You can’t read 160 words? Nine sentences?

All you’re doing is trying to help Republicans and shout down anyone pointing it out

How would you know that? You haven’t read anything I’ve written.

So you’re saying that it is not true that voting for a lesser evil doesn’t result in the slate of candidates that we’re seeing in front of us?

Why are some of these Democrats adopting this anti-transposition when previously they didn’t have to? When Josh Turek got his seat in 2022, he did not have to run on anti-trans issues in order to do so. In fact, he even voted against a bathroom bill in 2023 that would restricted trans people from using bathrooms of their identified gender.

Now he wants to pull funding from the federal level for Gender-affirming care. It sure seems like our lesser evil is moving to the right, along with their opposition.

But why would they do that? Couldn’t there be an economic argument to be made, Instead of having to rely on this capitulation to the invented issues of the right wing conservative party? And if so, why are the Democrats not adopting it?

And what you are advocating for has lead us to this exact slate of candidates. You assume I’m suggesting a protest vote. I’m simply pointing out a contradiction that you seem to not recognize.

This is exactly how Trump got elected.

Nope.

Because this shit is payed for by the billionaires.

Lol, Left Voice is funded by billionaires? Which ones?

Lol has it!? That’s very amusing. 🙊🙉🙈

Just don’t ask what those things are.

You want people to vote for the “lesser evil” instead of the transphobes at Republican Inc. And that lesser evil is… checks notes The transphobes at Democrats Inc. Seems like a false choice to me. Especially when the person were talking about is in support of a ban on federal funding for gender affirming care.

You want them to vote for the same “Democrat” who is a former registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Who explicitly campaigns on his willingness to work with Republicans and even with President Trump. Who calls himself a “common-sense moderate” and “common-sense prairie populist”. · The same “Democrat” that has represented a Republican-leaning district in Iowa since 2022. Who is described as “one of Iowa’s most bipartisan” legislators. And in one of his campaign ads reportedly highlights that he has “700 votes” working with Republicans.

Yeah, I guess I don’t fucking get it.

Sorry, is highlighting the Democrats transphobia disttracting? Oh right, the Democrats can never fail the voters, but the voters always fail the Democrats. The reason Democrats are running transphobes is because of this notion of “pragmatism”. This pragmatism is what allows for Republicans to run as Democrats. Liberals are so worried about the DSA taking root in the party that they won’t even bother seeing the fox slip into the hen house.

Won’t somebody think of the moderates!?

Why do you expect so little from your Democratic candidates? Ohio and Iowa are unsafe for trans people under either party now.

In Iowa, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand, Senate candidate Josh Turek and congressional candidates Lindsay James and Sarah Trone Garriott have all distanced themselves from progressive positions on transgender issues.

“I ⁠oppose letting men in women’s locker rooms and voted to let parents, not politicians, make decisions for their kids,” Trone Garriott said in a recent ad.

…

Gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand told Politico last month that “girls’ sports are for girls.” And his approach may be working, with polls, opens new tab showing him favored to become the first Democrat to win the governor’s race since 2006.

At a recent town hall he said “I tend to agree” with Republicans that transgender women and girls should be barred from female sports teams.

“Coward!” a man in the room shouted in protest.

…

Republican Derek Merrin, running to represent the 9th congressional district, released a September 10 ad saying that Democratic incumbent Marcy Kaptur had “voted to let biological men compete against girls in their sports.”

Kaptur, ​who faces an uphill race in her recently redrawn district, countered a week later with an ad saying she had “voted with Republicans to keep transgender ideology out of our schools because parents know what’s best for their kids … and boys should not play in girls’ sports.”

Reuters

If this is what bipartisan democratic outcomes look like, if this is what you uphold as democracy, then I guess you can count me out. There is zero reason to take up the Republican position on this issue unless you are doing it for the love of the game.

The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them. ~Julius Nyerere

Despite its origins as a movement dedicated to helping citizens pressure elected officials into resisting the Trump agenda, Indivisible National has not endorsed Trump’s impeachment, telling a local chapter via email that it is “not an endorsed priority” for the No Kings! Coalition. In Montana, the organization went further, requesting that the same chapter not use the “No Kings!” logo or branding for their impeachment-focused event—and threatening to remove them from statewide communications after they didn’t comply. That dispute followed another undemocratic intervention in the state’s politics: a campaign by Indivisible National to convince Alani Bankhead, the Montana Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, to withdraw from the race. (Levin and Greenberg did not respond to Current Affairs’ request for comment, or an interview.)

These incidents raise questions about the direction of one of the country’s largest anti-Trump organizing networks. Is the country’s leading resistance group still focused on “resistance,” or has its strategy become increasingly concerned with preserving the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects?

The unfortunate truth is that while local Indivisible chapters are made up of committed individuals laser-focused on opposing fascism, at the national level, it seems that Indivisible serves to insulate Congress from the honest rage of the American people.

Back in 2016, Indivisible provided information and tactics that taught Americans how to make things uncomfortable for elected officials. The Indivisible Guide taught constituents to hold onto the microphone at town halls until they got an answer, and explained exactly how to get a staffer to go off-script during a phone call. It urged Americans to disrupt congressmembers’ ribbon-cutting ceremonies (“Don’t let them get photo-ops without questions about racism, authoritarianism, and corruption”), and to “barrage” them with demands until they answered.

Today, the group’s website explicitly writes that one of their core principles is “no civil disobedience.” An updated version of Indivisible’s viral 2016 handbook now simply tells Americans “while some of the original Indivisible Guide is applicable, not all of it is.”

The 2026 guide is almost exclusively focused on electoral politics, assuring the reader that a resounding win in the midterms will puncture Trump’s aura of omnipotence, create federal checks on MAGA power, and protect the democratic transfer of power in 2028.

There is nothing inherently wrong with organizing for electoral victories. But at a time when the administration is flagrantly defying the Constitution while deploying unaccountable paramilitary forces to detain children, kidnap people off the streets, and even raid the homes of elected officials, this strategy is far from enough.

Some local organizers wanted to change that—and in Montana, they were punished by the national organization.

– “No Kings. No Demands. What Happened?” Current Affairs.

It doesn’t seem like an organization that has any plans on doing anything at all, really.

Na, the commanding heights of the economy should be left to the anarchy of the free market! Clearly only good things can come from this. /s

Yes, but the most important parts, the parts that legally constitute a gun are being printed in plastic. The parts you’re talking about, do not legally constitute a gun. Sure, you can’t make a barrel, bolt, or firing pin out of plastic, that’s obvious, but those parts by themselves are not guns under federal law. The “firearm” is legally defined as the lower receiver or frame (the part that holds the trigger and magazine). If you want your gun to be untraceable, if you want to have a gun but not be a registered gun owner, you just need to manufacture the frame or receiver. Which in the case of small frame AR, just looks like this:

It’s just something that holds all the other “non-gun” parts together into a “gun shape”. The round is never housed inside the receiver to be fired, and thus the plastic is never exposed to the internal forces of firing the round. Pistols experience more force, since the receiver holds the slide rails and are more impacted by recoil, but they still do not house the round, or need to contain the internal force of firing the round.

This video is more like boy then boy boy but there is a replacement boy for the boy who didn’t go.

More seriously: the endurance and resolve of the Cuban people in the face of this monstrous act of war against them is incredible.

I don’t really believe an Injunction can stop a war, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

What would a lawsuit even do? Would it jail him? Probably not. Are they going to fine him? Even if they did that it would be negligible.

For those playing at home: it was Zyklon B.

May a thousand DSA primary campaigns bloom!

Thanks!