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
Which one of these people are the same as their republican opposition if you're Trans? Be specific.
Republicans will legitimately support making their medical treatment illegal at the federal level. If they win again, will probably support imprisoning or executing trans people, they are subhuman to the republican party.
While their Democrat counterpart might stop them from playing highschool sports.
Oh, if the Dems are only going to trample on some of my rights, I guess that's okay.
Have you not seen what's happened in the UK in the last few years? That's the playbook. Their center-left party realized that every time they take away another right from the trans community, they get more support from conservatives and only lose support with trans people that they want to exclude anyway. Transphobic Democrats will steer the party into doing the same thing here if they can.
That said, this article should've come out months ago. The best way to kick transphobes out of the party is to primary them, not let them lose in the general.
So your argument here is that these Democrats are attempting to steer the party into a transphobic agenda, so maybe a few party members attempting exert a small amount of pressure on the direction of party.
And your solution is for democrats to abstain from voting and... What... Allow Republicans complete control? I'm sure that will work well for you.
Or maybe these politicians aren't transphobic at all and are simply attempting to walk a tightrope in an imperfect system so that they can take power away from a much worse party.
This is the point of the article: none of these options are good for trans people. If the choice is "the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections" (like many Republicans) or "the people who campaign on wanting to erode my legal protections" (like the entire list in the article), then, from the perspective of preserving trans rights, there is not a choice. Electing transphobes empowers transphobes and normalizes transphobia, regardless of which letter they have next to their name.
If you're a single-issue voter who only cares about trans rights and you've seen this exact bullshit play out already across the pond, there's no vote that will make your life better.
As for this line:
So I'm not supposed to trust what a candidate tells me or how they've previously voted, and I should just assume they mean something more secretly benevolent? That's literally exactly why my in-laws voted for Trump: they didn't believe anything that was reported about Project 2025 because, and I quote, "he used to be a Democrat."
So would you rather have some of your rights trampled or all of them? That's the choice in the general, because as you say:
Precisely. But when you ARE facing the general election, for fucks' sake at least vote for the one that will fuck you over much less.
"Oh, you're going to stab me with a knife? Well, fuck it, if you're gonna stab me, just... just keep going then, I might as well get stabbed a dozen times."
Yes, it sucks, and "sucks" doesn't even begin to cover it.