102
Josh Turek of Iowa, Democrat, comes out with one of the worst anti-trans ads yet. (news.abolish.capital)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://bsky.app/profile/erininthemorning.com/post/3mynwzsux7k2u

Josh Turek of Iowa, Democrat, comes out with one of the worst anti-trans ads yet.

Not only is it an anti-sports ad, it proposes a ban on federal funding for gender affirming care. That would hit all medicaid and medicare patients, and any ACA federally-subsidized plans as well.

Horrific.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

What you are doing is distracting from my point. It's not an unfair expectation to expect people to be realistic and pragmatic. That's just called being remotely reasonable

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

    Sorry, is highlighting the Democrats transphobia disttracting? Oh right, the Democrats can never fail the voters, but the voters always fail the Democrats. The reason Democrats are running transphobes is because of this notion of "pragmatism". This pragmatism is what allows for Republicans to run as Democrats. Liberals are so worried about the DSA taking root in the party that they won't even bother seeing the fox slip into the hen house.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    You're pretending not to get it. I'm out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 10 points 2 weeks ago* (9 children)

    You want people to vote for the "lesser evil" instead of the transphobes at Republican Inc. And that lesser evil is... checks notes The transphobes at Democrats Inc. Seems like a false choice to me. Especially when the person were talking about is in support of a ban on federal funding for gender affirming care.

    You want them to vote for the same "Democrat" who is a former registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Who explicitly campaigns on his willingness to work with Republicans and even with President Trump. Who calls himself a "common-sense moderate" and "common-sense prairie populist". · The same "Democrat" that has represented a Republican-leaning district in Iowa since 2022. Who is described as "one of Iowa’s most bipartisan" legislators. And in one of his campaign ads reportedly highlights that he has "700 votes" working with Republicans.

    Yeah, I guess I don't fucking get it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    Just so you know, I'm not engaging with the pretense that we can protest vote our way anywhere. That's clearly never worked before and there's no indication it ever would.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    And what you are advocating for has lead us to this exact slate of candidates. You assume I'm suggesting a protest vote. I'm simply pointing out a contradiction that you seem to not recognize.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    If that were true I think you would've pointed it out in the post and in your first response, and nothing would've been there to criticize. Instead you write novels about how I want Democrats to be worse. You know it's a lie, but you kept it up. That tells us something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    So you're saying that it is not true that voting for a lesser evil doesn't result in the slate of candidates that we're seeing in front of us?

    Why are some of these Democrats adopting this anti-transposition when previously they didn't have to? When Josh Turek got his seat in 2022, he did not have to run on anti-trans issues in order to do so. In fact, he even voted against a bathroom bill in 2023 that would restricted trans people from using bathrooms of their identified gender.

    Now he wants to pull funding from the federal level for Gender-affirming care. It sure seems like our lesser evil is moving to the right, along with their opposition.

    But why would they do that? Couldn't there be an economic argument to be made, Instead of having to rely on this capitulation to the invented issues of the right wing conservative party? And if so, why are the Democrats not adopting it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    I'm not reading that. Why the fuck would I? All you're doing is trying to help Republicans and shout down anyone pointing it out

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •