They'll waffle on anything substantial for a year and a half and only begin to try right before the next election. And then the scawy wepublicans will of course obstruct it and that'll be the reason we need to vote for the Democrats in 2028, so they can finally enact their nothing plan from 2026.
Spoiler alert: they'll fail to do it after 2028 because of insert reused excuse here.
Scandinavia looms
Whaaaaaaaat?
Greece is also a statue.
If you want to typeset math, yes really. And IMO formatting control in LaTeX is unmatched and then some in word processors.
Plus TikZ is incredible.
A currently and actively further right party than that winning is worse than that. I'm honestly baffled that this is contentious.
I don't disagree in general, though I'm certain I feel this way about more Democratic candidates than you would.
The difference for me is that this candidate in question running on these specific stances accelerates the rotting of the Democratic Party so much that she has become the worse candidate. Not because her opponent is better in any way shape or form, but because the effect of Annie winning does harm to party positioning much more quickly than your standard corpo-Democrat.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Voting Democrat: long term self-destruction.
Voting Republican: immediate self-destruction. This is not better. This is worse.
You don't have to say that a Democrat winning is "worse" than a Republican winning in order to criticize the Democrats.
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?
In most cases I agree and that's how I vote. But it is possible for a candidate to go so far to the right on an issue that support of them is poison to the Democratic Party. The more we condone this, the further the controlled opposition slides to the right.