I am only affiliated for the primary vote. The general election in my county tends to be something around 100% Republican. I think my county has elected exactly one Democrat in the past 25 years, the supervisor of elections, who just retired and was replaced with a Republican.
~Max
Yeah, because it’s not like Democrats are passing bills regarding campaign finance reform and preventing voter disfranchisement, promoting the strengthening of unions, or rein in the power of corporations.
In comparison, North Carolina Republicans started the transgender bathroom fight. The reply is as before - if that’s what you think the Democratic Party is actually doing, you’re not paying attention.
Is it not possible to do both at the same time? Protecting people and making sure that they’re treated with dignity isn’t pointless identity politics. Labor rights and human rights don’t stand in opposition to each other.
Sorry, finger slipped. 200 should have said 100 Totsl over 100, but many were resolutions, procedural matters, etc.
They have still been very active until they run into McConnell’s “kill it if it came from Democrats” actions.
It’s interesting that you describe fighting for gay rights as “right and noble,” and immediately turn around and piss all over the concept of trans rights. What do you feel is the distinguishing feature that makes fighting for the rights of one tiny and abused minority a good thing, and fighting for the rights of a different tiny and abused minority a stupid waste of time? How did you respond, in the early 2000s, to the regressive voices on the left who argued that fighting for marriage rights was a waste of time that distracted the Democrats from real issues and lost them elections? Why do you feel those objections are not applicable to your own regressive views on trans rights?
Are you arguing that trans people are not oppressed in American society? That they are not frequently the targets of oppression and violence?
Do you have any idea how “trans bathroom access” became a thing in the first place? Are you aware that it exists entirely as a reaction to Republicans using trans people as a target to whip up bigotry in their base and drive their voters to the polls? Are you aware that this is basically exactly how the gay marriage debate (which, again, you described as “right and noble”) got started?
Yeah, and not long ago, there were a whole lot of people who wished democrats would stop talking about gay rights, and focus on what “really” matters. And before that, there were a lot of people who wished the democrats would stop talking about black rights, and focus on what “really matters.” What makes your position here fundamentally different from theirs?
Also, why are you talking about the gay rights movement in the past tense? Are you under the impression that gay rights are no longer under threat politically in this country? And why are you not including trans rights under the broader gay rights umbrella?
I’ll join in the praise for this post. Like John Mulaney’s “horse in the hospital” analogy, it has the potential to get through to people who are otherwise holding their hands over their ears.
Maybe they’re just sorta emulating Judge Smails? “I’ll get nothing and like it!”
Excellent analogy. And exactly what happened in 2016.
You do realize that trans people actually exist, right? That we exist in the real world and not just on Reddit and Twitter? I’ve been physically assaulted in a restroom, and I’ve only been out for about two years. And this assault just happened around the corner from me. You’re going to lecture trans people about the working class and the labor movement? Really? Where do you think the vast majority of us stand politically?
Write us off at your own peril.
The more outside the mainstream something is, the more political and social capital you have to spend to try to normalize and protect it. The harder people will fight against it. Was the fight worth it for blacks, given that they were literally being lynched and beaten and otherwise blatantly oppressed, at around 13% of the population? Yes. Was it worth it for gays? Probably. The democrats didn’t fight nearly as hard for that one as civil rights - old people died and young people became older and hating gays just sort of slipped away. It’s not like the democrats really changed the tone on that one - Obama wasn’t even pro gay marriage until after the culture shift happened, and the change happened primarily through judicial rather than legislative action.
What are the number of trans people? Something like 0.25% maybe? Apparently a little over half a percent of people identify as trans, but from personal experience at least half of them are fashionably trans, and don’t actually have a body dysphoria. Oh, I know, you probably find that very thought repugnant, but if you actually interact with the SJW/tumblr/internet trans community you’d see a lot of them just want to be edgy and fit in and get in people’s faces, and clearly don’t actually suffer a medical problem. So, then, how much political capital is it worth to stop the rather soft (compared to civil rights blacks) oppression against us? Enough to make concessions on income inequality, labor rights, or anti-imperialism/warmongering movements?
And if we win the battle for trans rights, what then? Do we find another oppressed class? What if we find one that’s only .01% of the population? How much political capital and legislative agenda should we spend on them? At some point you’d agree that it becomes an inefficient use of political resources, at which point someone holier than you can come in and say “oh you regressive monster, how dare you allow wolfkin oppression!”
Not nearly to the degree that black people were in the 60s and before, no. Their oppression is much less pressing, and their numbers much smaller.
Oh, I know, it’s a republican tool to whip up their base. And by making a big deal out of it, you’re playing their game, making it into a cultural battle about things they’re uncomfortable with instead of changing the narrative to win them over on areas of their own self interest, like economic interests. The democrats should have a message that would easily appeal to conservatives - we’re trying to change the economy to help the vast majority of people - but instead they focus on things that alienate those people and are losing issues like identity politics and gun control. Things that are far less pressing to preserving our way of life and any semblance of democracy we have left.
