cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13118934
Josh Turek of Iowa, Democrat, comes out with one of the worst anti-trans ads yet.
Not only is it an anti-sports ad, it proposes a ban on federal funding for gender affirming care. That would hit all medicaid and medicare patients, and any ACA federally-subsidized plans as well.
Wild you’re not complaining about the Republican…
Considering her main platform for Senate has been wanting to make anti-trans federal law…
Other than that she’s only known for protecting the Epstein class and voting to keep records secret.
If you think Dems might be lying, why is that worse to you then Republicans openly trying to do it?
Why would I complain about the republican on a forum that’s already staunchly anti-republican? It’s not really necessary, but there are a lot of people here that might not be aware about the ongoing capitulation of democrats to the republicans on trans rights. Or think it’s not such a big deal.
Again, that is based on your assumptions about what they mean, which is obvioused flavored by twiiter and/or .ml. two places widely known for propaganda against progress and explicitly LGBTQ issues.
Which always seem to ignore that Republicans are openly worse in every regard, openly say they want what you’re afraid of, and definitely want even worse than they’ll say publicly
Like, what the fuck is your goal two weeks before an election besides trying to help Republicans hold onto a Senate majority?
Yeah, obviously. As is your counter-argument. The difference between us is that he is literally saying what I think he is saying, whereas you assume he is playing some trick to get the maga vote based on something you won’t share or even mention.
You’re insisting you’re assumption has to be right, and all I’ve done is point out that you literally agree with what he said:
Any male that transitions isn’t a male. A male that transitioned to female, is now female.
That’s what those words mean, literally.
You’re the one insisting the way he used those words is how a Republican uses them, and ignoring the only other option for this seat has no confusion around their stance. It’s worse than you think the Dem might be.
So what is the point of any of what you’re doing besides helping republicans and trump?
So are you 🙂 Why wouldn’t I keep insisting on this in the face of no evidence to the contrary? I keep repeatedly asking for you to give me anything but you either refuse to or more likely lack it.
Yes if we ignore all of the context of these phrases in the political arena, the baggage they carry and what they are being used to push for in legislation and only focus on the literal meaning in the way I would use them then I agree I guess. But it isn’t even me using them so it already falls flat even by that standard. Do you really not understand that “he is only sieg heiling to secure the klan vote, he obviously isn’t hailing a nazi victory but a dem victory” is a really shit argument when you have nothing (0) to back that up?
No, I’ve said that could be the option, and walked you through what the sentence means multiple times…
But logic just isn’t working here
I assume someone as well versed in logic as you has heard of occam’s razor (jk I think you are a reddit-tier debatelord and am sure you have heard of it and can rattle of a whole bunch of logical fallacies without even being able to give a definition of what an argument is).
What’s more is that this isn’t a logic debate, you are trying to convince me that I’m wrong and the man saying transphobic shit isn’t actually a transphobe. How do you hope to succeed if you don’t offer anything tangible? Your entire argument is “it could also be a clever ruse to use a dog-whistle to catch some votes without actually saying anything literally wrong” which sounds incredibly implausible to me, so you will have to offer something other than a “nuh-uh” if you hope to change my mind and convince me of this thing that, to me, sounds incredibly far-fetched.
You should see their rants on how the neoliberals are out of the dnc/dnc is improving