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.

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

DNC be like: he's someone who can reach across the aisle to get things done.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 weeks ago (62 children)

    They’ll still expect your votes, though.

  • source
  • hideshow 62 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (60 children)

    We have to vote for them or it's going to be so much worse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 60 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    So you wish for another John Fetterman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (55 children)

    No. It'll get much worse if you do vote for genocidal fucks like this, because they'll make the rest of the Democrats more like them.

    It's two fold. When you elect a Democrat, you aren't just sending a representative to the Legislature. You're sending a party representative to the DNC, who will do their best to lobby the party itself to support what they were elected to do.

    Then Democrats in other states look at candidates like this winning and think "I gotta adopt some of their policy ideas to appeal to right-leaning voters." This, in turn, shifts the whole party structure to the right.

    I'm in Iowa and I won't vote for my own genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (27 children)

    The only thing more dangerous than an enemy is a traitor.

    A transphobic republican will do what they can when their party is in power. A transphobic democrat will undermine the opposition to transphobia, and will make hurting trans people a bipartisan policy. That is much much worse.

    I hate I have to say this, but iff you're reading this, and there's a race on your ballot where you have no choice but to vote for a transphobe, pick the republican. We need to keep these traitors out of office.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

    No you just don't vote for that race. You don't vote for the Republican cuz that just tells the Democrats that you support the Republican cause. That would make them chase Republican ideals even more.

    If you find a Democratic candidate so completely abhorrent and you cannot vote for them, then vote for neither. Or vote third party if one of them exists on the ballot and it lines with your values cuz that'll be much more helpful than anything else.

    Now normally I wouldn't council any of that mind you, but this does seem like it's pretty dire in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    If you vote for the Republican they'll just assume that Josh Turek didn't go far enough to the right.

    It's better to write in the Dem runner up from the primary, which is what I'm doing.

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

    Thats also a good option assuming you can do write ins there.

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

    Iowa allows them, yeah. I think only three states restrict them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    Well where I live you can only choose "declared" write ins. Which admittedly does cut down on misspellings invalidating the name. Which when I voted the other day was nice since I had the write ins name down as her nickname and they listed the official spelling there.

    Good to hear about Iowa though. That seems like the optimal strategy assuming there isn't another 3rd party that works.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago

    I hate I have to say this, but iff you’re reading this, and there’s a race on your ballot where you have no choice but to vote for a transphobe, pick the republican

    I would suggest leaving it blank or writing someone in, to avoid sending a mixed signal ("people liked the Republican's platform, so maybe we just need to move farther right"), however, I will admit that I'll be cheering if Turek eats shit so I do understand where you're coming from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    Please get outta blahaj zone with ts 😭

    Do not vote R under ANY circumstance I don’t care. Go vote third party at least, better a “thrown away” vote than one that helps republicans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    There's a reason I am only saying this in this very specific circumstance. Iff, with two fs is shorthand for if and only if. Obviously under no other circumstances should anyone vote republican.

    First past the post is a terrible voting system where unfortunately the optimal choice is often voting against what you want to avoid, and this is one of those cases. A candidate who will make the opposition party turn against us is far more of a threat than a giving a single seat to the party that is already against us. A vote against him is the most effective way to keep him out of office.

    I genuinely believe its safest for us in the very specific races where the only viable candidates are transphobes. A transphobic democrat is far more dangerous than a transophobic republican.

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

    I’m not reading all that, sorry. I really don’t have the same level of care about this 😭

    I already voted anyway lmao

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

    You can't manage three short paragraphs? Your attention span is that completely shot? If Tick Tock has warped your brain to that level perhaps you shouldn't be giving voting advice to anybody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I mean I can, I really just don’t care enough to yk? Like why read your bs when there are other much better things out there. Time prioritization and shit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

    Fuck off with that nonsense. There is absolutely no scenario where voting for a Republican is a better choice, unless you are an accelerationist or MAGA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    I am trans. This effects me. I care about my trans siblings and their safety. A vote for a republican in this specific race is the least harmful choice for my community.

