208
Texas uses special session to push “discriminatory & harmful” anti-trans & anti-abortion bills
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
208 points (98.1% liked)
politics
25492 readers
2232 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That rule existed through many, many Democratic governors. Texas's famous redness is a recent phenomenon.
2003 was the first time that the GOP EVER had control of the Texas legislature. And in 2003, they changed voting requirements and gerrymandered the shit out of the state mid-cycle, leading the Democrats to flee the state (sound familiar).
Texas had never had a majority Republican delegation to the US House before the 2003 redistricting. In the 2004 mid-terms, the GOP won over 2/3rds of the seats.
Texas isn't very red. It's just that the GOP legitimately won a single election in 2002 and rigged the game ever since. That's why you must ALWAYS vote against the GOP in the general election, no matter how mediocre the Democratic candidate is.
But what if the democratic nominee is progressive like Mamdani? Should we still vote blue no matter who? And could you tell the DNC that.
Yes and yes.
Also, you tell the Dems how to act by changing out its leadership through more and more primaries.
Real question:
If the goal is to change out the Dem leadership through more and more primaries -
Then why not do the same with the GOP?
If that is the work that needs to be done, why should it be aimed at the Democrats instead of the GOP who are the real problem?
Why should we spend so much effort slowly reforming the good guys to do better instead of the same effort to just reform the bad guys?
The GOP is such a mess of Swiss Cheese that the second Trump isn't holding it together, anyone progressive could likely succeed there by just giving them what Trump lied about: better wages, inflation control, rent control, universal Healthcare. You know, actual progressive policies.
The entire conservative media system would eat itself without a political party to support, and it would be far better to split the GOP than the DNC with these candidates. (As the DNC already know how to do that themselves, clearly)
Honestly, if Dems are only effective once their leadership is changed, then maybe that effort would be better spent on changing it for the GOP as they are the real problem. Better Democrats means the same problems with the GOP. Better GOP means no more problems.
It really depends on where you live. Your primary vote is meaningless if that party can't win in the general election.
I'm in Texas where they do everything they can, legally and otherwise, to supress the Democratic vote. So I do vote in Republican primaries against MAGA Republicans.
If you live somewhere the Democrats win elections, then you need to vote in Democratic primaries.