Most men care. We have wives, mothers, daughters, friends. But it becomes very hard to vote for a party (mind you, I'm not American, but this is showing up everywhere) that airs too many radical sentiments that men are shit and useless. You lose your support. You can't build a majority that way. Keep the sensible people in the middle in the loop.
If the average "CIS white male" feels this way and is checking out, you've got a problem, whether you're the cause or not. It's perception more so than truth that's costing "the left" the elections.
If people are rather loudly letting you know they feel left out, you'd better come up with a strategy that somehow resonates with them, rather than saying "we never said that" and continue to lose their vote. Whether you think that's justified or not is not really relevant, not if you want to win, at least.
The same thing goes the other way 'round, if the democrats would win because too many women would have felt left out from the Republican party stance, something I can easily understand too.
> the average "CIS white male" feels this way and is checking out, you've got a problem, whether you're the cause or not. It's perception more so than truth that's costing "the left" the elections.
Yes, you have a problem, and it's called disinformation.
> If people are rather loudly letting you know they feel left out, you'd better come up with a strategy that somehow resonates with them, rather than saying "we never said that" and continue to lose their vote. Whether you think that's justified or not is not really relevant, not if you want to win, at least.
This is some ludicrous reasoning. What do you want them to do other than say "we literally never said that"? How exactly do you picture them campaigning against strawmen and imagined threats? If people are too dumb to realise they're being lied too, that's really unfortunate, but you can't fix stupid. Ultimately that's why populist politicians with empty words are on the rise. You really cannot fix stupid.
Thank you for eloquently expressing the knee jerk version of what I was going to say, which is _that sounds like a you/them problem_.
So, reading between the lines, it sounds like these "CIS white males" (I am one, hi!) are being triggered by discussion of inclusion, bias, systemic misogyny, etc. It's not always pleasant to have a light shown on your biases but how else do you expect to grow or for society to ever change? Imagine if abolitionists or suffragettes had kowtowed to people who did or threatened to "check out" because of their work? By GP's (implied) logic, they should have and worked to overtly deal with those issues at. ... some indeterminate point in the future?
Don’t bother. It only goes so far as the democrats are demonizing men but there are no examples. The fact is the democrats did not run on demonizing men, the republicans ran on the democrats demonizing men.
do you remember a time when the republicans were even keeled and tempered and the democrats kept calling them hitler, nazis, facists, and so on? I certainly remember.
The only way to counter this message is to stop with the hate speech. Like the parent above said. Even independents are tired of it now.
Of course likely the left will again ignore the warnings and continue on so I’m quite anxious to see what 2026 and 2028 bring.
I don't know of a time in recent memory with "even keeled" republicans (at least beyond the Primary). Romney and McCain would be the last I'm aware of.
I'm confident that I've heard both sides saying exactly what you're saying though... and I remember many times that "the end of democracy" was around the corner.... and if such-and-such wins a race war is going to break out etc.
The rhetoric and post-election-dooming is always the same regardless of which side wins.
I pretty firmly believe that things like the economy, incumbents tendency to remain in power, and a party switch after hitting the term-limit are the biggest factors. What people actually say once the primaries are over just doesn't matter to most people. People will cherry-pick what they want to hear.
I have no clue what you're talking about? Did Gore call Bush a fascist? Obama?
Ultimately, I see the world this way: people want good things for others. Most people who voted for Trump aren't directly fascists. Trump himself I wouldn't even qualify as a fascist. But he espouses fascistic policies. Immigrants polluting the blood of America, stuff like that, those are fascist ways of talking about immigration. So at some point we have to talk about things, and denounce them. And no, Trump himself is not Mussolini. But the shortcut of calling him a fascist is ultimately okay.
Same thing with racisms. Most people aren't fundamentally racist, but they'll espouse racist opinions. So they're racist.
if you believe the left hasn’t ramped up the vitriol against their supposed enemies then you’re living under a rock. have you already forgotten this same hatred almost got Trump shot twice? the rest of us haven’t.
trump is running at least partially on a revenge-tour platform. his rhetoric is unlike anything else I've personally heard from another candidate on any side of the aisle.
I understand that we don't agree here and that we all view things that are said through a distorted lens... so you may feel that certain speech from one person isn't violent, but said by another person is.... and I clearly would flip that around.
Its a shame that things are the way they are, but hopefully we can all understand each other at some point and things are less polarized. Its pretty miserable to have calm and reasonable conversations about anything even broaching politics. Its just contributes to the echo chambers.
Trump is literally a convicted rapist. Mounted an insurrection. Pedophile. Serial cheater. Mocked disabled people and veterans. Literally stole money from a children's cancer charity. You can literally, no exaggeration, pull out tens of those indisputable facts, which in a normal world, would be immediately disqualifying. You wouldn't hire someone who has said any of the millions of things he has said. Do you remember grab them by the pussy? Would you be friends, or hire, or tolerate anyone speaking like that?
Pointing them out and how fundamentally unsuited that man is for any job, let alone the presidency of any country, is not "hatred". If you have a problem with people being shot at, take this up with your local representative to get better controls on who can acquire a weapon.
Stopping here because this is a blatant lie. He was NOT convicted of rape but instead sexual abuse. They are not the same and if you need further evidence then consult a lawyer.
Remember that disinformation the left claimed the right was spreading? guess what you’re doing now?
'But Judge Lewis Kaplan called Trump’s semantic argument “entirely unpersuasive.” He clarified that the jury found that the former president did indeed “rape” Carroll based on the common definition of the word.'
Oh, my deepest apologies. He's not a convicted rapist, only a convicted sexual abuser. Also a close associate and friend to a known pedophile ringleader, so very highly probably a rapist and child molester too.
Does rape vs sexual abuse change much in your view? Especially when there's also him bragging about grabbing them right by the pussy.
Sorry you believe what you believe, but sexual abuse is not akin to rape. The law has said so. Do you disagree with the law or just want to punish Trump?
> It's literally on the same sliding scale of nonconsensual sexual activity.
Human relationships are messy and complex, treating sex in such a manichean fashion is not helpful. Under Biden there were new Title IX regulations that made it virtually impossible for universities to expel students for sexual assault because they were so strict, often after being removed from school solely on the basis of an accusation they would sue and win and come right back. Its become nothing more than a formality at this point used only in the most extreme cases.
I don’t think Trump is the model of sexual freedom or anything, but the situation was far more authoritarian—at least in that respect—than before. Sometimes people get hurt when they have sex, it doesn’t mean we have to get the law involved.
Both times were by a disgruntled right-wing/Republican and not a left-wing/Democrat. (and no, a single $20 donation to a Democrat does not make someone a Democrat).
Exactly. If, as a non-American who is non-political and didn't follow the elections at all, that's the only thing that I've heard, I guess there's your problem (assuming you lean democrat).
What I wonder as a complete outsider: how bad must the image of "the left" be that a shady right-wing populist megalomaniac businessman with sexist tendencies wins the election a second time?
Are the democrats associated with a handful of radicals and idealistic goals that don't apply to the silent majority, or is there a perception that they can't handle the current political and economical challenges?
That's not an example. Give me a policy, or at least a promise of a policy, literally anything coming from a democrat's mouth that would prove that the left is actually antagonizing men as a group.
Meanwhile, Trump has said that you should grab them by the P-word, Vance has criticized "childless cat ladies" as if being a single woman should be a crime. I can go on and on, it really is that simple.
This lack of evidence thing is old and still doesn’t work.
I certainly remember hateful women lambasting men, including myself, for things like saying a woman is attractive.
Also Obama just said:
"[P]art of it makes me think, and I’m speaking to men directly… that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that."
I wonder what he meant? That men are sexist because we don’t want a woman president? Or maybe that they wouldn’t vote because they’re heading to the grocery store or something?
Do you seriously actually think that Obama acknowledging that sexist bias exists when it comes to electing the president is an "attack on men"?
I love how whenever someone on the left says they're offended by something outrageous and awful, the right says "grow a thicker skin, snowflake", but whenever someone on the left calmly asserts an obvious truth, that bias exists, people on the right whine that they're being attacked and their way of life is being destroyed.
I'm a man and I don't think the Democratic party "hates me". Maybe Republicans need to grow a thicker skin and stop being offended by every little thing. (See, I can be an asshole and argue in bad faith too!)
Kamala being a woman absolutely had a negative impact on her results. That is probably not the main reason she lost though. Again, do you have any real proof that the left is systematically antagonizing men, or can you only provide anecdotal evidence?
It's really easy to find instances of right-wing politicans or pundits saying abhorrent things about women as a group (refer to my previous comment), but no one seems to care. On the other hand Obama makes vague implications that sexist bias may negatively influence their candidates and now half the country hates men.
I don't get what you're trying to prove with Obama's quote. Is pointing out the existence of a sexist bias the same as taking an anti-men stance? Is being anti-racist the same as being anti-white? If some believe those things then right-wing propaganda really has succeded into making their brains impervious to logic, and I'm afraid nothing the democrats can say will undo that.
Why do you do these broad generalizations where you demonize an entire group, when it's exactly the problem you have (or, perceive you have..) with how "the left" speak?
any leftists that aren’t hateful are trying to leave the party and create a new one. or attempting to save the existing party. there is no non hateful democrat doing nothing
Former president. If he were president when people tried to kill him, he wouldn't be eligible to run again.
Also, it was disgruntled right-wingers who tried to kill him, so it's more likely it was his own hateful rhetoric and his own actions (like pedophilia) that motivated the would be assassins.
Yes, sorry, I in fact require you to provide me some evidence before I believe your insane take of "the left is demonizing men".
As a cisgender heterosexual white man myself, I can't recall any piece of legislation, passed or proposed, that would discriminate against me based on those adjectives. I have never felt any kind of animosity toward myself coming from democrats.
If you really want examples of hate, go listen to literally any talk from Trump and cie. on gays, lesbians, muslims, blacks, puerto ricans, transgender people, jews, single women, atheists, political opponents...
So, I don't require absolute evidence, just any evidence that the democrats have an anti-men agenda. Like the Republicans have an overt anti-lgbt agenda, through laws like "don't say gay", bans on same-sex marriages, redefining sex (a scientific term) in the law...
The video linked at the top of this thread is the evidence you asked for, have you even watched it? It doesn't matter if you consider that person a viable source or not, it has clear examples of men being demonized by left leaning sources. So much so that it leaks into pop culture/media. Men clearly feel like they are no longer welcome in many spaces, or are lesser/undervalued. I'm not here to comment on whether thats deserved or not, but it has consequences.
You seem to be under the opinion that there has to be a legislative policy or that it needs to have been said by a politician for it to affect someones sentiment, opinion, and voting choice. It doesn't.
This said as somebody who did not vote for Trump, not that I liked the other candidate that much though either. There is clear evidence of blatant hateful rhetoric towards men to the point of being considered okay to just openly talk hatefully about men that by nature of cause and affect has also led to growing blatant anti-female rhetoric, and it is driving younger males towards the right by simple gender divide. The right is just better at capitalizing on it.
To be clear, you can find people hating on any group you could come up with. But let's be real here, the hate is largely coming from one side, and that one is not the dems.
I know of no mainstream liberal figure that have spoken hateful words against men as a group, while I can rewatch the latest RNC and find many instances of abhorrent speech towards minorities.
They are still plenty of white men on TV and in the movies, I have never been insulted because of who I am. I have plenty of LGBT friends who could not care less about my "orthodoxy" and are perfectly happy to spend time with me.
> men in this country have been demonized by the left repeatedly
Again, fucking cite a source. You can't feel you're being demonised if nobody ever said anything against you. Stop and try to think for a second or two. (And no, me telling you you're stupid for victimising yourself with no proof doesn't mean "the left" is demonising you, because I'm not American).
> stop looking for evidence and just freaking listen to people’s perspectives
What? Stop looking for evidence and listen to people's feelings? How about people grow a brain and start looking at facts?
You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. You broke them badly and repeatedly in this thread, ignoring the admonition at the top. Not cool.
You also broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread, ignoring the admonition at the top. That's seriously not cool. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.
I'm not American. This is not a moral or political statement. I'm pointing out you (as in "the left") seem to be losing men. This costs you support, and well, victory. Clearly enough people felt "the left" were not on their side.
I can't speak about justifying rape or abuse or pedophilia or reproductive rights or religion or immigration or not being able to afford food. I don't live in a (that) polarised two-party system country. Though I fear we're all sort of heading that way for one reason or another...
I'm not American either, but I don't believe the problem is with the American "left" here. If half of America has really been brainwashed into thinking Harris is a communist, I'm afraid this country is lost.
If anything, my advice to democrats would be to start playing "dirtier", I haven't seen anyone take advantage of the recent links established between Epstein and Trump, for example.
> If half of America has really been brainwashed into thinking Harris is a communist
Well, are they wrong? Once you get past the stupid rehtoric associated with the word, the goal of communists is to usher in an age of post-scarcity.
The United States is clearly leading that charge. Food production is the closest thing we have to post-scarcity, and that's almost entirely thanks to the efforts of US innovation. I even dare say that US innovation in general is doing more for bringing us closer to post-scarcity than anything else seen in the world. Harris seems/seemed on board to see that continue.
Trump may be too. He appears to also stand behind American innovation. Although, perhaps to the determinant of innovation elsewhere, which does set him apart from Harris, and, to be fair, you might argue that leaves him unaligned with the communist intention.
> Well, are they wrong? Once you get past the stupid rehtoric associated with the word, the goal of communists is to usher in an age of post-scarcity.
So, if you ignore what a word means, and redefine it, yes, anything can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Communism has an element of post-scarcity as a sort of a prerequisite, but that's neither the main goal, nor the means. There is nothing even remotely communist in anything even remotely mainstream in US politics.
> So, if you ignore what a word means, and redefine it, yes
Go on. What does the word mean?
It is oft associated with "member of the Communist Party", of which Harris clearly is not. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of? But that usage is like calling a member of the Democratic Party a liberal – something that is also often done. But to be a liberal does not automatically make you a member of the Democratic Party, even if members of the Democratic Party are often liberal.
> but that's neither the main goal, nor the means.
What is the main goal, then?
The means is undefined. Different communists have different ideas about how to achieve post-scarcity. The Communist Party has a particular stance about that, certainly, but as before, while members of the Communist Party may be communist, not all communists are members of the Communist Party.
Yes, they're wrong. Democrats are very much pro-ownership, and have no interest in weakening the capitalist class in any ways, shape or form. Communism is not about post-scarcity, to the contrary. It's an economic system that seeks to distribute finite resources equitably, and get rid of the owner class (In theory at least, in practice, well...).
So arguing that any of Harris or Trump have anything to do with communism is either very dishonest or coming from a place of deep ignorance.
> Democrats are very much pro-ownership, and have no interest in weakening the capitalist class in any ways, shape or form.
While Marx believed that was necessary to see post-scarcity, it very well could be that he was wrong. This may come as a surprise to you, but he wasn't an all-knowing genie, just a feeble human. At this point in time we seem to be going down the right road without needing to do that. As before, I think we can agree that American innovation has brought us closer to post-scarcity than anything else the world has ever known.
If you are trying to say that Harris isn't a Marxist, then sure, that's fair. But we're clearly talking about "communist", not "Marxist". That these words happen to share the same last three letters does not imply that they are the same word.
If you are trying to say that Harris isn't a member of the Communist Party, as an earlier poster seemed to mistake, that is also fair. Clearly she is not that either. But, again, we're talking about "communist" not "member of the Communist Party". It is possible for a communist to be a member of the Communist Party, just as a liberal may be a member of the Democratic Party, but being a communist/liberal does not imply alignment with a political party. For our Canadian friends, being a liberal does not imply support of the Liberal Party either. Ideologies and political groups are quite distinct from each other.
> Communism is not about post-scarcity, to the contrary. It's an economic system that seeks to distribute finite resources equitably
Perhaps you just phrased it poorly, but communism is more of a lack of a system. It doesn't even have a state to administer a system! Those things go away when you have post-scarcity, naturally. Communism is not about post-scarcity, but you need post-scarcity to allow it to happen. You fundamentally cannot go stateless, classless, and moneyless without post-scarcity. Hence why communists seek post-scarcity. It is the change that ushers in communism.
> So arguing that any of Harris or Trump have anything to do with communism is either very dishonest or coming from a place of deep ignorance.
Or just boring old semantics. That is what you seem to present here, offing that Harris is not a communist simply by redefining communist (granted, it appears as though you may be struggling to get out what you are trying to say, so it might just be that).
Regardless, I spelled out my definition. Even it is not the same as your pet definition, it is the one that was given. The context is set. Under that definition, how is Harris not a communist?
I detect a double-standard among Republicans in this regard, but at any rate, I think this is a case of culture-war/DEI resentment and conflating people on Twitter with the DNC. And here they'll usually point to some policy or other that gives credence to some of that (DEI for federal workers or something), but it's a weak connection.
From my outsider (non-American) male perspective, I never heard anything from the Democrats. Somehow I ended up hearing a whole lot from the Republicans, without looking for it (or wanting it!). Whatever they did, they seemed to do a better job getting into the channels where men are found. So while I expect the Democrats haven't criticized men, I can understand how it is easy to buy into the rumours when that is all you have to go on.
I think people don't realize that it doesn't need to be directly said by a politician to create sentiment.
If you look at the online sentiment which greatly affects young voters, it is very much anti-men in general. In fact you even have instances of this being seen in popular culture entertainment and slipping into mainstream at times. Especially for CIS white males. And guess which population overwhelmingly both voted for Trump, but also gained voters for the Trump camp? Men.
Anti-male rhetoric is at an all time high, and has given rise to male spaces being dominated by accordingly anti-female rhetoric.
This is in part what the parent comments are mentioning. That many of the most outspoke people for Dems (i.e not necessarily politicians themselves) are women who just entirely dismissed even trying to capture male voters who were on the fence. Yes, I get that it is difficult to resonate with people who vote in favor of taking away womens rights, but the problem is that you just aren't going to win if you don't capture at least some of those voters.
I don't dispute that a lot of republican voters bought into the propaganda that dems were anti-men, but what are the democrats supposed to do? This is completely baseless. I can't recall a single mainstream liberal figure having problematic words on men as a group.
Republican speakers on the other
hand spew non-stop hate toward every minority I could name and no one cares. If the median voters can't see that (wether he lives in a bubble or simply refuses to acknowledge it), then this country is fucked.
Did that really happen though? or did the right just amplify those messages because they're very effective to campaign on? and now everyone just repeats them. Maybe even making a lot of young men feel even more despondent and useless in the process.
Kinda funny how the moment real progress is made on trying to give anyone other than males a hand up, they start crying like babies about how they're not getting enough attention. Meanwhile, those same men are literally stripping away women's rights to their own body.
What substance? Random people's opinions online are not representative of whole political parties or movements or groups of people....
Hell, pro-Trump people were crying foul when the words of an opening act for Trump were associated with Trump and friends (that Puerto Rico is an island of garbage), this is infinitely more unrelated.
The article summarizes the positions of the Left, by a Left-leaning news org. The article is not about the positions of the the journalist. What more do you want? Harris's isn’t going to write this herself
You're taking an opinion piece summarising viewpoints people on the left are supposedly favourable to as the official position of a political party in the opposite way (e.g. you seem to think that agreeing that there is institutional sexism against women means that you want to be sexist against men or that men in general should be shamed for being men, which is, of course, bullshit).
If you have this absurd stance, what do you think about the literal words of high profile republican politicians? JD Vance comparing Trump to Hitler? Trump misquoting Mein Kampf? Trump saying he'll deport 20 million people? Trump expressing violent misogyny (grab them right by the pussy)? Trump saying he'll save women if they want it or not? Blatant racism against black and latino people?
Those are direct positions of the actual candidates. Wildly more representative than an opinion summary by a journalist.
I have never had anyone tell me as a white male that I should be ashamed of myself, not least from the left.
What I have been recently is very impressed by female talent in all sorts of industries, which makes me ponder how much we've lost holding them back all this time.
Likely because you’ve sheltered yourself from it. I have been told on HN even that I’m privileged (implying I should be ashamed or aware of such privilege). Also all that recently about how racism is alive and well and it’s our fault.
If you are a white male (I am) then you almost certainly ARE privileged at some level and imo should be aware of that.
This is a completely separate matter from being ashamed of said privilege (I don't think this is reasonable or productive), or being held responsible for racism in general (obviously ridiculous unless you are right now a bona fide racist). But that level of nuance doesn't fit neatly in a 30 second inflammatory commercial.
Who's done with it? The right? because no one loves identity politics more than them. Every single word that comes out of trumps mouth is about someones identity.
do you not believe Im a veteran? or maybe the degree? or maybe that I came from a poor family? which is it and why would someone lie about that? or maybe your world view was shattered?
The other reply to this post has it right. Your argument against identity politics appears to be to engage in identity politics, and that was the reason for my snarky comment. But I'll bite and make a serious reply, I'd like to think HN is better than a place to shitpost (and that's on me).
I have no reason to doubt any of what you said, and in all seriousness, I am happy that you have come from a poor background and made a good life for yourself without the so-called required college degree. My point is that if all those things were true about you and you were also black for example, you'd probably have been at a relative disadvantage to your white self in this country.
That in no way takes away from your success in life, or implies you didn't work hard to get there. I grew up in a family without much money, but one that valued education and hard work. I have worked, and worked hard my entire life, and things have by and large worked out very well for me. In my younger days I did plenty of stupid things that might very well have gotten me shot were my skin tone darker. I have black family members who have been handcuffed and thrown down on the driveway of their house that they own because it was late at night they "looked suspicious". Would I have gotten to where I am today if I were black? Maybe yes, maybe no, but the macro-level odds are I'd be worse off if I weren't white.
My view is that if we want to change things for the better - whether in politics or business or personal life - it's better to be honest about the nature and degree of the problems than to try and pretend they don't exist. My great-grandparents owned businesses and my black friend's great-grandparents were owned by other people. My parents could do whatever they wanted and my black friend's parents had to go to separate schools and use separate drinking fountains. None of this is your fault nor mine, and I'm not going to feel bad about myself because of what my ancestors did. But I am willing to consider that actual history should inform our approach to improving things going forward. Maybe consider it a blameless postmortem for society https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/
If you want to reduce that to "identity politics" and write it off in a with-us-or-against-us calculation, that's certainly your right. It is still a free country after all. For the record, I've been an unaffiliated voter my entire life, and I believe the surest sign that the democratic party is terrible at what they do is that Donald Trump has been considered a serious presidential candidate three times now. The two party system has done an amazing job of splitting people who may otherwise agree on 95% of issues over relatively trivial issues. But truly, you really are with us or against us, and there is no other way unless we can get rid of the two party system. So for me I am against the sycophancy and nepotism and kleptocracy and hypocrisy of Donald Trump and the republican party, and if that means I have to deal with some ill-advised identity politics from the democrats, then the reality at a national level is that I have to hold my nose and deal. What I'm not going to do is vote against the interests of myself and my family (and, I believe, my country) because someone is trying to make me feel bad about my ancestors.
I don't think so, caring means doing something about it, if men weren't deeply misogynistic there would have been a woman president decades before. The behavior of men is not surprising however and is expected.
What is shocking is half the women in this country also don't care about their own interests either.
It is one thing for immigrants or working class to be voting against their own interests, economic and border policies are abstract and people historically have failed to attribute links to the administration responsible. Abortion is not abstract however, the linkage to right-wing policy is straightforward.
It is not abstract political issue like the economy or immigration.
Every woman between 18(and sadly lot younger but they cannot vote ) and 45 is affected directly personally by reproductive healthcare . It is an issue they get reminded about every month physically.
—-
Electing women heads of state , is an exceptionally low bar on misogyny scale, that only the Middle East, lesser developed parts of Africa and United States have in common .
Even non Middle Eastern Islamic countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh where stoning for accusations of adultery is still a thing have democratically elected women leaders .
——
People aren’t voting for trump for his policies, neither he nor his supporters can articulate what they clearly.
2016 was explained about how it was an anti-establishment vote , Hillary had baggage .
2024 the discourse is already it the economy
record numbers voted for him in 2020 when he had the by far worst possible economy of any president ever. Biden only scrapped through by thinnest of margins .
It is disingenuous to then argue that people were smart enough to understand the reason behind the economy then , but cannot comprehend the economic consequences of 2020 policies and the trends of today to attribute to Biden .
It is always something else, we should own who we are as a society.
many women I asked are absolutely ready, but every single one of them were depressed at the idea of Harris being the first. given she can’t put a sentence together they didn’t want the shame.
Sorry but no. Doctors need to do their job and read the laws. They’re smart enough. Keep going though, that’s clearly a winning topic with even women voting against it.
> Keep going though, that’s clearly a winning topic with even women voting against it
Results in Missouri, Kansas, Montana, Arizona, Ohio, Nevada either yesterday or in the last year, that voted for trump but also voted protections for it say otherwise.
National ban is on the cards now, controlling the courts, Senate and presidency and likely the house it is quite within reach. There is nothing further to say, predictions and warnings have no clearly no effect, perhaps lived experience might, or we keep blaming healthcare workers or immigrants for everything, whatever works.
nope. still the left haven’t learned what decentralized power and states rights are. there will be no federal ban. keep spreading misinformation if you like but as the country has already shown you, we don’t believe it anymore.
Comstock act and its power exists . Even if it doesn’t , there is no state law which can supersede the federal government right to regulate interstate commerce , no healthcare system can survive today without interstate commerce .
I would be happy to be proven wrong , but I wouldn’t count on a strongman being restrained in using the power the court; legislatures and executives have given him.
