you dude. You argue vaguely and demand I take a position, then do a line by line breakdown, repeating cyclical arguments about money and elections with zero citations of your own. They’ve HAD power since Citizens United. The reality is that though bills are introduced and filibustered (cynically flip-flopping on filibuster rules when in/out of power) they don’t make finance reform a campaign issue. They’ve had chances at alternate voting structures - and they’ve proven via bad faith messaging that they (correctly) view it as a threat to their duopoly hegemony.
The party tried to gaslight voters about the economy, whilst everyone watched their wages freeze amid price increases. New jobs and record S&P growth is a press pool talking point, but a loser in the election. Trump’s own shit record in 2016-2020 should have featured much more prominently, alongside a presentation of a new alternative to the changed political and economic landscape. Liz Cheney is not that. “Tax credits for small businesses” is not that.
I am tired of team blue constantly fundraising and vote gathering on the message of “this is the most consequential election ever” whilst categorically refusing to take all the actions available to them, and leaving tools on the table for Republican realpolitik. The Dems let them run the whole table of options like shutdowns, poison pill amendments, playing outside the chessboard, and filibusters, whilst meekly pushing back.
Ginsburg’s replacement should have been a huge battle, after Reid kept the filibuster and set himself up. Barrett’s rubber stamp approval should have equally been a bigger fight, not protest walking out of the Judiciary Committee before a vote while the Republicans still have quorum majority. Abortion should have been codified into law numerous times in the last 50 years when Dems held a majority - baseline protections are popular, and the Republicans are feeling some of that backlash right now for their fawning to religious fundamentalism.
If this truly is the fight against fascism, why aren’t they fighting on every aspect and angle they can? The MAGAs have an inverse apocalyptic tone and fight dirty, on and off Capitol Hill.
I’m exhausted with you dude. You argue vaguely and demand I take a position, then do a line by line breakdown, repeating cyclical arguments about money and elections with zero citations of your own.
I haven’t made any claims that aren’t inherently true.
They’ve HAD power since Citizens United. The reality is that though bills are introduced and filibustered (cynically flip-flopping on filibuster rules when in/out of power) they don’t make finance reform a campaign issue. They’ve had chances at alternate voting structures - and they’ve proven via bad faith messaging that they (correctly) view it as a threat to their duopoly hegemony.
Who is they? Given the context of our discussion I assume you’re referring to democrats. But your first link shows that Democrats voted for the bill to end dark money and republicans voted to block it with a dead even 49 to 49 vote. Even Joe Biden endorsed the bill to end dark money.
Filibustering is a double edge sword. It is bad when you are trying to pass legislation but good when you are trying to block legislation. Even Bernie uses filibustering. So of course there will be flip flopping depending on the situation. Ending filibustering would allow Trump to pass a lot more legislation. That’s not a conspiracy it’s called foresight.
You’re 3rd link makes it pretty clear the Democratic Party was only opposed to that bill because it would allow non-democrats to choose primary candidates. So with enough bad actors, Trump or a GOP member could be elected as the democratic candidate and there would be no 2nd party then. That bill was obviously made in bad faith. Maybe you didn’t read your own link?
The party tried to gaslight voters about the economy, whilst everyone watched their wages freeze amid price increases. New jobs and record S&P growth is a press pool talking point, but a loser in the election.
They didn’t gaslight anyone. Wages consistently grew throughout the last 4 years. Why lie about that? When Biden took office there were supply chain gaps from Trump not handling Covid. Biden worked to fix them and corporations used them as an excuse to price gouge. Democrats supported unions which raised wages. Corporations increased price gouging to cancel it out. You’re shilling for corporate price gougers by scapegoating the democrats that increased wages when you ignore the fact that those wage increases were cancelled out by more corporate price gouging. Or flat out lie and claim the wage increases never happened.
Trump’s own shit record in 2016-2020 should have featured much more prominently, alongside a presentation of a new alternative to the changed political and economic landscape.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Liz Cheney is not that.
What does Liz Cheney have to do with the economy? Or are you just repeating the leftist talking point that Liz Cheney hurt Harris’ election. There is no polling or any evidence to support that talking point. It is an obvious attempt to convince democrats to not work with republicans and decrease their chances of winning elections and passing legislation. Never Trumpers can vote too. Why throw away their votes? Because bad faith actors want democrats to throw away votes.
“Tax credits for small businesses” is not that.
Harris campaigned on much more than that and as we are about to see when Trump takes office, all the bad faith complaints you are making towards democrats will be worse under Trump. But you only have complaints for democrats which proves you don’t really care about the things you are complaining about. It’s all in bad faith.
Ginsburg’s replacement should have been a huge battle, after Reid kept the filibuster and set himself up. Barrett’s rubber stamp approval should have equally been a bigger fight, not protest walking out of the Judiciary Committee before a vote while the Republicans still have quorum majority.
What does this even mean? Do you think Supreme Court justices are elected via wrestling matches? It’s a vote. Before the vote even happens they know if they have enough votes to win or not. That shouldn’t need to be explained. If republicans have the majority of votes they choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Democrats need more seats to choose the justices which means winning more elections. Which they are less likely to do with people like yourself spreading misinformation about them. So again it is clear you are arguing in bad faith.
Abortion should have been codified into law numerous times in the last 50 years when Dems held a majority - baseline protections are popular, and the Republicans are feeling some of that backlash right now for their fawning to religious fundamentalism.
This is a single voter issue, which means that if dems codify it into law they lose votes from anti-choice voters that would otherwise vote dem. As we saw with recent elections, republicans won after taking away abortion rights. They arent “feeling some of that backlash” at all. Again, your suggestion would result in less votes and more losses, empowering fascism even more but maybe that’s the goal of your bad faith arguments.
If this truly is the fight against fascism, why aren’t they fighting on every aspect and angle they can? The MAGAs have an inverse apocalyptic tone and fight dirty, on and off Capitol Hill.
Because fighting dirty leads to more dirty fighting by normalizing it. Trumps dirty politics lost him the 2020 election. The only reason dems barely lost the 2024 election is because of the high inflation during Bidens term and bad faith actors like yourself spreading misinformation about democrats.
Again with the “bad faith” projection, whilst cynically trying to sneak past falsehoods lol
You’re all over the map. Like I said, Dems tried to reform campaign finance, but got filibustered. Filibuster bad, but also filibuster good somehow? Filibuster is a tool of the minority - ie a directly undemocratic tool. It was undemocratic when Thurmond tried to hold back the hands of the clock and slow the Civil Rights act, it was undemocratic when Republicans blocked campaign finance reform, as it was undemocratic when Mitch blocked Garland.
That bill was obviously made in bad faith. Maybe you didn’t read your own link?
You read it, but didn’t comprehend it. The party conflated alternative voting with anti-democratic principles. Open primaries are not a rare thing, but DNC opposition to alternative voting isn’t even though it would peel off more center/moderates who trend republican and isolate extremist voices. Crying about “$hill Stein” whilst demanding fealty and refusing to build broad coalitions (coalitions which delivered strong Democratic electoral results and unified government in the Obama years) is inherently anti-democratic.
You’re shilling for corporate price gougers by scapegoating the democrats that increased wages when you ignore the fact that those wage increases were cancelled out by more corporate price gouging.
Again, projection and parroting the party line without proof. Corporations did price gouge and make inflation pervasive and persistent, but inflationary causes are real.
Or flat out lie and claim the wage increases never happened.
Because they effectively didn’t. You can’t in one sentence recognize the role of inflation, then link to a graph championing a single dollar/hr increase while inflation was 2-9% year on year. Wages grew in raw dollars, but were outpaced by inflation. Yet here you are harping about how line went up and therefore economy strong.
I’m not even going to bother with a retort to the rest of your comment, because that’s hat genuinely bad faith argument looks like. I listed some political and extra-political activities that the Dems failed to do or take and you reduce that to “it’s not a wrestling match”.
From your comments, you’re clearly one of the moderates/liberals who are far more comfortable working with the Republican Party than daring to glance left, even as it costs the Dems traditionally reliable voting blocs who for generations came out faithfully for the Democrat party. Trump swung the Republicans to populism, the Democrats reacted by pulling toward liberal and moderate elites and middle class. Show the people (not the donor class) what a democracy that works for them could look like, and they might come back.
You’re all over the map. Like I said, Dems tried to reform campaign finance, but got filibustered. Filibuster bad, *but also filibuster good somehow*? Filibuster is a tool of the minority - ie a directly undemocratic tool. It was undemocratic when Thurmond tried to hold back the hands of the clock and slow the Civil Rights act, it was undemocratic when Republicans blocked campaign finance reform, as it was undemocratic when Mitch blocked Garland.
Filibustering is a double edge sword. It is bad when you are trying to pass legislation but good when you are trying to block legislation. Even Bernie uses filibustering. So of course there will be flip flopping depending on the situation. Ending filibustering would allow Trump to pass a lot more legislation. That’s not a conspiracy it’s called foresight.
Filibustering can be ended using cloture with 60 votes. So apparently you consider voting “anti-democratic”.
You read it, but didn’t comprehend it. The party conflated alternative voting with anti-democratic principles. Open primaries are not a rare thing, but DNC opposition to alternative voting isn’t even though it would peel off more center/moderates who trend republican and isolate extremist voices. Crying about “$hill Stein” whilst demanding fealty and refusing to build broad coalitions (coalitions which delivered strong Democratic electoral results and unified government in the Obama years) is inherently anti-democratic.
I read it, comprehended it, explained it to you, then you posted a link supporting my argument. You should read your own sources sometime:
Manipulation and dilution
Opponents of the open primary believe that the open primary leaves the party nominations vulnerable to manipulation and dilution. First, one party could organize its voters to vote in the other party’s primary and choose the candidate that they most agree with or that they think their party could most easily defeat. Secondly, in the open primary, independent voters can vote in either party. This occurrence may dilute the vote of a particular party and lead to a nominee who does not represent the party’s views.
Because they effectively didn’t. You can’t in one sentence recognize the role of inflation, then link to a graph championing a single dollar/hr increase while inflation was [2-9% year on year](https://www.statista.com/statistics/244983/projected-inflation-rate-in-the-united-states/). Wages grew in raw dollars, [but were outpaced by inflation](https://www.statista.com/chart/27610/inflation-and-wage-growth-in-the-united-states/). Yet here you are harping about how line went up and therefore economy strong.
Another bad faith argument. I pointed out that democrats raised wages and called out price gouging. Which is literally everything they can do. You show that you understand wages went up and that you understand corporate price gouging was responsible for canceling out those wage increases, then in the same breath you scape goat democrats for the actions of corporate price gougers. Bad. Faith.
I’m not even going to bother with a retort to the rest of your comment, because that’s hat genuinely bad faith argument looks like. I listed some political and extra-political activities that the Dems failed to do or take and you reduce that to “it’s not a wrestling match”.
You have nothing to say because your comments can’t get any more ridiculous than they have already been.
From your comments, you’re clearly one of the moderates/liberals who are far more comfortable working with the Republican Party than daring to glance left,
Sorry to break your stereotype of me but I would love for our government to move further left. But I live in reality so I know that for that to happen, voters need to move further left first and as we’ve seen with the 2024 election, voters moved to the right.
Comfort has nothing to do with it. In order to win elections we have to appeal to more than the left. In order to pass legislation and fix things we have to work with more than just the left. That’s reality.
Turning our backs on democrats and scapegoating them for the actions of Trump, the GOP and corporations, weakens their chances of winning elections and passing legislation that is in our best interest.
even as it costs the Dems traditionally [reliable voting blocs](https://www.vox.com/politics/381857/2024-election-black-voters-harris-trump) who for generations came out faithfully for the Democrat party.
I like how you claim dems are losing traditionally reliable voting blocs by using an article that says the opposite.
Trump swung the Republicans to populism, the Democrats reacted by pulling toward liberal and moderate elites and middle class. Show the people (not the donor class) what a democracy that works for them could look like, and they might come back.
Trump swung the republicans to conspiracies and hate that ostracized a lot of republicans. Democrats reacted by trying to earn those votes to prevent fascism from winning another term. The donor class already own our government. The 2024 election may have been our last chance at changing that. But too many people like yourself spread misinformation about the Democratic Party and convinced voters to fuck around. Now we have to find out.
