The same Soviet-class derision for all-important First Amendment freedoms has come from far more influential people than John Kerry—like Biden's Supreme Court appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in the Murthy v. Missouri hearings described our First Amendment as her "greatest concern" because it "hamstrings the government" from censoring or punishing free speech and dissident opinions.
•_____• Never mind that "hamstring[ing] the government" in ••the sole and entire purpose•• of the First Amendment, and indeed of all 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
The "trans rights" movements are a pharma profits to "non-profit" employment agencies, refusing to admit that detransitioners exist, that trans widows have been abused and that the iatrogenic harms of "affirmative care" are now undeniable. Even minorities having a long history of oppression to overcome have been gaslit into believing "trans genders" are more oppressed than their ancestors. It is a cult because it walks like a cult, it waddles like a cult and it quacks like a cult.
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
OMG, this is terrific! I am going to promote this as far and wide as I can. This is the article I wish I had time to write myself. You nailed it, Carol, right down to the recommended reading list. Thank you so much for doing this. You have performed a tremendous public service!
Thank you. You may have started your awakened journey on your Christian path and I am a Jewish (spiritual-not-religious) Metaphysical Astrologer, but we seem to have arrived at very similar conclusions about the state of our world. I call it the 2nd Dark Age that we're going through. The first saw women healers they called witches, burned at the stake in order for men to steal health care from women. I read that in some towns there wasn't a woman left alive. Now, again under the aegis of government allied with misogynist health care practitioners, are seeking to colonize, perhaps eventually erase women altogether. I've always assumed that the dems were the more progressive party - until I didn't. With the onset of covid which I believe is a hoax, I was "accused" of being a Trump supporter because I refused to wear a mask - I was 82 at the onset and felt if it was true, I'd die at 82,already old, and would escape the worst of the fascism I saw coming. If not, I'd be fine and here I am, I'll be 86 Friday, if I live till then, which I suspect I will as I avoid doctors and look and feel a lot younger than I am. I finally realized that our entry into both world wars was caused by a democrat. Woodrow Wilson, touted as one of our great democratic presidents, also showed "Birth of a Nation" at the White House, decl;aring it to be a great classic and also gained the presidency by his promise to sell out the American people by agreeing to give power to the Federal Reserve. It took me until Barack Obama to wake up to them though. I'm ashamed to say I voted for him once, saw him in action and vowed to never again vote for a democrat. We are in need of a people's government which we will never have while the USA stands. They seek global and I do believe the only real answer is local governance. I'm in disagreement about climate change though as I believe our climate is being deliberately tampered with in order to serve the interests of the oligarchs who, unelected, are jet setting around the world in their private planes deciding what OUR sacrifices need to be to avert this climate change. And what a coincidence! It's always what will harm us (and the planet) and enrich them. I also think TDS is a real thing - and democrats have turned into nazis who definitely don't support democracy. They want the candidate they don't choose to be killed and say so unashamedly. Try the opposite though, it wouldn't go over so well. But then I don't see Trump or Other supporters wishing for death for those who oppose them. I have family that censors me if I dare say anything impugning their dem ideology. Biden with dementia is infinitely better than "fascist" Trump and they've now given their full support to Kamala the Selected. Perhaps some people are hopelessly brainwashed and incapable of critical thinking.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. (And yes, TDS is a real thing and we're seeing it in some of the comments on this article!) Just a quick note to say that I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist.
If the Dems have TDS, so do conservatives like DubbyDove here -- Transgender Derangement Syndrome. Like lobotomies, transgender ideas will fall out of favor with progressives before long. Eventually, Democrats will see that they are losing votes because of it.
I'm with you 100% on the trans issue and Biden's betrayal of women on Title IX. However, you're not going to persuade me that Trump did not foment January 6th, that he didn't shirk his responsibility to calm it down after it started, or that it was in any way a "peaceful" demonstration. I saw what they did. I saw the crowds breaking into the Capitol, erecting a scaffold and chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!" I also saw how Trump planted the seeds that the election results were going to be untrustworthy long before they happened, but as soon as he started to believe he might lose. And unlike the Democrats who held an FBI investigation of Russiagate, Trump tried 1,000 different ways to overturn the election of Biden through threats, lawsuits, lies, false electors, etc. etc. Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump. She didn't launch lawsuits for months trying to overturn the election. She didn't encourage a group of Democrats to storm the Capitol and then step back and let it rage on when it happened. Did Russiagate turn out to be unfounded? Yes. And none of that should be censored. But it's a far cry from the election lies Trump has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate.
No. Clinton didn't encourage others to dispute Trump's election. All she did was start a propaganda campaign claiming he was a Russian tool. And why exactly is Russia our enemy? It seems to elude me. She and Obama together destroyed Libya, the richest country in Africa. They murdered Gadaffi, the man who had brough them from the status of poorest African country to richest in less than 40 years. They bombed the water pipeline that Gadaffi had constructed through Africa to provide irrigation to other African nations. Gadaffi also enacted equal rights for women, still not the law (in fact now the opposite) in the U.S. The Libyan people also had free or low cost health care and education. But he committed the cardinal sin. He said that Libyan oi9l belonged to the Libyan people, not to western predatory corporations. So they illegally invaded, destroyed the country and murdered Gadaffi, their chosen leader, while Clinton laughed her demented laugh. Now it's a failed state with open air slave markets - more to the democrats liking. The only thing I see Clinton eligible for is a long prison sentence as a war criminal, certainly not as president.
This entire article is a stew of right-wing talking points that has come from conservative media. Carol Dansereau is one of those people who likes to think that she has the inside track on the "truth", but her idea of the truth is whatever nonsense is being spread by Fox or the Heritage Foundation. I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age.
The worst thing that Democrats are doing right now is giving lip-service to transgender ideas, but eventually they will come to their senses. That is not a good reason to jump ship to the Republican party, which has become nothing more than a cult with Donald Trump as its leader. Nothing has changed since 2016: It is still a measure of stupidity and corrupt values to support the Lying Pig. It is also a measure of ignorance, since the Pig's supporters never bother to find out what he is actually doing.
Now, if I got the notice for this article because I am subscribed to your Substack, I'll have to remedy that immediately. What you are saying here is mostly paranoid trash. Even when you get your facts right, you draw the wrong conclusions. You should get yourself to a doctor to see if you can't slow down that early dementia you have.
And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most "woke" among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out.
Perry, in this and other comments you've called me a dementia-entering person, a brainwashed rat, a tribalist/Cult member, a person devoid of integrity, etc. You might want to read more carefully what I wrote. Your responses to my article are not rational and do not flow from what I said. Just for the record: I'm not a Republican; have never supported Democrats except for a brief stint decades ago, and have faced all sorts of grief for dissent and NOT being a Cult/tribe follower. I am not endorsing Trump nor do I like him. As I said: read the piece more carefully, especially paragraphs about how neither Ds nor Rs are tolerable, and we must work together to get beyond these unacceptable choices.
You're right. I just skimmed through it. Later today I'll take a stiff drink and read every word. However, your commenters are all Republicans, and some of them are Democrats-cum-Republicans, and everything I said was appropriate for them.
The title of your article and your opening lines do not support the bipartisan spirit of what you just said to me.
"This is a letter to my progressive friends. Your political parties and agendas are tanking in the theater of public opinion. And this makes no sense to you. You view with horror the substantial support Donald Trump enjoys, realizing he could well be elected President again, which shocks you."
Those are tribalist words. You can't have it both ways. You can't be a tribalist and an independent thinker too.
New edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more I feel that you aren't being honest. You claim to be independent and bipartisan, and yet your article is condescendingly addressed to progressives as if we were stupid people with bad ideas. You are being provocative. And if a "progressive" like me decides to call you a few names, then I think you've earned them.
I don't know who you are talking to, but it is conservatives and Republicans who are fascist in our society. The worst things that Dems do is to bend too far to give minorities their rights, and to provide perhaps too many benefits to poor people. Historically, fascists are always conservatives.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Fascism was invented by Mussolini who was a socialist. It is a left-wing, nationalist form of socialism that advocates for the total reorganization of society— for which Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" as a description—in service to the state, which is not at ALL conservative. It isn't at all a coincidence that the full name of the Nazi Party was National SOCIALISM, not National Conservatism. Only someone who has no understanding of what conservative means could believe that fascists are conservative. There is, in fact, nothing conservative about fascism, which is why it is impossible to be conservative and also a fascist. Some European conservatives did ally with fascists in the '20s and '30s because they saw Soviet Communism, with its advocacy for international revolution, as a greater threat. But that was a tactical alliance, not an expression of any commonality between fascism and actual conservative politics.
Democrats aren't just giving "lip service" to gender ideology. They've passed all sorts of laws and policies to proselytize, incentivize and enforce it. For example, here in Washington State (and elsewhere):
-schools have been mandated by the legislature to adopt "gender-inclusive schools" policies to allow boys into girls spaces and sports and keep secrets from parents
-insurance companies mandated to cover "gender-affirming" drugs and surgeries
-prisons allow men into women's prisons; taxpayers paying for "gender-affirming care" for trans-identifying inmates
-SB 5599 equates parental disagreement regarding gender identity and medicalization with abuse and facilitates receipt of gender-affirming care while keeping kids separated from parents; $1.8 million taxpayer funded grants recently awarded to support this.