You’re drawing absolute, philosophical lines. I’m operating on practical considerations. Using your logic, we should spend infinite effort fighting the tiniest oppressions, otherwise you’re as bad as any oppressor, right? Whereas I’m actually weighing the real world figures. How much political capital is it worth expending to fight (rather soft) oppression of 0.25% of the population? What about 0.0001%? At some point you’d agree with me that the costs aren’t worth the results, you’re just drawing the line further than I am and acting all holier than thou about it.
And yes, we made a lot of progress in a hurry on gay rights. Fantastic. What else have democrats done? This country has more wealth inequality than it ever has. Labor is the weakest it’s been in a century at least. Public policy almost never lines up with public desires. Our government is not really a democracy. Is that all worth gay marriage?
Gay rights, trans rights, identity politics as a whole is theater - it’s one of those wedge issues that allows democrats to differentiate themselves from republicans without actually working towards the good of the average person in the US. It gives them something to rally up their base without displeasing their rich masters.
We’re suffering a backlash of a dying generation seeing change happen too fast for them, and you have to wonder how much of this backlash comes from moving too quickly on social changes. It’s not as though society changed from 90% anti-gay to 90% pro-gay overnight. Rather, it started shifting from 70/30 to 60/40 to 50/50 to 40/60 - once we crossed that threshold, pro-gay courts and laws came into effect. But the people who are still butthurt about it are making it known in a rather extreme way. I’m not saying that this necessarily was a tradeoff that was made - but would getting gay marriage around 2012 instead of 2022 worth Trump?
What do trans rights have to do with gay rights? Why would they be under the same umbrella?
Edit: I’m not saying that trans rights aren’t valid and aren’t a real fight. It is. But we’re living in a world where civilization has a significant risk of dramatically changing for the worst within our lifetimes because of an ongoing environmental disaster. Kids these days are unable to go to college without a lifetime of crippling debt and may never own a home. Workers are treated more and more disposably. Health care access is something that is becoming a luxury for the rich. These things are much easier wins than trans rights, much more important wins than trans rights, and should have a thousand times the focus of trans rights. And we’re not making progress towards any of them. So go ahead and pat yourself if you win a costly victory on trans rights while the rest of the world goes down the toilet.
You keep repeating this when it’s already shown to be incorrect. Why?
Yeah, as far as I know, the only major politician in recent years who actually campaigned on transgender bathroom access was Pat McCrory, a Republican, who lost among the same electorate that voted for Donald Trump by 3 points.
What significant policies that disfavor the rich and favor everyone else have the democrats passed in the last, oh, 30 years?
Sure, you can point to bills they tried to pass and never got anywhere - and they may have actually tried to legitimately pass such things - but who knows? Maybe it’s like the Republican charade where they tried to repeal the ACA 50 times for show. The medicaid expansion as part of the ACA is the only thing I can think of. The ACA itself as a whole really wasn’t destructive towards the rich and existing profiteers in the insurance industry.
At best, you can say the democrats are wildly incompetent. Aside from a small minority, I’m leaning more towards it all being theater.
The affordable care act. (And it’s the Republicans who won’t stop talking about people and bathrooms, not the Democrats. You could at least be right about the reasons Democrats bother you.)
I endorse this message. The future of this country will be settled by ordinary Pennsylvanians, including some homophobes and gun nuts, disgruntled by their poor economic circumstances. Some D’s are campaigning as if they’re in an alternate reality.
Of course, my defense of SenorBeef is not meant to suggest that Rilchiam has the slightest clue:
:smack:
Yes the analysis ignores rhetoric and instead looks at policy. Democrats are either as culpable or more culpable for every policy I listed.
Asks the guy who had to think long and hard about whether to support the candidate who had the best chance of beating Trump.:rolleyes:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=799380&highlight=hillary
When Democrats had control of the White House and the Congress, they actually accomplished a lot. Their policies had a lot to do with the current economic expansion. They passed healthcare reform. They would have done more if more idiots hadn’t inexplicably sat out the 2010 elections and given this country right back to the party whose policies are always disastrous.
JFTR, that IS a good enough reason to give the Democratic candidate your vote (in EVERY race, as it happens, unless the incumbent is neither a Democrat nor a Republican [or worse]).
Can you provide a few examples of what CAN be accomplished if getting rid of the America-hating fuckstick* ISN’T accomplished?
Or even just one?
*(And the rest of the entire Republican Party, while we’re at it.)
It appears, then, that speaking of “the Democratic Congress” amounts to nothing more than gibberish. As if anything else should be expected from the America-hating fuckstick.