Archived version
In the U.S., Republicans are using bills that benefit the majority to push an anti-trans agenda
Lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly made last-ditch efforts to pass anti-trans laws during the eleventh hour of their legislative session in recent years, notably in Alabama and Kentucky, where the bills were eventually signed into law. This year, Republican lawmakers across several states tried their hand at it again, derailing governance as usual on the waning days of legislative sessions by attempting to replace routine legislation with anti-LGBTQ+ bills or stonewalling the process of passing other bills to push anti-LGBTQ+ efforts, advocates say.
This year, though, the ground has begun to shift. In March, during the last three weeks of Georgia’s legislative session, Republicans made a contortionistic effort to ram policies targeting transgender students into bills originally written to support all students in the state. Their target: a bill creating mental health screenings and other resources for student-athletes.
That bill was reengineered into legislation to ban sex education below 6th grade, bar trans students from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, prohibit trans students from using restrooms that match their gender identity, and allow parents to be alerted about every library book that their child checks out.
If Democrats want trans folks like me to vote for them then maybe they should stop helping Israel blow up children.
Seems like a really, really low bar but this is America so my expectations were already below sea level.
I've seen people debate this endlessly, but I've never seen anyone on the side of not voting explain anything beyond "I don't want to support genocide" as if the republicans aren't just as gung ho about killing children. What is the utility in not participating in the election? What do you think not voting will achieve?
You aren't sending a signal and you certainly aren't making the democrats commit less genocide.
Voting democrat is the lesser evil and will have actual positive results for people living in the US, and it isn't mutually exclusive with other ways of enacting change.
Edit: My comment seems a bit aggressive in hindsight :S sorry about that
I'm already planning not to vote for Republicans.
I pay careful attention to local races and evaluate every candidate because I believe voting to be a civic rssponsibility.
But my fundamental principle when choosing who to vote for is not tactical, but moral. I will not vote in support of people that I believe will perpetuate injustice in the world.
Voting downballot but making no choice for president sends a very clear signal. The DNC just decided they didn't need the uncommitted vote and they're probably right.
I disagree on principle. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting to perpetuate evil. At best, it maintains an intolerable status quo, and it comes from a fear of the radical change that we know is sorely needed. "Lesser evilism" is conservatism.
After the election maybe? That seems rather late to me. Direct action and building up third party alternatives seems to be the best long term courses of action. If I were american I would work towards unionizing as many people as possible, report that I won't vote democrat, and then vote democrat unless a third party has a chance of winning in my state.
I disagree. Voting is currently not a means of meaningful change in the US (at least for the left), which is why I refer to it as damage control. You are correct however if all people do politically is vote.
Hence this discussion where I made my intentions known well in advance of the election.
Direct action is an easy way to end up in jail (even feeding the homeless is illegal now) and third-parties are useless due to our first-past-the-post electoral system.
The best long-term courses of action are mutual aid and the development of alternative structures of power that can serve human needs without being subject to the whims of the existing political establishment.
This is acceptable.
I get you. It's hard to organize something that can't be shut down easily, and honestly if it can be it might not be worth it. I see a lot of americans and sadly people where I live as well who underestimate the importance of unions in a functional democracy as the most viable way to force the government and businesses to listen.