-recently passed laws will make it harder for local school boards to remove controversial books and more likely gender ideology will appear in curriculum
And all of this has been done with only "10 percent" of Democrats supporting it? Quite a democracy we have.
Regarding the first section of Carol's post: what is one specific thing (or more, if you like) that she and her right wing sources got wrong?
Yes, I know all that, and the reasons for it are complex. Trans activists have done a very good job of selling transgenderism as the newest minority interest that must be included in diversity. I myself haven't figure out why their ideas have brainwashed so many liberals. But to my knowledge (this article not withstanding) that is the only serious weak spot that Democrats have.
I'm sure you've heard the adage, "You can fool some of the people all of time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Well, Donald Trump is a con-man who has fooled some of the people all of time; and when coupled with the electoral college, that's enough to get him elected. Because he is a liar and a thief* and a corrupt person in general, we just can't have him in power again. It is too dangerous for the country. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are wrong on this one issue, the Republicans as a group have become a functioning cult. If you care for our democracy, you will not vote for Trump. * He stole money from most of his business associates.
The Dems are wrong on 20% of the issues, and the Republicans are wrong on 80% of the issues. If you disagree with that, then your values are screwed up. If you don't disagree with that, then you need to vote for Harris no matter what she says about the trans issue.
That is a nice list you have there. How many hours should I spend examining every issue in my response? I have a life to live. However, I'll say a few things.
What is the issue over "housing first"? Probably very few Democrats support drug decriminalization or defunding the police or open borders and several other things on the list. Vaccine mandates save lives because they give human beings "herd" immunity, but I support them only for children, and only the most necessary vaccines should be required. What does "restorative justice" mean? All forms of fossil fuels must eventually be banned because they damage the planet. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen later. WHAT pro-choice extremism? I only support late-term abortions if there is an excellent reason (like the baby will be born dead or the mother could die), and I think most Dems agree with me on that. Who wants to reduce academic rigor??? And there's nothing radical about teaching ethnic culture in schools since the country is full of ethnic people.
Throwing out a vague list does no good in a comment section like this. But you have shown me one thing: You are a tribalist too, like the others commenting here. If you thought for yourself, you would not be choosing the Republican position on EVERY TOPIC. You would agree with some Republican positions and disagree with others. It's called "integrity", which you seem to be lacking.
I'll provide a proper response in a little while, but the fact that you seem unaware of any of the problems with the democratic positions and policies on these issues perhaps betrays your own tribalism.
What a perfect example you are of exactly what Ms. Dandereau has written. An inability to hear and respect the viewpoint of others hardly makes you a paragon of democracy. And of course you start with the obvious - as a woman, she must be influenced by others since she would hardly possess the intelligence to actually form an opinion just out of her own pretty little "right-wing" head. She clearly states that, neithr side is representative of the best interests of eitherthe people or the planet and yet you persist in the usual dimdumbdemocrat rant about Trump. I, like her, awakened from a long sleep in which I actually thought the dems were the "good guys". I have been disabused by such as yourself, who while calling yourself a democrat, hardly support the values of a democracy. When you are able to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, you will have made some progress. We all have been massively brainwashed to serve the interests of the few over, finally, the very life of our species, at aminimum.
Well said. Disaffected Democrats, i.e., progressives like you and I and Dansereau, still cherish the values that the Democrats once championed, foremost among them, freedom of speech, press, and affiliation. The degradation of these values that we've seen since the election of Donald Trump occurred not because of Trump but because the Democrats were terrified of losing and, when they lost, they were sore losers.
During the campaign, the liberal media took sides. Donald Trump was given lots of sensationalized attention because it increased their audience, while Bernie Sanders, who had a large base and was competing with Trump for the same voting pool, was ignored. I was a compulsive listener to NPR at the time, and I observed the lopsided coverage of the candidates, even though I intended to vote for Clinton, which I did. She was so secure in her victory that it didn't occur to her that half the country might not appreciate being called deplorable.
(Note to Hillary: "I will call you bigoted fools now, and you will vote for me later" is not a good strategy for winning elections.)
When Trump won, the plot was hatched to ensure that such a monstrous thing never occurred again. The liberal media adopted a non-stop strategy of "All Trump All The Time,” featuring the excesses that Dansereau describes in her article; e.g., "Russiagate," a term that the Democrats don't use and don't even know what it means.
The incessant fear mongering about Trump, exacerbated by the hysteria surrounding covid, acted as a fear pathogen more potent than anything cooked up in a lab in China. It wormed its way into the brains of Democrats, who now suffer from advanced cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They know all they need to know, and Carol Dansereau, bless her heart, is senile.