    Clean up your own party before insulting others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    Sure, because a Republican would be more-trans friendly. What fantasy world is this? A Republican candidate will be objectively worse for any category you can measure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    Have you seen the UK recently? Labor is doing more harm to trans people than their conservatives, because labor is the current government. That is what will happen if democrats become transphobic. Transphobia in the democrats needs to be stopped even at the cost of seats.

    Things rarely get done in the federal government unless they are bipartisan. Making transphobia bipartisan is the worst possible outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    What's the difference between Hispanics voting for Trump and trans people voting for this guy? Aren't they both doing the same thing? I mean this guy wants to exterminate trans people. Is a really fair to ask any trans person to vote for them? Don't you feel that's unreasonable? No matter what your other politics are you can't expect people to respond to that argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    And the Republican candidate for this seat has said what exactly re: trans right? Do you seriously think the GOP would be a better alternative?

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

    You are missing the point.

    It is simply immoral to ask someone to vote for their own destruction for your material benefit. To ask someone to vote away their human rights. To look at them and tell them that you do not care about them and their survival but that they should value yours. Thats what you are advocating.

    You can justify sacrificing the lives of Trans people if you like. However asking them to sacrifice themselves for you is simply wrong.

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

    And what exactly is your point? Is your point to leave that entry blank, or is it to vote Republican?

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

    What? I just told you my point. Go back and read it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    No you actually didn’t make a point. Are you advocating that people should vote for Ashley Hinson instead? Simple yes or no.

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

    You are missing the point.

    It is simply immoral to ask someone to vote for their own destruction for your material benefit. To ask someone to vote away their human rights. To look at them and tell them that you do not care about them and their survival but that they should value yours. Thats what you are advocating.

    You can justify sacrificing the lives of Trans people if you like. However asking them to sacrifice themselves for you is simply wrong.

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

    Another thread where you simply refuse to answer the question. Who are you advocating for? Just come out and say it.

    I’m being clear in my answer. If I lived in Iowa, and my choices were Turek or Hinson, I would vote Turek. Your turn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    You really never read what someone writes do you? That was very clear. I would never tell a Trans person that they have to vote for their own extinction. I think thats evil. If you want to tell Trans people that they owe your their lives then be honest about it.

    I'm advocating for nobody.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (26 children)

    Really who are you voting for and who do you think will win?

    Do you think your life and those in Iowa, the US and around the world will be better or worse overall if he wins or his republican opponent does?

    Do you honestly think the republican winning is better?

    You can honestly say more lives will be ruined by him than his opponent?

    The time to vote for a better dem was the primaries

    Now you are stuck with bad and horrible options

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (25 children)

    I know my life will be worse if Josh Turek succeeds in pushing the rest of the Democrats to the right on trans rights; a vote for Josh Turek is a vote for Democrats to adopt anti-trans rhetoric and policies. The Party will be changed by his victory, but if he loses they'll think twice about nominating someone like him and that has an effect in 2028. Better to lose one seat than to potentially elect even more anti-trans Democrats in the future by giving them more of a foothold in the party.

    The Democrats you vote for are the Democratic Party you are voting for, and when you elect bad Democrats you get a bad party.

    Oh, forgot to say who I'm voting for: I'm writing in Zach Wahls, the pro-trans runner up in this primary. That gets recorded by the Party, just like wins and losses do, and they take it into account for future campaigns when they try to figure out what went wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

    Delusional ml user, who probably doesn’t even live in the US trying to convince people not to vote D (and even worse, says to vote R in Iowa). What complete nonsense.

    Guess what? With more Democrats in the House and Senate, the majority leadership switches, and the more comfortable the lead, the more the DSA folks in Congress can push.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    With more transphobic Democrats in the House and Senate they won't work with the DSA to do fucking anything, they'll reach across the isle to work with Republicans to kill me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)
  • [+] 0 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    Where did I say that? He’s absolutely not DSA and his anti-trans rhetoric is terrible.

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

    Then why on earth would you think this guy, who is against everything the DSA stands for, would increase the DSA's power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    Do you understand how majority vs minority parties and leadership work in Congress? As much of an asshole as this guy is, he’s STILL better than a Republican in the same position.

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

    What does that have to do with your assertion that electing this person will increase the DSA power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

    Ok, what is your suggestion in this instance? You seem to think this is a black and white issue, so what would you do here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (4 children)

    No. That doesn't sound like an answer to the question either. Is this a bot account or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    You seem to be intentionally obtuse. Break it down for us, you say don’t vote for Turek, are you saying to vote for Hinson?

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

    Nope. Still not answering how electing this guy empowers the DSA. How odd. This bot must be broken.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Ok, I’ll answer and see if you can answer too.

    The more seats the Democrats hold across Congress, the better off the entire country will be. There are still 2 more years of a Trump presidency, and if you think this is bad, just watch what would happen if the Republicans hold on to the majority in Congress.

    DSA candidates, at various levels of elected positions nationwide, have shown great surges in popularity. Simply put, more Democrats in Congress, the more options open up to oppose the GOP regressive agenda.

    Now it’s your turn to answer. Who are you advocating for in this race?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    If he was a DSA candidate or even a progressive that would be true. More conservative democrats who work with their Republican friends means the opposite. You are conflating two diametrically opposed things. If anything his losing would directly empower the DSA because they would hold a greater share of seats. He's being elected literally weakens, dilutes, the DSA.

    Nobody. Been very clear on that. Though it had nothing to do with this comment chain.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (6 children)

    You don't think him losing to someone even further right won't push the party more right chasing those voters? That's how is played out for decades

    You are okay with him losing? You didn't answer my other questions

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

    I see a whole bunch of DSA and DSA-adjacent candidates winning recently because of right-wing victories.

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

    You honestly think having the republican win will be better for you?

    Honestly now?

    I get that they are a shit person to have to vote for, but the other option is even worse, and guess what, wants to hurt even more people.

    Sadly your choices are terrible and instead of progress vs hatred you have hate and evil to vote for as your options.

    But don't let evil win. That's 4 years of even worse treatment. Spend those 4 changing his mind about Trans rights instead of letting someone win who cares even less about your life or others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    I think having a Republican win:

    1. Tells Democrats that Josh Turek was the wrong choice, so they don't try to emulate his campaign in other races.

    2. Ensures that Josh Turek's influence on the Democratic Party is limited-to-nonexistent, so he can't embed his beliefs into the party and pull it to the right.

    3. Gives progressives an easier chance in the next primaries, because there's no incumbent to unseat.

    The Democrats we vote for are the Democratic Party we are voting for - when we vote for Josh Turek or John Fetterman and types like them, we are making the party more like them. If Josh Turek wins this election, we'll have more Josh Tureks to vote for in 2028.

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

    So you are good with even more suffering for 4 years when the republican wins instead. And also all the suffering Trans people will have from them as well. And gay people and everyone else non straight whites?

    Because you think them losing will push the party left, even though the winner is farther and farther right each election and still winning that way.

    I've watched the parties go farther right for decades and 3rd party voting never works. The dems losing by a few percent pushes them to the right who voted more than the left who didn't or went 3rd party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    For me and other trans people, there isn't really much of a difference between electing Josh Turek or the Republican. They both support our genocide and will vote for legislation designed to bring about our physical end. I won't vote for my genocide.

    And the Democrats go farther to the right because they're chasing Republican votes, because that's all they can see in the election results. That's why I'm not sitting the election out and I'm not voting for the Republican. They can look at that and see "Well if we didn't nominate a genocidal freak, we could have had that vote."

    Elections aren't just going farther to the right either. Like I said, democratic socialists are getting elected in response to the rightward shift, you can't just ignore that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    They are in places that are having left shifts, usually because they are already left leaning. And saying he wants a genocide is insane.

    Fact is you have two real choices because of how elections work

    Fact is if you don't push for the lesser, even going as far as to push people to not vote for them, you are actively pushing for the worse person to win

    Fact is the more dems that win, the more power the whole party gets. That means more progressives have real power to change and can sway the more right members of the party.

    Fact is anyone pushing "they are the same" and not voting are responsible for the bad caused by the right winning more and more and helping to push their Nazi agenda.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago*

    Worse than what? Protesters being executed in the streets? People with melanin dying in filthy concentration camps? A kleptocracy robbing the public blind? An unelected technocracy surveiling and censoring literally everything and everyone?

    A fucking MEASELS epidemic?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    does he also wish to ban testosterone for soldiers

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago

    at this point all the democrats have to do is shut the fuck up and play the crazy ass bullshit Republicans are saying behind closed doors.

    that's it.

    what the actual fuck...

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Why do Democrats refuse to learn how elections are won? That getting out your base is the best way to win an election? That suppressing your base in an effort to steal their base is a stupid strategy? Cuz you're not going to get them and you're going to get yours to stay home. It's just simply moronic.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (21 children)

    God fucking damnit. looks like I'm leaving an empty spot on my ballot.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

    Don't do that. The Republicans are worse. You are not getting a better result from withholding your vote, therefore it is a bad choice to withhold your vote. Get over the idea that your vote is an endorsement of every idea a politician has. Unless you have gone balls to the wall on election reform for the past few years all I'm hearing is "I'm a lazy and will continue to do nothing to stop my country from falling apart despite my self important bitching online".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

    There is no worse than this for transgender people. If the Democrat is promising to do exactly what their Republican opponent wants to do, seriously reconsider your insane position of "vote blue no matter who," because you're asking people to vote for someone promising to strip their rights and remove their access to healthcare. That's insane. It's the level of self-own that Republicans regularly do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (18 children)

    Ok... So let's play this out. What do you suppose happens if the Republicans get in and prevent a dem majority? You're just going to pretend that is an ok situation and not demonstrably worse? Also, just want to add that your assertion that there is no worse than this is either deliberately exaggerated or unfortunately niave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    There is no worse than this for trans individuals. If you start restricting access to care, people are going to die. It doesn't matter if a Republican or a Democrat does it, if trans people are going to directly die as a result of policy why the fuck would they vote for that person? Fix your own shitty party that is willing to kill trans people for votes before demanding people vote for someone willing to kill them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

    Ok… So let’s play this out

    And what do you suppose happens when the Democrats see that when they adopt transphobic positions, people who support trans rights will still vote for them, and maybe they pick up a handful of transphobes? In that case, there is literally no downside in that situation (strategically speaking) to adopting transphobic positions all across the country. If on the other hand, people draw a red line on trans rights and stand by it, if every transphobic Dem eats shit, then there's a clear strategic benefit to respecting that red line.

    You are only considering the immediate effects, but the precedents that we set are far more important. If not getting a majority this time is the cost of stopping the party from shifting right on this, then the benefits outweigh the costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

    You are only considering the immediate effects

    "Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (14 children)

    Lol, imagine saying that about me while defending the guy who wants to strip healthcare from trans people. Pot, meet kettle.

    The Democrats are the ones sacrificing people, and they have the power not to, but they think they can advance their careers and make a little bit more profit by sacrificing us. By contrast, I'm standing by everyone and demanding that no one be sacrificed and left behind, and using what little voice or influence I have to that end.

    You seem to have everything completely backwards. You need to be convincing me that I need to be more willing to sacrifice people, specifically, trans people, if you want me to support someone like Turek. Good luck with that one!

    Or perhaps I misunderstood your comment? Were you using quote marks for emphasis, perhaps, while voicing your own position?

    We must hang together, or we will each hang separately. An offense against one is an offense against all. Solidarity must not be broken, "For what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

    I'll be honest, I don't know who you are or anything about you besides your username. So not sure what that was about.

    Two more years of a Republican-controlled Congress doesn't sound like "setting precedent" to me though, it sounds like sacrificing vulnerable groups in the hope that this'll finally be the one to jump start your idea of a leftist revolution.

    A freshman Senator with virtually no political capital isn't going to determine party policy for the Democrats, but Project 2025 has made it abundantly clear what the Republican party policy is. They explicitly do want us to hang together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

    "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make."

    You ignored every point I made btw.

    And what do you suppose happens when the Democrats see that when they adopt transphobic positions, people who support trans rights will still vote for them, and maybe they pick up a handful of transphobes? In that case, there is literally no downside in that situation (strategically speaking) to adopting transphobic positions all across the country. If on the other hand, people draw a red line on trans rights and stand by it, if every transphobic Dem eats shit, then there’s a clear strategic benefit to respecting that red line.

    It's not about his personal political influence, it's about the precedent it would set.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    Ah, yes, setting precedent for the Democrats, the party famous for learning from their defeats.

    Turek winning would show that there's no strategic downside to his politics in Iowa, or if I'm being really generous, in races to replace incumbent Republicans. The US isn't a political or cultural monolith, campaign strategies vary from state to state, even in presidential elections. For example, Talarico's Christian faith is a boon for his campaign in Texas, but if he wins, it doesn't mean that every candidate across the nation is going to embrace Christianity.

    There are no good Republican politicians; two more years of a Republican majority means two more years of unchecked efforts to erase trans people from existence. There are good Democratic politicians; Turek is not one of them. But if I can choose my enemies, I'd rather spend the next two years fighting against him and those like him in a Democrat-controlled Congress than fighting against whatever fresh hell the Republicans have planned for all of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (10 children)

    Turek winning would show that there’s no strategic downside to his politics in Iowa, or if I’m being really generous, in races to replace incumbent Republicans.

    Great point. And the only way they can really know for sure if it'll work in other states is to test the waters there. And when they test the waters, you will completely capitulate for the exact same reason you want to capitulate here, and that's when it'll go from weak evidence that it works in other states, to strong evidence. So long as they never encounter any resistance, they'll keep pushing, keep seeing it work, and it'll keep spreading. It has to be nipped in the bud, above all else. If we wait, we won't be able to stop it at all.

    That's how we got here in the first place. Because, they know they can fuck the left as hard and as frequently as they like, they know that they don't have to give you anything at all, because you won't ever stand up to them.

    Obviously, words are useless in convincing people like you, because you fundamentally just don't have a spine. You'll happily sell out marginalized people because the Dems can just point to a boogeyman and you do whatever they tell you. The only real solution is to build solidarity between all marginalized people, which requires completely and unequivocally rejecting attempts to divide us with shitlib candidates like Turek. But you'll never do that, because you are fundamentally a coward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    Oh, neat, we're doing personal attacks now. And here I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Spend less time huffing theory with the rest of your echo chamber and realize that we live in the real world where our actions have real consequences for real people. You want to teach the Democrats a lesson by letting the Republicans stay in power, all so you can maintain your holier-than-thou attitude. It didn't save a single life in 2024, it's not going to save a single life in 2026. The Trevor Project saw huge spikes in people reaching out to their crisis hotlines immediately after the 2024 election and 2025 inauguration. That's what happens when Republicans win. That's what you're saying you're okay with.

    We're a week out from the election. Either the Republicans are going to win, or the Democrats are. The US electoral system is broken, so those are the options. No matter what the result is, I'm going to be doing everything I can to protect and support my community, and I hope you do the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

    Still not acknowledging any of my arguments. You have no answer, whatsoever, to the fact that you're creating a political reality where the Democrats will have every incentive to sell out trans people. Blah blah, "holier than thou attitude," has nothing whatsoever to do with my actual arguments, you just pull that out because you have nothing else.

    All you can do is go back to your thought-terminating cliches and tribalistic loyalty, loyal to the fucking politicians who fuck us over rather than to marginalized people.

    Claiming that you're "doing everything you can to protect and support your community" well supporting a transphobe and allowing the Democrats to sell us out is completely laughable.

    There's an enemy battleline, and they say, "give us everyone with brown hair and we'll go easy on you" and your commander says, "hmm, you know what, maybe we should hand over everyone with brown hair," then you fucking remove that commander. You don't say, "well, we need everyone we can get," while handing over your own allies, who are actually valuable, just to appease that shithead, who isn't.

    Hang together or hang separately. End of story. No negotiation, nothing to discuss. You want to betray marginalized people, go right ahead. I'll be cheering when Turek eats shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (7 children)

    Sorry, guess you missed the comment where I replied to the bolded quote you were so proud of. I can go through sentence-by-sentence if that makes it easier for you.

    Good for you for sticking to your beliefs though, I'm glad you'll be able to stand there smug and self-satisfied while the Republicans hang us together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (6 children)

    Sorry, guess you missed the comment where I replied to the bolded quote you were so proud of.

    Sorry, guess you missed the comment where I refuted that and explained how it will spread if it's never resisted.

    I’m glad you’ll be able to stand there smug and self-satisfied while the Republicans hang us together.

    And I hope you'll be satisfied while the ruling class hangs us separately. At least if we stand together, we'd have a fighting chance. Your "strategy" of selling out makes defeat 100% inevitable.

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

    Yeah, that comment consisted of "guess we'll see ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" and calling me a coward, so not sure how much acknowledgement that needed.

    The Republican party wants trans people dead or so far back in the closet that we might as well be. Explain to me how that's better for trans people, and how your "strategy" of hoping for defeat doesn't make defeat 100% inevitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (4 children)

    Yeah, that comment consisted of “guess we’ll see ¯_(ツ)_/¯”

    Lol, no it didn't. I explained it very clearly, there's no need to wait and see, because anyone with sense can see what will happen.

    If trans people and "allies" vote for you no matter what you do, and transphobes will only vote for you if you fuck over trans people, then there is a clear incentive to fuck over trans people. It is, clearly and objectively, the correct strategic decision. Even if the number of transphobes is tiny compared to the number of people who support trans rights!

    Explain to me how that’s better for trans people, and how your “strategy” of hoping for defeat

    I'm not hoping for defeat. I'm hoping that we can expel this shithead traitor who wants to surrender to the right, so that we can actually fight and win.

    That commander who wants to hand over everyone with brown hair to the enemy? If he happens to catch a stray bullet, we'll all be better off for it. Because he is a liability and actively detrimental to the war effort. This is no different. If he loses, the only thing we lose is a traitor, all we lose is a knife at our back.

    You are overestimating the value of this shitbag, and also underestimating the value of the trans people and allies who he is alienating, who would be far more valuable in fighting the right, as well as underestimating the value of solidarity. This is literally how the ruling class controls us and breaks our power, by letting them be the ones who define what you stand for, and they'll make damn sure that solidarity is never part of that, because it's the only thing that would actually be effective!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    And anyone with sense can see what will happen with Republicans still in control. The plans are published, their actions make it clear.

    I'll reiterate, just because a campaign succeeds in Iowa does not mean that same campaign would work nationwide. Trump won Iowa by 13% of the vote, the seat Turek is running for is currently held by a Republican. The Democrats would likely see their margins decrease, or even suffer losses to Republicans or third-party candidates, in typical stronghold states that have strong protections for trans rights. Do you honestly believe that an anti-trans candidate would succeed in places like Colorado, New York, Minnesota, where these rights - that should be basic human rights across the board - have been protected by the state legislatures or even added to state constitutions?

    I also don't want this shithead traitor anywhere near any position of power. But your solution to "expel" him is to let the Republican win. I don't even have to research Turek's opponent to know that, by virtue of being a Republican, they are opposed to trans rights. And that not only will they vote in lockstep with a potential Republican majority on trans rights, but also in every vote concerning rights for anyone who isn't a rich, cishet, WASPy man.

    You keep using this military analogy, so I'll roll with it. You present it as if we're choosing a commander for our army, and the other side is choosing one for theirs. Only one person is winning this election, there's only one seat; only one person is the commander, there's only one army. It seems like your idea of solidarity is putting the person who says "I want to kill all of you" in charge of the army and hoping that that unites the soldiers against their commander, while the other generals cheer the commander on.

    The Republican party, and conservatives at large, are an active threat to trans people, and all people. It's hard to worry about what one political party might do in the future when giving the other party power now means that I might not even be around long enough to worry about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    The Democrats would likely see their margins decrease, or even suffer losses to Republicans or third-party candidates, in typical stronghold states that have strong protections for trans rights. Do you honestly believe that an anti-trans candidate would succeed in places like Colorado, New York, Minnesota, where these rights - that should be basic human rights across the board - have been protected by the state legislatures or even added to state constitutions?

    No, they would likely lose votes. Because enough people are following my strategy. They would lose votes, because of people refusing to vote for them if they sell out trans people.

    You're supposed to be arguing against my strategy, not for it. If everyone followed your strategy, the Democrats wouldn't lose any votes in those states because they'd still be "the lesser evil." Which is exactly why lesser evilism is bullshit.

    Only one person is winning this election, there’s only one seat; only one person is the commander, there’s only one army.

    No. There are two armies, no matter who wins here, this election is merely one battlefield. And if winning here means a shitty strategy gets adopted by the entire army, in other battlefields, then defeat is preferable. You again, are trying to limit the scope of analysis to only the immediate outcome and only in this one race, refusing to look at how this will affect the war in general. There are countless other battlefields, and not all of them are even elections. I don't see how it's possible to not get this, there have to be consequences for treason, or everything breaks down. A single senate seat is a small price to pay, for the bigger picture.

    The Republican party, and conservatives at large, are an active threat to trans people, and all people. It’s hard to worry about what one political party might do in the future when giving the other party power now means that I might not even be around long enough to worry about it.

    The fact that the enemy is so powerful and dangerous is exactly why it's so important to face them with the correct strategy. I'm just as afraid for the future as you are. But I'm not going to let that control me or determine my actions.

    Unity and solidarity are the correct strategic direction. It's possible that we take that approach and fail, but that just means we never would have succeeded anyway. Abandoning the whole strategy for some momentary, fleeting gain is shortsighted and self-defeating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'll admit, my very first comment was inflammatory and I meant it to be. There's too many comments on here that come across as telling me that I need to be willing to die for someone else's beliefs, and I reacted accordingly. It definitely didn't help though that you decided to call me a coward for not wanting to die for your beliefs.

    I'm not arguing against your strategy entirely. I'm arguing against your strategy when the result of following it is a Republican victory. You still haven't been able to explain how the Republicans staying in power will somehow be better for trans people than the last two years have been. You also admit that Democrats would lose votes by pursuing anti-trans policies, so I'm not sure how that fits with your belief that they would start pushing those policies nationwide. If two random lemmy users can come to that conclusion, surely at least on political strategist can as well.

    You're right that lesser evilism is bullshit. Unfortunately, the electoral process in the US is also bullshit. Too many people are stuck choosing between the party that wants to kill them now, and the party that might choose to sacrifice them later. But it's a lot easier to fight for your future when you aren't fighting for your life in the present.

    A single Senate seat is far more significant than you're making it out to be, especially when we're talking about flipping the seat. Whoever wins this particular seat will be fairly insignificant as an individual for the next 6 years at least, but majority control means control of rules and procedures, legislative dockets, and committee appointments. And the wider that majority, the less power traitors like Fetterman or (potentially) Turek have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    You also admit that Democrats would lose votes by pursuing anti-trans policies, so I’m not sure how that fits with your belief that they would start pushing those policies nationwide

    It's simple. If everyone follows your strategy, then it will spread. If enough people follow my strategy, then it will not spread. If it's true that it wouldn't spread, that's purely because of people who reject your way of thinking. So people need to continue rejecting your way of thinking, or the policy will spread.

    You’re right that lesser evilism is bullshit. Unfortunately, the electoral process in the US is also bullshit.

    Lesser evilism is not an inevitable consequence of the electoral process that we have. It is a specific ideology, a specific strategy for approaching that process. And it's one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

    If one faction within a party votes for the party unconditionally, on the basis of it being the lesser evil, and another faction votes conditionally on getting certain policies that they want, then there's a clear incentive for the party to appeal to the second faction. The lesser evilist approach means giving up any bargaining power you might have had within the party. That's why collectively setting red lines is the better approach.

    But it’s a lot easier to fight for your future when you aren’t fighting for your life in the present.

    Turek isn't going to stop you from fighting for your life in the present, he is literally running on taking away our rights. And if we accept that, if we don't demand better, that's how we wind up in a situation where trans rights aren't even on the ballot (in the bad way).

    A single Senate seat is far more significant than you’re making it out to be, especially when we’re talking about flipping the seat. Whoever wins this particular seat will be fairly insignificant as an individual for the next 6 years at least, but majority control means control of rules and procedures, legislative dockets, and committee appointments. And the wider that majority, the less power traitors like Fetterman or (potentially) Turek have.

    The Democrats may well take the Senate regardless, they'll almost certainly take the house, and the Republicans will hold the presidency for at least the next two years. During that time, both a Republican and Democrat trifecta are impossible. Both sides will be able to prevent the other from doing things but won't be able to do much themselves, and that remains true regardless of who controls the senate or by what margin.

    Could it make a difference beyond that? Sure. But if we're talking about future elections, that means looking beyond the immediate term, and looking at the precedents that get set. And even if enough the Democrats are concerned that people will follow my strategy, and do not try to run more transphobic candidates in other races (which I highly doubt, if Turek wins), there's still the fact that the narrative has gotten muddled. In fact, it's already gotten muddled to a degree from Turek getting this far.

    What do I mean by that? Right now, there's a great ad being run called, "Republicans in your bathroom" which paints Republicans as creepy perverted pedophiles for caring so much about trans people and wanting genital inspections of children. But how will they be able to run ads like that, if they're also running transphobic candidates themselves? Are voters meant to believe that transphobes are freaky perverts, or that transphobes have reasonable concerns that the party should accommodate? It's mixed messaging.

    And the more they retreat, the more they validate Republican narratives. The same thing happened on immigration. In 2016, the line was that building the wall was racist (which it is). But by 2024, the Democrats were running as border hawks, the narrative was, "We're the ones who are actually going to build the wall, Trump's all talk." This makes it look like the Democrats are admitting that the Republicans were right all along, and that calling it "racist" was frivolous, and just done for political gain.

    If the Democrats have transphobic candidates running in tight races, they will be inclined to dial back the rhetoric, which will validate the right's transphobic narratives. It will look like the right was correct, just as they look "correct" on immigration. And people will say, "woke 2 was crazy" and it will have an effect on public opinion, just as there are far few people calling for open borders than there were 10 years ago, there will be fewer people voicing full-throated support for trans rights. And that's the real kiss of death.

    We have to hold our ground and say, no, we're right, we were right all along, and the Republican obsession with trans people is purely a Republican thing and purely because they're freaky weirdos and there was never any legitimate concern.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago

    As is tradition; Iowa, a shithole and a backwater.

    They should just have to sit out a few election cycles.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›