This bit, below, is sure to get the attention of Christofascist and Christofascist-adjacent politicians in the US. They don't care at all about the welfare of the citizenry, but they do care about money and power and keeping the funnels of both wide open.
Outside money poured into the race. In the last few months alone, the effort to champion Issue 1 and abortion rights raised nearly $30m, out-raising anti-abortion forces by roughly $20m.
As many have pointed out, the more we keep showing up and voting for these issues, the more they will have to change tact to keep their jobs, Republicans included. Imagine if conservatives were forced to be more progressive simply because they were afraid of losing their cushy government job...
This tends to require pushing the Democrats left first, which unconditionally voting for them will not accomplish because their donors are not unconditionally supportive and those donors are furthermore not urging them to move left.
I think the two would happen simultaneously. When the largest voting bloc consistently votes for LGBTQ rights, when they vote for abortion rights, Dems and Republicans alike will have to follow suit or die on those hills.
Here's the problem: What do you mean "voting for" those things? Very little policy is done by referendum. What do you do when both Rs and Ds are rightists with different wording?
You look at their voting record and public statements, and vote for the one that is most likely to support legislation and policies that align with your values. That's what I mean by "voting for."
I'm not saying this is something we'll have direct input into every time, like the Ohio abortion one that just happened, and I'm not saying it will happen even in this next year; we are going to have to vote for candidates who are least objectionable. It's going to take many cycles of voting locally and federally to correct this ship that is listing hard to the right.
ETA: Besides Manchin and Sinema, who are going independent anyway, which examples of Dems are Republicans with a D in front of their name?
You look at their voting record and public statements, and vote for the one that is most likely to support legislation and policies that align with your values. That's what I mean by "voting for."
So if it's essentially a certainty that they won't, what do you do in the general?
ETA: Besides Manchin and Sinema, who are going independent anyway, which examples of Dems are Republicans with a D in front of their name?
So if it's essentially a certainty that they won't, what do you do in the general?
You vote for the least objectionable. We don't always get everything we want. Welcome to life, brought to you by unrelenting determinism.
Are you forgetting about uncle Joe?
I already mentioned Joe Manchin, so do you mean Biden? Because he's been way more progressive than even many of his Congressional cohorts. Not that he's still not mostly center-right and a self-avowed Zionist, but I don't think it's fair to pretend he's a Republican in Democrat clothing.
You vote for the least objectionable. We don't always get everything we want. Welcome to life, brought to you by unrelenting determinism.
And immediately back to the Adult in the Room bullshit. If you support the Lesser Evil unconditionally, you can't change their position. They would be a fool to do anything but take your support for granted, so what the fuck should they care what you think or that you want them to move left? You talk like your perspective is mature, but you're being strung along with the most astonishing naiveté.
This bit, below, is sure to get the attention of Christofascist and Christofascist-adjacent politicians in the US. They don't care at all about the welfare of the citizenry, but they do care about money and power and keeping the funnels of both wide open.
Gotta keep the tap of cheap labour flowing (by preventing sex education, contraceptives, and abortion)
As many have pointed out, the more we keep showing up and voting for these issues, the more they will have to change tact to keep their jobs, Republicans included. Imagine if conservatives were forced to be more progressive simply because they were afraid of losing their cushy government job...
This tends to require pushing the Democrats left first, which unconditionally voting for them will not accomplish because their donors are not unconditionally supportive and those donors are furthermore not urging them to move left.
I think the two would happen simultaneously. When the largest voting bloc consistently votes for LGBTQ rights, when they vote for abortion rights, Dems and Republicans alike will have to follow suit or die on those hills.
Keyword there is "consistently."
Here's the problem: What do you mean "voting for" those things? Very little policy is done by referendum. What do you do when both Rs and Ds are rightists with different wording?
You look at their voting record and public statements, and vote for the one that is most likely to support legislation and policies that align with your values. That's what I mean by "voting for."
I'm not saying this is something we'll have direct input into every time, like the Ohio abortion one that just happened, and I'm not saying it will happen even in this next year; we are going to have to vote for candidates who are least objectionable. It's going to take many cycles of voting locally and federally to correct this ship that is listing hard to the right.
ETA: Besides Manchin and Sinema, who are going independent anyway, which examples of Dems are Republicans with a D in front of their name?
So if it's essentially a certainty that they won't, what do you do in the general?
Are you forgetting about uncle Joe?
You vote for the least objectionable. We don't always get everything we want. Welcome to life, brought to you by unrelenting determinism.
I already mentioned Joe Manchin, so do you mean Biden? Because he's been way more progressive than even many of his Congressional cohorts. Not that he's still not mostly center-right and a self-avowed Zionist, but I don't think it's fair to pretend he's a Republican in Democrat clothing.
And immediately back to the Adult in the Room bullshit. If you support the Lesser Evil unconditionally, you can't change their position. They would be a fool to do anything but take your support for granted, so what the fuck should they care what you think or that you want them to move left? You talk like your perspective is mature, but you're being strung along with the most astonishing naiveté.