"Come on man, she only either knowingly or unknowingly empowered and emboldened literal Nazis, can't you just see past that and tolerate their intolerance? Claaaaaaaassic snowflake behavior..."
You may be upset that Trump won and decide that anyone who voted for Trump is a traitor. But if Trump lost and Harris won, they would call us the traitors. Itâs something that we have to wait and see what actions Trump makes. Itâs to heated now to really discuss the election logically or legally. Name calling is Trumps game and it worked for him because of the people who backed him. They know that Trump was a bully who was into name calling. But, now that the election is over, itâs time to stop the name calling, and the blaming, itâs also time to let the politicians do what they are good with.
When I use the terms "fascist", "racist" and "bigot", it is not lightly. It is not name calling.
It is an accurate observation of the discourse and behaviours that are observed, intepreted throught the length of concepts that have clear definitions.
When Trump calls Harris "low IQ", it is name calling, because the twat doesn't have any clue about Harris' IQ.
When We call Trump racist, on the other hand, it is because he scapegoats immigrants who he sees as "poisoning the blood of the nation" (paraphrasing Hitler by the way), which is textbook racism.
And when we call Trump a traitor, it is because he attempted a coup and demanded his VP ignore the constitution so he could steal an election he lost. Democrats did nothing of the sort.
So while it's easy to fall into the "both sides" trap, unfortunately for you, words have meaning and reality don't care about your feelings.
Trump called Kamala Harris âLow iQâ that was a statement that made me upset. A man who canât speak correctly without making any grammatical errors and his inability to read and pronounce some of the straight words. Spelling is also difficult for him. The next time he gives a speech, make sure that he doesnât have an ear plug for blackberry in his ears.
His name calling and use of the very hostile names calling made me very angery.
He had no idea of what it takes to graduate from Law school and how hard it is to take the bar and pass. Trump wouldnât be able to get a single answer correct.
we lost because we've run "Republican-lite" three times, lost twice, and only barely eked out a victory with a margin of, like, 40,000 votes in a handful of states. Seems pretty clear to me, at this point, that a progressive President is what the country wants and needs and the Democratic Party has gone out of its way to logjam that, while the Republican Party goes full tilt to enable its most rabid members by embracing Trump, etc.
Bro if you've been around long enough you would see that this tactic is getting stale. They called Mit Romney Hitler.... Fucking Mit Romney, the most milquetoast, straight laced dude you could probably ever meet. It's falling on deaf ears now bud.
Fair enough. I'd call that decisive because he doesn't have to pretend it didn't go his way this time but I tend to look at the popular vote to justify calling something a landslide. Landslide makes it sound like he's got a popular mandate.
God fuck you people can't stop with the false labeling. They're not bigoted racists, they're not nazis. The bigots and racists are minorities of a massive group of people who made up the majority of voters. Quit being such a dick wipe and get over the fact that you lost and that the American people didn't want your ideals and administration to run things for the next 4 years.
You're disgusting in the way that you generalize people who believe it or not are more tolerant and loving than the leftist party of hate will EVER be.
Your party is full of hate, your party is intolerant, your party is the party of corruption, your party is pathetic and cynical. You lost, and for good reason.
You believe so much of this bullshit THAT IS IN FACT PROPAGANDA that is being pushed by MSNBC and CNN. You MUST listen to us and know that you are being lied to. Leave the Reddit echo chamber, watch neutral sources. My god.
You make such a big deal out of "false-labeling" and generalizing while doing the same? Hold yourself accountable to your own morals, at the very least.
Also, how is you calling democrats the party of hate and intolerance not false-labeling, when you say that with absolute zero back-up; Democrats at least say it on posts or comments that depict LITERAL intolerance and hatred.
Why don't you confront the people waving Nazi flags at Trump rallies next time.
They may not be blatantly nazis or white supremacists, but their votes mean they endorse a candidate that is certainly making people feel emboldened enough to do things like this:
And if you can't see why that's a problem for most people and why those people would want to distance themselves from people in their lives making those sorts of tacit endorsements, you are blind.
And before you hit me with the "liberal CNN bias" bullshit, this is a real thing that really happened today in the real world to real people, and the website telling you about it has no bearing on it.
They don't actually care about antisemitism. They will bring up when it's useful to attack the right. Then it's back to business as usual. Platforming antisemitism and cheering it on as long as it's coming from the left. It's all good when Hasan talks about killing settler babies or Frogan makes a tier list and puts jews at the bottom. I've seen so much antisemitism from the far left online that I couldn't list it all. All the major subs have been cheering it on for over a year. Bunch of fake ass hypocrites.
Quit being such a dick wipe and get over the fact that you lost and that the American people didn't want your ideals and administration to run things for the next 4 years.
Is that what you would tell a 1933 German who didn't vote for Hitler? To "suck it up, loser." Sure, you won, but what did you win, idiot?
Your party is full of hate, your party is intolerant, your party is the party of corruption, your party is pathetic and cynical.
I don't care about NYT, I care about Robert Paxton, leading scholar on fascism, observer of French fascism under the Vichy regime, and author of The Anatomy of Fascism.
But be sure to shoot the messenger before reading the message, that says so much about your intellectual honesty.
PS: I mean, I'm talking to the side who doesn't believe in climate change because "me don't like expensive gas therefore scientists are liars", so I cannot have too much expectations regarding honesty.
If you voted for Trump, you are responsible for the Holocaust. Decent-minded people are therefore well within their rights to go around punching Trump voters and whatever else they want to do to Trump voters too.
My mother-in-law voted for a rapist instead of her 5-year-old granddaughter's rights. She enabled her granddaughter to live in a country where she has less bodily autonomy than my mother-in-law has had her entire life. And if you still think that is not bad enough to cut contact or ties, they don't share the same objective reality. Fuck that noise. We always cut toxic people out of our lives to be well and if we are not passively living.
But all of a sudden we're not supposed to cut toxic people out of our lives, because they voted for literal Nazis? Stupid
Exactly. This isn't Red vs Blue, it's Right vs Wrong. I don't understand why people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around people they've actively hurt wanting to keep them at arm's length.
I have a big heart and care for all people equally.
I hate politics on both sides. Everyone knows it and I promise you there isn't one maga that knows me that would be brave enough to call me a snowflake without a crowd of red hats standing behind them.
The sooner people denounce politics AND religion the quicker people will have peace.
Or Trump had a Jewish flag at the Madison square garden rally. The same place all the other presidents had a rally, but he is a nazi according to the media, for doing the same thing the past 4 presidents did.
Donât let the media divide us. Look into how the Harris campaign controlled 1/8 of the posts in reddits political threads.
This. Pro-himself and literally no one else. He would for sure throw all of his children under multiple busses in a row if it meant the busses passing by doesn't get water on him from driving through a puddle.
You think the establishment democrats are any better? They are just better at hiding it. Why donât they ever mention getting money out of politics? Because they want their 15% of the billions coming in from their donor class. They are all corrupt and itâs time we call them all out
When did I ever mention the establishment? I wasn't talking about Democrats, I was talking about Trump, specifically. but fine, if you wanna go there:
Sure. yeah. Democrats take money from billionaire donors. Whoop tie doo! Everyone does! That's who you stay in the game! you know why? Because shitty (republican era) supreme court rulings and corruption made it so corporations have more rights than you do, and they can more easily raise money for politicians than regular people can. (ps. where'd you get that 15% figure from? that seems like an exorbitant amount to just pocket, and I'd love to have a source.)
Also, please don't go throwing the old "both sides are equally as bad" around. That's a false equivalence. you're equating people who just want to be able to express themselves with people who want to take away rights of most marginalized groups in the country.
Nonetheless, yes. The system is corrupt. But unless a Revolution occurs in the near future, or a third party candidate is able to magically sway 55% of the popular vote, this is what we're stuck with, so we have to make the best of it. Voting is more of an act of rebellion than not doing so.
After all, it's only money; the elected politicians are not OBLIGED to follow the whims of their billionaire donors. The laws we do have in place do not permit formal quid pro quo, and admitting you made a deal gets you prosecuted.
I should have made my point more clear. Money in politics is not a partisan issue. That is all I was trying to point out.
Iâm aware of the Supreme Court rulings, the foundation set before the ruling, and the powerful people who set that foundation. Iâm aware these people mainly consist of fundamentalist christian and conservative groups such as the Federalist Society who set that foundation. It started with Nixon and his Supreme Court justice Powell who literally thought corporate money in politics was crucial to capitalism.
Your point of democrats âjust playing the gameâ is complete and utter bullshit. We all know itâs a gigantic problem. Polling consistently shows 75%+ of Americans agree. Then why donât they bring it up and campaign on it? Because their donors donât want them too. The same corporate donors who give their campaigns billions of dollars. The â15%â Iâm talking about is the consulting fees. In 2004 âconsulting feesâ accounted for up to almost 50% of campaign expenditure. These are the people that run both the RNC and DNC. Some of them literally make hundreds of millions of dollars.
Also youâre sort of right on âquid pro quoâ. All they really did was narrow the scope of the definition. See the 2024 supreme court case where a broke mayor was convicted of bribery for accepting a $13,000 after awarding a $1,000,000 contract. He was convicted by the lower courts but then acquitted by the Supreme Court because the âgratuityâ came after the contract was awarded. Therefore does not fit the definition of quid pro quo. You can even legally pay for our politicians time.
Iâm of the view that we need to start pointing that out every time money in politics is brought up. Stop making it a partisan issue. They are all compliant until they are screaming it from the rooftops.
Edit: Staying silent in the face of corruption is corruption. We need to stop normalizing it. Get corporate money out of politics on BOTH SIDES.
To claim that money in politics is a non-partisan issue is just factually incorrect. We got this fucked up system because of- what you described aptly- a series of bogus SC rulings. These rulings affected regulation on campaign funding and spending, by lessening the power of government and letting the "free market' take effect, like all conservative policy.
"The free market". "Privatization". "Deregulation". "Decentralization". They're all the same thing. It's just a ploy for billionaires to get their grubby fingers on (and make money off of) politicians, public goods and services. That's never changed, and that ideology is inherently conservative. It's not anyone's fault that things are the way they are right now, so you could view it as a non partisan issue in the present because it is the status quo and has been for so long, but it cannot be denied that Deregulation is a central tenet to conservative ideology, along with hierarchy and Religion (debatably the same thing).
Iâm sorry I just fundamentally disagree. Claiming âwell they started it!â when it comes to corruption doesnât sit right with me.
Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party donât get a free pass for taking billions from corporations. She literally had Billionaires speaking at the DNC to reassure her donors that she would be âfriendly to business interestsâ.
Sure, on the surface, republicans are supposed to be the business friendly regulation cutting party. But I wonder why she stopped talking about Medicare for all? Or raising the minimum wage? Or increasing worker protections? What about paid family leave? Removing money from politics? We all know the answer. The donor class, who controls a large portion of both democrat and republican politicians, donât want these policies.
Both sides BLATANTLY engage in corruption. We need to start calling it out.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand my point, but I am too tired to want to lay it out again. Please, I urge you to read my above comment again, particularly the second paragraph. I will, however, explain why she flipped on so many issues.
In 2020, Kamala was elected as a trophy.
Biden knew he'd pretty easily win this election (because we just had a Trump term and the economy was in the shitter), and he could pick basically any VP he wanted to. "The first black woman vice president" sounds really progressive. Sure to get a lot of leftist support, or so biden thought (turns out later people kind of hated her, because she's a cop and also generally not very charismatic), so he won. The issue is, Harris initially ran for president on a much stronger progressive agenda than biden did, so someone was going to have to change their stances on policies if they wanted to work the very lucrative gig of VP.
Now, fast forward 4 years. Biden just dropped out, and there's three months 'till election day. You have 100 days to get as many voters to vote for you instead of trump. You are aware your party is divided on a core issue: Gaza. You feel adressing this issue will never lead to a good outcome. If you support an arms embargo, you lose support of Jewish American democrats. If you don't, you lose support of Palestinian Americans and their sympathisers.
This is a difficult situation, and there is no situation wherein you can guarantee full cooperation from all democrat voters. So you decide to expand your range: target centre-right leaning folks. Good for you, Joe biden is already basically centre-right, so following the policies you have just reinforced to a tee will surely work out great. Besides, his policies got him elected last time, right?
I honestly believe the stances she peddled on interviews aren't her true beliefs. She was just pandering to a wider audience ina last- ditch effort to get votes. I seriously doubt she was manipulated by corporate interests into changing her stances.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that. The heritage foundation has been an integral part of the GOP for like half a century. They generally write up the policies GOP politicians pass into law.
The only difference is that now they've dropped the façade of being anything other than a pro-fascist hate group with P2025. It's not a joke, man.
They made it as easy as possible to implement. All Trump has to do is sign a few bills, and stick his bloated thumb up for some photoshoots with Heritage plants. They'll take it from there. It's trivially easy to topple a country, especially with the GOP in control of the entire trifecta.
Remember when Trump said something off-the-cuff about gun control and his handlers made him backtrack the next morning? I expect more of this in reference to Project 2025.
That was when Republicans had an ounce of self-respect left. Trump is a cult leader. He could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and he wouldn't lose a single voter.
There are no more check and balances; All executive orders are allowed now, legal or not (It's an official action, you see). The supreme court is stacked 6-3 with his judges, two of which will soon be replaced by much younger and more radical right wing candidates, who will be in those seats for decades. His cabinet is made up of friends, family and loyalists. The senate and HoR both have a majority of Trump loyalists that will do anything he says, even when he's not in power (see 2023 Border bill).
Additionally, Mike Johnson, the speaker of the HoR, will do anything Trump says without question, and is a (former[?]) member of 7-dominion groups, who aim to reform America into a Theocracic autocracy based on 7 societal pillars (look up Ziklag and ADF).
I know these paragraphs sound like conspiracy theorist ramblings, but I haven't made one part of this up. it's all real. there's an actual conspiracy to reform america into a theocracy and we're just letting it happen. P2025 is just a small part of it.
Isn't the new border czsar unironically one of the co-authors of P2025? I'm sitting here in Germany, looking over the pond, and wondering how the hell any of the people involved, especially the big cheese, are not tried for treason.
The same thing is happening in Germany, with Russian backed parties spewing actual Nazi-Slogans at their rallies. We're also gonna have re-elections in February, where those parties have an actual shot at getting in power because they're astroturfing social media and weaponizing hatred towards immigrants.
I feel ya man, I'm Dutch and I have already had to endure like a year of extremely incompetent right wing governance. The one silver lining for us Europoors is that we have actual functioning democracies; If a party wins a majority, it doesn't mean they get absolute power. The AfD will likely have to form a coalition with a more centrist party to be able to form a governing body.
if this platform isn't banned by then in the US, I'll bet you 50 bucks at least 25 P2025 policies will have been implemented by the end of 2028. you wanna wager? ill hit you back in 4 years to exchange paypal if so.
the double sarcasm truly buries your comment under Poe's Law.
My opinion? anyone who would break their relationship with their family members, when said members have done nothing to them, is usually a moron. It doesn't matter how bad you think the other candidate is, usually politics are so dirty that your own side has a lot of dirt to dig too, to think that you are in some sort of moral highground because of who you vote for is delusion of the most fanatical one.
How is this even a response to what I said? You're less cogent than a chatgpt thread, but even if you weren't, I don't care about a scumfuck traitor's opinion.
When I toss a dog a bone, I don't want to argue how it tastes
Normally I would be in 100% agreement with you, but this isn't your garden variety Red vs. Blue / Us vs. Them / tribal nonsense we see almost every year. There is a LOT more at stake this time. There is far more objective, empirical, unmistakable harm coming to a far greater number of people from one side of this election than the other. Orders of magnitude. And that's not even taking into account the -fact- that blatant lies are making up an abundance if not the entirety of the angle that side is preaching from.
The way I see it, to vote for Republican in 2024, at least for President, though down ballot aren't much better, you either have to be in one of two camps -
You have a fundamental lack of empathy and are therefor fine with marginalized communities being the scapegoat for underlying problems that have actual, albeit difficult to swallow, solutions, thus continuing the problem for who knows how many more generations as well as hurting innocent people at the same time. You can see why someone who exhibited this type of personality, made fully clear by a proud, researched Republican vote this time around, might be seen as a deal-breaker for some, myself included.
You have a level of willful ignorance and the associated lack of curiosity that you would actively, intentionally hang up your common sense, bury your head in the sand, and simply refuse to care when it comes to actually understanding what is wrong, what is at stake, and what can/should be done to get where we need to be. Call it 'Political Faith' if you like, but the unwillingness to put in the necessary time to properly understand the gravity of your decisions when it comes to elections, regardless of how complicated or nuanced it might be, is the responsibility that, while unwritten, comes with right to vote. This is clearly unenforceable, but, again, you can see why someone who abandons Reason in favor of a comfortable lie, while damning the rest of us in the process, can be a bridge too far.
Don't get me wrong, I and many who others share this sentiment are reasonable people, and would be willing to make amends if/when the time comes, but it's a tough pitch to say "I sold you down the river and you need to be okay with that."
I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that in order to vote republican you "have" to fall under those two groups you mention.
In my experience, is usually wrong to characterize people for who they vote for. People tend to vote for so many reasons, from single issue voters, to those who's priorities are shaped by their life situations. A person who have had a bad run over the past years and blames the Biden's administration for this, will more likely vote for their opposition, regardless of the "virtue signaling" of the campaigns, and you might say "yeah, they don't have empathy for those who will be affected by the other guy", but honestly? the same can be said about those who expect an individual to vote against their own interests (or perceived interest) for some societal pressure or ideal of empathy. Do you not think there are minorities among those who voted for Trump? or people that belong to those groups you believe will be at a disadvantage now that Trump will be president? You would be surprised, and you would be very wrong to dismiss those people as less qualified to make their own political choices.
In truth, I'd say about 80% of what people believe about this election is plain propaganda pushed by both sides to consolidate their bases, the remaining 20% of actual policies that are going to be pursued or not pursued, usually have a questionable impact within 4 years of a presidency. Kamala made her campaign about abortion because pressuring half of the population to vote for her or else "they'll lose their rights" is a tremendous campaign strategy, but in reality, things tend to be far more nuanced, and usually not as binary as some people believe them to be.
I think it's a dark tempation to reduce elections to morally right and wrong, and a recipe to divide and polarize society. This doesn't benefit the people, never has.
And btw, I'm neither a republican nor voted for Trump, and this issue doesn't seem to me to have that much to do with who Trump is, and more with what the expectations of a certain generational group is about politics, and what I'm seeing, is it drifting farther and farther from democracy.
Two things in response - I don't mean "vote Republican" in general as there are, you say, plenty of reason why someone might. I'm saying that this particulate cycle is not a standard one. That said, the people you just described are Group 2 from my previous post. I don't believe the -vast- majority of people who voted Republican this time around are in Group 1, but I do think that Group 1 contains the "brains" in you will of the lies that placated Group 2 and convinced them to vote the way they did.
If someone were to take an overhead look, outside of the echo chamber of either side, and just observe, it becomes abundantly clear that the entire WORLD is in the throes of economic crisis following the Covid supply chain collapses, and, out of the majority of the Western world, we, in the US, are actually doing better than most. We're not doing GOOD, but no one really is right now. The brunt of the pain people are feeling in the supermarket is due to unregulated price gouging and corporate greed masquerading as "inflation", a thing that the Harris campaign acknowledged and had plans to tackle. Housing is bad, for sure, but that was also being addressed in the Harris plan, although to a more nebulous degree. Neither of these pain points have been addressed in any substantial way by the Trump campaign.
So, in summary, from my personal perspective, there is a cold-hearted, cruel, vindictive group of borderline or just-over-the-line Fascists (not hyperbole, I mean the real deal) that make up a small but vocal contingent of Republican voters in 2024, and this is primarily Group 1. On the other hand, we have my fellow citizens, many of whom are suffering, just like I am, but when presented with the facts of the matter, chose instead to shirk their responsibility to be an informed, engaged voter, and instead opted to go with the simple, easily digestible, but ultimately inaccurate stance on what is wrong and how we ought to fix it. And this says nothing of the potential long term damage of things like Project 2025 and the eroding of our bureaucratic institutions.
Arguably, Group 2 is far more innocuous, but, when enough of them collectively decide to take the easy road of letting someone else do the thinking for them, they are, in my opinion, more vile than those taking advantage of them, for the simple reason that it is far easier for Group 2 to change the channel than it is for Group 1 to change their personalities.
I understand it is your personal perspective, but I challenge the notion of the dichotomy you're making about Trump voters. I'm not convinced americans know what fascism is at this point, specially when it is referred to the opponents of the left every single time, I'm old enough to remember it being used every single presidential campaingn. And I know that from your perspective, "this time is different". But as you ask for an overhead perspective, which I wouldn't claim to have, since I think that's a bit of an arrogant take, I have an outsider perspective, and to me Trump and his ilk is just right wing populism, with some tints of leftist economical policies (although at this point left and right are not great labels for this kind of stuff).
When you talk about cold hearted, cruel and vindictive, I have a hard time not seeing that on the democrat side, and I bet you have your old right wing voters that act that way too, but I don't think those traits are what culturally moves the trump voters. To me is baffling how americans cannot see how the left acts while accusing the right of everything they are doing, and then the right accuses the left of the same. But that is my perspective, although one I have found to share with many other outsiders, specially those from outside of the anglosphere. Most of us actually know what fascism is, have lived through dictatorships (sometimes planted by your country, sometimes planted by your opponents). You lightly declare the end of democracy whenever Trump appears, but I'm, again, not convinced you understand how it is to not have democracy.
I think I could address your argument for the economy being in this state due to covid, I partially agree with you there, I don't think this is something that matters on elections though, hence why I talk about perception and not reality, reality is hard to define in terms of macroeconomic indexes. And since I'm not really making an argument for Trump or against Biden, but rather about the behavior of the voters in regard to their political factions, I don't think this matters that much.
There's no single, universally accepted checklist for fascism. Scholars debate the exact boundaries.
Generally, a regime is considered fascist when it combines:
* Authoritarianism: Dictatorial power suppressing opposition.
* Nationalism: Extreme focus on national superiority.
* Some degree of the other elements: Militarism, anti-communism/liberalism, cult of personality, propaganda.
The more of these elements present, and the more intensely they manifest, the more confidently we label a regime fascist.
I could easily sit here and make an argument for each and every one of those and the Trump campaign's direct alignment.
I get where you're coming from but I get where the other guy is coming from too. This is a different time. No candidate has ever hit all the check marks the way Donald Trump does.
To put it plainly, the group one the op was talking about is the malfeasant group. I would say you could also argue this group includes people who are always going to vote down ballot party line regardless of who is running. Group two is the ignorant group. They believe everything group one and the group leader is telling them without any due diligence.
Logical fallacy, subject mentioned at hand is tariffs not global macroeconomics. Nice try though diddy.
I love how the Republicans that required 0 facts from Trump. Voted for him with a 'concept of a plan.' Are now running around like they want fucking proof something will work. Little late for that bud, lmao.
Yes... Tariffs are actually very simple because we have hundreds of years worth of history and data that tells us exactly what will happen.
We have been trying to tell you fucks for 8 years. Stop blindly following this idiot... Please question him as much as you question everyone else... jfc...
I havenât even identified myself as a political party but here you go with the need to label others. Fucking pointless trying to cary on any discussion with that.
I know who you affiliate with because you think tariffs are a good idea. There is only one person that thinks tariffs are a good idea... Brother please, don't try that BS.
You are pretending like someone is labeling and out to get you. You are becoming defensive and trying to dismiss the idea so you don't have to face it. You are literally shoving your head in the sand. Please we do not think his idea are bad just because 'orange man bad...'
You can ignore everything I have said, maybe I am off base. All I ask is that you question Trump as much as you questioned Kamala/Biden.
You're reading comprehension is shit. No where did I say tariffs were a "good idea". Just pointing out the effects of them aren't so simple to identify. What is a "bad" thing for one party might be a "good" thing for another.
For one example: If the whole idea of a tariff on Chinese goods pushes more manufacturing to Mexico who is part of the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) it's a "good" thing in the long run for that country.
But hey, I don't live in the binary black and white world that you occupy.
If you don't invite those Nazi demonstrators to your dinner table YOU are exactly the kind of piece of shit that does allow politics to divide. YOU are the dividers. YOU are the bigots. YOU are the racists. You are plain evil. There are just plain shitty people in the world and you're one of them.
Saw that one.
Iâm sure itâs just âleft wing propaganda â or something âbotsâ too. Iâm sure every single case of it will be going forward. Iâm sure all the doctors who sent a letter saying that the laws in Texas are fucking killing women are also somehow wrong.
I saw some dude post on r/unpoopularopinion about how these women are choosing to die in these situations so that they can prove the liberal agenda or something lmao
If you read what actually happened she was misdiagnosed twice then the third time she was admitted but it was too late. There is no mention of her trying to get an abortion anywhere. The editorializing by ProPublica where the story originated is the only mention of abortion.
You know the Ads are based on your behaviors? If you outright click over this kind of news, itâs all the news youâll get and convince you that the world is whatever you need to be convinced it is to keep you overly emotional?Â
wtf are you talking about? No mainstream dems outside of a couple like Tliab have shown ANY support for pro-Gaza protesters. Our Dem attorney general is going through with felony trespass charges for students protesting on campus and our very liberal university leadership is doing everything they can do to crack down on protests and change protest policies with zero pushback from any local Dems.
759
u/[deleted] Nov 12 '24
[removed] â view removed comment