politics
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Oh look. Yet another article post primary election to convince people not to vote so the Republican wins the general election.
If you don't vote you're a moron.
"avoid" the democrats
who do you think that benefits?
blue no matter who
"Calling out transphobia is bad" - you, probably
If this article was before the primaries it would be more helpful and get the right people elected.
Since this article came out after the primaries and two months before the general it serves only one purpose.
And it appears your dumbass is taking the bait.
"I'm not voting because no candidate is perfect and I'll let the party that views me as property win." - your dumbass, without a doubt.
I never said I wouldn't vote for the Democrats if I could, the article doesn't say you shouldn't either, just that the author personnaly wouldn't
The article doesn't need to say it. The author said it and implies other should via the context of the article itself.
This is the type of shit that makes idiots not vote.
The article literally says:
What part of that says to you "This is what I'm doing, but you shouldn't do that." - particularly with the second part of the sentence where it's clear they are talking about more than a single vote (their vote).
You're right that the article doesn't say "you shouldn't do that" but that's not what I'm claiming, I'm saying the article says it's up to the readers to consider if transphobia is a deal breaker, if it is then I would say the blame is more on those Democrats for being transphobic, than on the people that are against transphobia
I'm sure the Republican opponents in these states will be much better for Trans rights.
In fact, if we just allow another Republican majority in the legislative branch, they'll probably just fix the whole thing.
I never called to vote for Republicans, I didn't even say you shouldn't vote for those Democrats and neither does the article.
All the article says is that those Democrats are transphobic and that the author, and that's only his view, wouldn't vote for them. I, myself would probably vote for them if I could vote in the US, but I can still understand why the author wouldn't.
If there was an election between Hitler and Stalin, would you have voted for either one because he was slightly less worse than the other one? I personally wouldn't have, if that is your case too then clearly there is a point where a candidate can be so bad you wouldn't even vote for them if their opponent is worse, that threshold is just different for everyone
This article does argue for abstaining, it's literally the entire point of writing this article just before midterms:
And it's such a fucking idiotic take.
It's an article calling out politicians for their answers on "gotcha questions" like 'do you want biological males playing women's sports'
It's interesting you quote that without showing the previous sentence
Also, these politicians didn't just answer poorly to gotcha question, they actively helped pass bills that took away the rights of trans people
Should I keep going or do you think all these bills that marginalize trans people were only "gotcha questions"?
Oh please... Just because the author framed the statement with some weasel words doesn't make the intent any less clear. "I'm not telling you what to do, but..."
When you pile weak examples like this into your list, it's clear that you're just trying to discredit any Democrat and discourage voting.
Taking away an oppressed minorities right is "weak", what would you consider strong evidence of them being transphobic then? Would they have to start directly beating trans people while calling them slurs? Because if you don't consider taking away trans people rights transphobic then you don't have any right to say who trans people should vote for.
Edit: Also I'm not trying to discredit all Democrats, only the transphobic ones
The right to play women's highschool sports isn't the one we're fighting for right now. Yes, it's a long road to acceptance, yes we have to pick our battles.
No, opening that can of worms on a low rent conservative talk radio show is not worth jeopardizing a Democratic politicians' overall viability with the general voting public.
Beyond that, the sports issue does have nuance, and for the 95% people in Iowa who've never had a conversation with a person they knew was trans, and the 68-80% of the state who can't read at a highschool level... Yes nuance in the subject doesn't really exist.
I'm not talking about the right to play women's sports being discussed on radio though. I'm talking about the votes that you seem to be ignoring that are meant to take away access to trans healthcare or restrict access to bathrooms or force trans women to go into men's prisons where they are at a higher chance of being raped. You say the rights to play women's sports isn't the one you're fighting for, but these people aren't fighting for any transgender rights and are actually taking them away, a fact that you have not yet talked about other than calling it ''weak" even when it makes the lives of trans people miserable
More than half of the people listed in this article are solely on it for trans sports issues (15 out of 27).
