Former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is also the current Democratic Senate candidate for Ohio, found himself in hot water in a past campaign over his response to anti-trans attacks from Republicans, and now he appears to be taking a different approach. 

Instead of trying to defend or explain his views on trans rights, Brown released an ad last week slamming Republicans for focusing on trans people at all, when there are so many bigger challenges facing the state.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 month ago (22 children)

I get it, but that's not how elections under FPTP works. If you want to be single issue about this, you have to vote for a candidate aligned with your choice on this. If such a candidate doesn't exist, you have to vote for the least repugnant one.

If you don't vote, you're cosigning whatever choice everyone else makes. You not voting isn't telling anyone that they didn't get your vote, it's telling everyone that you didn't care about the outcome of that election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Many population overthrow their dictatorship and risked being kidnapped, tortured, starved and killed but you idiots have fair elections and still making excuses to vote for murderers and terrorists

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    "Fair elections" where both sides deliberately work to disenfranchise anyone who would challenge the structural violence both live and die by

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    both sides deliberately work to disenfranchise

    Bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    It may change now with Trump but there is no systematic state intimidation for not voting for the "right" person in the USA unlike in dictatorships

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    If you think our elections captured by two parties that operate in lock step at the whims of the rich and their corporations are fair then I'm not sure what to tell you. There is no room for any 3rd party to truly have representation and that is systemic suppression by the state.

    You do not have a choice in your elections. Both sides hate you and will work against your interests because neither of them is materially beholden to you in any way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Money buy exposure not votes. People are still responsible for their votes , nobody is forced to vote for people serving the rich and there is no systematic state intimidation that make you fear choosing the moral decision.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    People are propagandized with lies money absolutely buys votes especially when there is no belief in an alternative

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I don't have to do anything when the options are genocide, war, racism, and support for empire on both sides.

    I voted 3rd party in the last election because there was no one who remotely represented me elsewhere. I think it says much more about you that you could hold your nose and vote for that than me or the millions who did what I did.

    If you think things would be drastically different if the election went the other way you have a poor understanding of the dynamics at play here and how all sides are ruled by capital and its whims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    You voted third-party. Good. Infinitely better than not voting

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Only if someone is ignorant of how the US political system is set up.

    A vote for a third party is currently a vote for the side you hate worse.

    And for anyone who does BoTh sIdEs: Educate yourself because ignorance supports fascism, and fascism supports ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    They said they're single issue, this is their single issue. If the choice is no vote or vote for third party, voting for third party says something more than not voting. Do I vote harm reduction? Yes. Am I going to argue a person out of voting rather than voting for a third-party? No. Do I think I can change this person's mind to agree to vote harm reduction? No, and if you're being honest you know you can't either. We do what we can. Optimal strategy and the best strategy for an individual don't need to be the same thing all of the time.

    If every person who was going to not vote voted third party instead, things would change for the better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    vote for a third party is currently a vote for the side you hate worse.

    no, it's a vote against both of them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments