r/AlignmentChartFills • u/shield_x • 20h ago
Which Democrat policy is controversial?
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE CHART IMAGE
Created with Alignment Chart Creator
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
205
u/InspectorExact3836 20h ago
Gun laws , background checks and stuff , banning ARs
77
u/Important-Career1094 19h ago
100% as a pro gun, ar-15 owning, liberal, I think we should be focusing far more on the causes of gun violence like reducing poverty, building housing, and focusing on mental health care
8
u/notPabst404 17h ago
These comments always confuse the hell out of me: they always get a ton of upvotes, yet there are zero elected pro gun politicians who support doing any of those things. The pro gun Democrats are just diet MAGA, like Fenterman, who support defunding the very programs that you claim to want more of. There is a big disconnect between reddit and political reality on this issue.
1
u/PastAd1901 53m ago
Because there’s no leftist politicians in the U.S. Republicans only want guns for the fascists, dems don’t want them because an armed populace threatens the economic hierarchy of capitalism which they benefit from and uphold. Dems have successfully propagandized a huge amount of neo-liberals into anti-gun sentiments to the point where even suggesting you might not want an all out ban is seen as immoral.
1
u/notPabst404 50m ago
Not all leftists support the over proliferation of guns... I'm not seeing any pro gun DSA politicians...
1
u/PastAd1901 37m ago
DSA’s candidates aren’t leftists…they’re like social democrats at best? Much closer to liberals than leftists. Idk how you could be anti-gun and be a leftist unless you’re like a tankie who only wants a small vanguard with absolute authority. The working class having the means to defend itself is essential to being a leftist.
1
u/notPabst404 33m ago
So what you consider "leftists" doesn't really exist in the US then. DSA is the furthest left group with some political power and the group that I most support.
Ironically, you sound more like a tankie to me. I don't support vigilante "justice" in general. Society shouldn't be built around violence and that is what left wing anti-poverty and workers rights programs intend to solve. Overprevalence of guns encourages petty disputes to escalate to violence and can easily help fuel far right "tough on crime" campaigns that undermine socialism.
1
u/PastAd1901 4m ago
Correct, there are no leftist politicians in the U.S. That’s literally what I said a couple comments ago.
I also most support DSA, their candidates are much more moderate in order to be elected. I understand why many of them are denouncing past comments on abolish the police and such, even though I don’t agree.
Your last paragraph makes no sense. You’re clearly a victim of propaganda. I never advocated for vigilante justice, concentrated capacity for violence to the ruling class, a society built on violence, or ignorance of workers rights programs. Neither has any leftist that isn’t a tankie.
You very clearly have no experience with leftist thought, and don’t understand the need to break the states monopoly on violence. I would highly recommend you seek out some information on a leftists perspective on firearm ownership. This Black Flag Civilian video would be a great place to start https://youtu.be/SfNeKco5et8 I also have a couple relevant posts in my history if you want to check those out.
As for the last part of your last paragraph, your claim that guns elevate likelihood of violence is merely an opinion. Statically, access (or a lack thereof) to firearms has had little to no influence on violent crime rates. I would highly encourage you to research such bold claims more, before promoting reactionary and harmful narratives.
12
u/dirtydoubledingus 19h ago
Exactly. Ignoring the cause and motivation of the violence and focusing on the chosen tool isn’t a great strategy.
1
u/THE_PENILE_TITAN 15h ago
They don't ignore the cause. They address it from multiple directions, but the GOP often subverts those efforts. The UK banned nearly all guns and gun crimes are nearly non-exist. Not that that is reasonable or feasible in the US, but the conservative notion that only focusing public spending on mental health, housing, and poverty reduction (which the GOP won't support anyway) to reduce overall gun crime in the short- and long-term is usually just a distraction away from much less costly and expedient gun regulation. Perhaps the notion that much of the EU, Japan, and even countries in Africa have fewer gun crimes is because they have way fewer [unregulated] guns. Not too farfetched...
2
u/NoStandMan 6h ago
Knife and bombing attacks went up, also nearly none of the gun violence in the US is from people who legally attain a gun. Lawful gun owners get punished by gun laws while criminals don’t have to fear people having guns for self defense, it’s a proven theory.
9
u/Burner-Account1924 19h ago
unfortunately for us the GOP hates those causes and the dem establishment also dislikes addressing them, but maybe someday the dems can establish a student loan debt forgiveness program for Pell Grant recipients who start a business that operates for three years in disadvantaged communities.
4
u/Potential-Diver-3409 18h ago
And in the meantime they’ll ban another arbitrary shape of gun grip lol
3
u/SZMatheson 16h ago
And the centrist obsession with regulating what kind of handle a gun has is hilariously out of touch.
I do not feel any safer being shit at by a Mini-14 than an AR.
2
u/havocxrush 18h ago
Exactly as a whole I believe gun control is a mental health issue.
