• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Dems move to the Right of Biden?

Should Dems move to the Right of Biden?


  • Total voters
    71
Nevertheless, another study shows they suffer mental duress when subjected to these laws, but that does not effect you.
They already suffer mental illness. These laws have nothing to do with it. And as we know empirically, over 90% of GD cases among minors resolve naturally in adulthood.
Or maybe that study doesn't show causality either. :ROFLMAO:
 
What does that have to do with this decision being similar to Plessy?
I think you know you're wrong on this, and for some baffling reason you just find it less embarrassing to double down on a ridiculous take than to say "No, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not a segregationist."

The alternative, of course, is that you genuinely believe this. Either way, a good reason for politicians not to waste any effort trying to appease crybullies. They won't appreciate it anyway.
 
@Gatsby to minorities: Know your place and you'll be fine. Don't get uppity. Keep your head down and stay in the closet. The less visible the better.

These people are utterly incapable of defending their arguments on the merits. They HAVE to frame trans people as coming for your children and mutilating them (false). It's really no different, intellectually, than what RFK Jr is doing with vaccine policy.

You just can't explain fact to them in a manner that they can absorb. You can throw a metric ****ton of peer reviewed research at them, and they just stare at you like a wall and then repeat their previous arguments.
Do you agree with @j brown's body that a pro-trans civil rights decision, supported by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, is the same as segregation?
 
For the record, these were the policies in the OP:

- Foreign Policy
- Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
- Public Health Policy (e.g. Vaccines)
- Social Security
- Civil Rights
- Economy
- Immigration
- Foreign Policy
- Political Corruption
- Climate Change
- Infrastructure
- Regulations
- Unions / Labor / Workers Rights

We're talking about trans rights because the right (including @Gatsby) cannot defend Dems going to the right in these areas.
I think the Democratic Party positions on some of those topics are fine and on some of those topics should change.
 
I'm told that Dems should move to the right, because it's a winning strategy. Should Dems move to the right of Biden on the following issues:

- Foreign Policy
- Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
- Public Health Policy (e.g. Vaccines)
- Social Security
- Civil Rights
- Economy
- Immigration
- Foreign Policy
- Political Corruption
- Climate Change
- Infrastructure
- Regulations
- Unions / Labor / Workers Rights

Bonus Question #1: What does that coalition look like? The base would undoubtably change from what it currently is. Do they pick up disaffected MAGA voters to replace Progressives?

Bonus Question #2: Would progressives still be blamed for Dems losing after they were formally removed from the coalition?

....



They don't have to move toward the Right. just toward a saner Center.
 
They don't have to move toward the Right. just toward a saner Center.

The political center is an illusion. It's an arbitrary point between two arbitrary points. The center between Obama and Trump is a million miles from where the American people are in general. And if Republicans move to the right, the center shifts again.

Why doesn't the center ever shift to the left? It's because Dems and Republicans hold hands on certain issues, to the detriment of the people and the benefit of special interests. Thus, the center keeps moving to the right. And here we are, with Trump as president.

Your proposal is therefore... fundamentally stupid.
 
The specific reason that the courts said they are protected is that they are covered under existing sex discrimination laws. Not because the courts gave any credence to your "gender identity" theology. For example, if you wouldn't fire a woman for wearing a dress to the office, then you can't fire a man for wearing a dress to the office. If you wouldn't refuse to hire a man for being married to a woman, then you can't refuse to hire a woman for being married to a woman. OK, fair enough. That's sex discrimination, nothing more.
This post woould be a better fit in the Theology or Conspiracy theory forum because facts are not present.
 
This post woould be a better fit in the Theology or Conspiracy theory forum because facts are not present.
Take it up with the Supreme Court.
 
Giving at least some wriggle room on their least popular issue might help.
 
The specific reason that the courts said they are protected is that they are covered under existing sex discrimination laws. Not because the courts gave any credence to your "gender identity" theology. For example, if you wouldn't fire a woman for wearing a dress to the office, then you can't fire a man for wearing a dress to the office. If you wouldn't refuse to hire a man for being married to a woman, then you can't refuse to hire a woman for being married to a woman. OK, fair enough. That's sex discrimination, nothing more.

The court once ruled that women who could not receive healthcare for illnesses arising from pregnancy were not discriminated against. A ruling so out-of-touch with today's world that most people have forgotten about it, until now.

"As support for the majority’s claims, the Court cited Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 case about sex discrimination that somewhat infamously concluded that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy does not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The case concerned California’s disability-insurance program, which excluded coverage for any disabilities arising from pregnancy. Sure, "the Geduldig Court acknowledged, the group excluded from the disability-insurance program by the pregnancy-discrimination provision included only women. But the group of people who could access the state’s disability-compensation benefits for reasons other than pregnancy included both women and men. “The program divides potential recipients into two groups—pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second includes members of both sexes,” the Court wrote. In other words, the law didn’t exclude all women from coverage, just those women who were unable to work because of pregnancy.

...The courts...excused and explained away the discrimination by invoking the biological differences between men and women—legitimate reasons for legitimate discrimination. The Republican-appointed justices have now indicated that Geduldig is making a comeback. When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, Alito’s majority opinion invoked Geduldig to declare that abortion restrictions do not amount to sex discrimination. Such restrictions, Alito wrote, are about a medical procedure tied to the biological differences between men and women.


By invoking Geduldig, the Roberts Court is doing what the Supreme Court of earlier eras did: supplying tortured legal logic to justify long-standing hierarchies. In Plessy v. Ferguson, for example, the Court insisted that laws that required white and Black individuals to ride in different train cars were not impermissible racial discrimination—the rules applied to and burdened everyone, after all. That logic sounds like the thread in Skrmetti that maintains that bans on gender-affirming care don’t constitute gender-identity discrimination because the bans allow transgender and cisgender kids to access hormones and puberty blockers—just not for treatment of gender dysphoria. In Korematsu v. United States, the Court claimed that the internment of Americans of Japanese descent did not constitute racial discrimination; the policy was about national security. That reasoning tracks with Skrmetti’s insistence that the health-care bans do not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity; they are about age and medical procedures.

Link
 
Last edited:
The court once ruled that women who could not receive healthcare for illnesses arising from pregnancy were not discriminated against. A ruling so out-of-touch with today's world that most people have forgotten about it, until now.
I can't stress enough that in THIS case, the ruling was IN FAVOR of trans people. It LIMITS discrimination against them. It had a 6-3 majority including all four of the Democratic-appointed justices at the time. And yet you are comparing it to segregation and pregnancy discrimination. Just incredible. Nothing is ever good enough for trans extremists. Ever.
 
It’s not just about private identity, it’s about how that identity interacts with things like sports, prisons, shelters, restrooms, scholarships, healthcare, etc. If identity determines access to these, then it affects other people too.

I don't think that the real effects on other people are all that big of a deal, certainly not the big deal that Republican politicians try to make them out to be.

There are very few trans athletes. The only danger in restrooms, shelters, and prisons is straight men. Healthcare is healthcare, and should be between doctor and patient. All of these "effects" add up to very little, and are certainly outweighed by the rights of nonbinary people to simply exist in peace.
 
Were the boys pre- or post-pubesents?

Please, this is nonsense. Think about the size, speed, and weight differences that begin in young adulthood. As I said above, blithely ignoring these risks makes your commentary unserious.

So what do you do about the occasional 300-lb 8th grader who wants to play football with his much smaller classmates?

Sports involve some risk of injury. Girls get hurt playing against other girls all the time. And there are big size differences among girl athletes, too.

I don't know where you live, but the schools around here are not dominated by these trans-hulks you seem to see everywhere.
 
As a swing voter, I would hope for someone like Andy Beshear KY or Laura Kelly KS on the democratic side in 2028. Both won in a deep red state which means independents were attracted to them. But my number one choice would be the spunky senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. But first comes the midterms. This should be the democrat’s number one priority. Right now, it looks like a status quo election where in the house either party could gain or lose 1-5 seats. The senate is the same, either party probably gaining or losing a seat. No more.
I like Beshear, I don't know much about Laura Kelly, but Dems haven't had much luck with female candidates lately. Duckworth would be great, but with
the same downside as Kelly. I don't know why the US is afraid of electing a woman, Hillary Clinton was the most prepared candidate we have had in years, but she couldn't get the votes. Hillary actually knows what the nuclear triad is, unlike the man who currently sits in the office.
 
So what do you do about the occasional 300-lb 8th grader who wants to play football with his much smaller classmates?

Sports involve some risk of injury. Girls get hurt playing against other girls all the time. And there are big size differences among girl athletes, too.

I don't know where you live, but the schools around here are not dominated by these trans-hulks you seem to see everywhere.
That makes it sound like you have a 300lb 8th grader in mind ?
 
I like Beshear, I don't know much about Laura Kelly, but Dems haven't had much luck with female candidates lately. Duckworth would be great, but with
the same downside as Kelly. I don't know why the US is afraid of electing a woman, Hillary Clinton was the most prepared candidate we have had in years, but she couldn't get the votes. Hillary actually knows what the nuclear triad is, unlike the man who currently sits in the office.
Hillary Clinton may have been the most knowledgeable. But her problem was she came across as an aloof, elitist, know it all with a fake smile. I usually refer to 2016 as obnoxious, rude, uncouth vs the aloof, elitist know it all. At least this is how many swing voters saw the two candidates which independents went to Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party against both. How many independents stayed home due to their dislike or distaste of both major party candidates, we’ll never know.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

Those two candidates hold the record for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable of any presidential candidate going back to Eisenhower. Trump at 36% favorable/60% unfavorable, Clinton at 38% favorable/56% unfavorable. The list.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.

Favorable/unfavorable

1956 Eisenhower 84/12%

1964 LBJ 81/13%

1976 Carter 81/16%

1960 JFK 80/14%

1960 Nixon 79/16%

1968 Nixon 79/22%

1976 Ford 79/20%

1972 Nixon 76/21%

1968 Humphrey 72/28%

1984 Reagan 70/30%

1980 Carter 60/32%

1984 Mondale 66/34%

1980 Reagan 64/31%

1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%

2008 Obama 62/35%

2012 Obama 62/37%

1956 Stevenson 61/31%

2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%

2008 McCain 60/35%

1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%

2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%

2004 Kerry 57/40%

1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%

1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%

2000 Gore 55/43%

2012 Romney 55/43%

1972 McGovern 55/41%

1996 Dole 54/45%

1988 Dukakis 53/42%

2020 Biden 49/45%

2024 Harris 46/50%

1964 Goldwater 43/47%

2024 Trump 44/54%

2020 Trump 43/56%

2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%

2016 Donald Trump 36/60%

As for a woman winning the presidency, two women is too small a sample for me to say Americans won’t elect a woman as president. Both women were democrats and liberals. Clinton actually won the popular vote and Harris came within 1.5 points of doing so. The earth, moon, sun, the planets, stars and even galaxies had to a line perfectly for Trump to win in 2016. Harris had a sitting president with an overall job approval of 39% to hold her back. No sitting president has won reelection nor his replacement won the election when the sitting presidents overall job approval was below 50%. Not only was Harris fighting Trump, but history also. I find it amazing Harris came as close as she did which I think says much more about Trump than Harris, Biden or the Democrats. The GOP should have won in a landslide if one goes by history. That didn’t happen thanks to the GOP nominating and sticking with Trump.
 
So he wouldn’t have been playing against girls ?

You missed the point, which is athletes face risks of injury all the time, and the tiny number of trans kids that are physically intimidating isn't worth worrying about when you routinely have big differences in size and strength at that age within the same genders.
 
At least this is how many swing voters saw the two candidates which independents went to Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party against both. How many independents stayed home due to their dislike or distaste of both major party candidates, we’ll never know.

It needs to be said: Independents aren't centrist, they aren't where the two parties converge, they don't share the same opinions, and they are not the epitome of pragmatic compromise. Some are to the left of me, some are to the right or Trump. Some are just contrarians. These are not people that should be catered to because it's impossible mission.

I remember people saying, "I'm not voting for Dems or Republicans, I'm voting for RFK Jr."

Because they're freakin' weirdos, not serious people.
 
The political center is an illusion. It's an arbitrary point between two arbitrary points. The center between Obama and Trump is a million miles from where the American people are in general. And if Republicans move to the right, the center shifts again.

Why doesn't the center ever shift to the left? It's because Dems and Republicans hold hands on certain issues, to the detriment of the people and the benefit of special interests. Thus, the center keeps moving to the right. And here we are, with Trump as president.

Your proposal is therefore... fundamentally stupid.
That's all dogmatic drivel to cover for the stupid positions of the Far Left Dems. You don't know anything about the "detriment of the people," only about the detriment of your side.
 
It needs to be said: Independents aren't centrist, they aren't where the two parties converge, they don't share the same opinions, and they are not the epitome of pragmatic compromise. Some are to the left of me, some are to the right or Trump. Some are just contrarians. These are not people that should be catered to because it's impossible mission.

I remember people saying, "I'm not voting for Dems or Republicans, I'm voting for RFK Jr."

Because they're freakin' weirdos, not serious people.
Yep, same old Mad Lib song: if they're not on our side, they're just stupid. Keep singing that song and you'll keep losing.
 
Back
Top Bottom