news Kamala Harris can't say that transgender people should receive gender-affirming care

[45seconds]

4 minutes ago, Bloo said:

The issue is that Kamala Harris chose to avoid saying the word "trans" at all in her response because Democrats now are fearful of being associated with trans people. That is cowardly, embarrassing, and pathetic.

 

Saying, "I believe trans people deserve healthcare" is not hard. The hyper-fixation on trans people from Republicans is also not a politically viable strategy. Democrat Andy Beshear is the governor of the very Republican state of Kentucky and he won reelection in 2023 while standing up for trans kids.

Well. She's trying to win the election. Any answer can be used in an attack ad. They likely polled it and it probably isn't very popular in swing states. That's just the truth of it. And the liberal democrats live in safe states. She has to win over the centrists in swing states and a state lie PA is tied. Evasive? Maybe. But it's just smart politics to do it until after you are elected and sometimes smart politics is cowardly unfortunately. 

[Harrier]

It was an highly evasive answer but reading through the lines her answer is obviously yes. There is nothing to fear here she isn't backing away from protecting trans rights. The verbosity is just an attempt to keep transphobic moderate voters on side and avoiding giving Republicans a clip for ads. It's strategy.

 

You can call it cowardly, and it is actually is that yes - but the fear is all about not wanting to lose this election. And I think that is a justified fear

 

[Uncatena]

she and her campaign staff are about as useful as a one inch cock. and I thought Hillary's campaign was an embarrassment. the absolute nothingburger of answers... absolutely unfit for office. 

[Harrier]

41 minutes ago, Marianah Adkins said:

Watching the town hall was an eye opener really. She has nothing going on inside her head. Even if she wins, can you imagine her representing and defending America against Xi Jinping and Putin, what is she gonna do, ijbol? 

 

and the way ppl who have genuine concerns about her are being branded as fascist is the reason why attacks on Trump have fallen on deaf ears. No one wants to be told what to do, especially on how they vote and how they exercise their democratic right. 

It's the complete opposite of what you say. She has a million things going on in her head - too many, if anything. Her verbosity comes from how unbelievably cautious and careful she is about every answer, often to her own detriment. It's swirling in there: she's thinking about how her words can be used in ads, what voters she appealing to. She is overcautious for sure

[BOOMBAYAH]

3 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Yeah, really wild how we're currently backsliding from what a Silent Generation fossil like Biden believed in terms of protecting the most vulnerable among us.

 

Kamala gets a pass purely because she doesn't overtly want us dead, but… it's increasingly obvious that they'll drop us the moment we become politically inconvenient. If Democrats lose this election, and Obergefell gets overturned by SCOTUS, I personally wouldn't expect restoring gay marriage rights to even be on the next DNC platform afterwards.

When comparing her stance to Joe's when he was running, I think it's important to consider how the political climate has shifted. Joe campaigned from a solidly left position at a time when most people were fed up with Trump, and far-right views weren't as widespread in public discourse as they are now. He could openly support trans rights without risking backlash from his desired voter base (democrats/centrists sick of Trump). Kamala is running in an increasingly right-leaning America, where she and her team clearly believe she needs Republican and independent votes to win. I get the criticism, and maybe she does have some blind spots on this issue, but the optimist in me wonders if her vagueness isn't about opposing trans rights but avoiding giving Trump's team easy attack points, similar to Obama's approach to gay marriage. Nevertheless, I do see the risks—this strategy to appeal to right-leaning voters could backfire and leave us rebuilding trans rights from scratch if those attitudes persist after the election. It's all a mess right now.

[Marianah Adkins]

7 minutes ago, Harrier said:

It's the complete opposite of what you say. She has a million things going on in her head - too many, if anything. Her verbosity comes from how unbelievably cautious and careful she is about every answer, often to her own detriment. It's swirling in there: she's thinking about how her words can be used in ads, what voters she appealing to. She is overcautious for sure

When the electorate has been craving for direct, definite and genuine political stances in the past decade (which explains why Trump's overt racism excites his base), her overly cautious approach might end pissing up everyone and appealing to no one. 

[Marianah Adkins]

1 minute ago, BOOMBAYAH said:

When comparing her stance to Joe's when he was running, I think it's important to consider how the political climate has shifted. Joe campaigned from a solidly left position at a time when most people were fed up with Trump, and far-right views weren't as widespread in public discourse as they are now. He could openly support trans rights without risking backlash from his desired voter base (democrats/centrists sick of Trump). Kamala is running in an increasingly right-leaning America, where she and her team clearly believe she needs Republican and independent votes to win. I get the criticism, and maybe she does have some blind spots on this issue, but the optimist in me wonders if her vagueness isn't about opposing trans rights but avoiding giving Trump's team easy attack points, similar to Obama's approach to gay marriage. Nevertheless, I do see the risks—this strategy to appeal to right-leaning voters could backfire and leave us rebuilding trans rights from scratch if those attitudes persist after the election. It's all a mess right now.

The right was always going to attack her on every matter (as with every Democrat candidate). Who else but the GOP tag teaming her on both flanks on the Palestine issue, spurning ads targeted to Muslims and Jews alike. 

[BOOMBAYAH]

1 minute ago, Marianah Adkins said:

The right was always going to attack her on every matter (as with every Democrat candidate). Who else but the GOP tag teaming her on both flanks on the Palestine issue, spurning ads targeted to Muslims and Jews alike. 

Would you say that since she'll be criticized by the Right regardless of her stance she might as well go fully leftist/progressive?

[noodlelymph]

25 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Well. She's trying to win the election. Any answer can be used in an attack ad. They likely polled it and it probably isn't very popular in swing states. That's just the truth of it. And the liberal democrats live in safe states. She has to win over the centrists in swing states and a state lie PA is tied. Evasive? Maybe. But it's just smart politics to do it until after you are elected and sometimes smart politics is cowardly unfortunately. 

 

25 minutes ago, Harrier said:

It was an highly evasive answer but reading through the lines her answer is obviously yes. There is nothing to fear here she isn't backing away from protecting trans rights. The verbosity is just an attempt to keep transphobic moderate voters on side and avoiding giving Republicans a clip for ads. It's strategy.

 

You can call it cowardly, and it is actually is that yes - but the fear is all about not wanting to lose this election. And I think that is a justified fear

 

 

11 minutes ago, BOOMBAYAH said:

When comparing her stance to Joe's when he was running, I think it's important to consider how the political climate has shifted. Joe campaigned from a solidly left position at a time when most people were fed up with Trump, and far-right views weren't as widespread in public discourse as they are now. He could openly support trans rights without risking backlash from his desired voter base (democrats/centrists sick of Trump). Kamala is running in an increasingly right-leaning America, where she and her team clearly believe she needs Republican and independent votes to win. I get the criticism, and maybe she does have some blind spots on this issue, but the optimist in me wonders if her vagueness isn't about opposing trans rights but avoiding giving Trump's team easy attack points, similar to Obama's approach to gay marriage. Nevertheless, I do see the risks—this strategy to appeal to right-leaning voters could backfire and leave us rebuilding trans rights from scratch if those attitudes persist after the election. It's all a mess right now.

Do y'all ever interrogate just why the political climate is more rightwing on a host of issues??? Could it be because none of the "left" (liberal centrists lbr) politicians ever want to take principled stances on anything or don't continue to heavily promote policy to pull the conversation BACK to the left. (No more Medicare for all instead we get… privatized Medicare) You all can't keep excusing politicians for acting "cowardly" for the purpose of winning elections and then act surprised when rightward trends continue to materialize in politics. Stop making excuses and start demanding more from these actors. This is textbook liberal enabling of fascism, the ratchet effect, etc. happening before our eyes. 

Edited October 25 by noodlelymph

[Harrier]

I just need everyone in this thread to go out and look at the polling, look out how rignt-wing America is on this issue, at the damage the right wing has done. We are not living in 2020, or 2016 where this issue was irrelevant enough that democrats could take a clear stance on it without much repurcussion it has become a political minefield. 

 

Please have a look at this very disturbing polling in this article for example, showing that support for most trans rights outside of the right not to be discriminated against (including on this issue of heallthcare) is basically ****. Gender affirming care for minors is at -24 

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48685-where-americans-stand-on-20-transgender-policy-issues

 

[Harrier]

3 minutes ago, noodlelymph said:

 

 

Do y'all ever interrogate just why the political climate is more rightwing on a host of issues??? Could it be because none of the "left" (liberal centrists lbr) politicians ever want to take principled stances on anything or don't continue to heavily promote policy to pull the conversation BACK to the left. (No more Medicare for all instead we get… privatized Medicare) You all can't keep excusing politicians for acting "cowardly" for the purpose of winning elections and then act surprised when rightward trends continue to materialize in politics. Stop making excuses and start demanding more from these actors. This is textbook liberal enabling of fascism, the ratchet effect, etc. happening before our eyes. 

We are days out from Trump getting back in to office. Now is simply not the time to be dying on moral hills. You know what enables fascism more than slow right wing backsliding? Letting the fascist win the election in a week like how is that not obvious

[BOOMBAYAH]

Just now, noodlelymph said:

 

 

Do y'all ever interrogate just why the political climate is more rightwing on a host of issues??? Could it be because none of the "left" (liberal centrists lbr) politicians ever want to take principled stances on anything or continue to heavily promote policy to pull the conversation BACK to the left. You all can't keep excusing politicians for acting "cowardly" for the purpose of winning elections and then act surprised when rightward trends continue to materialize in politics. Stop making excuses and start demanding more from these actors. This is textbook liberal enabling of fascism, the ratchet effect, etc. happening before our eyes. 

Quote

She and her team clearly believe she needs Republican and independent votes to win.

Quote

I get the criticism, and maybe she does have some blind spots on this issue, but the optimist in me wonders if her vagueness isn't about opposing trans rights but avoiding giving Trump's team easy attack points.

Quote

Nevertheless, I do see the risks—this strategy to appeal to right-leaning voters could backfire and leave us rebuilding trans rights from scratch if those attitudes persist after the election.

I understand and agree with you, but I also made it clear that I don't have all the answers here, and the situation is complex. Kamala going back to her 2019 roots and running left on most issues would likely cost her and the more progressive of the two major parties the election. On one hand, she's trying to win an election in a predominantly right-leaning America, yet on the other, she and her party also need to recognize that they are the left-wing, progressive party and should stay true to that identity - and that their wavering on this identity has in part led to them having to lean more right to win an election. I hope that, once she's elected, she reaffirms her progressive stance and works with her party to undo the damage caused both by them and by right-wing politicians and figures in America.

[noodlelymph]

7 minutes ago, Harrier said:

I just need everyone in this thread to go out and look at the polling, look out how rignt-wing America is on this issue, at the damage the right wing has done. We are not living in 2020, or 2016 where this issue was irrelevant enough that democrats could take a clear stance on it without much repurcussion it has become a political minefield. 

 

Please have a look at this very disturbing polling in this article for example, showing that support for most trans rights outside of the right not to be discriminated against is basically ****.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48685-where-americans-stand-on-20-transgender-policy-issues

 

"I need everyone to look at the polling on how transphobic the US public is to excuse the fact that the second most powerful person in this country refuses to push back on this bigotry despite having a prime opportunity to do so because she needs to appeal to and reaffirm this bigotry to win an election (after which she'll do nothing to change her stance because she STILL received enough support from her allegedly pro-trans base to continue throwing trans people under the bus and because 2028 is the most important election of our lifetime)"

Edited October 25 by noodlelymph

[Harrier]

3 minutes ago, noodlelymph said:

"I need everyone to look at the polling on how transphobic the US public is to excuse the fact that the second most powerful person in this country refuses to push back on this bigotry despite having a prime opportunity to do so because she needs to appeal to and reaffirm this bigotry to win an election"

She did not reaffirm bigotry, she avoided giving bigots a reason to not vote for her by not stating her actual view clearly. That is an important and key difference.

[shyboi]

53 minutes ago, Vermouth said:

Absolutely.

 

Bismarck the late 19th century chancellor of Germany said laws are like sausages: best you don't see how they're made.

 

This election is like that: she has to get over the line, that's all. How, where, why, are irrelevant, but various of interest groups distracting from that goal, at this stage of the game, whinging that their particular angle isn't being prioritised and sugar coated just how they'd like it pretty please, is a distraction from that and a cause for celebration at Mar E Lago.

 

I mean for the naive out there: get over yourselves, if only till a week on Tuesday.

 

[Reginald]

Let's not act like the reason she's pandering to centrists isn't because the far-left abandoned sensibility for fascism. Good luck booking the peace in Gaza you're delusional enough to think will ever happen under the GOP.

 

I'm sure people like OP will be happy to gaslight America into falling for an anti-lgbt dictatorship, which has the exact same goals as the people they're denouncing. 

 

 

Edited October 25 by Reginald

[i spit on haters]

lol, this woman truly stands for nothing and I see more and more everyday why so many voters find it difficult to connect with her and where she falls on various policies. Which ever way the wind ******* blows.