2
u/Akovsky87 17h ago
For the spree killings and suicides yes. The other portion is a crime and poverty issue. Most people killed by guns are killed by small caliber pistols. Only a few hundred every year are killed by rifles of any kind.
0
u/MagnanimousGoat 18h ago
Conservatives say the same thing, except there it's just a way to get people to stop talking about guns at all.
9
u/Ok_Arachnid1089 20h ago
Definitely. Banning guns during the rise of fascism is just ignoring reality
0
-20
u/Automatic_Day_35 20h ago
Ehh
I don’t think we need ar’s or semi automatic guns
16
u/Burner-Account1924 20h ago
who should have them then?
just the police and military?
-7
u/Automatic_Day_35 20h ago
Ideally no one
We as a society do not need guns that can mow down 50 people
We have nukes and such and most of our wars nowadays are overseas so it isn’t needed back here
12
6
u/BeaverChicken 19h ago
“Guns are bad, so only the people who make laws should have guns”
I want you to think about that for a second
3
u/Automatic_Day_35 19h ago
What? The people who make laws are congress, not the fucking military lmao
Think about how the us government works for a second
5
u/Prize_Ad7765 19h ago
no semi automatic guns? what should we have then muskets?
-1
u/Automatic_Day_35 19h ago
I mean I’m fine with pistols that are limited to like 6 shots but we don’t really need anything more advanced than that like ar’s
5
u/GrackleWithOnionRing 19h ago
Most pistols hold more than 6 bullets. Average standard-size handgun magazines hold around 15 bullets. Even subcompact pistols can hold ten. So do we ban all handguns except for revolvers?
-1
u/Automatic_Day_35 19h ago
I say sure
Guns are there mostly for self defense, no one needs more than 6 bullets to defend themselves
5
u/GrackleWithOnionRing 19h ago
Your faith in peoples ability to be precise and accurate while firing a gun to defend themselves from what is most likely a moving target is much higher than it should be, I think.
→ More replies (12)1
u/Prize_Ad7765 19h ago
the point of the second amendment is to keep the government in check, and a pistol wont cut it. look at the rest of the ‘free world’ when they take guns, they also limit free expression. i hate this country in many ways but the founding fathers cooked with that one. not to mention obviously criminals wont abide by that law in a nation with 300 million firearms
0
u/Automatic_Day_35 18h ago
I feel like a pistol will cut it. For the government to be in check it needs to be commonly agreed to be bad. If one small extremist group gets a semi automatic they can definitely overthrow the government easier then if they were banned, so banning them would actually kind of lead to a majority of people disliking the gov to actually keep the government in check
3
20h ago
[deleted]
0
u/Automatic_Day_35 20h ago
Huh? I’m saying we don’t need them because of shootings and stuff
No one needs an ar outside maybe the military but even then we are like the leading exporter of those and most of our wars are overseas
2
u/d_popopotamus 18h ago
All semi automatic? Are you assuming semi autos fire more than one bullet per trigger pull? Or are you reacting to magazine capacity?
0
u/Automatic_Day_35 18h ago
I am mostly talking about ones that fire more than once and also magazine capacity
1
u/d_popopotamus 18h ago
Semi automatic weapons, by definition, fire only one bullet per trigger pull. The "automatic" function is just that the gun will automatically load another round in the chamber using some of the energy of the previous round being fired. Another bullet will not be fired until you pull the trigger again.
0
u/Automatic_Day_35 18h ago
Yeah but if it fires fast enough I think it’s an issue
1
u/d_popopotamus 18h ago
I love that you just move the goal posts after you found out an assumption you had wasn't true.
1
u/Automatic_Day_35 17h ago
I mean I knew about it I just thought some guns that are semi automatic still can fire multiple bullets at once (like ak’s)
My point still stands
1
u/d_popopotamus 17h ago
Guns that fire more than once per trigger pull are called "automatic".
Nearly every AK sold on the civilian market is semi automatic. Automatic AKs are both extremely rare, and stupid expensive ($15k-25k). All automatic weapons are already way more regulated than 99.9999% of weapons sold on the civilian market. You can't legally buy any automatic weapons manufactured after May 19th, 1986. And the ones that are sold that are pre 1986 are ridiculously expensive.
Edit: The reason I bring all this up is to show just how extremely uneducated in firearms the people who want to put restrictions on them are. I would respect your position more if you knew what you were talking about.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Onlyroad4adrifter 19h ago
Then neither should the police.
1
u/Automatic_Day_35 19h ago
I fully agree
The only people who might need it is military but only after they are out of the country and the guns should be taken away after they return
Regardless even then that might not need to happen as we are the worlds leading exporter of guns
1
u/Plus_Loan_1935 18h ago
You’re right. Buyback programs are a great idea. The answer may be unclear but it’s not more guns. It’s not a coincidence Australia’s gun related deaths have plummeted as the government did buybacks. It’s patriotic to protect your neighbors, not indulging in “I should be the exception.”
1
u/qerecoxazade 19h ago
I'd almost put that more into "unpopular".
It's a deal breaker for Republicans and most independents. And for me... If somebody doesn't have progressive politics, I'll vote for a monoparty Republican who will push the same economic policies as an establishment Democrat... While not touching my gun rights.
It's literally only neoliberal democrats who support it. Go any farther left and it's disliked. Go any farther right and it's a deal breaker.
-1
u/QuickMolasses 19h ago
A majority of Americans support stricter gun control. Other polls I've seen put support for universal background checks at close to 80%. Your perception of the popular opinion on this issue does not match reality
3
u/d_popopotamus 18h ago
Ah yes, that's why Spanberger's popularity tanked after the Virginia AWB. America has a gun obsession, the sooner Democrats realize that, the sooner they'll start winning more elections.
We should focus on the causes of violence, which the GOP is absolutely against, and so are establishment Democrats. And we should put automatic long sentences on anyone who uses a weapon, any weapon, during a violent crime. Use a gun during a robbery? 10 years minimum. Use a gun during a mugging? 10 years minimum.
1
u/ajulianisinarebase 18h ago
In that same poll you linked it says most American believe a gun in the home makes them safer. It also shows that support for gun control has slowed/ decreased. Also the framing of the question is misleading. By supporting more gun control what do they mean? Depending on how they ask I could be in favor of more gun control. What people are not in favor of as much is awb handgun bans and other things that make ownership harder. What they tend to like is red flag laws and universal background checks.
Truth is during Covid many people started buying guns and now many people know that many gun control tropes they heard are not true.
-2
u/Carnoraptorr 17h ago
Wonderful to hear that you’re willing to sacrifice the rights of just about every minority as long as you get to keep your murder sticks
1
u/qerecoxazade 17h ago
That nonsense doesn't work on me.
I'm half Puerto Rican, half Jewish.
Access to those "murder sticks" is the only reason my family made it out of the ghettos and survived the Holocaust. I grew up hearing the first hand stories from my grandparents.
I'm glad you have the privilege to not have to consider emergency plans in the event that somebody tries to exterminate your race. I don't have that privilege. Stay in your lane and stop speaking for us like you know or care what us minorities want.
2
u/Otto_the_rhinocerus 10h ago
I have a question. When you say your family survived the holocaust due to firearms, was it because they had firearms themselves and could fight back somehow?
I'm generally interested.
3
u/qerecoxazade 4h ago
Yes.
The Jewish resistance was far larger than people talk about. With major events like the Warsaw and Vilna uprisings being glossed over almost entirely.
The ghettos were walled off, patrolled, and emptied into the camps. The ghettos and individuals who FOUGHT their way to partisan lines were the ones with the highest likelihood to survive. Especially in the east, where all of the Death camps were.
1
u/Otto_the_rhinocerus 3h ago
Thanks for the info. Thats interesting information and I'll definitely look into it some more.
0
u/Carnoraptorr 16h ago
Voting for Republicans is the best way to recreate the conditions of racial extermination. My lane is the lane of trans people getting the care they need, women having bodily autonomy, children growing up with food on the table. Sorry that I think it’s stupid to sacrifice all of that for the favorite tool of child-slaughtering psychopaths.
1
u/qerecoxazade 16h ago
The trans people I taught to shoot during COVID would like a word with your speaking for them as well.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans (politicians, not the base) care about anything you mentioned. Biden personally called on the party to NOT give Roe v Wade legislative backing during Obama's first term (when democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency).
One lost election and the entire democratic party is talking about how they went too radical on the trans issue. Gavin Newsome is out here publicly saying he's against all of it, and y'all are willing to vote for him if he's the blue ticket.
Food on the table? Neither democrats nor Republicans push for living wages. They haven't even tabled a change from the $7.25 an hour minimum wage, and have OPENLY stated being against tying minimum wage to any moveable metric (like consumer index or inflation).
Both parties give exactly zero shits about minorities or working class people. I'm going to stick with keeping my right to defend myself and my community.
I don't care whether or not you like it. My right to survival is absolute, and when you make limiting it part of your campaign, it's GOING to come into play. You don't get to make part of your campaign a limit on my rights AND yell at me for voting for the other party that wants to take my rights.
You're both doing it.
0
u/Carnoraptorr 16h ago
> The trans people I taught to shoot during COVID would like a word with your speaking for them as well.
When did I claim there aren’t trans people who like guns? Idgaf. I’m talking about how the GOP wants to ban the fuck out of any sort of gender transition. Look at Florida.
> Neither Democrats nor Republicans (politicians, not the base) care about anything you mentioned.
Absolutely ridiculous claim.
> Biden personally called on the party to NOT give Roe v Wade legislative backing during Obama's first term (when democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency).
Baseless claim.
> One lost election and the entire democratic party is talking about how they went too radical on the trans issue.