It's an article who's sole purpose is discouraging Democrats from voting in the midterm.
The author is likely not even a real person.
Do you think Republicans running against those Democrats would be better for trans rights?
No, that's clearly not what I'm saying
How many of those bills do you think would have even been up for consideration if republicans weren't the majority?
Yeah, democrats could be a lot better, but of the two options we have, a democrat majority is clearly the better choice.
But neither me nor the article is saying to vote for Republicans, it's just showing that these democrats voted for transphobic laws, if readers decide that that makes them not want to vote, then maybe the blame should be on the Democrats that willingly took away the rights of an oppressed minority and not on the people that don't want to compromise on trans rights
This article suggests that you should avoid Xavier Becerra (essentially in favor of Steve Hilton) because he (correctly) pointed out the CA state constitution doesn't protect trans people playing in sports.
You can go ahead and look up what Becerra has done in support of trans people vs what Steve Hilton has done. Spoilers: Steve Hilton referred to trans people playing in the CIF championship as a 'violation' of the state constitution and held a 'Save Girls Sports' conference. He is outright anti-trans.
Adam Gray (D) is essentially an anti-trans centrist piece of shit, however whatever he's done pales in comparison to what Kevin Lincoln II's (R) stated position on trans people is.
So no, this isn't 'calling out transphobia' - this is more DSA brainrot.
What does this have to do with DSA?
DSA types only swing at Democrats.
DSA are Democrats, just progressive ones like Bernie AOC Mamdani etc. They literally run as Dems and would never discourage you from voting. Activism is a big part of their brand.
If you’re talking about the chucklefuck reactionary edgelords and ID-politic protest non-voters on Lemmy, I dont know if these have a name. Accelerationist doomers describes some. Hardline single issue voters would probably describe the rest who aren’t bots or feds.
Here's the thing, Hasan Piker explicitly did not support Kamala during the 2024 election cycle. Hasan Piker is one of, if not the biggest, DSA proponent.
I simply disagree with the idea that DSA types would 'never discourage' me from voting. That just isn't true.
I think you're spot on about the accelerationist doomers and whatever other adjectives you'd like to describe the people here with.
Sorry for delay. Not on twitch and had to read up on this guy. He has no DSA affiliation, certainly nothing formal. He appears to be politically aligned but his wiki makes no mention of DSA and his influence appears to be primarily in online/streaming spaces rather than in traditional political organizing or offline movements.
The reason I say DSA won’t discourage you from voting is because they are a political organization with a strategy built around reform, which is impossible with single-issue purity testing.
Trying to suggest that Hasan Piker isn't heavily associated with the DSA means that you really just don't know anything about the man. He is absolutely their biggest voice, even if he isn't technically an accredited member.
lol I literally just said I didn’t know him slick
OK so I’ll make a twitch channel dedicated to telling everyone what great friends you and I are. I’ll talk you up every chance I get. We’ll just be inseparable in the twitchy verse, you dig? I’ll become your spokesperson to all the twitches on there, and say whatever I want on your behalf because seriously, what twitcher is interested in who you actually are if you’re not even on the twitch?
Dude, this is such a small brained take.
You need to understand that news takes place where people are engaging. This is why Facebook, Xitter, Twitch, YouTube, TikTok and whatever other popular social media are where most people get their news nowadays. Behaving like one of the most popular news spaces for young people in the U.S. is inconsequential is so god damn devoid of any thought it makes me angry that I need to engage with such a stupid fucking take.
Well you know us “DSA types”
Not all reality tho
That’s great for them
Clearly
Look I’m in my 30s and don’t have time for games. If Hasan can actually motivate people in their 20s to participate in something off-platform, in the real world, where elections happen, and if he’s willing to do the work to mobilize votes, then I’d say that makes him an organizer, and I’d be happy to work beside him. But until he brings in those votes, his popularity on a gaming streamer platform means less than nothing to me.
Pushing false dilemmas is bad.
-me, definitely