532
They need huge money to win big elections. Huge money hates working class.
Because unfortunately as much as the "both sides" thing is generally bullshit, our oligarchs have corrupted the entire system. The government mostly only works for them now. That being said Democrats are still the only party doing anything for us. Meh
Because unfortunately as much as the “both sides” thing is generally bullshit, our oligarchs have corrupted the entire system.
Make it make sense.
Saying "both are the same" isn't correct in most cases, but when it comes to class war, both parties are generally captured by capital to a similar degree.
So why are you part of it?
"If capitalism bad why you buy stuff" ass question
The Ds couldn't even be bothered to increase minimum wage under Biden... his very platform.
They didn't even try a standalone bill. No "nuclear option" to pass with simple majority.
Mamdani is right (and Bernie, and AOC)! We haven't had a labor party for 50 years; we have two corporate parties, one is religious and one is secular flavored.
Labor was fucked in USA before AI, now? I don't think we're coming back from this, it's rotten to the core. I hope I'm wrong.
Citizens United for the win
I'll grant that they didn't even try for a standalone minimum wage increase. I'd be curious to know how that would go too. But it was meant to go into one of the earlier spending bills that had to be passable by a simple majority. Those kinds of bills have certain requirements, or else they're subject to the fucked up filibuster rules the Senate has.
The Senate parliamentarian ruled that a minimum wage increase was more than a budget change and did not fit those requirements. I thought Democrats' argument that it affected revenue via resulting taxes and therefore budgeting was a reasonable one, but it didn't quite fly.
Anyway, to say "the Ds couldn't even be bothered to increase minimum wage under Biden" is a little disingenuous IMO. They did make one honest effort, at least, and anything else was pretty much doomed.
That's the thing. Obstruction is so much easier. So Republicans have been able to stop most of the progress we would have made.
I hope I’m alive when this guy becomes president.
If they can ratify an amendment that allows naturalized citizens to run, that is.
We got a rapist in office. Why should we give a shit about law, if it is solely in service to evil?
Yeah I forgot about that part.
I wish he would say the quiet part out loud:
They have been compromised and infected by money. The only solution is to make bribery illegal again.
But that would be antisemitic.
Bribery is now free speech
Bribery? You mean capitalism?
Well he's not wrong
No shit, it's always about the donors. But pay attention, how did we get Mamdani? NYC has one of the most generous donation matching programs. For mayor a donation gets matched 8 to 1. Donation matching was in the For The People Act.
I’d love to see some blue governors balancing their budgets. It’s a good look.
Did it ever actually have a true genuine focus on working people?
Democrats have given up on the working class in favor of identity politics. They can't see through any other lens except the one that sees white people as oppressors and every other group as deserving of everything we can give them to make up for this "injustice". A good example is trans rights in sports. It seems fairly obvious to me that a trans woman should not be able to compete in women's sports simply because of the biological advantage of having a male body. Yet democrats blindly insist that trans women have a right to do anything an actual female can do. And liberals are also condescending towards anyone who disagrees with their views. Rather than thinking 'that's actually a valid point I should consider' it's always 'you'll eventually come around to seeing things the right way, like I do'.
Don't breed
"I believe Democrats believe exactly what Fox News says they believe" would have been a more succinct, more honest post.
Wow, you just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about do you? Is vomiting fox news talking points all that Republicans can do nowadays? Do better.
A good example is trans rights in sports. It seems fairly obvious to me...
While your larger point is worthwhile, this part is indistinguishable from the positions where it "seemed obvious" that africans not as smart as europeans, or that women were not as mature as men, or that the poor were less deserving of the rich.
Trans women who go through HRT are essentially indisinqyusihable in ability from Cis women. There may be a reasonable bar in some sports for trans girls who are old enough to have undergone male puberty and aren't on HRT or puberty blockers, but blanket bans aren't at all supported by science.
Personally, my response is "these are children." Yes, our daughters should be free from being assaulted by fully mature men. But so should our sons.
I agreed with the post until there might be a reasonable bar part. When a person switches hormones the body follows. The whole concern about trans folks is also truly rooted in bigotry, not sportsmanship. Let’s not forget that part.
What I mean when I say 'it seems obvious to me' is that based on the results of reputable scientific investigation it seems clear that trans women retain some degree of biological advantage over people born female.
Which studies? Done with what methodology? And what are the rebuttals against their claims? Did the study differentiate trans women who are not on HRT, newly on HRT, and on HRT past the several year adjustment period? Same question, for age at which HRT or puberty blockers began. And does the reported difference fall outside the expected range for feminine athletes? Did the study include a group of cis boys or cis men as contrast? Were trans boys and trans men also included to show the presumable equivalent disadvantage?
There have been some infamous studies recently done by transphobes and cited as evidence of their bigoted viewpoint. Science thankfully doesn't itself care about politics and these studies will either be refuted or confirmed as more science is done.
And as I alluded to before, even if merely having been assigned male at birth gave some advantage in competitive sport, that advantage is entirely irrelevant to scholastic activities and only relevant to professional conpetitions if it puts trans women substantially outside the range of expected competitors.
"That advantage is entirely irrelevant to scholastic activities". Did anything I say have anything at all to do with academics?
The studies I reference are Strength, power and aerobic capacity of transgender athletes: a cross-sectional study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine (2024), Body composition, exercise-related performance parameters and associated health factors of transgender women, cisgender women and cisgender men volleyball players by the NHI (2024), and Transsexuals and competitive sports in the European Journal of Endocrinology (2004). You can look up what you want to about each. Though the results generally say that strength metrics equalize over time, some skeletal metrics and residual lean mass differences remain even after several years of hormone therapy.
And since you decided to focus only on the trans issue in my comment I should remind you the thrust of my argument was in regards to Democrats putting identity politics before good governance.
Did anything I say have anything at all to do with academics?
Yes. In America -- the country which the Democrats are a political faction of -- the only places where government has standing to regulate the specifics of sport as such are in those leagues attached to schools. Professional and recreational leagues are only governed by employment and public-access law.
~(You're free to, say, create a private club that allows only white men and play whatever games you want. You just won't get any tax breaks or liability protection, and would have a hard time renting stadiums or selling coverage of your matches)~
And since you decided to focus only on the trans issue in my comment I should remind you the thrust of my argument was in regards to Democrats putting identity politics before good governance
I'm sorry, I thought my position on the matter was clearly While you may have a valid point regarding the democratic party's over-reliance on identity based anti-bigotry and their messaging to non-aligned voters, the sole supporting example you provided of either was phrased in a way that I found so odious and wrong-headed as to render whatever else you said irrelevant.
Throwing minorities under the bus is neither good governance nor good politics. Especially when said minority is facing prohibitions so ornerous that they could be fairly described as genocidal.
~(Although genocide is not strictly possible for any LGBTQ+ letter since trans and queer humans have existed for as long as humans have and would reappar naturally even if you killed every last living example.)~
Science doesn’t support your belief that trans women have physical advantages. Do you understand the role that hormones have and the effects on the body?
it’s always ‘you’ll eventually come around to seeing things the right way, like I do’.
Have you heard the phrase "irreconcilable differences"? It's argued this way because support for trans rights, abortion, human rights in general, or fascism versus democracy are not negotiable positions. There's no middle ground or compromise that can be made on issues like these. I agree with you though that the Democrat party does not actually represent the working class.
AGREED! YOU are Right and EVERYONE else is WRONG! Which is EXACTLY why Democrats with YOUR Viewpoint keep ~~WINNING!~~
I believe the condescension you mentioned is real, but it’s magnified tenfold because we're all trapped in media echo chambers. Most normal people aren't obsessing over these niche topics, but the media and political machines weaponize them to keep us divided.
It perfectly exposes the hypocrisy on free speech on both sides. The left’s online gatekeepers treat disagreement as a moral failing, effectively chilling free speech through social conformity. On the flip side, the right screams about censorship while using state power to ban books, police classroom speech and insist that Christianity is the only acceptable religion. Both parties rely on these culture wars to control what we can say and think, all while abandoning any real, material help for the working class.
Republicans have just done a better job of identifying the issues facing everyday people and campaigning on them, but they rarely have a plan to actually fix them. Spencer Pratt's website for LA mayor is a great example of this. While he highlights the exact issues hurting regular people, there is zero substance or realistic plan on how any of it actually gets done.
You're absolutely right that most people wouldn't give a second thought to these topics if right wing media, in particular, makes it seem like these issues are the most important things in the world and society will collapse if we don't do something.
It's sad you got so downvoted and only had one reasonable reply. Trans people should be free to do what they want of course but I find it hard to disagree with you in that they would have a biological advantage in certain sports. But I'm sure it can work both ways, a trans man could have a biological advantage in other areas. But like the other person said, no one really cares about those things except the media.
In Alabama, when they were considering bans on youth transgender therapy, one of the GOP senators made them do a study. It turned out that over the past decade there were, on average, something like 5 minors undergoing any kind of gender-affirming treatment. 5. In the whole state of Alabama. They decided it wasn't worth implementing a whole government oversight system to oppress that few people.
Now think about how many of the people, under 18, are both self-aware enough to realize they're trans-fem (because no one raises a fuss about trans-masc athletes) and super excited about competing in women's sports. We are talking about a handful of people across the whole country.
And that's what makes them such a great wedge issue for the right. Essentially no one has personally encountered a transgender youth athlete, so they can make up whatever stories they like, based on "sounds reasonable."
Meanwhile, competitive sport is essentially all about rewarding genetic freaks. People with some gene mutation that lets their muscles work faster, lets their blood carry more oxygen, lets the build mass faster. If you worry about the biological advantage that a chemically suppressed hormone might have, you're starting down a path where you have to police what other biological traits might give someone advantage. It'll be "too tall to compete in basketball."
just want to note that trans masc athletes are de facto banned from all competitive sports because they take testosterone, a performance enhancing substance that disqualifies them from competing. thats why no one talks about them. as soon as you think about including trans mascs in mens sports you open up a whole messy can of worms about policing hormone levels, which spills over into womens sports and leads to a fundamental reexamination of sport as a whole, leading back to your point about sports rewarding inherent genetic advantages.
honestly i think sports and structured competition in general is fundamentally flawed. taken to its logical conclusion it becomes a technological competition, which people introduce more and more convoluted rules to prevent, ultimately undermining and corrupting the original purpose of the competition. you can see it in every single sport; swimming banning fancy suits and swimming underwater too far, cycling banning aerodynamic optimization, running banning fancy shoes, vehicle racing banning all kinds of technology, etc. every sport runs into it eventually, and our bodies are just the next untapped frontier for technological improvement. taken to its logical conclusion one questions why we bother with sports at all, if we aren't going to seek ever greater improvements.
Reality is non consistent with your claims of biological advantage.
Thank you.
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
532 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29987 readers
2116 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS