193
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2026
193 points (97.1% liked)
politics
31342 readers
3437 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
No, it isn't. It is possible to signal an active voter is available for a better candidate. Equating not voting Dem = voting Republican is just a tired manipulation tactic (and mathematical absurdity) used by people who can't defend the Democrats any way other than "but Replications."
I never said that not voting Dem is the same as voting Republican. In fact, I hate that sentiment. And it is again irrelevant to this point.
"there are better candidates than the Democrat" ≠ "the Democrat is worse than the Republican"
Sure sure, you never said it but you 100% framed it that way. If you hate that sentiment you should know full well how your comment comes across. If it's irrelevant then why did you bring it up?
What??? I never framed anything that way. I also didn't bring it up, you did. I've only been responding to your points.
My stance is that the Republican winning is worse than the Democrat winning. Not that the Democrat is the best, not that voting for anyone else is the same as voting Republican, none of these stances you have placed in my mouth.
This was you. You brought up voting Republican. No one here was at all suggesting voting Republican. And you framed it as what someone is doing if they are not voting Democrat. I don't understand lying about this when it's right there?
My guy and/or gal, this entire conversation is about framing the Democrat vs the Republican! It began with me saying this:
So, the original commenter compared the Dem to the Republican, said the Dem is worse, and I called out that specific stance. That is why me later pointing out the two is on topic, and you bringing up other candidates is irrelevant.
But they didn't say to vote for the Republican. You did. I don't even think it's a subtle distinction but even if it is, it's a crucial distinction that cannot be as hard to understand as you're acting like it is.
You chose that framing, stop pretending you didn't.
I certainly didn't say to vote Republican, but you're right in that I should have said "Democrat wins =" and "Republican wins =". I think I used the word vote because your comment said Democrat voters, and I was replying to that.
I did not, at any point, tell anyone how to vote or who to vote for. Nor meant to imply that I was.
To clearly reiterate: my only stance in this conversation is that the Republican is worse than the Democrat winning for Trans rights, and pretty much everything else too.
I hope that confusion has been cleared up and maybe we can find common ground in that.
You're right, I didn't finish that sentence. I should have said "They didn't say to vote Republican. You said that that's what we were saying."
And now to get back to the argument: We both strongly disagree with you that the Republican winning is worse for Trans rights than this specific Democrat. That's the entire point. This specific Democrat winning erodes the only source of trans rights in our government.
It is better for the known anti-trans Republicans to continue to be anti-trans than it is for the supposedly pro-trans Democrats to become less pro-trans. One continues the same level of anti-trans government action, the other actively increases it by normalizing the reduction of pro-trans support.
I think the disagreement is in the assumption that Republicans will continue to be anti-trans in same way or that it will be some status quo. That is why I made my comment that Dems = long destruction, whereas Republicans will be immediate destruction. And for what it's worth, I think more complete destruction. There may not be future elections with Republicans in charge.
Now that we've cleared up the confusion in our comments, I'm happy to agree to disagree.
Have a good day.
Where has incremental change gotten us over the last all-of-time? It doesn't work. We are currently experiencing the destruction that the Democrats have wrought. That the Republicans are the ones in power enacting it was a foretold conclusion, what we have always needed was a party that would stand up to them and fight for the people. Instead we have one that enables the Republicans and placates people into thinking they've done something by voting for a "lesser evil."
If we had been unwilling to enable the Democratic slide to the right from the start or from any other point since we would be in a better position right now because the Republicans would have a harder time staying in power without stemming their sprint towards fascism. The best time to refuse the erosion of Democratic principles was the founding of the party, the second best time is today. That it may already be too late isn't a reason not to try.
I don't disagree with any of this, for the record, and why I didn't push back on democrats being the long death. But none of it changes my opinion that the Republican winning is worse. And I don't really see how any of what you've said refutes that.
The Democrats sliding to the right is bad. I agree.
A currently and actively further right party than that winning is worse than that. I'm honestly baffled that this is contentious. Especially after the last two years of total Republican control.