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.
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.
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.
You’re not saying that they are disinterested, that this is an ineffective way to spend energy or something. You’re saying that it will actively drive moderate Americans to hate trans people. I think you need to look into your heart.
This is a reasonable response. But generally “energizing the base” is done closer to the election. We’ll see more preaching to the choir discourse around then.
I’m kind of hoping the silence on Gaza turns loud once the election is close enough that AIPAC money won’t fuck the election.
It’s the morally correct position. And running away from it will lose democrats votes they need.
They’re not gonna win republicans by going to the right. The democrats are going to lose if they try that shit. If they want to win they need to promise to bring back abortion rights, protect LGBTQ rights, and stop arming Israel. That would guarantee them a win. Especially if Kamala keeps up her economic promises she already made.
I hope Tim Walz can talk some sense into her.
Biden administration restores protections for gay and transgender Americans seeking health care
Abortion rights will take longer, because they need the Supreme Court for that.
Israel will not happen, they will likely continue to support traditional geopolitical allies who are clients of the military industrial complex.
…you would likely need to alter neoliberalism it’s self to do that one.
Maybe, just maybe, a system that makes doing the right thing a losing move, isn’t a system that we should allow to continue to exist.
I think @BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world was referring to First Past The Post in favor of Proportional Representation
Any other vulnerable minorities you want to throw under the bus while you’re at it?
-
do you think winning an election is about the popular vote?
-
do you think the Democrats are more likely to support trans rights?
If you answered yes to both, then maybe don’t suggest importing wedge issues into something that’s about the popular vote?
Do you want to give Trump more voters? Because that’s what you’re angling for. That’s what the headline is suggesting to do.
You’re mistaking wanting the most minority supporting side of politics to win the election for not supporting minorities? How the fuck doesn’t that even make sense.
Kamala’s job is currently defensive, dodge dodge dodge, stay clean, watch Trump get dirty and sink. It’s simple.
As soon as she’s won, then it’s time to be very very very noisy (and violent) on progressive and socialist issues again. But right now that’s only going to act as a kind of sabotage.
Which is fine if you’re an accelerationist who sees value to strengthening American Fascism. But I just want to try to end the Republican party.
If you answered yes to both
I answered no to both.
Do you want to give Trump more voters?
The only argument any centrist has when they move to the right like they all want to.
This eager dismissal of trans rights as just a tactical decision is entirely why people shit on liberals. Everything that isn’t the rock solid universally approved “normal” is just an anxiety attack away from being bargained away under the faulty assumption it’s an essential sacrifice in the name of protecting the status quo. Never mind that trans rights aren’t a major issue for anyone other than the hard right or trans people and their allies, and that dodging the issue in no way protects Democrats from being assigned a role in the culture war.
You could have just said “that sucks”. You could have pointed to efforts that could work the system elsewhere to protect them. You could have pointed to the myriad of trans rights issues that have majority of support that we could redirect the conversation to. You could have said literally nothing at all. But instead you wanted to broadcast how unimportant the rights of your nominal allies are.
Because to you, politics is just a game.
That’s a lot of words to just say that you don’t understand how politics works in the real world.
“Politics is when we capitulate to the most bigoted perspectives if they happen to be held by an important electoral demographic”
Bruh
I’m debating whether or not to even engage with you here given that you just gaslit a stranger because you’re upset about what the ruling class isn’t doing for you (presumably) - are you assuming maliciousness where ignorance might’ve sufficed?
You tell me. If you knew that you had all these great ideas and support for people but knew if you didn’t complete this first step, someone else’d be elected and do the opposite of those things, would you willingly lose and put those people you support at risk??
Do you really and truly think that progressives/liberals don’t care about trans rights? After all the bickering these rich assholes do on every damn channel on TV?
Give me a break.
You are valid in being frustrated You are allowed to have feelings and emotions about your treatment/mistreatment
But none of that makes it okay for you to take it out on your neighbors during a discussion which was trying to emphasize that politics are about strategy, not only morals.
This country operates via a leader person who’s voted for by majority count. In other words, that’s one person who needs to cater to 345 MILLION people.
Sometimes that means keeping your mouth shut on a particular issue temporarily to secure the win. When you’ve won, then you can start acting on those things you held off on emphasizing.
The alternative is that the other rich asshole not only comes in and withholds support, but also comes in and takes active measures to make it worse for these groups.
If it’s between regression and stagnation, I’m not happy with either. I will still take stagnation however because walking something back after it’s been walked back will only be harder.
When I go to pride festivals/parades I’m there to show my support. That’s active support.
Just because I don’t bring up LGBTQ+ rights and arguments at work doesn’t mean I don’t support them. Sometimes, by giving new dem voters some time to acclimate to the waters, you can give them the food later and they’ll be more likely to eat then, rather than when they’re first getting in the pool.
As much as some would like it to be true, you can’t just cram “new” morals down people’s throats and expect miraculous results. You can’t just tell people they’re a POS for not believing in what you believe in and expect them to be like “yo! I am an ignorant, holier-than-thou asshole… you’re right!” There is grace (growing thinner by the election cycle) and strategy in politics. Not everything is as shallow or malicious as people want them to be.
If democrats didn’t utilize this electoral ‘strategy’, maybe we wouldn’t have been taking steps backwards on women’s and LGBTQ rights.
If democrats can’t run on protecting minorities, and they can’t pass popular legislation (after they’ve won because they didn’t run on protecting minorities) because of congressional posturing, then maybe their electoral strategy is broken.
Bruh
I’m debating whether or not to even engage with you
It was this far in where I didn’t debate and just didn’t read any of this wall of text. I know nothing you’re going to say is at all worth reading, because if it was you would have started differently.
Election issues aren’t representative of what candidates do in office, issues which don’t have election promises attached end up having the most leeway for action later on.
But in some sense it’s all a sham because we’re still going to end up in neoliberalism Capitalism.
The real issues are: how much direct government support can we get to survive under Capitalism (meaningful nationalisation of government aid in the forms of government welfare support, healthcare, housing, education, and public transport programs)… And how much citizens can cooperate in order to force these changes and or create parallel community based support structures that are immune and legally protected from market interventions and effects.
-
Strong government programs.
-
Strong communities capable of mass protests.
-
…and strong parallel community-supported actions/programs/organisations (see the Black Panthers Maoist breakfast programs).
Right now we’re just talking about a fairly thin part of 1). Don’t mistake a desire to win an election as an abdication of support for trans healthcare, it’s not. The desire is to get the less harmful neoliberal classist option into power.
The real challenge of maintaining pressure and momentum on Kamala and the left establishment Democrats comes after that, and will have to come from community organization directly.
Because Capitalists, left or right, won’t hand you their help, you have to demand it, make it, and take it from them by the force of your demands and the power of organized community mass action.
The ruling class (left or right) understand nothing less than that.
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.
ITT: a bunch of leftists destroying the most progressive party because it failed their purity test by not talking about something that anyone with a bit of logic would know would lose them votes even if it’s known they’re in favor of it.
The ‘most progressive party’?? By what measure? Because they aren’t as openly fascist as the Republicans? Kamala has sworn to appoint at least one Republican, to be tough on crime, increase the strength of the military, be as or more anti-immigration than Trump, has shown no interest in healthcare reform, and refused to even consider ceasing the arming of genocidaires. What does it mean to be progressive to you?
That’s not the message I got at all. The message I got is that the Dems are going to continue what they did with Biden – bringing manufacturing home so we get good jobs, take on the moneyed interests in housing so we have more housing and hopefully cheaper housing, get student loan programs in place that get the wealth extraction out and make it so that you can get college educated without a debt hanging over you for the rest of your life. And that the Dems stand against hatred of all kinds, including anti-minority hatred, anti-gay hatred, anti-trans hatred, and frankly, all other hatred.
Harris is going to appoint a single Republican to her administration? So what? Her administration is going to have 25 other people she’s NOT said will be Republican, not to mention the various appointed positions that aren’t the top 26 positions of the Cabinet. And maybe the Republican is in one of those lower positions, not on the cabinet. I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, because I know there will be 26 not-just-Republicans-but-Qooqs-who-think-I-both-eat-and-fuck-babies if Trump wins.
America isn’t very Progressive, so Dems not being progressive enough doesn’t surprise me. I think we got some serious progressive ideas pushed the last admin, though. And if you want non-Progressive, well, look no further than the Republicans. Republicanism is where Progressive ideas go to die, and if Trump wins in November, I guarantee you you’ll watch as your ideas are strangled in the crib.
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.
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.
Tbf, in 2016 the DNC and Clinton were so arrogant they literally said, “we don’t need your votes.” Like every political campaign all they needed to do was make some empty promises to try to get them on board.
In my experience, the difference between die hard Sanders supporters and other leftists or liberals is that they tend to believe that the on going class war is the single biggest issue we face in the US today. Everything else is a distraction to keep that otherwise overwhelming block of the population segmented into competing blocks of people. The Dems just foster an attitude of “competing but inter-supportive” and the GOP has one of “competing, and you should enslave your enemies.” The latter of course only really appealing to white conservatives and useful idiots.
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.
So because the other guy’s a fascist, you’ll take the opportunity to throw trans people under the bus like you and all centrists have always wanted to do?
I don’t think not talking about it is the same as throwing them under the bus. The fact of the matter is the Democratic party has already vowed to protect trans rights. Also, Fox News, and other media, has portrayed the trans issue in a misleading light and it’s the next big boogeyman. Them throwing away votes to assure people who already know who’s on their side that they’re on their side is stupid politics. Sure, it’d be great if we lived in a world where this calculation wasn’t needed, but we don’t.
Harris is sitting here telling you that she will not stop funding/supplying the genocide of Palestinians, that she will take a stricter border policy and continue building the wall, that under her the US military will be the most lethal fighting force. Not to mention her horrific track record up to this point. A vote for Harris is just as much a vote for fascism as a vote for Trump is. Not that voting out fascism in the USA was ever a realistic option to begin with.
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.
“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:
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.
Like as a moral matter or to get elected? They’re very different things.
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.
Is not mentioning trans rights during an election speech the same thing as being against trans rights?
In this climate, when we are under direct and active attack? Fucking yes.
I’m all for trans rights, but I don’t bring it up in every conversation I have about politics.
Gotta love the overinflated ego, but you aren’t trying to win an election to run a fucking country, your conversations aren’t relevant.
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?
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.
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?
