this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2026
140 points (87.2% liked)

politics

31283 readers
2787 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Trans journalist Erin Reed has published a list of Democratic midterm candidates with anti-trans records, and the question she is forcing is one the party would rather not answer: if trans voters keep rewarding Democrats who harm them, what signal does that send? The calculation is real, the stakes are high, and there is no clean answer.

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Every year I understand more why some old people welcome death. Fuck this place. Humanity is a blight

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I support all trans rights, but at this point there is SO much fucked up shit that needs fixed and repealed first, it’s def not high on my priorities as a major concern for our future.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't get the fixation on the topic from anyone. The trans community is so small and yet it gets a huge amount of political focus. Sure, Republicans are actively attempting to remove the rights of trans people but that statement applies equally to anyone who isn't them. Why let them control the conversation by focusing on that one group so much? It makes the average person think that the things Republicans are doing only impact groups they aren't part of and that is absolutely not the case.

For trans people, I absolutely understand the fixation, because it is their lives at stake. But even if judging on just the one issue, and with no actual good choice on it, there are still degrees of badness, and one candidate is likely much more of a threat than the other in a given race.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's the same fixation people had with Gaza and gas prices and whether a candidate supports Brittney Spears. There are far too many single issue voters now and they are fucking up politics to the point that we have launched ourselves towards an Idiocracy at hyper speed.

Why? Because BOTH sides have been defunding education. And don't give me shit about how one side does it more than the other. I don't care.

[–] Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

When your single issue is human rights and genocide, they are not to blame. It’s the parties who choose to pursue these policies.

[–] cass1312@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Currently in the US trans people in federal prisons are forcibly detransitioned, trans minors can't access necessary healthcare, including the compromise option of puberty blockers, and "trans ideology" was included as one of the "biggest threats to america" in a terms of what the current administration is focusing on in the name of anti-terrorism. Saying that trying to improve that situation is "not high on your priorities" or "a major concern" just because trans people are a small part of the population (especially when discussing an article about the democratic party continuing to shift towards anti-trans language and policy) is, at best, extremely insensitive.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Let’s get the pedophile running our country into prison then we can address that stuff.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What they get away with doing to trans folk they will next do to you.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Yea so let’s stop them now then fix the damage they have done after

[–] _druid@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

The way I think about it, the trans suppression in the US is like an upstairs sink, clogged with the faucet on full.

Everything else is like a dryer fire in the basement. For sure, the sink is something that needs to be addressed. But right now, the fucking basement is on fire.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Exactaly how I feel. They are being wronged by our government and we need to make things right, but there is so many more issues directly effecting every single person in this country that we need to be focusing on first. Sadly a lot people in the middle are uncomfortable with trans people and leaning too far into those issues right now just gives the pedo party more talking points to swing the middle away from sanity and into their wacky right wing shit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't know, seems transgender people are gonna be fucked no matter which party wins

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Is this gonna be the 2026 version of Gaza?

[–] cass1312@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

A deeply unpopular and morally bankrupt position that costs key votes for a Democratic candidate, and then leads to neoliberals blaming a minority group's lack of support for the candidate losing rather than the candidate choosing not to appeal to a seemingly very important chunk of their voting base? Maybe.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›