Yeah it’s more like the RW propagandists keep telling Mrs. Nebraska that “coastal city liberals are calling you a bigot!”
Right. Votes R and would not really care about issue-by-issue details, just “knows” Conservative/Republican is better. Huge numbers of those kind of voters.
Yeah, because he was dying and very very sick. And 86.
Besides Frank didnt say anything that was in the least bigoted or transphobic. People can disagree without calling him names- which based on his real life actions, he does not deserve.
The right wing machine is still using Huillary’s :basket of deplorables" comment from 2016. And judging by the dates of the comments under the YouTube video, it’s still a hot topic for debate.
And she was right. "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
…yep.
And it generally pushes the “centre-leaning party” further to the right. Look at immigration. Harris ran on a platform that she would be tougher on immigration than Trump.
That’s problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s a lie. A rather transparent lie. Donald “shoot them in the legs” Trump was always going to be tougher on immigration than anything that the dems could have done.
Secondly, in order to “appear” tougher on immigration, they actually had to have tougher immigration policies. So they slide to the right.
And they slide away from the progressive staples, like openly supporting DACA, and they just don’t talk about it anymore. It’s the trans/Gaza/voter-suppression strategy. If you don’t talk about it, they can’t attack you on it.
But if you don’t talk about it, it drops from the public’s consciousness, and it grants the other side a propaganda victory.
And the person you are trying to “win over to your side” never votes for you anyway. Because they never ever hear what it is you are trying to say.
The Democrats are obsessed with “messaging” and “optics”. This thread is obsessed with optics and messaging. It’s as if you can hit that magic formula of the perfect optics and messaging; you’ve won the key to winning elections forever.
I don’t think that works. Especially in the post-truth era. Everybody is locked into silos. And for the “hypothetical small-town rural housewife” that everyone is worried about here, they are, for the most part, only ever get their news filtered through a certain lens. There are ways to get through the disinfo layer. Mamdani proved that. But that doesn’t involve leaning into the disinfo, but it involves taking a different path.
Just do what you think is the right thing. Fight for the poor and the marginalised; stand up and shield those who don’t have a voice. Listen to your voters. Give them something to vote for.
…so that would be a no to the question then.
Why on earth was he palling around with Kirk in the first place? Why did he platform Steve Bannon and Michael Savage?
Some other things from those podcasts:
"When Kirk inaccurately described hormone therapies given to transgender children as “chemical castration” and described transgender medical care as “butchery,” Newsom did not argue.
“Right,” Newsom said. “I think we have to be more sensitized to that.”
We need to stop pretending that his stance here isn’t problematic.
He literally said:
“The analog is male-to-female tra****uals playing sports designated for women".
[note-I censored the word he actually used, the actual word is used in the original cite]
It’s an outdated, inaccurate and offensive label that one would expect someone with decades of experience working with the LGBTQ community would know not to use. The fact that he did says a lot. He couldn’t claim he did it out of ignorance. And if he’s lucid enough to make a statement about what the Dems should be doing, then he’s lucid enough to not say offensive things.
People can call him names. That’s something people are allowed to do.
Tone policing won’t have an impact on the next election. You will never be able to stop John Smith from having a “hot take” on Twitter.
Politicians aren’t gods. They aren’t kings. And if these politicians take problematic stances that upset marginalised communities, then people are allowed to call them out. Policitians have the power to ruin lives. And Barney Frank’s line of argument is a regressive one. It means relitigating the wins trans people had already made. Trans women largely could participate in women’s sports. That was the baseline. Franks arguement only works if you pretend that wasn’t the case.
Frank was no ally to trans people. I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that out loud.
Just found this in my Bluesky.
These 8 Democrats voted to pass a national ban on trans teachers and mention of LGBTQ topics.
Rep Henry Cuellar (TX)
Rep. Don Davis (NC)
Rep. Cleo Fields (LA)
Rep. Laura Gillen (NY)
Rep. Vicente González (TX)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH)
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA)
Rep. Eugene Vindman (VA)
You can read more about this in the article below. The part about “trans teachers” seems a bit too far, but the bill would force teachers to out trans children to their parents, and would likely prevent any trans teacher from being openly trans.