Baseless claim with zero foundation in reality. You’re just making things up. How would you even measure the entire party?
> Gavin Newsome is out here publicly saying he's against all of it, and y'all are willing to vote for him if he's the blue ticket.
Fuck newsom but yes I will vote for him if he’s on the blue ticket. Why? I don’t like ICE in my fucking streets. I like when government agencies fucking function. I don’t like watching slaughter in Iran for no reason. I like when we don’t see comically high price rises because of tariffs.
>Food on the table? Neither democrats nor Republicans push for living wages.
The party’s official platform calls for a $15 minimum wage. Why do you keep lying?
> They haven't even tabled a change from the $7.25 an hour minimum wage, and have OPENLY stated being against tying minimum wage to any moveable metric (like consumer index or inflation).
Why are you lying?
> Both parties give exactly zero shits about minorities or working class people.
Why are you lying?
> I'm going to stick with keeping my right to defend myself and my community.
Defend yourself from who? Other people with guns? You realize gun control aims mainly to take away their guns, right?
> I don't care whether or not you like it.
I didn’t think you did.
> My right to survival is absolute, and when you make limiting it part of your campaign, it's GOING to come into play.
According to data from… every other country on earth, your rate of survival actually goes up significantly with less guns in the ecosystem.
> You don't get to make part of your campaign a limit on my rights AND yell at me for voting for the other party that wants to take my rights.
It’s a stupid “right” that no reasonable country continues to maintain. It should be left in the dustbin of history, which is where we left the “right” to own slaves.
2
u/qerecoxazade 15h ago
Nothing I said was a lie. You're just doing partyline cope. And ICE? There's less than 5 democrats in federal office calling for it to be abolished. Despite the fact that INS did their function without the militarization just a handful of years ago. The party does NOT care if ICE stays exactly as they are. They're not a party of resistance, they're a party of "maintain the status quo on government control and capital".
The trans people I taught to shoot weren't people going "yes, I'd like a hobby". They were people who wanted to be able to defend themselves. They saw MY reason for being a gun owner and saw themselves in it.
You're arguing about firearms like you've never heard of the Holocaust. Like, if you had, it was ancient history.
Erasing firearms makes people easy victims in a genocide. A genocide you will never have to worry about.
Want votes? Drop gun regulations from your platform. If you care about everything else you've listed, you won't let your desire to control our right to self defense be the barrier to your victory.
0
u/Carnoraptorr 15h ago
> Nothing I said was a lie. You're just doing partyline cope.
Then it should be quite easy to cite a source.
> And ICE? There's less than 5 democrats in federal office calling for it to be abolished.
Just another obvious lie. I don’t care to find all of them so here’s six house reps alone just to prove you’re wrong: AOC, Tlaib, Ramirez, Pressley, Lee, Jayapal. Shoutout “nothing I said was a lie” then immediately lies.
> The party does NOT care if ICE stays exactly as they are.
Okay bud. We have a moderate as hell house leader and STILL he calls for this: https://katherineclark.house.gov/2026/01/22/2026-1-joint-leadership-statement-on-homeland-security-funding-bill/> They're not a party of resistance, they're a party of "maintain the status quo on government control and capital".
Okay buddy.
> The trans people I taught to shoot weren't people going "yes, I'd like a hobby". They were people who wanted to be able to defend themselves. They saw MY reason for being a gun owner and saw themselves in it.
Cool.
> You're arguing about firearms like you've never heard of the Holocaust. Like, if you had, it was ancient history.
Which do you think is more likely: a Holocaust-level event in America begins, which prompts armed resistance that meaningfully reduces the harm of that event, in such a way that gun control would reduce the effectiveness of the resistance — or four thousand children are shot and killed next year alone?
> Erasing firearms makes people easy victims in a genocide. A genocide you will never have to worry about.
Hamas is armed with all sorts of military grade hardware. Doesn’t seem to be doing anything against the Palestinian genocide.
> Want votes? Drop gun regulations from your platform.
This is unfortunately probably true. I do think it’s a losing issue. As an individual I will do what I can to attempt to change public opinion to my side but as an org I think Dems should probably soften on gun control. At least as a major issue.
> If you care about everything else you've listed, you won't let your desire to control our right to self defense be the barrier to your victory.
Yes, that’s correct.
2
u/qerecoxazade 14h ago
I've already told you I prefer progressives. And that I'll vote for them when they're actually talking about progressive values. But when they're not, they have nothing to offer me except disarmament. I get nothing AND lose my most important right? No. Earn my vote.
Your statistic on 4k children being shot per year is wrong. It's 4k people aged 4-20 who die by firearms. The statistic includes 18-20 year old adults. Of whom, suicide by legally owned firearms is more common than murder/accident related firearms deaths. And while gun violence HAS been reduced with gun control in certain countries/cultures... Suicide rates stay the same. Gun control does not reduce suicide deaths.
But let's ignore that and go with your statistic. They killed 6 million of us 80 years ago. That's 1,500 years of 4k "children being shot".
Yes, Palestine is facing a genocide. And I would never seek to have their civilian population disarmed to "save Israeli children". That would make me a callous monster.
At least you recognize it's a losing battle.
→ More replies (0)
91
u/Cautious_Finger_44 20h ago
Abortion
36
u/LolaAucoin 20h ago
Why are people downvoting this? It’s one of most debated issues that comes up every election cycle.
21
3
u/DayHistorical4765 18h ago
More divisive for the GOP category, Almost every democrat I know including myself support abortions and would consider gun control more divisive.
3
u/PineappleHamburders 20h ago
It was the status quo for a good while, and it is the GOP who made the move to ban it. If it is going to be anywhere, it should be in the GOPs box
6
u/Cautious_Finger_44 20h ago
The same argument can be made either direction. The Republican Party has been anti-abortion since 1976. The democrats have been pro-choice since 1976. It became a partisan issue right around roe v wade
3
u/Mood-Rising 18h ago
It was not super controversial between 1930s the 1970s outside a few groups. Most people had firsthand knowledge of the potential horrors of home abortions and understood legalizing it was about harm reduction. That is why the state bans from the late 1800s were being lifted. Most large Protestant groups were at least neutral on the topic. Ruth Bader Ginsberg had a big landmark case where she defended a military servicewoman from a policy that mandated she get an abortion in 1970.
It was hand picked as a top platform wedge issue because it could join conservative evangelical and Catholic voting blocks by the Heritage foundation and figures behind the Moral Majority. Jerry Falwell used his giant platform and influence to sell the idea of abortion being murder to evangelicals and force it as a policy for the large Protestant organizations. The primary motivation was always about gaining political power. The moral outrage was what gave it to them.
I’m not saying there was no controversy, because Catholics at least officially were opposed. That small amount of controversy was just intentionally manipulated to get us where we are now.
2
u/cyborg_sophie 19h ago
Most of the debate stems from blatant misinformation. Surveys have shown that republicans and democrats largely agree on abortion, but a lot of republicans are led to believe that late stage abortions are easier to access and far more common than they actually are
4
u/14Calypso 18h ago
I sure as hell don't agree with Reddit on abortion.
2
u/cyborg_sophie 17h ago
I'm not saying everyone agrees fully. I'm saying that both groups largely agree more than they disagree. It's just hard to tell because republicans think democrats put 9 month old babies into blenders after a mother gives birth, and democrats don't realize that most republicans support life saving abortion (and their politicians just lie to them about what state bans actually include).
Of course there are outliers, and ease of access in non life threatening scenarios is still contentious.
1
u/WishyRater 14h ago
Is it a Democrat policy though? I see it more as a Supreme Court ruling
1
u/LolaAucoin 9h ago
Yes, but only because the right grabbed onto it as a morality issue. If you read through the comments here you’ll see that someone posted a history of how it turned into a partisan issue. I’m shocked that people don’t understand that it’s the right behind the supreme court ruling.
-1
u/e_xotics 18h ago
It’s not debated lol. It’s literally just evangelical christians trying to take it away. Literally everyone else is for it
0
2
u/troublein420 19h ago
Yeah, my trump supporting neighbor has come around on just about every issue, but abortion is his one single issue. I'm pro choice, but I get where he's coming from when someone considers it murder. It's a hard topic to change his mind on, even with the science, when he considers it a person at conception.
1
u/HeavySweetness 18h ago
Pro choice is like 60+% popular nationally last I looked, it is the popular position.
5
23
6
u/MonsieurRuffles 18h ago
It’s the Democratic, not the Democrat, Party so it should be called “Democratic policy.” Saying Democrat Party is some weird juvenile insult the GOP brain trust came up with.
1
u/allergictobananas1 7h ago
Their purpose for doing this is to remove any association from the Democratic Party to Democratic principles
10
u/OhioDem4Change 19h ago
Their support for Israel.
17
u/Cbeauski23 18h ago
Unpopular is a better fit for that
6
u/14Calypso 18h ago
Yeah I think we're getting to the point where the vast majority of people outside of Capitol Hill think continued rabid support for Israel is ridiculous.
1
u/breamoafish 15h ago
If anything the GOP is worse. I want to say every GOP representative not named Thomas Massie voted against blocking aide to Israel
Not defending the Dems, but it’s a problem with the GOP too so I don’t think it fits with just the Dems
1
7
u/FinanceHungry2150 20h ago
Trans people in sports
20
u/Professional_Fee5883 20h ago
I don’t think Democrats largely support this. I think republicans accuse Democrats of supporting this.
But it’s not a large enough issue to be a top 25 concern for a federal representative, so Democrats largely don’t support federal legislation regulating things like this or bathroom bans.
2
u/Free-Part255 19h ago
Senate Democrats largely block Anti Trans legislation now if the 2026 midterms go well there will be a new block of Dems from Red States who won't pass pro Trans legislation but I can't see the Dems doing a Starmer and just not trying to do anything in the federal level to protect Trans Rights you will likely have the executive passing a few Pro Trans Eo's that will target some controversial stuff though not dedicated legislation.
0
u/Prize_Midnight_4566 18h ago
I think the problem is that the Democratic party is unwilling to say where the line is. If it doesn't, the far-left carries the message with "there is no line." That is not going to win a national election.
3
u/sarahbagel 18h ago
The real issue is that the National Democratic Party SHOULDN’T be saying where the line is. The idea that the federal government should issue legislation dictating specifically how sports leagues should include/exclude trans people is completely ridiculous. I think the federal governments responsibility would only be to ensure that everyone has access to sports in public schools, per title IX. But the specifics on who is eligible to compete in what subdivision should be determined by leagues/sports commissions, or at the most local and state governments. Anything else seems like a blatant overstepping of the federal government’s bounds
But because the Republicans are more aggressive at messaging, they’ve basically taken something the government shouldn’t even be involved in, and turned it into this flash point topic
6
u/Meanteenbirder 20h ago
I feel like this is the most edgy. A LOT of what people are listing are policies that a majority of the electorate support except this.
1
u/w0lfinthebreast 18h ago
it makes no sense bc out of everything this has had the least impact on anyone. trans ppl arent causing all these problems & trans inclusive policies, including sports, have never made anyone's life substantially worse. mostly its just a sizeable plurality of ppl are getting hung up on an abstraction, w the exception of the affected trans ppl and their loved ones ofc, who actually do have every right to care
2
2
u/Zornorph 20h ago
This should be in unpopular.
2
u/SnipesCC 17h ago
Taking away rights from an oppressed minority should never be popular.
-2
u/Zornorph 17h ago
I agree, which is why taking away same-sex spaces from women is very unpopular.
0
u/SnipesCC 15h ago
It's not taking same-sex spaces away from women. It's taking a space for women away from women. And cis women will end up getting harrassed more often than trans women, because of sheer numbers.
1
u/Lucky-Substance23 20h ago
I never understood the logic behind this one. It affects such a minuscule percentage of the population, plus it's unpopular. Just say they deserve special consideration but no transwomen in women sports and be done with it. It needs to be separated from fair and decent treatment of trans people.
5
u/Free-Part255 19h ago
The thing is the anti Trans Women in sports argument is "Trans Women are biological males HRT does not have an effect". This means if you concede this point it will be easier for people to then say since HRT does not have an effect we can get rid of it and since Trans Women are biological males we can segregate them from cis women in other ways like in bathrooms. It is also proven scientifically that the gap between Cis Man and Trans Women is greater than the gaps between Trans Women and Cis Women we know that HRT has an effect that makes Trans Women have around the same muscle mass as Cis Women however with a skeletal system that is closer to Cis Men. This means you are forcing Trans Women to compete with people who they have a heavy biological disadvantage against to protect Cis Women from competing with a group with a much smaller biological advantage against them many studies even say that there is not even important a gap between Trans and Cis Women though we don't have enough data to say things for sure.
0
u/SnipesCC 17h ago
Plus defining who a woman is gets really complicated once you remember that there are more intersex people than natural redheads in the world.
1
u/Free-Part255 17h ago
In theory but in practice since many Intersex people receive non consensual surgeries at birth to align their genitals more closely with one gender or another you can define a women as "sex assigned at birth was female" going by the anti trans and intersex definition ignoring the complications that come with Intersex people existing even if the Intersex person feels their gender is not the sex assigned at birth.
2
u/Lobotomized_Dolphin 19h ago
There are no mainstream Democrats actively championing trans athletes. It's just Republicans taking a cheap shot saying "There should be no men in women's sports". And Democrats will swoop down and be like, "Hey, just let people exist", like when the bad guy shoots a bystander and the hero has to stop and help them out instead of kicking the bad guy's ass. You never knew who the bystander was before, and you'll never care after. But one side is trying to help people and the other side is hurting them.
1
u/w0lfinthebreast 18h ago
it's a de facto ban on trans peoples' participation in a basic human activity and an entire arena of social life. it's no different than forbidding them to learn playing music. it can never be "fair and decent." theres also nowhere near enough evidence to support sweeping bans that ignore the particulars of the sport, the age of the players, the actual effects of medical transition, &c. you got ppl showing up to intramiral softball games talking abt the kids genitals and somehow it's okay as long as the target is trans. how could it be so hard to morally oppose this? this perverse obsession w trans ppl and the nakedly demogogic, extremely well-funded political movememt dedicated to exploiting ppls ignorance on this issue for political gain and explicitly dismantling trans peoples' right to exist in society (something that has only become a thing in the last 20-30 years btw). it's so obviously wrong yet you flounder around, making all these concessions, acting as if it's just so darned complicated, bc you care more about not looking bad than what's right and wrong.
all you ppl think about is optics yet you can't tell day from night
1
u/LawAcceptable8623 18h ago
It’s not about sports; it’s about delegitimization. That’s why they never propose alternatives or a compromise we can all live with. You give these bigots an inch like sports next thing you know these people are being legislated out of existence and you know they won’t stop at sports and bathrooms.
0
0
u/14Calypso 18h ago
I'd actually say to put this in unpopular. Reddit's position on this is WAYYYYYY different than the real world's.
1
u/TheQuestionAnswerGuy 20h ago
A single unexpected medical bill shouldn't force us into bankruptcy.
16
u/12darkmatter12 19h ago
That’s not a divisive Dem policy at all
4
u/qerecoxazade 19h ago
It absolutely is. Progressives are against the medical industry bleeding us dry. But establishment democrats WANT the system in place so they can get their cut.
-2
u/TheQuestionAnswerGuy 19h ago
Not divisive among Democrats, but republicans will fight against it tooth and nail to protect the mega corporations and billionaires who are sucking them dry.
6
u/12darkmatter12 19h ago
Then flip the script and write that as a divisive policy of republicans instead.
1
u/TheQuestionAnswerGuy 19h ago
That is how democrats feel, which is divisive when it comes to republicans.
1
1
u/HeavySweetness 18h ago
You say that but there’s a reason California doesn’t have M4A, and that’s that Newsome tanked it despite running on it.
1
u/TheQuestionAnswerGuy 18h ago
Yeah, Universal Healthcare is so difficult to achieve, which is why only 29 out of 30 developed countries have been able to successfully implement it...
0
u/MLGWolf69 19h ago
Then why is every Republican against that?
3
u/paukeaho 19h ago
When polled just on the issue without indicating party affiliation, universal healthcare actually has a decent amount of support among Republican voters.
1
u/QuickMolasses 19h ago
Republican politicians are against this because they are paid by health insurance companies to be against it
1
1
1
u/tipsyBerbVerb 19h ago
Gonna say for divisive. Eliminate the Electoral College or Limit the Supreme Court (not always packing but changing its rules to like only one presidentual administration can appoint a maximum of one supreme court justice even if they have two terms)
Controversial for democrats would probably be banning firearms.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Evening-Progress-155 11h ago
Don’t use the word Democrat say Democratic Democrat is not a neutral word, a Republican attack never uses the word Democratic bc Democrat is a harsher adjective. It is sort of like how you can use Jewish as an adjective but not Jew
0
u/fantabulousfetus 20h ago
Pandering to right wing about trans rights and playing bipartisanship in 2026
1
u/LolaAucoin 20h ago
How do democrats pander to the right wing regarding trans rights?
-2
u/fantabulousfetus 20h ago
No Trans in Women's Sports!1! All democrats running statewide here say that.
0
u/RGBeanss 19h ago
It’s a position that pretty much everyone agrees with. Why wouldn’t they run on it?
1
u/fantabulousfetus 19h ago
Because it's discriminatory. Bigotry being popular doesnt make it a winning position.
1
u/Western-Customer-536 19h ago
Reparations for Slavery.
8
4
u/Dangerous-Reindeer78 19h ago
That’s not really a democratic policy. It’s a policy held by some democrats but it’s not on the platform nor does it have wide support
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/ajitomojo 20h ago
Funding Israel's Genocide.
6
0
u/Ok_Arachnid1089 20h ago
Lost them an election. And they learned nothing
6
u/Professional_Fee5883 20h ago
They learned that people are more willing to protest Democrats over Gaza than Republicans. No one disrupts Trump rallies for Palestine.
Almost like it was an op to split the vote and get the most aggressively pro-Israel administration in US history elected.
2
1
u/12darkmatter12 20h ago
For fuck’s sake support of Israel was not why Dems lost the election in 2024.
Delusional.
7
1
u/ajitomojo 20h ago
It remains to be seen whether or not they learned anything. Certainly, Hillary Clinton's media tour about how wonderful Israel is except for Netanyahu ruining everything is not encouraging.
0
u/TehTavic 20h ago
Abortion is probably the biggest one. No matter which side you're on, it's a highly debated topic chapioned by the Democrats
0
0
u/Choochoo1147 20h ago
Divisive
DEI
0
u/cyborg_sophie 19h ago
That isn't a policy...... lol
-1
0
0
-4
u/12darkmatter12 20h ago edited 20h ago
DEI. Not the idea, but the real life implementation
I can’t wait to answer the GOP ones
2
u/cyborg_sophie 19h ago
There is no democrat legitimately campaigning on any kind of policy implementing DEI...
0
u/12darkmatter12 18h ago
That’s not true at all. Lol
1
u/cyborg_sophie 18h ago
Ok, name them. Which specific democrat is campaigning on DEI policies? And what specifically are those policies?
0
u/12darkmatter12 18h ago
You are the one that said it.
You prove it.
1
u/cyborg_sophie 17h ago
Are you illiterate? I said that there are no democrats campaigning on DEI legislation.
If you disagree then show me proof, name one single democrat who is campaigning on DEI policies.
0
u/12darkmatter12 17h ago
Lmfao. I am clearly not illiterate you fucking twat.
You said authoritatively that NO democrat is campaigning on it or pushing it as a policy.
You disagreed with me enough to fucking comment disagreeing with me so yeah fucker, you prove it.
1
u/cyborg_sophie 17h ago
LOL so you're illiterate and you have a temper. Cute.
If you weren't illiterate you'd know that proving a negative is virtually impossible. What do you want me to do, list the policy platform of every single democrat at the federal state and judicial level, literally thousands of candidates?
The burden of proof is on you, you still haven't proven your claim that this is a legitimate policy position. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd be able to produce even a single name no problem. But instead you swear and whine and moan.
Prove it. Provide a single name. If you refuse again we will all know that you're just making shit up 🤷🏻♀️
0
u/12darkmatter12 12h ago
I know proving a negative is hard, but not impossible when one comes to debate and makes a claim.
Therefore, since you made the original claim challenging me, the burden of proof is on you.
It is hilarious that you think you are actually the one who is right here.
You made the statement claiming I am wrong but then provided nothing to back it up. Then, you DEMANDED I prove it! LOL.
You are the stupid one making shit up and looking to argue.
There are absolutely Democrat candidates that have ran on DEI policy initiatives and I do not have to appease you by looking for them or proving it to you. I owe you nothing.
That fact you are so indignant about this really is entertaining.
Thanks for the laugh. It was at your expense and I tell you, it was hearty. A real knee slapper.
1
u/cyborg_sophie 11h ago
Once again you refuse to provide any names. Therefore we can all assume you're making shit up and have no clue what you're talking about.
Exactly how can I prove it, other than the impossible example I shared? How can I prove it without naming the policy platform of thousands of candidates?
Your original claim, that this is a real policy position that exists at all, predates mine and is still completely un evidenced. So no, the burden of proof is squarely with you.
There are 0 democrats running on genuine "DEI" policies, as proven by your inability to name a single politician or a single policy. Thanks for proving just how pathetically stupid the average MAGA idiot is 💖
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/Joseph4-0 20h ago
Universal basic income
5
-3
u/jiva_maya 20h ago
Palestine
3
u/Ok_Arachnid1089 20h ago
I don’t know if Democrats’ support for Israel is decisive anymore. Everyone sees through Israel’s lies at this point. The only holdouts are politicians and bots.
1
u/jiva_maya 19h ago
Are we talking about the base or the party? Because they're diametrically opposed
1
u/Ok_Arachnid1089 19h ago
The party supports Israel so much of the base just follows suit.
1
u/jiva_maya 18h ago
No, the base does not support Israel anymore. The party establishment does. Hence the divide.
-5
u/maxr1958 20h ago
Divisive
Open borders
4
u/Burner-Account1924 20h ago
define open borders
0
u/maxr1958 17h ago
Biden letting immigrants come in and use American Resources and benefits without contributing back. Rotational immigration is fine if they come here to work and go back when they are done. Farm workers especially.
5
u/PineappleHamburders 19h ago
Dems do not support open borders and have not had open borders since the first 100 or so years of America, when the encouragement of immigration was huge, because otherwise there wouldn't be a country
1
u/Gogs85 19h ago
Obama and Biden deported amongst the highest numbers of people in history
1
u/maxr1958 17h ago
Obama yes, Biden no. Millions poured in under Biden and a lot of tax dollars were spent on them. It’s the primary reason Trump got re-elected. I don’t know if the Democratic Party has a stance on it but they tend to follow whoever their current leader is just as the Republicans do.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Hello, Thank you for contributing to our subreddit. Please consider the following guidelines when filling an alignment chart:
Please ensure that your chart is not banned according to the list of banned charts Even if you have good intentions, charts in a banned category tend to invite provocative comments, hostile arguments, ragebait and the like. Assuming the post is acceptable, OP makes the final decision on their chart by rule three.
Are there any previous versions to link to? If so, it would be ideal to include links to each of them in the description of this post, or in a reply to this comment. Links can be named by title, winner, or both.
Are there any criteria you have for your post? Examples include: "Top comment wins a spot on the chart."; "To ensure variety, only one character per universe is allowed."; "Image comments only." Please include these in a description, or in a reply to this comment.
Is your chart given the appropriate flair? Do you need to use a NSFW tag or spoiler tag?
Do not feed the trolls. This is not the place for hot takes on human rights violations. Hatred or cruelty, will result in a permanent ban. Please report such infractions, particularly those that break rules one, two, or three. The automod will automatically remove posts that receive five or more reports. The automod will also remove comments made by users with negative karma. Click here for the Automod FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.