Harris-Walz / Dems

[NovaSaber]

Well, you're factually wrong on the gender-affirming care one.

There is literally no evidence that being "too supportive of trans rights" has cost anyone any election, and in fact a few cases of the opposite where a candidate who vocally supported trans people won and/or where a particularly outspoken bigot lost.


I also fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of ever compromising on anything that is a clear-cut moral issue, which both LGBT rights and opposition to war crimes are.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I won't argue, except to separate out "supportive of trans rights" (broadly) from "medical intervention" (specifically), which I was taking some pains to do. If you still disagree, we can leave it at that.

 

[abates]

I'm not sure I understand opposition to "medical intervention".

If someone wants to have surgery to alter their body, that's their business. If someone wants to provide services to supply same, that is literally their business.

No one gets up in arms about people getting nose jobs.

 

[MrBlud]

Going ahead and being as "bad" as the opposition says you are doesn't sound wise to me.

You’d think!

But it has netted Trump two electoral victories, A shamelessly Partisan Republican Supreme Court and Republicans majorities in both the House and Senate.

Conversely, it also gave FDR four terms.

So it seems to work quite well.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I'm not sure I understand opposition to "medical intervention".

If someone wants to have surgery to alter their body, that's their business. If someone wants to provide services to supply same, that is literally their business.

No one gets up in arms about people getting nose jobs.

I don't think *I* understand it, either, but I've heard it enough to say it's a thing. Especially when discussing minors (who don't generally get nose jobs, either, and I could see controversy there if they did...). I should note that if the parents are okay with it, it's less of an issue, and it may well be more of a "bogeyman" than a thing that happens often, anyway. It's certainly the case that a lot of fuss has been made over transgender women in sports despite very few actual transgender women competing. (I still note that no such fuss is made of transgender men competing against biologically-born men.)

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

You’d think!

But it has netted Trump two electoral victories, A shamelessly Partisan Republican Supreme Court and Republicans majorities in both the House and Senate.

Conversely, it also gave FDR four terms.

So it seems to work quite well.

I was thinking about this reality (more Trump than FDR) even as I was typing that... and the fact is that I have no good response to it.

I still can't get behind supporting it for Dems. Violates my sense of "integrity," I guess.

 

[Pocket]

I think we all need to keep in mind that we're still discussing an election for mayor of New York City. At least for the immediate term, his position on nationalized health insurance or the war in Iran are far less relevant to the electorate than, say, his position on plastic straws.

 

[MrBlud]

Following through on what you campaign on seems to be popular.

Be that raising taxes for billionaires or forcing female corpses to carry a baby to term.

Republicans are quite big on doing that. As Trump’s horridly partisan Bill passing today showed.

Democrats had control of three branches and the best they jive out was the Heritage Foundation plan for Healthcare reform…

 

[NovaSaber]

I'm not sure I understand opposition to "medical intervention".

If someone wants to have surgery to alter their body, that's their business. If someone wants to provide services to supply same, that is literally their business.

No one gets up in arms about people getting nose jobs.

Also, how is "leave the standard of care as what it's been for decades, instead of caving to right-wing bigots' attempts to change it" either "far left" or "extreme"?

It's literally the most neutral stance it is even possible to have on the subject.

A "far left" idea (that is still not "extreme") regarding it would be something like "make puberty blockers as easy to get as it is possible anything that requires a prescription to be, and lower the minimum ages for hormones and surgery to 14 and 16 respectively".

Or even farther "left" and maybe actually "extreme" would be doing what this comic suggests:

I should note that if the parents are okay with it, it's less of an issue,

Why? Why should the parents opinions make even the slightest difference?

If it's not legal to do it against the parent's objections, then the law is not protecting the rights of the child from shitty parents.

And that's the most important thing that any law regarding children's rights absolutely must do; protect them from predatory/abusive adults, including their own parents.

and it may well be more of a "bogeyman" than a thing that happens often, anyway.

It is essentially impossible for anyone under 16 to get hormones or for anyone under 18 to get surgery, and still rare for anyone under 18 to even get hormones.

But transphobes want to ban even puberty blockers for minors, which is the same as banning them entirely because, you know, they don't have a point if someone's already past puberty.

 

[Anonymous X]

Well, you're factually wrong on the gender-affirming care one.

There is literally no evidence that being "too supportive of trans rights" has cost anyone any election, and in fact a few cases of the opposite where a candidate who vocally supported trans people won and/or where a particularly outspoken bigot lost.


I also fundamentally disagree with the entire idea of ever compromising on anything that is a clear-cut moral issue, which both LGBT rights and opposition to war crimes are.

Slight tangent, and I’m talking here about UK politics rather than the US, but as recently as 2017 we had a socially conservative Tory prime minister willing to legalise self ID. No one was really bothered about the issue other than a small, obscure, group of bigots. I’ve rarely seen a social/political issue go from being uncontroversial and barely on most people’s radars to full-on cultural war. Even our supposedly centre-left parties are transphobic now. It’s horrifying to see, and worse when you contemplate how powerful conservative pressure groups can be.

 

[Rhinox]

I won't deny that. But their violence can't justify my own.

I plan to go through your other responses. You've taken your time to give a thoughtful response and deserve the same, but I want to address this point specifically.

We have seen a great deal of right wing violence. In point of fact, it is one of their greatest weapons, violence and the threat of.
I do not advocate violence, I am not one for a first strike. But I am absolutely okay and understanding with meeting violence with violence. The whole 'bullies back down if you just stand up to them' is bullshit. And many of these right wingers are just that, bullies. They threaten, they pose, they position themselves as threats. And, when there are enough of them and they feel safe, they act out. Thats why I had to deal with a couple Uhauls of them a few weeks ago in KC. They thought they could roll in and terrorize people. They were wrong.

I know you're speaking for yourself, but in my view their violence absolutely justifies my own. Act out, lash out, attempt to harm someone and by God I will respond in kind. Pacifism is a privilege that I simply do not have. I'm sorry, but in my experience when you do not respond strongly you are giving the bullies an invitation to both continue their behavior and ramp it up till they get what they want.
I know this is something you and I will not agree on and that's fine. We can have those differences in opinion.

 

[wonko the sane?]

Pacifism is not a privilege. It is a luxury. A luxury 99% of the american population can no longer afford.

That doesn't mean you need to go out and start swinging at red hats, but it does mean it's time make some signs and join some protests: republicans qualify any action against them and their ideology as violence.

 

[MrBlud]

They also want to (and actively are!) throwing people/ethnicities they don’t like into concentration camps.

The left wants to improve their (and MAGA’s) lives through progressive policies and legislation. They don’t want to see them in camps. Jail, for the ones who have broken the law, but regular jail with all the rights therein.

 

[Ungnome]

I don't think *I* understand it, either, but I've heard it enough to say it's a thing. Especially when discussing minors (who don't generally get nose jobs, either, and I could see controversy there if they did...). I should note that if the parents are okay with it, it's less of an issue, and it may well be more of a "bogeyman" than a thing that happens often, anyway. It's certainly the case that a lot of fuss has been made over transgender women in sports despite very few actual transgender women competing. (I still note that no such fuss is made of transgender men competing against biologically-born men.)

It's a form of misogyny, plain and simple. It's easier for them to wrap their heads around women wanting to be men in some ways than the other way around. Also in their minds a trans man would be at a major disadvantage competitively anyway. We are just being used as a scapegoat to scare their base into compliance. They focus on women's sports and children because they've lost too much ground on vilifying us in other ways. Claiming things that happen frequently that either don't happen at all or are extreme edge cases that are so rare that it borders on being statistically insignificant.

 

[Dekafox]

Terminated NIH grants are being reinstated almost entirely in blue states

Researchers in Democratic congressional districts stand to have $2.1 billion in NIH grants reinstated, compared to $62 million in Republican districts.

www.statnews.com

Paywalled and my usual service isn't removing it, but tl;dr is a bunch of cancelled NiH grants were reinstated, but almost entirely only for blue states, as they were the only ones that bothered to sue to restore them.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I plan to go through your other responses. You've taken your time to give a thoughtful response and deserve the same, but I want to address this point specifically.

We have seen a great deal of right wing violence. In point of fact, it is one of their greatest weapons, violence and the threat of.
I do not advocate violence, I am not one for a first strike. But I am absolutely okay and understanding with meeting violence with violence. The whole 'bullies back down if you just stand up to them' is bullshit. And many of these right wingers are just that, bullies. They threaten, they pose, they position themselves as threats. And, when there are enough of them and they feel safe, they act out. Thats why I had to deal with a couple Uhauls of them a few weeks ago in KC. They thought they could roll in and terrorize people. They were wrong.

I know you're speaking for yourself, but in my view their violence absolutely justifies my own. Act out, lash out, attempt to harm someone and by God I will respond in kind. Pacifism is a privilege that I simply do not have. I'm sorry, but in my experience when you do not respond strongly you are giving the bullies an invitation to both continue their behavior and ramp it up till they get what they want.
I know this is something you and I will not agree on and that's fine. We can have those differences in opinion.

I don't have the energy to keep this going much longer (personal reasons that have nothing to do with this discussion), so I'll simply repond to one point.

I'm sorry, but in my experience when you do not respond strongly you are giving the bullies an invitation to both continue their behavior and ramp it up till they get what they want.

I'm not even sure that I disagree with this statement. I would simply contend that there are ways of responding, and responding strongly, that aren't synonymous with violence. Violence is, IMHO, a lack of imagination.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

Pacifism is not a privilege. It is a luxury. A luxury 99% of the american population can no longer afford.

That doesn't mean you need to go out and start swinging at red hats, but it does mean it's time make some signs and join some protests: republicans qualify any action against them and their ideology as violence.

Joining protests is 100% compatible with pacifism.

 

[Paladin]

Paterson calls on leaders to come together to defeat Mamdani in NYC mayoral election

Former Governor David Paterson, along with several other political leaders, held a press conference in Midtown to discuss New York City's mayoral election.

abc7ny.com

There are currently more efforts in progress by major Democrats to stop Zohran Mamdani than Donald Trump.

 

[Rhinox]

I'm not even sure that I disagree with this statement. I would simply contend that there are ways of responding, and responding strongly, that aren't synonymous with violence. Violence is, IMHO, a lack of imagination.

I don't disagree. There's more I could say, but I really don't disagree on principle with this. Or the assertation that violence equates to a lack of imagination. You're not wrong.

 

[Pale Rider]