This is where the Democrats actually are. They are very much not at the point of overly focusing on trans rights.
Eight Democrats is “the Democrats”?
It’s a lot more than zero.
How many Democrats would YOU be comfortable with, voting against your existence?
I’d be more concerned with the number of Republicans not voting against my existence.
Sigh. No, it tells us where the Democrats as a whole are that 8 of them are willing to vote AGAINST trans rights. That’s not a party that is going too hard for trans rights and needs to back off. They can’t even keep their own from selling us out.
If being pro-trans was a consistent Democratic message, this could not have happened.
Are they all in secure districts and not up for election in November?
And that bill still would have passed just by 209 to 206 instead of by 217 to 198.
But yeah, it’s the Democratic Party’s fault.
For now, H.R. 2616 heads to the Senate, where the legislative filibuster requires 60 votes to advance—a threshold no standalone anti-trans bill has cleared in this Congress. Senate Democrats blocked the federal trans sports ban earlier this year on a straight party-line vote, and the most likely fate of the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act” is that it dies on the same procedural wall.
8 Congressional Democrats Vote To Defund Schools That Support Trans People
Thankfully there are never strategic defections from the party line that need to be explained to people that only understand tactics.
…I mean, if you wanted to prove that the Democrats could be every bit as mean and cruel as Republicans, well you don’t have to tell me. That so many expulsions under Biden were Title 42 expulsions is particularly telling.
But that doesn’t change anything I said.
Harris ran on a platform that she would be tougher on immigration than Trump. But she lost. Your graph doesn’t show whether or not she would have been “tougher” or not.
But to be “tougher”, she would have had to have deputised a bunch of wannabe Nazi brownshirts to terrorise brown people up and down the country and built a network of quasi-concentration camps to hold people in inhumane conditions before deporting some of them to be tortured.
Is that what you think Harris was going to do?
And then we have this:
125,000 refugees were accepted by the Biden administration in their last financial year, from 85 different countries.
Since October 2025 the Trump administration only let in 4,496 white South African refugees and only 3 from anywhere else.
Are you suggesting that Harris would have been even “tougher” here? Do you think she would have not let in the “3 from anywhere else?”
I don’t think that’s what she would do. I think she would have continued Biden’s cruel and mean immigration regime. However, it was a lie to claim she would be tougher on immigration than Trump. That was never going to happen.
When it comes to protecting trans people?
In a political system where a Sinema or a Manchin or a Fetterman can derail the political agenda? Yeah, these margins matter. In both the House and the Senate. I personally don’t think these 8 “represent” the Democrats. I think the Dems have held the line on many trans issues and have done good work.
But the margins are so thin. This was "the largest Democratic defection on any standalone anti-trans bill of this Congress."Hopefully this stops in the senate. But this shift should concern everyone.
Then you agree with me.
…this is an odd response. I thought “I personally don’t think these 8 “represent” the Democrats” clearly stating that yes, I agree with you on that particular point. But in the context of the larger discussion I don’t think it matters. The margins to pass a clear “pro-trans agenda” doesn’t exist. Not with the party as it is at present. At best they might be able to just hold the line. And even if they win back the house, the Senate and the executive, that might not even be enough. The shift should be concerning everyone because it means those margins could evaporate on this issue.
Not with the country as it is at present.
Boy if that isn’t splitting PC hairs, I don’t know what is.
Anyway, I think the fact that this discussion is so heated and long says something about the state of the party - if the relatively like-minded people around here on the SDMB have such disagreement, that has to be amplified when it goes outside of otherwise similarly aligned people.
In other words, the fact that we’re having such a knock-down, drag-out argument about this internally (so to speak) means that the Democratic party probably should figure this out before they start making policy on it. And as usual, they probably ought to try to get their entire party singing from the same hymnal when they do. (but you know they won’t).
…well you can’t change the country, can you.
But you do have the ability to influence the party that you vote for, right? Because if you haven’t then what are we even doing here?