• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

What did Democrats do wrong?

What did Democrats do wrong?

  • Didn't fight inflation enough.

    Votes: 12 18.5%

  • Didn't fight illegal immigration enough.

    Votes: 19 29.2%

  • Too much focus on abortion.

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Too much transgender stuff.

    Votes: 26 40.0%

  • America not ready for Progressive women leader.

    Votes: 22 33.8%

  • Should have kept Joe.

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Not enough focus on new jobs.

    Votes: 2 3.1%

  • Nothing, Trump cheated & played dirty!

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • Didn't stop Gaza War.

    Votes: 6 9.2%

  • I can be Agent M.

    Votes: 5 7.7%
  • Total voters
    65
Good thing we're getting rid of the department that enforces Title IX. That will save women's sports! Because that's all Title IX does, right?


right?
 
Donal said:
Good thing we're getting rid of the department that enforces Title IX.
Click to expand...
Title IX was passed in 1972. The Department of Education was created in 1980. Title IX does not rely upon the existence of the Department of Education. It never did.
 
That's like saying presidential protection does not rely upon the existence of the Secret Service. Presidents were around before the creation of the Secret Service. Your silly distraction belongs in the thread for such bigotry.

Again, this is all a distraction to push a neofeudalistic agenda wrapped in white supremacist dog whistles.

The biggest problem with the Democrats continues to be their inability to accept just how awful the opposition is.
 
Donal said:
That's like saying presidential protection does not rely upon the existence of the Secret Service.
Click to expand...
What's funny about this is you think it's a counter-argument. But it's not a counter-argument, because it's true. The Secret Service wasn't created to protect the president, that was only a duty tacked on later. And there is absolutely no reason that duty couldn't be taken over by a different agency. You could easily have the FBI or the Federal Marshals take over those duties.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Reformed Offlian said:
The improper payment rate noted in the factsheet for Medicaid is even lower than that of Medicare Part C. Is that because it's even more privately administered?
Click to expand...

Medicare FFS in my source was 7.66%. Medicare Part C was 5.61%. I'm not sure why you think 7.66% is less than 5.61%.
Click to expand...

Follow-up: I indeed misread your post.

Yes, Medicaid is privately administered.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes. Approximately 50% of the population is female. Not exactly, but close enough for this discussion.
Click to expand...
But it's the female half of the population and, as we all know, the feelings and needs of even a tiny percentage of males have always, and should always, take priority over the feelings and needs of any number of females. Better that no female rape victim ever go to the gym again for fear of finding herself alone in the women's showers with a naked male than a single male have his feelings hurt by being required to use the men's showers when he would prefer to use the women's.
 
How often has that happened, ever, because of transgender bathroom rules?

I might be wrong, but it seems that the biggest damage to women is being done by a media making a profit of keeping women in constant dread of something that probably will never happen, and when it does will not play out the way scaremongers say.
 
Last edited:
Female survivors of male sexual abuse do not need the media to encourage them to be in constant dread of something which has already happened. I speak from experience. The loss of female safe spaces (the inevitable consequence of acceding to trans rights activists demands for self ID) would have a significant effect on many women's perceived safety in public places, regardless of the number of incidents which directly resulted. But I'm sure we'll soon be told that this discussion belongs in The Other Thread.

On topic: I don't believe this issue was a major contributor to the Dems loss of the election but I do worry that ordinary voters, who understand perfectly well why sex segregated spaces and sports leagues are needed, might start to wonder about the logic behind other progressive positions.
 
We have very clear data about sexual abuse/assault, and statistically, the scenario presented of a transgender women in a bathroom being the perpetrator effectively never happens.
I think that focusing on this issue makes it easier to cover up sexual violence in relationships, sports or religious organizations. And it is very clearly aimed to justify violence against the TG community, which already is the most at-risk group there is.

I do want to make sure that you know that I am taking your concerns very seriously. I just want to make sure that in your fear about a TG woman in a bathroom with you does not make you more susceptible to overlooking or even suffering sexual abuse from the people thousands of times more likely to do so.

I think that it would make a lot of women far safer if the effort put into demonizing the TG community was put into calling out spousal abuse and the other daily cases of sexual violence about women - at this point, it's a 80/20 question, and by focusing on TG issues we are making women less, not more safe by misdirecting our efforts.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
We have very clear data about sexual abuse/assault, and statistically, the scenario presented of a transgender women in a bathroom being the perpetrator effectively never happens.
Click to expand...

That is debatable but irrelevant as self ID means that any male, not just those who are genuinely transgender, could walk into any female safe space, which is why there would effectively no longer be any such thing. But again: this is not the right thread for this discussion.
 
Ziggurat said:
What's funny about this is you think it's a counter-argument. But it's not a counter-argument, because it's true. The Secret Service wasn't created to protect the president, that was only a duty tacked on later. And there is absolutely no reason that duty couldn't be taken over by a different agency. You could easily have the FBI or the Federal Marshals take over those duties.
Click to expand...
not really. Just because you don't understand the role an entity plays does not mean the entity is useless. "You could easily have someone else take that duty" is a take from someone who doesn't do that job.

But if you want a better analogy, the Department of Defense. We had a full-time Navy and a standing Army (of sorts) well before we even had a War Department. I guess the department of Agriculture can do it in your world.
 
Donal said:
not really. Just because you don't understand the role an entity plays does not mean the entity is useless.
Click to expand...
Oh, I never said it was useless. But there is a difference between being useful and being necessary. The idea that no one would protect the president without the secret service is stupid and wrong. The idea that title IX can't be enforced without the dept. of Ed. is stupid and wrong. You have to go deeper than that if you want to argue for its continued existence.
 
Echoing Donal and bringing this back around to the thread topic in terms of what voters wanted that Democrats didn’t deliver, the idea that the Trump voters give a single ◊◊◊◊ about the safety of women remains laughable.
 
johnny karate said:
Echoing Donal and bringing this back around to the thread topic in terms of what voters wanted that Democrats didn’t deliver, the idea that the Trump voters give a single ◊◊◊◊ about the safety of women remains laughable.
Click to expand...
Bringing it back laboriously to the thread topic: what did democrats do wrong? Nothing. They were what they were, and were outnumbered.

I mean, Biden kicked ass in 2020. What was his message? "I'm not Trump and I'm kinda business as usual". And he kicked wholesale ass with that message. It didn't work this time. Why not? The eligible voters didn't show again. Are they inspired to get out and vote because of a slick partisan platform and presentation, or by watching the news? I think the latter. People react to the economy more than anything else (die hard party line voters excepted, of course). So I don't think democrats need to beat themselves up too much. When it comes down to it, people resoundingly didn't like Trump.in 2020, with a record turnout. But when inflation and groceries and gas prices have been high for a long time, voters care about that more and a party switch is almost guaranteed. Which isn't fair, because Biden actually did a great job at keeping it under control.
 
Thermal said:
Bringing it back laboriously to the thread topic: what did democrats do wrong? Nothing. They were what they were, and were outnumbered.

I mean, Biden kicked ass in 2020. What was his message? "I'm not Trump and I'm kinda business as usual". And he kicked wholesale ass with that message. It didn't work this time. Why not? The eligible voters didn't show again. Are they inspired to get out and vote because of a slick partisan platform and presentation, or by watching the news? I think the latter. People react to the economy more than anything else (die hard party line voters excepted, of course). So I don't think democrats need to beat themselves up too much. When it comes down to it, people resoundingly didn't like Trump.in 2020, with a record turnout. But when inflation and groceries and gas prices have been high for a long time, voters care about that more and a party switch is almost guaranteed. Which isn't fair, because Biden actually did a great job at keeping it under control.
Click to expand...
I still say they should have been more aggressive when they had power. Also, screaming "best economy ever!" when wealth inequality was still acceleratingly huge was rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. They should have been way more active in promoting the good they did and what they were working on. They haven't figured out that politics is about crafting a narrative and flooding the news cycle with it now.
 
The maga-republick party was much, much more media savvy overall this election cycle. With all the absolute bull ◊◊◊◊ the Trump campaign spewed, I wish Biden and the Dems could have plastered the media with "We have the best economy in the world post-COVID, and we're gonna make it even better."
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
The maga-republick party was much, much more media savvy overall this election cycle. With all the absolute bull ◊◊◊◊ the Trump campaign spewed, I wish Biden and the Dems could have plastered the media with "We have the best economy in the world post-COVID, and we're ganna make it even better."
Click to expand...
That's a really good point, if voters were world-economy savvy enough to see the truth in it. The Trump campaign pandered to darker desires, taking things away from 'the unworthy' and all that bleak ◊◊◊◊. It struck a chord with more than it should have.
 
theprestige said:
And yet he did the right thing, when Democrats wouldn't. Something Democrats did wrong.
Click to expand...

Even allowing for your premise, tanking the economy and putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health greatly outweighs any benefits of “the right thing”.

No one choosing the greatest net harm ever cared about protecting people. Quite the contrary, in fact.
 
Donal said:
I still say they should have been more aggressive when they had power. Also, screaming "best economy ever!" when wealth inequality was still acceleratingly huge was rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. They should have been way more active in promoting the good they did and what they were working on. They haven't figured out that politics is about crafting a narrative and flooding the news cycle with it now.
Click to expand...

i agree that message wasn’t very good. economically, the dems are a center right party and by macro economic metrics important to them they did really well and were probably quite surprised many people didn’t agree.

i think the “soft landing” from covid was pretty impressive though. but their goals are simply not aligned with closing wealth inequity. they’re unashamedly capitalists.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes. Approximately 50% of the population is female. Not exactly, but close enough for this discussion.
Click to expand...
Emily's Cat said:
Well, I'm generously rounding down. I suppose if you want to consider half a percent to be hyperbole, I guess you can. Seems a bit extreme to me, but whatever.
Click to expand...

Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.

So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊ and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense. Take it to the appropriate thread.
 
plague311 said:
Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.

So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊ and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense. Take it to the appropriate thread.
Click to expand...
It's not who you would know personally; it's the stranger you might find yourself in an intimate public place with, like a rest room or locker room. I know I'm in such a multi occupant 'private' space with enough regularity to be statistically guaranteed to be sharing the space with a trans person every year.

{Eta: estimates I've heard are around half a percent self ID as trans. That's 1 in every 200 people. I'm pretty sure I've been in public restrooms with 200 strangers over the course of the year, bars and Depot and stores and all}

But the anti-trans brigade is not so much worried about trans people, but trans posers. They worry about that 1 in 100 (or whatever) perv that wants to get his jollies walking around a women's locker room, and even the Beavis and Butthead creeps who would do so simply because they could get away with it.

That's a legit concern. I know a couple weirdos who might take advantage of self-ID laws to get their rocks off like that.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
It's not who you would know personally; it's the stranger you might find yourself in an intimate public place with, like a rest room or locker room. I know I'm in such a multi occupant 'private' space with enough regularity to be statistically guaranteed to be sharing the space with a trans person every year.

{Eta: estimates I've heard are around half a percent self ID as trans. That's 1 in every 200 people. I'm pretty sure I've been in public restrooms with 200 strangers over the course of the year, bars and Depot and stores and all}

But the anti-trans brigade is not so much worried about trans people, but trans posers. They worry about that 1 in 100 (or whatever) perv that wants to get his jollies walking around a women's locker room, and even the Beavis and Butthead creeps who would do so simply because they could get away with it.

That's a legit concern. I know a couple weirdos who might take advantage of self-ID laws to get their rocks off like that.
Click to expand...

That might be entirely possible where you live. I live in North Dakota. My chances are less than a fraction of a percent. I could say the same about a ton of Republican states like Iowa, Utah, etc. where it just doesn't happen.

Again, while anecdotal to you I doubt that your same situation is similar the bulk of the US. I bet we could take a poll here of how many people routinely notice a trans person in either bathroom, or are even aware of it happening, and I'd bet it would be minuscule.
 
plague311 said:
Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.
Click to expand...
We've been talking about a lot more than just sports. And the number of people affected is a lot larger than the number of trans people.
plague311 said:
So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊
Click to expand...
Your own math is bull ◊◊◊◊, and your appeal to math in the first place is dishonest and an excuse to ignore concerns.
plague311 said:
and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense.
Click to expand...
I've heard a lot more made up bull ◊◊◊◊ from the trans advocates than I ever have from the gender critical folk.
plague311 said:
Take it to the appropriate thread.
Click to expand...
You first.
 
plague311 said:
That might be entirely possible where you live. I live in North Dakota. My chances are less than a fraction of a percent. I could say the same about a ton of Republican states like Iowa, Utah, etc. where it just doesn't happen.

Again, while anecdotal to you I doubt that your same situation is similar the bulk of the US. I bet we could take a poll here of how many people routinely notice a trans person in either bathroom, or are even aware of it happening, and I'd bet it would be minuscule.
Click to expand...
Oh hell yeah, I'd agree (with the caveat that you might not know they were trans if 'passing' well).

But again, it's not the legit trans people. It's the pervs that could so easily exploit this. That's what the people in That Thread are digging into.

Do you think pervs and Beavis are a real threat under self ID rules? I do, and can't see a way around it.

But for sure this belongs on That Thread, not this one.
 
plague311 said:
Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.

So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊ and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense. Take it to the appropriate thread.
Click to expand...
They can't. Because when they aren't running around blowing their dog whistles, there might be serious conversations about real problems. Since they are either too morally or intellectually bankrupt to be productive members of those conversations and such conversations move people away fro their cult, they have to do everything they can to disrupt those conversations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom