593
submitted 7 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 272 points 7 months ago

Good. Fuck you and fuck off. The fact that you lost to a queer person is just icing on the cake.

Don't call yourself a Democrat and be blatantly anti-trans. Of course you're going to lose, you moron.

[-] dethedrus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 7 months ago

That just makes my day. Maybe even my whole week.

Piss off ye regressive in Democrat clothing.

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 123 points 7 months ago

Thierry’s district ... is not a swing district. ... Previously, Thierry had beaten a Libertarian candidate 87%-13%, with no Republican running in the race.

In case anyone thought this might have been a tactical ploy by a dem in a heavily republican area, it was not. Just a crazy person shooting themself in the foot with their own cruel thoughts.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

Literally no excuse

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Thanks, I was wondering exactly that.

[-] LadyAutumn 51 points 7 months ago

A big hearty fuck you and fuck off to her. The Overton window has not moved that far. The gap has just widened as the conservative right moves into open fascism.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 46 points 7 months ago

Always nice to see a bigot lose

[-] psvrh@lemmy.ca 42 points 7 months ago

If Democrats want change, this is how to do it:

  1. Win general elections; vote blue no matter who. 2 Primary out the corporatist candidates every chance there is, right down to the level of school trustee.

This actually works, as we've seen with the GOP and their turn to rabid fascism. It can also work for good.

[-] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 24 points 7 months ago

This is hard in some races. I just had to do a bunch of digging to figure out which state supreme court candidates were secretly Republicans because they're all required to run as unaffiliated and pretend not to be biased. So they all make the same damn comments about judicial overreach but one is talking about preserving our democracy by preventing it and one is talking about imploding our democracy by doing it. My head hurts but I figured it out omfg.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

That's great to hear! Few people vote in those elections so your informed vote matters much more.

[-] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago

I mean it's only the primary I hope people actually vote in the general? But it's incredibly frustrating to vote for judges. As if we're all so stupid as to think they're above political bias in this day and age.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Win general elections; vote blue no matter who.

Staunchly supporting Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez during the general and then getting very confused when my party loses in a landslide two years later.

[-] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 37 points 7 months ago

arguing that conversion therapy was the true solution to gender dysphoria

"Abuse is the solution"

[-] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

I think she ment to say "final solution"

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Can’t transition if you kill yourself

Which incidentally I’ve said to talk teenagers out of suicide

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Ah the classic "Beat the gay away".

Tried for over 70 years by American bigots and still not succeeding in doing anything but causing extreme anguish. but its the right wingers we're talking about, so the suffering is the point.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Real Uncle Tom energy to the suggestion that you can whip people straight.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

"The beatings will continue until mental health is improved."

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 35 points 7 months ago

Diet Republican will always lose, Glad a real progressive took your place.

[-] emzili@programming.dev 35 points 7 months ago

When asked about her anti-trans votes, [Thierry] called gender-affirming care “Black genocide.”

Does anybody even know what this is supposed to mean??

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

I’ve heard that stance used for abortion, so I assume it’s a statement trying to equate consensual sterilization (which shouldn’t be required to transition, but sometimes is) to the history of nonconsentual sterilization of people of color in America.

Now it’s a batshit take, but I’ve found transphobes tend to use whatever legitimate grievances they have against anybody and slap it on trans people.

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago

The only way in which I can try and make some sense of it would be if a black person, who's mostly in an environment where there's mostly black people, and therefore the majority of or the only trans people they know are black, thinks that non-black trans people are insignificant, and that trans people can't ever have children.

Personally, I'm grading this conspiracy theory with a F. Grifters used to put in more effort back in my days.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 7 months ago

Grifters used to put in more effort back in my days.

Trump showed them they didn't have to.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

This is politics. You don't have to say things that mean anything as long as they sound good.

[-] fiercekitten@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

You’re so right and it’s so depressing.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's roughly the same as swatting criticism of the Zionist Genocide by claiming that said criticism is anti-semitic - it conflates two quite different groups (in one case Jews and Zionists, in this case LGBT and Blacks) in order to weaponize the humanist moral position about the treatment of one of those groups to stop criticism of immoral actions by or (in this case) against a different group.

This is quite a common element of the gaslighting which is so typical of Liberal politics (a very common example is female liberal politicians defending the kind of legislation that will hurt the poor claiming that criticism of their position is due to their gender), though this specific example is an especially exagerated and ridiculous version.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

The real story:

Democratic primary 2020, total votes: 14,263.

Democratic primary 2024 total votes (before run-off): 12,761.

~10% drop in Democratic primary voters (reliable D's).

Lauren Ashley Simmons will win this district, but the things that is telling is the drop in voter engagement. These are the only data points we'll be getting on this going into the election.

