this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2026
139 points (87.6% liked)

politics

31231 readers
2241 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Trans journalist Erin Reed has published a list of Democratic midterm candidates with anti-trans records, and the question she is forcing is one the party would rather not answer: if trans voters keep rewarding Democrats who harm them, what signal does that send? The calculation is real, the stakes are high, and there is no clean answer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Choosing between the party where every elected official wants to unalive you, vs the party where only a handful want to do the same…

Yeah, that is a tough one. Really difficult decision, there.

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the places where the blue candidate is a transphobe, it's transphobe vs transphobe

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Yes, but if Dems remain in the minority, it’ll still be a Republican majority, giving them more time to dismantle democracy even further.

It’s the bigger picture which is most important. You cannot create lasting local change without removing the autocratic boot from above.

I mean, yes, let’s make these transphobe Dems as uncomfortable as possible. But America needs to roll back the fascism and authoritarianism, first. Without that first step, every other positive action is a house built on sand - it can be blown away from the top with infinite ease. And then it’s 1939 Germany all over again with pink triangles and pogroms aplenty.

And honestly, I see that outcome as the much, much worse one.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

Yes, but if Dems remain in the minority, it’ll still be a Republican majority, giving them more time to dismantle democracy even further.

And if the transphobic Dems vote with the Republicans, trans people lose anyway. Democrats don't do party discipline, so the anti-trans laws get passed anyway under the guise of "concessions", so heads you're dead, tails you're still dead but someone somewhere feels bad about it.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

The real problem is that no transphobic dem is capable of saving democracy.

Transphobic democrats are, at their very core, spineless cowards. They hold no real beliefs. There is no core to them. They simply follow the polls and hope to obtain power. They seek power for its own sake, not for what good they hope to do with it.

What the "blue no matter who" crowd forget is that saving democracy is unpopular. To truly save democracy, we're going to have to pass unpopular laws. We're going to have to rein in the power of the presidency. We're going to have to dismantle the post-9/11 security state. We're going to have to abolish ICE. But each of those things will result in headlines that Republicans will make great political hay out of. Abolish ICE? Some illegal immigrant is going to kill a white girl, and Republicans will be talking about it for years. Dismantling the surveillance state will actually mean we get hit with a few more terrorist attacks than we otherwise would.

Transphobe democracts are not going to save democracy. Saving democracy requires politicians who will look voters in the eye and say, "this is going to kill some Americans. I'm willing to let some Americans die if it means we save American democracy. Democracy is worth dying for." Can you imagine any of these spineless TERF democrats having that kind of moral conviction?

Democrats who vote against trans rights will also vote against any bill that's meant to seriously reinforce democracy. You can't save democracy by voting in transphobes. They lack the moral courage to save it.

[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Many people will fail to make it, unfortunately. Many of them in this comment section.

The problem is voting strategically does feel good. People would rather have a clear conscience and evil government than an OK government and the feeling of having voted for a schmuck because the other schmuck was also a fascist.

[–] pieberry@lemmy.today -2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'll get downvoted to hell for it, but you failed to include a valid third choice: not voting for either if they don't represent your values.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Behold, the results of the "valid 3rd choice."

[–] Snowies@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ah yes.

Choosing nothing over the least bad option when the final decision effects everyone.

What a hero.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

choosing not to vote for the dnc is a valid long play, at the cost of risking republican victory in the short term, the length of the time is decided by the democrats.

vote for people who potray your values. people who claim that not voting for someone because they are only 2% off from acceptable vastly misrepresents the sheer % i disagree with the democratic platform based on their actions, and not their lies they tell near voting time

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

Sure, that's an option. But all you're doing is leaving the choice up to everyone else. No amount of abstention is going to shift this system into having more than 2 meaningful political parties.

If you really wanna say that neither candidate will produce a result you would prefer over the other, even if both are distasteful to you - then great, don't vote. When my only two useful options are between a warm hell and a hot hell, I will be casting my vote for the warm hell - and then using my time before the next election to try to get people to push for a less shitty Dem next time.