this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
642 points (98.5% liked)

Progressive Politics

1098 readers
959 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 44 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

The Democrats gave up so easily and went "I guess we hate transpeople now? Is that why we lost? We didn't hate transpeople enough?" so quickly, that I"m wondering if Trump's election was part of the fucking plan to begin with.

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago

Biden isn't even using a tiny bit of his fucking brand new immunity to save the country. It's like he said, "Oh no, but they meant that just for Trump." I don't know what there even is to save if no one is gonna do a goddamn thing that still has the power to.

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 24 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I think at least part of the problem is that Democrats believe in The System. So when someone cheats and whines about fake votes and stuff, they can resist that with faith that the system is working, but when the system willingly chooses the other side they have no choice but to concede that this must just be the Will of the People. And who are they to stand against the system they uphold...

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 20 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Don't forget about big money. The Democrats, Republicans, Harris, and Trump all avoided pointing the finger at what's to blame, it's big money in politics. Trump and the Republicans have openly accepted all the money from the big donors and the power that gets them. Elon Musk was a huge part of his campaign while they blame immigrants. The Republicans know how to work a broken system, just get more money.

Meanwhile the Democrats and Harris have to thread the needle of accepting big money too but not showing it. They can't outright say it's the billionaires that are screwing you, so they say Trump is, and that he's a fascist. All true but Trump's second presidency isn't the cause of America's facist decline, he's a co-morbidity of it. Then they are shocked when the system they refuse to fix is broken.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I don't believe the Democrats actually wanted to win this election.

Losing, while upholding the facade of "fighting the Republicans," means donations will likely go UP, their "underdog" status remains intact, and they won't have to pretend to govern, nor offer the public the milquetoast accomplishments that only verify they capitulate to their oligarch/corporate backers. Losing IS their strategy.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

A Billion dollars in donations. Outspent the Republicans twice as much and yet spent on campaign managers and the salaries of their rich friends kids working for them and nice lunches out to expensive restaurants.

They are the party of money. And saying whatever gets them more of it.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

No no friend, the Harris campaign had 1.5 Billion dollars.

And the DNC just threw all their workers out on their asses without even offering severance, because they're "broke?" People who had worked there for decades. THAT is their caliber of financial management?

The Harris campaign threw wasted dollar after dollar into Republican pits to gain exactly NOTHING, as 94 fucking percent of Republicans voted Republican (as one would expect of a cult). Meanwhile the top Harris consultants were people making millions a year from Uber who flat out steered the boat away from any negative messaging about the corporate hands that pull their strings.

They WANTED to lose. All the surface animosity is a facade; they're controlled opposition.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 13 points 8 hours ago

No, some of them were already transphobic but thought they'd lose an election for admitting it. Now they think they will win because of it. They need to learn a lesson.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Second time I've seen this commented, but I must have missed a headline - can someone point me to what this is referencing?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Exactly 2 out of 213 House Democrats spoke out against Trans Athletes.

Of course that means all DNC are transphobes. /sarcasm

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 16 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

dude they banned a trans congresswoman from the women's bathroom and being a democrat she just went "ok, I'll pee in the men's room I guess"

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That I get from a certain angle. There's immense pressure on "firsts" to show that they're not there to implement radical change. That they can just be a functional member of an organization. First woman in a fighter jet, first trans person in Congress, it's the same pressure mechanism. They want to show they can do the job first and foremost.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

how did that work out for Obama? he capitulated and capitulated, and removed progressive options from the table just to get them to sit on it, and negotiated with himself on their behalf, compromised on his compromises. what happened? radical Marxist. lol.

you think she's suddenly going to be accepted because she basically agrees she's kind of a man, a little bit, actually? no.

nah democrats just don't have a spine. and that is a really bad thing to lack when the things the other side lacks are shame and honesty.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You're conflating Democrats generally with "firsts". This is something you can find all the way back to women entering the metal work space in World War 2. It's about proving that you're not actually special, you're just a normal person whose capable of doing the job without special accommodations.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

no. rashida tlaib is the first Palestinian American woman in congress. it would be fucked up if she never raised any concerns on Israel's genocidal government just because she doesn't want to rustle any feathers.

no, it is about democrats, not firsts. weird how democrats always have to seem normal when republicans go fucking weirder by the minute.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I didn't say it was good pressure. Rashida Tlaib also catches no end of shit for her positions, as moral as they are. McBride is doing what she thinks is best for her job and for her voters. I highly suspect she's right too because she represents Delaware. If she makes herself the story they will not vote for her again. They want a legislator who happens to be trans, not a trans person who happens to be a legislator. Rashida Tlaib represents a district that wants a progressive over anything else.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago

if her constituents will not vote for her for standing up for herself against bigoted and targeted attacks then they shouldn't. also if getting reelected takes precedence over having principles I would hope you wouldn't anyway.

it's one thing to be practical and picking your fights. but if the fight is literally brought to you, personally... fucking fight back.

the fact that rashida tlaib catches no end of shit is my point, because that does not mean she should give up on her principles. and more importantly, she'd still be targeted if she did. that's what republicans do. funnily enough though she gets censured by her own party for being anti-genocide. because that's what democrats do.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

You're absolutely right.

The right move would be to make a big show of this, point out the absurdity, rightfully point out that you're being accused of being a rapist without proof, and give a speech where you point out that you just need to pee.

The Right isn't going to say "Oh, so you agree you're a man. Maybe you aren't a man, pee wherever, on my face if you want!"

They're going to say "Glad you know your place [Insert Transphobic Slur Here] now if we can get the rest of your putrid kind to get the memo."

By giving up this fight, she's well on her way to go as far in her career as Ernst Rohm did in his.

Don't know who that is? One of Hitler's closest allies, a commanding officer of the Nazis, a leading member of the Nazi Party, on a first name basis with Adolf himself...

He was also a homosexual who agreed with carting the [Insert Homophobic Slur Here]s off to camp even though he was openly gay because "Me and Hitler are bros, he's not going to....."

We'll never know how that sentence ended because they put the chloroform over his face and then he found himself waking up in line for the gas chamber.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If you ignore the urinals, there really isn't much point in separate bathrooms anyways. Especially in posh bathrooms like I'm sure they have in Congress where they pay the extra bucks to have actual doors on the stalls. This is one of those cases where arguing with idiots just makes you look like the idiot. Going along shows how ridiculous the moral panic was in the first place.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 12 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

idk why you're downvoted, I agree. gendered bathrooms are pointless; it's not like people get naked there anyway. and fuck urinals. they're dumb.

that being said of you're gonna have gendered bathrooms you can't police genitals; gonna have to go with the honor code.

it's all pointless and the security excuse is bullshit. it's ridiculous that these rules would assume a rapist wouldn't get deterred by the laws against rape but would totally be stumped by a fucking sign that says "biological".

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

What’s wrong with urinals? They’re super quick and easy

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

it's in the open, it usually allows splashback, also peeing standing up is not that good for you anyway. not washing after you shit is quick and easy too; doesn't mean it's good. speaking of which, I think urinals encourage people who don't wash their hands because it's quick and easy.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

also peeing standing up is not that good for you anyway

I googled it and Google agrees with me: what?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

while there isn't much difference for healthy men (at least according to some research so far), for some people with urinary concerns sitting down is better for emptying the bladder and having a better flow. although I'd argue even with healthy men standing while peeing almost guarantees splashback so sitting down is superior either way.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

For fuck's suck.... Anywhere else in the country and that's a discrimination lawsuit.

What the fuck?