But a 10% drop in reliable D's electoral engagement should be more than concering to Democrats.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago

Primary runoff elections were held on some random Tuesday, just after a recent election on property taxes and other local issues. If you want voter turnout, elections need to be held on consistent days every year, and not some weird date pulled out of a hat when voters already just went to the polls.

Better yet, give us ranked choice primaries so there aren’t any runoffs.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

I mean, those are fine editorials, but the data is what the data is.

This isn't the only data point. Democratic voter engagement is depressed when compared with 2020.

We're only going to get a few more of these before the big game, and we should weight them more heavily than typical polling.

[-] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Maybe the dems should try to do better than "slightly better than Trump "

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I mean that's what the polling data is showing us.

Its a bit dated, but this specific type of poll is less common:

But some have spotlighted a potential saving grace for Democrats. In addition to showing Trump ahead by an average of four percentage points, the poll asked voters about a race without Biden. An unnamed “Democratic candidate” shifts the race by 12 points on the margins, turning a four-point Democratic deficit against Trump into an eight-point lead, 48 percent to 40 percent.

Whats really, really, REALLY interesting to me about this is that it ends up with the same 12 point spread that actually appeared previously in the differential polling error associated with the 2020 election. In that election, Biden was +12 going into the election (composite of polls October/ November), and basically tied.

Biden ended up under-performing his polling by an average of 4 points, and Trump over-performed his polling by an average of 8 points.

So if you swap out Biden for "Generic Democrat", you cover, almost precisely, how much so we expect Biden to under-perform his polling come November.

I mean, Biden should have been grooming Buttigieg, grooming Kamela. We've got Elizebeth Warren, we've got Gretchen Whitmer, we've got Nina Turner. Ron Wyden, Jay Inslee, even Gavin Newsom (although he is not super popular).

I mean shit you really want to fuck with the opposition? Fucking run Laura Kelly, Democratic governor of Kansas. She can run on abortion as a right, based on her recent striking down of the anti-abortion legislation there.

Like the bench is deep for popular Democrats if you put even a bit of effort into collating a list.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Unfortunately the party isn't interested in winning, it desperately wants to keep the status quo as much as possible, which is why we got biden in the first place.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

By which I mean that I totally agree, but am also exasperated.

The only way I think we can change things is to get the dummy-thicc blue-no-matter-who crowd to realize and give up on Biden as a candidate. We can't even really start the conversation with him still in the room. Move the electorate and, more importantly, the media landscape; have them come to terms with this, we can take it to the convention and see what happens.

I called this super far out, like, 8 months ago? 10 months ago? If Lemmy had a decent way to search my comments I could find it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hegar@kbin.social 13 points 7 months ago

I agree that dems have cause for concern broadly, but I'm not sure that a 10% drop during an uncontested incumbent primary translates to a "10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement".

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Just another data point.

Put it on the pile.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yep, data from the 146th.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Lauren Ashley Simmons will win this district, but the things that is telling is the drop in voter engagement.

Negative campaigns often depress voter turnout. In this case, you've got a candidate espousing some really vile beliefs. Folks who aren't enthusiastic about the incumbent and don't know much about the challenger stay home as a result.

But a 10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement should be more than concering to Democrats.

In Texas its something of a push. But Texas Democrats love putting up shitty milquetoast moderate candidates and then getting rolled in the general election.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Its the same district, same primary, slightly different slate of candidates.

Its about as close to a controlled experiment as you'll ever get in politics.

But Texas Democrats love putting up shitty milquetoast moderate candidates and then getting rolled in the general election.

Aint that the theme. The number of shitty rightwing Democrats being handed safe blue districts is ridiculous. Its a good thing that in this district in particular, its a pretty left-wing candidate.

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

(reliable D’s).

heheheh

[-] nick@midwest.social 10 points 7 months ago

Good. Rest in piss you fuck.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

This is in the Texas House of Representatives (Houston).

[-] Catoblepas 6 points 7 months ago

Do we still do crab rave?

🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

We try, we try...

[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

What are the odds she will vote republican?

[-] VerticaGG 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Thag's rich conzidering Queerphobic, Racist Comstock laws. Literally projection.

Between these two episodes (i think these are the relevant entries, may be more) the realities, contrast to this politician's disinformation, are explored in depth:

1: Death Panel Podcast: Statues of Limitations https://m.soundcloud.com/deathpanel/teaser-statutes-of-limitation-w-melissa-gira-grant-042423 https://m.soundcloud.com/deathpanel/statutes-of-limitation-w-melissa-gira-grant-unlocked I'll edit in a quote/excerpt which iirc is what we should be doing rather than having to be getting caught up debunking disinformation from bad-faith actors like the incumbent

2: Death Panel Podcast: The Comstock Mindset https://m.soundcloud.com/deathpanel/the-comstock-mindset-w-melissa-gira-grant-032824

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

She looks like my mom

Actually..

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
593 points (100.0% liked)

News

23916 readers
3014 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS