Instead of Ignoring Trans Rights at DNC, Dems Should’ve Vowed to Protect Them

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.

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.

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.

1. do you think winning an election is about the popular vote?

2. 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.

Are you an accelerationist? What’s your point?

That's a lot of words to just say that you don't understand how politics works in the real world.

You fail at playing the game.

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.

1. Strong government programs.

2. Strong communities capable of mass protests.

3. ...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.

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.

There is absolutely no deontological duty to pander to identitarians and cry-bullies.

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?

'Destroying' the 'most progressive' party?

In what way is anyone destroying the democratic party, and in what way are the democrats making progress?

Bernie Bros: "hold my beer"

What makes you think leftists are Dems (by choice)?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

Yeah, that’s a lie.

"they need to be put under a microscope"

You know what they say, there's no one like someone on the left to make sure the most progressive party lose votes.

There's so much stuff politicians won't talk about on the campaign trail because they're wedge issues and because their records already show they're in favor/against those things, it's better to shut up than to alienate a lot of voters to please few voters. Spoiler alert, not all Democrats voters care about trans rights and more of them will jump ship if they believe Harris is woke than will jump in the ship if she starts talking about trans rights during the campaign because the majority of people who support trans rights already understand that the Democrats support their rights even if they don't make it a campaign issue.

Sure. Except the policies they pass represent their electorate and are diametrically opposed to Republicans.

Listen, I'm for all the same things everyone on this platform wants. The issue is our generation is terminally online but doesn't bother to vote. If you want to make changes disengaging from the political system altogether is not the answer. Building coalitions and doing the hard work is. But that takes work and is not exciting, so it's just easier for accounts like @[email protected] to keep spamming non-stop about how "both parties are equal" and "corpo overlords". It's just more fun, isn't it?

Ah that's right. When we're tired of nitpicking and purity testing we can always fall back on the "both sides" argument. It's so transparent at this point.

Why do you assume that not mentioning trans rights in speeches = not supporting trans rights?

The point is that in order to win elections you campaign on things that your opponent can't use to alienate some of your base. I'm going to be blunt here but not all Democrats are progressive enough to see trans right as something important and some of them don't want a "woke" president (as the term "woke" was appropriated by the right as being a bad thing and supporting trans rights is woke) so mentioning them directly during the campaign would make more people not vote/switch back to voting for the Republicans than it will make trans people come out and vote because trans people already know they only have one party that supports their right to exist, even if it's not being campaigned on.

No, I am saying that the Dems' messaging is being kept broad in terms of inclusivity, because then it makes Republicans singling out transgender people or other minorities to hate on them look extra weird. It also brings the issue of transgenderism to voters for whom this is a foreign concept, in a way they can better understand.

Many of these voters hate trans people not because they understand the issue, but because conservative organizations have told them to constantly for years so it's made into a trigger word. The Harris campaign is showing these voters a way out from the cycle of hate, to put these divisions away, and accept trans people for the human beings they are, just like all of us, without needing to put them on a spotlight front and centre. Harris needs a large amount of these uninformed voters to support her too if she wants any hope of enacting a progressive, LGBTQ+ inclusive agenda during her term.

Fuck off with the dismissal of human rights.