Trump and Allies are pouring Millions into Anti-Trans Election Ads

[Didymus 34,380]

22 minutes ago, Bronco said:

You are weaponizing trans rights because even from this response it is beyond clear you aren't actually bothered with combating the Republican rhetoric on this issue. Because even now you aren't proposing solutions to combating the Republican rhetoric despite having said Democrats are failing to respond to these anti-trans ads & rhetoric. You're just talking up lofty idealism. No actual solutions. No targeted response to the attacks. 

The only laughable form of activism is people like you who do nothing besides standing inside the tent and piss inside it. 

If anti-trans ads don't work - why do you wan't a response to them? Why is the Democrats effectively following a strategy of ignoring the ads (which you say don't work) a bad strategy? 

Democrats consistently underestimate their voters because their core voter groups like under 40s etc are the groups with the worst records for turnout. And as a result they fight elections on a basis of simultaneously focused on making that group vote but also having to go into groups that aren't natural Democrats and pump significant workloads into turning that group into a blue vote for the cycle. 

Some Democrats absolutely do undermine the push for Trans rights, it's an inevitable factor from the Dems getting razorthin majorities because of how the progressive vote is highly concentrated in the US. It results in them having to rely on winning representation in less progressive states - which have disproportionate power due to the constitution's set up. So like are you going to get all of your progressive friends like yourself to go move to a deep red house district seat and flip it so we aren't reliant on conservatives? 

So you want an effective response to attack ads running which state that Kamala & the Democrats are "transing the kids" rather than sending them to school. And your solution is for Kamala to say nothing about the attacks and just say "Trans rights". How is that effective? And most importantly, how is it any different or better than the April 2024 expansion Title IX which explicitly blocked blanket trans bathroom bans in Schools? 

So is it really "complacency" to say lets elect the party that is easier for us as a community to work with rather than electing the party that is funded by the groups that have successfully passed "Kill the gays" laws in other countries? 
Or is it actually people going "lets be ****ing sensible here"?
ecause what you call complacency is just people going "well 1 vote means I have a chance, and the other vote means my very existence is in danger". 

No one is saying the Democrats are ever perfect. I've definitely never said it. And I've not seen Partysick say it either. But the Biden-Harris admin, facing a stagnant deadlocked congress they don't control & a Scotus they know is against them actually did the only thing they could do from the White House to combat the Trans bathroom bans. 
Like what better response is there to Republicans saying "trans kids are bad lets make life worse for them" than to pass updated regulation that challenges those laws? And yet your only proposal in that response to me acting for your solution is for Kamala Harris to give a speech? You think a speech would be more effective than federal regulation challenging the Republicans? 

As always, maniacally barking at the wrong tree after massively projecting and randomly accusing.

Glad we both genuinely care about trans rights at least.

I still stand behind everything posted in the article. Still confused its content is not mentioned. “A speech” is not what I’m asking lol.

[Bronco 25,129]

13 minutes ago, Didymus said:

As always, maniacally barking at the wrong tree after massively projecting and randomly accusing.

Glad we both genuinely care about trans rights at least.

I still stand behind everything posted in the article. Still confused its content is not mentioned. “A speech” is not what I’m asking lol.

 

6 hours ago, Didymus said:

Let's also not forget to mention that Dems are failing to properly respond to this.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

What effective response is there to Republicans claiming kids are going to school, being given gender reassignment surgeries and then sent home all in the same day? Beyond just going "no they aren't, that's stupid". 

 

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

An effective response could be, maybe, to make a clear statement on your position on trans rights?

I mean what are you asking for then? 

They've enacted the policy available to them in the White House. They've not legitimised the Republican attack ads - which you say don't work. 

And yet you are still saying in response to a thread being started about these attack ads having millions pumped into them that - "Democrats are not properly responding to this". 

And as you can see from the quotes I've helpfully pulled out for you. When I asked you what would be an appropriate response. You stated you wanted her to make a clear statement. 

So work with us here Didymus. No one can see what the **** you want. Because you're talking in circles. You've made no clear point. When challenged you deny your words. 

What is an effective response? You said you want a clear statement. But when I question why a statement is better than actual policy enacted in April this year, you say you don't want a statement and accuse me of "projecting" something of which you don't specify and making "random" accusations when all I did was quote you and respond to you in depth. Meanwhile you've made accusations against multiple users who dare to engage with you. 

[Didymus 34,380]

3 hours ago, Bronco said:

I mean what are you asking for then? 

They've enacted the policy available to them in the White House. They've not legitimised the Republican attack ads - which you say don't work. 

And yet you are still saying in response to a thread being started about these attack ads having millions pumped into them that - "Democrats are not properly responding to this". 

And as you can see from the quotes I've helpfully pulled out for you. When I asked you what would be an appropriate response. You stated you wanted her to make a clear statement. 

So work with us here Didymus. No one can see what the **** you want. Because you're talking in circles. You've made no clear point. When challenged you deny your words.

What is an effective response? You said you want a clear statement. But when I question why a statement is better than actual policy enacted in April this year, you say you don't want a statement and accuse me of "projecting" something of which you don't specify and making "random" accusations when all I did was quote you and respond to you in depth. Meanwhile you've made accusations against multiple users who dare to engage with you. 

I'm clearly referring to the article I posted where the lack of effective response is very clearly spelled out, specifically Kamala's platform and campaign silence and her bizarrely evasive answers to recent direct questions about trans rights.

You seem to be acting like I'm pulling this out of thin air when, in reality, Kamala has gone viral for evading these direct questions twice this month alone. Plenty of these articles describe responses along the line of "Why is she being intentionally ambiguous? Have her values changed? What will her presidency look like if she can't answer these questions?" That would be the lack of efficacy and danger I'm referring to. I didn't think this was hard to understand but here we are.

You were projecting and randomly accusing me when you shamelessly said I was weaponizing trans rights just because you personally insist on believing I'm a contrarian idiot who wants Democrats to lose this election, just like you randomly insisted I was belittling Eastern Europeans and showed lack of respect for their history before going on a similarly passionate rant about nothing in another thread.

I thought the article was good, just like I've thought it has been important to monitor Dems' declining faith in publicly supporting trans rights for the last three years or so. Obviously the way I feel about this is tangentially related to Kamala evading questions about her acknowledgment of Israel's illegal and genocidal intent. It's weird to see members who've been interested in raising awareness about these topics pre-election cycle suddenly interpret me continuing the same trail of thought as unwelcome and disingenuous.

[Bronco 25,129]

7 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I'm clearly referring to the article I posted where the lack of effective response is very clearly spelled out, specifically Kamala's platform and campaign silence and her bizarrely evasive answers to recent direct questions about trans rights.

Because she knows, much like the article does, and contrary to your claim that the adverts do work. They are targeted at potential Republican to Democrat switchers & it is exactly the kind of policy topic where those switchers which are sadly vital to winning will listen to the Republicans over the Democrats.

I'm a firm believer that actions speak louder than words with politicians, especially during a hyper-partisan election cycle where the trend is for politicians to say less and pray for voter turnout. 

And the actions are Kamala is part of an administration that has used the levers of power available to it to combat anti-trans laws. Not anti-trans interview questions. 

10 minutes ago, Didymus said:

What will her presidency look like if she can't answer these questions?"

If you aren't able to answer this kind of question with a very simple "no matter what the Democrats are the party we stand a better chance of engaging with and achieving our policy aims vs the Trump Republicans" then I genuinely worry for you. 

12 minutes ago, Didymus said:

You were projecting and randomly accusing me when you shamelessly said I was weaponizing trans rights just because you personally insist on believing I'm a contrarian idiot who wants Democrats to lose this election, just like you randomly insisted I was belittling Eastern Europeans and showed lack of respect for their history before going on a similarly passionate rant about nothing in another thread.

I mean the response I want to give here would get me at minimum a warning.

I stand by what I did say in another thread about your pathetic views on the war in Ukraine & NATO desires of ex-Warsaw states. Because every time myself or anyone else in that thread raised the realities behind why those states took steps they had or were planning to - your response was "thats not important, America is bad and thats all that matters". You dismissed anyone including myself that brought up something that negated your view. Its your favourite way to engage with any political topic I've noticed. And I stand by, based on how you've talked about the topic here that you've weaponised trans rights to support your politics rather than using your politics to support trans rights. 

When challenged to state what you wanted to happen you've been totally unable to do so. 

You said you wanted a clear statement. I've repeatedly asked you why a clear statement is better than policy she's helped deliver. You responded that you actually didn't want a statement. But now you've gone back to complaining she hasn't given a clear public statement of support.

Although I would point out that Kamala has done the traditional thing in politics when engaging with issues that will lose you votes with key voter targets - she got the deputy to say it. And has not taken a conflicting stance to him when personally questioned. Its not ideal, but again she's been part of a WH team that delivered the first federal push back on Trans bathroom bans. So we know what policy she will push. And it is policy we want. 

At so many chances today I've said "well what is your goal". And you've not been able to state 1 thing you actually want her to do. Not a single policy you want to see besides public support. And this is why I am so critical of you & your "activism".

Because where is the substance? You claim to support our trans family, but when pushed to say what you think Kamala Harris should do that she isn't - you haven't named a single policy you want from her that would benefit trans people. 

You could have said you want her to continue supporting the Title IX expansion in the federal courts.

Or to expand it further and prevent trans bans in school sports. 

Or pushing federal policy that prevents the puberty blocker bans.

You can borrow these 3 for your response if you'd like. 

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Because she knows, much like the article does, and contrary to your claim that the adverts do work.

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/icymi-new-survey-finds-anti-trans-ads-ineffective-disliked-by-voters

https://glaad.org/trumps-anti-trans-ad-fails-politically-among-likely-voters/

https://www.advocate.com/election/transphobic-ads-erase-transgender-attitudes

https://www.semafor.com/article/10/08/2024/anti-trans-ads-didnt-work-in-2022-republicans-think-this-time-will-be-different

13 minutes ago, Bronco said:

You dismissed anyone including myself that brought up something that negated your view. Its your favourite way to engage with any political topic I've noticed.

When it's an off-topic response? Yes, I will absolutely dismiss them and redirect them back to my point which largely goes unaddressed.

14 minutes ago, Bronco said:

You said you wanted a clear statement. I've repeatedly asked you why a clear statement is better than policy she's helped deliver. You responded that you actually didn't want a statement. But now you've gone back to complaining she hasn't given a clear public statement of support.

A consistency of clear statements is directly linked to the likelihood of people supporting policy. I'm shocked I have to somehow explain this.

I want Kamala to educate the audience, not dodge questions in fear of it. When someone asks her point blank what her personal values are, I want her to say what they are instead of offering platitudes or, more likely, irritatingly irrelevant references to Trump and going viral for being a coward as a result. I want her to respond to op-ed after op-ed of trans youth being alarmed by the party's growing silence on trans rights, trans kids who are wondering if they would even dare to make the transition now because they don't feel a counterweight of vocal support against the onslaught of Republican anti-trans rhetoric. I want her to use the outcome of the studies that show that the majority of Americans feel resistance to anti-trans rhetoric as an opportunity to spread information and counter misinformation, to fill a void of uncertainty that is swaying people into extremism for lack of firmness.

You will call that vague and irrelevant and I get that because you're already thinking ahead of policy. That's great, and it's also not what I'm talking about. And now you probably see this as another dismissal or "attack" but I see it for what it is: you want to talk about something that I don't want to talk about. I want to talk about why Democrats are not using the opportunity to take firm stances on trans issues when studies have shown for years now that the platform is there and that Republicans are tempting people more with their unswerving firmness than the actual content of their rhetoric.

You did actually respond very interestingly and in depth about this to me earlier but when you package it in a personal attack about me weaponizing social issues for my own egotistical purposes, I'll obviously respond to that too.

23 minutes ago, Bronco said:

At so many chances today I've said "well what is your goal". And you've not been able to state 1 thing you actually want her to do. Not a single policy you want to see besides public support. And this is why I am so critical of you & your "activism".

Because where is the substance? You claim to support our trans family, but when pushed to say what you think Kamala Harris should do that she isn't - you haven't named a single policy you want from her that would benefit trans people. 

You could have said you want her to continue supporting the Title IX expansion in the federal courts.

Or to expand it further and prevent trans bans in school sports. 

Or pushing federal policy that prevents the puberty blocker bans.

You can borrow these 3 for your response if you'd like. 

Dude, that was not the topic of the conversation and you know it. We know what the Democratic policies will be through the DNC platform. The topic here is what people will actually vote for/which rhetoric they will be swayed by and why. And while I don't think the anti-trans ads work, I think Kamala's public ambiguity about topics that are important to her voters is damaging on its own. Now, if you wanna join that conversation I'd appreciate your thoughts.