this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
579 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3085 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Boddhisatva 172 points 1 month ago (4 children)

He put up an ad with these two girls' pictures and then claimed that they were transgender? What the fuck kind of thinking is that? Does he not care that his supporters would likely beat these girls to death?

[–] MeekerThanBeaker 116 points 1 month ago

Narrator: "He does not care."

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 month ago (2 children)

He would cheer them on and say it was a blow against the "trans agenda" or something, i'm sure.

[–] EleventhHour 56 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The trans agenda:

  • equity and equality
  • being treated like human beings, complete with dignity and respect
  • brunch
[–] NegativeInf 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There is no brunch under the heavy yoke of end stage hypercapitalism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

We want ~~bread~~ brunch but also roses

[–] billiam0202 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"Heidi and I send our empty thoughts and useless prayers to the families of the senseless violence which I caused but will not accept responsibility for. I will continue to demonize the LGBTQ community because it scores me cheap political points with the bigoted party which I represent. I am utterly without a shred of dignity or honor but I'll still get votes because what are you gonna do, vote for a milquetoast centrist Democrat?

"Absolutely insincerely, Ted 'Don't you dare not refer to me by my preferred name' and Heidi 'My husband won't stop kissing Trump's ass since he called me ugly' Cruz."

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

Based on the stuff that went on in the olympics, he'll claim russia told him they had xy chromosomes, so everyone has to argue like that's the absolute truth from then on.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Why would he care?

[–] [email protected] 96 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Those kids and their families should sue the fuck out of him.

[–] Ghostalmedia 12 points 1 month ago

Sadly, these people expect to be sued.

[–] FenrirIII 1 points 1 month ago

They'll say it's fair use because he's a politician and it's political speech. Our courts keep holding elected officials above the law

[–] TheTechnician27 80 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As always, transphobia hurts everybody.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Everybody? Ted Cruz seems to be building a career out of it. Hatred can be a jetpack to the very top if you're shitty enough to embrace it.

[–] mipadaitu 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You think he's happy? Dude is fucking miserable.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Hope he is miserable. A lot of people are though. What I don't like is when they use power to inflict it upon others.

[–] WoodScientist 68 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This should serve as a lesson to women everywhere that to conservatives, the definition of "trans" is flexible, and that someone is a "woman" only as far as it is politically useful to conservatives.

Look at the attack on the two Olympic athletes this summer. They were cisgender women, but they didn't meet western white beauty standards, and the right needed to find some "trans" athletes to attack, so they labeled cis women trans and demonized them. They still reference them in speeches.

Or these girls in this ad. Just some random cis girl athletes, but it was politically useful to label them trans, so they did.

As the culture war moves ever-more extreme, the definition of "trans" can always be expanded. Remember, 90% of cisgender women are crossdressers according to the traditional definition of the word. 90% of cisgender women regularly wear clothes that would literally have gotten them arrested in many parts of the US only half a century or so ago. It was literally illegal for women to wear pants in many areas. And as the push to confine women to ever-stricter gender roles marches on, any woman that doesn't meet this ever-narrowing standard of beauty can be labeled "trans" and have their rights stripped away.

Are you a woman athlete who looks a bit 'masculine' from years of participating in a contact sport like boxing? You're "trans" and deserve to have your civil rights taken away.

Are you a woman who works in a traditionally male career field? You're "trans" and deserve to have your rights taken away.

Do you wear anything other than dresses, skirts, and other traditionally female clothing? You're "trans" and deserve to have your rights taken away.

Do you want to have any independence at all, have your own bank account, and have any role in life other than daughter, wife, and mother? You're "trans" and deserve to have your rights taken away.

The attack on trans people is a perfect wedge for the right. There is no hard definition for the word "trans," and it can conveniently be defined ever-wider to confine women to ever-narrower ranges of acceptable behavior. When you hear hard right reactionaries talking about declaring being trans illegal or waxing about putting trans people in mental institutions, remember that it wasn't that long ago that cis women that showed any degree of independence were also institutionalized and lobotomized.

In the minds of many hard-right conservatives, 90% of women today are acting in ways that are fundamentally in contradiction to the role of their sex. In their eyes, most women are transgender. And while the narrow edge of the wedge is targeting people who actively seek out overt gender transition, that isn't the real end game.

[–] Thrillhouse 2 points 1 month ago

History is repeating itself and I feel crazy that the news every single day does not point this out.

Women in Nazi Germany:

The ideal woman in Nazi Germany did not have a career outside her home. Instead, she was a good wife (however her husband defined that), a careful and conscientious mother (taking special care to raise her children in accordance with Nazi philosophies and ideals), and skilled at doing all domestic chores such as cleaning and cooking. Women had a limited right to training of any kind; such training usually revolved around domestic tasks. Over time, Nazi-era German women were restricted from teaching in universities, working as medical professionals, and serving in political positions within the NSDAP.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago

He will surely be held accountable for this.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A Republican politician circulating photos of underage girls without their knowledge or consent? Color me shocked. Unlike Gaetz, Cruz has the decency to only used clothed images, so at least we gotta give him credit for that

[–] aesthelete 29 points 1 month ago

Imagine attacking school children in any way and thinking you're correct on any issue.

[–] uberdroog 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Somewhere, there is a bridge in Texas that is unguarded.

[–] TexasDrunk 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The bridge is in Canada. He should go back there and guard it.

Apologies to my lovely Canadian friends. I would take a bullet for y'all, but I would burn down a lot of shit to get rid of Fled Cruz.

[–] Dvixen 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We don't want him. Surely there's an island in the middle of the ocean he can be sent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Hawaii is too good for him too. Maybe forget the island and just go with a raft.

[–] Dvixen 2 points 1 month ago

Too right. Hawai'i is far above him.

I should have been more detailed in my criteria. Uninhabited, no vegetation, maybe even only an inch above sea level.

I do like the raft idea. Drop him off with the flat pack, he can assemble it himself.

[–] TexasDrunk 1 points 1 month ago

Please just put him on an ice floe that will eventually give way.

[–] Bonesince1997 21 points 1 month ago

Such a poor human being. And a leader?! Pathetic.

[–] Marleyinoc 9 points 1 month ago

It seems that conservatives enjoy this behavior as they continue to support the party and its worst offenders. And they call it protecting the children, women, etc.

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

[–] GladiusB 3 points 1 month ago

Put him in jail with Diddy and sue the shit out of his campaign

[–] jaggedrobotpubes 1 points 1 month ago

Excuse you, you seem to have put a picture of Ted Cruz' abortionface on my timeline.

I will accept your apology whensoever you care to give it.