 

Harris and Walz needs to swap places. She's not quite ready to lead. 

[noodlelymph]

8 minutes ago, Harrier said:

We are days out from Trump getting back in to office. Now is simply not the time to be dying on moral hills. You know what enables fascism more than slow right wing backsliding? Letting the fascist win the election in a week like how is that not obvious

It's always going to not be a right time to die on moral hills!!! That's how this game works from liberal centrists who don't have anything to lose. 

[BOOMBAYAH]

5 minutes ago, noodlelymph said:

"I need everyone to look at the polling on how transphobic the US public is to excuse the fact that the second most powerful person in this country refuses to push back on this bigotry despite having a prime opportunity to do so because she needs to appeal to and reaffirm this bigotry to win an election"

What would your answer be in this situation? To me, it sounds like you're angry about something that cannot be rectified in less than two weeks. If Kamala were to outright say she 100% unambiguously supports gender-affirming care and as a result loses the election, would that be better? Would you prefer having Trump in office because you at least know that the former vice president was unambiguous in her stance?

[noodlelymph]

2 minutes ago, Harrier said:

She did not reaffirm bigotry, she avoided giving bigots a reason to not vote for her by not stating her actual view clearly. That is an important and key difference.

Refusing to take a clear pro-trans stance on this is reaffirming that bigotry. "Follow the law" in a country where right wing anti-trans laws are being passed everywhere is reaffirming bigotry. 

[Marianah Adkins]

17 minutes ago, BOOMBAYAH said:

Would you say that since she'll be criticized by the Right regardless of her stance she might as well go fully leftist/progressive?

She can if she wants to. Though really, its all about narratives every election so she should offer an alternate vision of the country supported by her consistent or complementary views. 

The problem with her is she is so inconsistent. She comes off as far too left and right wing at the same time in the eyes of the electorate. 

Really, the reason why she's tanking to a tie with Trump right now is because the GP saw enough and tuned out. Her high lead after the debate was the GP wanting to know more about her after she slayed the debate and after they did know about her, its clear their enthusiasm flattened. 

[Marianah Adkins]

15 minutes ago, Harrier said:

We are days out from Trump getting back in to office. Now is simply not the time to be dying on moral hills. You know what enables fascism more than slow right wing backsliding? Letting the fascist win the election in a week like how is that not obvious

But the thing is that most of the electorate dont see it that way. At the end of the day, voters choose on the basis of their material interest. Defending democracy (as shown in other countries) is a really hard sell especially by unpopular incumbents hence  its falling on deaf ears and by the way they are just haphazardly releasing all these bombshells on Trump, its giving desperation  

 

Its a failure of the Democrats for 1) not being able to figure out how to neutralize his and 2) failing to provide an alternative against Trump's MAGA. The base (Obama coalition) is getting divided and conquered like its 1968 all over again. It is truly electoral malpractice on their part to see how MAGA even managed to expand its support among minorities like….

 

 

[l3disko]

she's pathetic and done in my book.

[noodlelymph]

7 minutes ago, Reginald said:

Let's not act like the reason she's pandering to centrists isn't because the far-left abandoned sensibility for fascism. Good luck booking the peace in Gaza you're delusional enough to think will ever happen under the GOP 

 

Gee it's almost like those pesky anti-genocide far left ppl SENSIBLY recognized a troubling political ideology among the allegedly progressive Dem base/Harris-"look over there at Trump"-voters that ignores relevant issues in service of winning an election. An ideology that cedes political ground to a further emboldened right wing that will proceed to go after the next marginalized community. And here we are: Harris refusing to support gender affirming care for trans people. 

[Bloo]

52 minutes ago, 45seconds said:

Well. She's trying to win the election. Any answer can be used in an attack ad. They likely polled it and it probably isn't very popular in swing states. That's just the truth of it. And the liberal democrats live in safe states. She has to win over the centrists in swing states and a state lie PA is tied. Evasive? Maybe. But it's just smart politics to do it until after you are elected and sometimes smart politics is cowardly unfortunately. 

Here's Kentucky Governor (D), Andy Beshear, talking about trans issues in his re-election year:

 

 

 

Republicans continually tried to tank Beshear's campaign by calling him a supporter of child mutilation over his support of trans people and he didn't waver and won. This excuse she "has to win" is lazy and counter-factual. Standing up for basic civil rights is a winning stance.