Reply to What exactly is the democratic party going to stand for in 2026 and 2028?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What exactly is the democratic party going to stand for in 2026 and 2028?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Another thread taken over by republicans who think all democrats care about is trans issues. Notice that it’s the republicans bringing it up all the time. You think it is the center of the democratic platform because Trump told you so. Nobody is trying to “push men into women’s spaces.” Democrats simply think most of these issues are not federal cases!

Democrats think it is none of our business what pronouns people use. Why do you care so much? You don’t have to like it, but that doesn’t mean you need to run to the feds. Maybe you work with someone who uses they/them and you don’t want to comply. Ok, fine. It is actually pretty easy to avoid third person pronouns all together. I have relatives you don’t want to use they/them for a non-binary relative. They just avoid it by using their name all the time. So maybe try that simple solution rather than pushing for legislation?

[b]There’s been very few cases of trans women competing in HS sports. Why shouldn’t this be handled locally on a case-by-case basis? There are many factors that should be considered, such as hormone levels. It simply isn’t a an issue that is prevalent enough to need federal attention. It especially shouldn’t be a major factor in determining who you vote for. [/b]

I keep hearing republicans talk about all these little girls being raped by trans women in public restrooms. Personally, I have never heard of this happening. Maybe we can get some numbers to compare sexual assaults in bathrooms carried out by cis men vs trans women? Why do we not care about little boys being assaulted in men’s restrooms?

Republicans need to learn to deal with things without running to their orange god to make all their problems go away. Please. Go back to being the party of small government. Stop running to Daddy Warbucks every time you encounter someone different from you. [/quote]

I’m going to ignore the rest of your circa 2018 rambling but as to the bolded, the answer is that Title IX is a federal, not state law. Therefore, where Title IX is concerned, federal involvement is appropriate.

This issue is one of directly conflicting legal rights under the Constitution, federal, and state law. Roughly speaking, the Democrats take the position that gender-based rights are more important than sex-based rights while the Republicans take the opposite position. It is idiotic to demand local sports organizations solve complex legal problems. Your recommendation will fail because it’s stupid and not workable in real life. Asking your local AYSO board to solve a question of competing legal rights is dumb. That is what courts are for, and that is why this will eventually be resolved at the federal level.

I actually agree with the people who say this won’t decide the 2026 and 2028 elections. It won’t. But it is deeply hurting the Democratic brand now, because the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue and on the wrong side of history here, and the Democrats can’t afford to keep tarnishing their brand if they want to regularly win. I see no Democrat right now that is close to being able to take on JD Vance because the Democratic brand is so toxic, and that is pathetic.

We will see what happens when [i]Skremetti[/i] issues. If it goes the way I think, it will be a blessing in disguise for Democrats. They will be able to make the obligatory noises to satisfy the unhinged blue cultists, but won’t have to go out on the campaign trail fighting for a morally and ethically wrong position, which is what they have to do now on this issue. It might be the beginning of their long climb out of this hole. [/quote]

You think that they can’t take on JD Vance because the DEMOCRATS are too toxic?  Ok, let’s go with that, I like our odds.[/quote]

You are a blue cultist. You still think it’s 2018. Your assessment of reality is not solid. [/quote]

It's 2025. We have the same POTUS in office who was in office in 2018. That sitting POTUS, as an incumbent, LOST in 2020 to one of the weakest major party nominees in American history because he was a very, very unpopular sitting POTUS. Outlooks can change as Trump's second term evolves but to suggest it more likely for the GOP to be in a politically advantageous position in 2028 than the Dems is as ludicrous based on what we all saw happen in 2020 and 2024.

Vance, if the 2028 GOP nominee, will benefit from having a high floor of support carry over from the 30% to 35% of the electorate who make up Trump's loyal base but he is very likely to face a swing voter portion of the electorate seeking change from status quo just as the incumbent parties faced in 2020 and 2024. To retain support from a majority of the swing voters who determine POTUS election outcomes, the sitting POTUS needs to be a relatively popular POTUS. It's possible Trump could be relatively popular in 2028 but it's much more likely an even more unfit 82 year old Trump will be as unpopular in 2028 and he was in 2020.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics