Many, myself included, have argued against voting for the worst offenders on this list even where it means a Republican takes the seat.
What part of that says to you “This is what I’m doing, but you shouldn’t do that.” - particularly with the second part of the sentence where it’s clear they are talking about more than a single vote (their vote).
You’re right that the article doesn’t say “you shouldn’t do that” but that’s not what I’m claiming, I’m saying the article says it’s up to the readers to consider if transphobia is a deal breaker, if it is then I would say the blame is more on those Democrats for being transphobic, than on the people that are against transphobia
I never called to vote for Republicans, I didn’t even say you shouldn’t vote for those Democrats and neither does the article.
All the article says is that those Democrats are transphobic and that the author, and that’s only his view, wouldn’t vote for them. I, myself would probably vote for them if I could vote in the US, but I can still understand why the author wouldn’t.
If there was an election between Hitler and Stalin, would you have voted for either one because he was slightly less worse than the other one? I personally wouldn’t have, if that is your case too then clearly there is a point where a candidate can be so bad you wouldn’t even vote for them if their opponent is worse, that threshold is just different for everyone
This article does argue for abstaining, it’s literally the entire point of writing this article just before midterms:
Many, myself included, have argued against voting for the worst offenders on this list even where it means a Republican takes the seat. A Republican victory costs the community one seat for one term.
And it’s such a fucking idiotic take.
It’s an article calling out politicians for their answers on “gotcha questions” like ‘do you want biological males playing women’s sports’
It’s interesting you quote that without showing the previous sentence
What you do with this information is up to you.
Also, these politicians didn’t just answer poorly to gotcha question, they actively helped pass bills that took away the rights of trans people
Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell […] Voted yes [for a bill] banning gender-affirming care for transgender service members
Mary Peltola […] One of only six Democrats to vote for [a bill] which contained severe anti-trans and anti-DEI amendments.
Adam Gray […] One of only three Democrats to vote for a bathroom ban on military bases for transgender people, along with a sports ban, a gender-affirming care ban, and several other anti-trans amendments to the NDAA.
Should I keep going or do you think all these bills that marginalize trans people were only “gotcha questions”?
It’s interesting you quote that without showing the previous sentence
Oh please… Just because the author framed the statement with some weasel words doesn’t make the intent any less clear. “I’m not telling you what to do, but…”
Rob Sand, Democratic nominee for governor. Actively opposes transgender participation in sports, answering “no” when a conservative radio host asked whether “biological males” should play women’s sports.
When you pile weak examples like this into your list, it’s clear that you’re just trying to discredit any Democrat and discourage voting.
Taking away an oppressed minorities right is “weak”, what would you consider strong evidence of them being transphobic then? Would they have to start directly beating trans people while calling them slurs? Because if you don’t consider taking away trans people rights transphobic then you don’t have any right to say who trans people should vote for.
Edit: Also I’m not trying to discredit all Democrats, only the transphobic ones
The right to play women’s highschool sports isn’t the one we’re fighting for right now. Yes, it’s a long road to acceptance, yes we have to pick our battles.
No, opening that can of worms on a low rent conservative talk radio show is not worth jeopardizing a Democratic politicians’ overall viability with the general voting public.
Beyond that, the sports issue does have nuance, and for the 95% people in Iowa who’ve never had a conversation with a person they knew was trans, and the 68-80% of the state who can’t read at a highschool level… Yes nuance in the subject doesn’t really exist.
But neither me nor the article is saying to vote for Republicans, it’s just showing that these democrats voted for transphobic laws, if readers decide that that makes them not want to vote, then maybe the blame should be on the Democrats that willingly took away the rights of an oppressed minority and not on the people that don’t want to compromise on trans rights
Oh look. Yet another article post primary election to convince people not to vote so the Republican wins the general election.
If you don’t vote you’re a moron.
“Calling out transphobia is bad” - you, probably
If this article was before the primaries it would be more helpful and get the right people elected.
Since this article came out after the primaries and two months before the general it serves only one purpose.
And it appears your dumbass is taking the bait.
“I’m not voting because no candidate is perfect and I’ll let the party that views me as property win.” - your dumbass, without a doubt.
I never said I wouldn’t vote for the Democrats if I could, the article doesn’t say you shouldn’t either, just that the author personnaly wouldn’t
The article doesn’t need to say it. The author said it and implies other should via the context of the article itself.
This is the type of shit that makes idiots not vote.
The article literally says:
What part of that says to you “This is what I’m doing, but you shouldn’t do that.” - particularly with the second part of the sentence where it’s clear they are talking about more than a single vote (their vote).
You’re right that the article doesn’t say “you shouldn’t do that” but that’s not what I’m claiming, I’m saying the article says it’s up to the readers to consider if transphobia is a deal breaker, if it is then I would say the blame is more on those Democrats for being transphobic, than on the people that are against transphobia
I’m sure the Republican opponents in these states will be much better for Trans rights.
In fact, if we just allow another Republican majority in the legislative branch, they’ll probably just fix the whole thing.
I never called to vote for Republicans, I didn’t even say you shouldn’t vote for those Democrats and neither does the article.
All the article says is that those Democrats are transphobic and that the author, and that’s only his view, wouldn’t vote for them. I, myself would probably vote for them if I could vote in the US, but I can still understand why the author wouldn’t.
If there was an election between Hitler and Stalin, would you have voted for either one because he was slightly less worse than the other one? I personally wouldn’t have, if that is your case too then clearly there is a point where a candidate can be so bad you wouldn’t even vote for them if their opponent is worse, that threshold is just different for everyone
This article does argue for abstaining, it’s literally the entire point of writing this article just before midterms:
And it’s such a fucking idiotic take.
It’s an article calling out politicians for their answers on “gotcha questions” like ‘do you want biological males playing women’s sports’
It’s interesting you quote that without showing the previous sentence
Also, these politicians didn’t just answer poorly to gotcha question, they actively helped pass bills that took away the rights of trans people
Should I keep going or do you think all these bills that marginalize trans people were only “gotcha questions”?
Oh please… Just because the author framed the statement with some weasel words doesn’t make the intent any less clear. “I’m not telling you what to do, but…”
When you pile weak examples like this into your list, it’s clear that you’re just trying to discredit any Democrat and discourage voting.
Taking away an oppressed minorities right is “weak”, what would you consider strong evidence of them being transphobic then? Would they have to start directly beating trans people while calling them slurs? Because if you don’t consider taking away trans people rights transphobic then you don’t have any right to say who trans people should vote for.
Edit: Also I’m not trying to discredit all Democrats, only the transphobic ones
The right to play women’s highschool sports isn’t the one we’re fighting for right now. Yes, it’s a long road to acceptance, yes we have to pick our battles.
No, opening that can of worms on a low rent conservative talk radio show is not worth jeopardizing a Democratic politicians’ overall viability with the general voting public.
Beyond that, the sports issue does have nuance, and for the 95% people in Iowa who’ve never had a conversation with a person they knew was trans, and the 68-80% of the state who can’t read at a highschool level… Yes nuance in the subject doesn’t really exist.
Do you think Republicans running against those Democrats would be better for trans rights?
No, that’s clearly not what I’m saying
How many of those bills do you think would have even been up for consideration if republicans weren’t the majority?
Yeah, democrats could be a lot better, but of the two options we have, a democrat majority is clearly the better choice.
But neither me nor the article is saying to vote for Republicans, it’s just showing that these democrats voted for transphobic laws, if readers decide that that makes them not want to vote, then maybe the blame should be on the Democrats that willingly took away the rights of an oppressed minority and not on the people that don’t want to compromise on trans rights