You do realize that many people would like to know which candidates support LGBT rights, right? It’s very telling when I go to a candidate’s Issues page and there’s nothing about LGBT. I don’t need constant affirmation of support, but I do want to know where people stand.
Miller made an excellent point to KidCharlemagne. There are far more single-issue voters with regard to gun control and abortion rights. How do you feel about muting support for those issues?
Your group is larger by about a factor of 1.5 to 2. I still think mine is considerably easier to bring back into the fold, for reasons already stated above.
Disclosure: I’m Canadian so my perspective is just that, mine. The opinion of someone who can’t vote Trump and his Republican Guard out, but who sees him as the greatest threat to liberal democracy, and to world peace, since I entered it, 60+ years ago.
So, yes, I would forego those issues and hammer away at his criminalism, self-interested patriotism, and the fact that he is utter opposite of the people who made America, and made it great.
With Trump et al out of the way, assuming the senate has changed too, the Dems can go after whatever they want. It’s only eighteen months. Pray it isn’t thirteen and half years.
What is the thirteen and a half years a reference to?
At a guess, Germany 1933-1945.
A year and half more of Trump, then four more Trump years, then with gerrymandering complete, another eight years with whomever convinces the Trump base that he is the new messiah.
I also wanted to say that holding off on trans rights temporarily seems very similar to choosing Biden over Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg. Biden may scare them less.
…and if we all take a gamble and follow your advice, and Trump wins again in 2020 and we get another 13 and a half years of this, when will you give us permission to “unmute our support?”
I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I recognize the importance of the issue and am trying to get these rights for transgenders **in the fastest way possible. **
I think I’ve already explained why I think I think 2020 is different from 2016. You’re welcome to disagree with why, but I’ve addressed this.
There’s no question that Clinton’s proposed policies were solidly pro middle class and identity-neutral. The issue is she didn’t sell them. Even her husband was begging her to focus her campaign more on the middle class.
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree on the strategy involved, but I find it offensive for it to be implied I’m less aware of the importance of the issue, less sympathetic, or consider it less of a priority.
Counterpoint: Youngstown’s black working-class voters are full of economic anxiety, and not for Trump.
Lewis was one of those people who did not vote for president, for the first time in his adult life. He has plenty to say about why he finds Donald Trump appalling: his comments about women, his deportation of a local Jordanian business owner, his petty feuds. But he found little to like in Hillary Clinton; he told me that he felt she was hiding something. Other black voters in Youngstown told me they didn’t like her stance on trade or abortion, or remembered her “superpredators” speech, or her husband’s crime and welfare bills.
“They need to give a sense of reality, not false hope,” said Mayor Jamael Tito Brown, when we spoke on the phone about how the Democrats could counter Trump’s appeal in the county. “The reality is we have tough economic issues. But in a place like Youngstown, Ohio, we don’t just want a campaign speech every 3½ years.” I asked the mayor which presidential candidates he liked, and he did not hesitate: “Tim Ryan” —the local congressmen, who is currently polling at 0.5 percent. “He understands what we’re going through.”
[…]
The bad news is that no one had voted in the city’s recent primaries for local elected office. Turnout was about 10 percent. Helen Youngblood, a longtime leader of the AFSCME local, remembered talking to a friend about this: “When I ask, ‘Why can’t we get these people out to vote?,’ the person says to me, ‘Helen, when you get up in the morning and you don’t know if your baby is going to have milk, then your priority of the day isn’t getting out to vote.’ ” Poverty, she reasoned, was crushing people’s will to participate in the political process.
But several people I spoke to said there is also reason to blame Democrats, or as Sybil West called them when I paid a visit to her east side home on a recent afternoon, “the wimpocrats.” The party has been as absent here as Donald Trump is present, West told me, and the state’s GOP-led gerrymandering and poverty have further sapped people’s enthusiasm. “Most people are feeling apathetical,” she surmised, “because they’re saying, ‘It’s not going to do any good.’ ”
(The article is from either today or yesterday, depending on your time zone.)
This is the kind of voter we’re not reaching. Voters who look at what the democrats have to offer and say, “What’s the point, they’re not going to do anything to help us anyways”. And they’re a lot more likely to vote dem than the voters who fell down the far-right rabbithole in 2016.
Would it have mattered? The media spent less time on policy than her emails. Like, by a wide margin. And by “policy” I mean “all policy combined”. And by “less time” I mean “by a factor of 3-4 depending on which mainstream network we mean”. Past a certain point there’s only so much you can do.
I’m sorry, it’s just this kind of thing almost never comes from trans folks or their allies. It almost always comes from people who either aren’t particularly interested in trans rights or are against them.
I think the “too far too fast” idea may have a lot to it. It explains a lot. Did Europe go too far and too fast with their “ever-closer union?” Would have been wiser to give it a rest and let public opinion cathc up. (Or at least let us old people die off?)
But of course we cannot have a discussion of this. I see this thread is already making the Nazi comparisons.
A lot of the old people I personally know are super-Europeists; every Spaniard I know who complains about the EU is too young to remember “before”. They take the rights which come with it for granted, or think that rights which apply to every EU citizen (or to anybody covered by whichever specific treaty is actually involved in a particular benefit) only applies in one direction where it actually applies to all of us. For example, they understand it as some sort of privilege that “my cousin who lives in Austria got sick when she was here and went to the doctor and that was it” - uuuh, so, when you get sick what happens? “well, I go to the doctor!” and that’s it? “well, yeah” and if you got sick while visiting your cousin in Austria, you’d go to the doctor there. So what’s your problem?
Ignorance. 99% of the time, their problem is ignorance, often from a bad case of craniorrectal inversion. Being old doesn’t automatically bestow wisdom, but it also doesn’t necessarily cause ignorance.
My thoughts are inchoate.
I am using the EU as an example of a general trend. It is hard to argue with most any single step. But taken as an entirety, it may have gone too far too fast. It is silly to to complain about some European directive about the size and shape of bananas. On the other hand, it is a symptom of a general sense of “too far too fast.”
This vague feeling seems to be fueling the worldwide nationalist backlash.
In my lifetime, “The hippies were right.” They were right about Vietnam, the environment, racism, sexism, big business and most everything else. Most every change to the old ways of doing things made sense at least in theory. Who could object to handicapped parking spaces? Even laws regulating the amount of water each toilet uses makes sense. Obviously, letting people dress as they like or use the bathroom they like makes sense.
Yet, for many people, the world has changed too fast. As I said, it is a vague feeling that is hard to put into words. But, much of human affairs are based on feelings.
(Oh dear, I have killed off another thread.)
I’ve been hearing that sort of bullshit from queer “allies” literally my entire adult life. Yeah, they’re totally in support of lgbt rights, just… not yet. Not ‘til after this election, which inevitably turns into not until after the next election, and then the one after that, and then the one after that. Always with the undercurrent of, “We wouldn’t have lost the last election if it weren’t for you being so loud about it.” They want the social cachet of being accepting to queer people in person, but don’t want to risk their own privileges in society by actually promoting pro-lgbt rights as a political issue.
And, of course, they get deeply offended when you call them on this.
Eh, fair point. I guess when I say “allies” I’m mentally excluding those folks, because I really don’t see them as allies.
Fuck 'em. Nobody gets a pass on telling an oppressed population to “slow down” to spare their own feelings. Period. That’s not justice. That’s trying to look socially good while not actually risking anything.
ETA: THAT is “virtue signalling”. Not when someone is genuinely concerned for social justice and fights for it, like the right likes to throw at us "SJW"s.
Yes, when you know the Truth so perfectly, and when you simply must impose it on others, then the rules of civil discourse no longer apply. After all you are Right. Urgency and infallibility are often a bad combination.
Shame you have give up on convincing people. How will you feel when the wheel turns and the other side is on top?
It’s happened before. Relying on the goodwill and civility of monsters is a sucker’s bet.
And I genuinely wonder…how would you have counseled MLK? Not a single oppressed minority has ever gotten the bigoted majority to “give” them their rights by asking politely. Ever.
Yeah, I’m pretty fucking certain I don’t deserve to be treated as a second class citizen. I have very little doubt that I’m Right about that.
What, you think we’re “on top” now? You think we were ever “on top?”
Where the hell have you been?