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I’m 72, so that's a pretty longtime. As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won. Today, the ACLU supports the banning of books, like Abigail Shrier’s “Irreversible Damage," and defends the “right” of biologically intact male rapists and murderers to be housed in women’s prisons. Today, some of our Supreme Court justices and politicians call free speech dangerous and are working to legislate it out of existence. This is how far we've fallen.
I don't try to convince my Democrat friends of anything. They live in a bubble of paralyzing fear and hatred. Conversation is impossible because they are right about everything and I'm a bigot who has lost my marbles.
Dansereau's well-written essay may influence some folks who are on the fence but I doubt that entrenched Democrats will read past the first paragraph, never mind take it seriously. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't have written it, because it's better than staying silent and because you never know.
The recent rally in D.C. organized by Matt Taibbi, a lifelong liberal and a courageous defender of objective journalism and free speech, is a sign of the times.
Thank you for this. If you're 72 then you remember when the most popular quote of the 20th century was "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It seems for the 21st century it's changed Ito "I wish you job loss, cancellation, death and dismemberment for disagreeing with me because I am right and you are evil". May we be saved from the zealots, those so convinced that whatever it is that they believe is all that they can hear.
First, that quote is much older than you think it is. Second, above you gave as an example of liberal excess the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis to march, and now you seem to be saying the opposite. If you believe in that quote, then you had best believe that the Nazis had a right to march. (Wasn't it the Ku Klux Klan that marched?)
Also, I do not support the ACLU any more because they have been infected by transgender ideology. You see, I am a liberal who is not liberal on every issue. Why can't you parse your views like that? SHOW SOME INTEGRITY AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND ON EVERY ISSUE. DON'T JUST ADOPT ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN BELIEFS.
You misinterpreted what I wrote regarding the ACLU. Here again, is what I wrote:
"As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won."
At no point did I state or even imply that the ACLU's defense of the Nazis was an "example of liberal excess." It was not. It was consistent with the ACLU's values in support of free speech, which I supported at the time, and still do.
The problem with the ACLU is that it has changed its mission. It now supports the banning of gender critical books because pro-trans ideology has infected its thinking. The ACLU also actively defends the so-called rights of trans-identified men to be housed in women's prisons. Women's bodily autonomy and safety have become irrelevant to the ACLU. Their mission is corrupted, and therefore, I no longer support them.
No, the Ku Klux Klan did not march with the Nazis in Skokie. The Nazi group in question was an offshoot run by a man named Frank Collin. If you have any interest in the details, I recommend this superb article, "The Skokie Case: How I Came to Represent the Free Speech Rights of Nazis," written by ACLU attorney, David Goldberger.
I offer this reply as a service to other readers of this Substack who might want some clarification. I won't be responding to you again.
You have the same problem that Dansereau and DubbyDove have: You are tribe-driven. You can't just select individual issues on which you disagree with the Democrats. Rather, you have to make a full conversion from your old tribe (Dems) to your new tribe (Trump cult). You are like a prostitute who becomes a born-again Christian. If the prostitute had poor values, why should I trust the new values of the obnoxious proselytizer? It's called "integrity", of which you seem to have none. If you had integrity, you would have your disagreements with the Democrats, but you would still agree with them overall. Why? Because Donald Trump is a fool, a liar, a criminal, a thief, a pretender. He is the Pied Piper leading the rats. Enjoy your new status as a brain-washed rat.
No, Dandereau's foolishness is all her own. If I were a misogynist, I wouldn't have supported Hillary Clinton and wouldn't now support Kamala Harris. To the extent that a man can be a feminist, I've been one all my life.
What I'm seeing in disaffected Democrats is not a reasonable disagreement on individual issues (as I disagree with them on gender), but people changing "tribes". I am not tribe-driven. I can disagree on some issues and still recognize that the Dems are more rational over all.
PJ: "And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most 'woke' among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out."
Don't see that happening anytime soon. When Harris boots "Rachel" Levine out on "her" ear is when, if I were able to vote in US elections, I might think Harris and the Democrats were the "lesser of two weevils" and not Trump.
Carol seems to have done a decent job of naming the usual suspects and itemizing a fairly extensive and quit damning bill of particulars on the transgender issue. But if you need more then see Joanna Williams' article on "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology" and my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" which provides a link to Williams' article:
Unless Rachel Levine is doing her job poorly, I see no reason why she should lose it. So what are you saying, that you don't want trans people to get any jobs at all?
The "usual suspects" are mostly Republican talking points that have little truth to them, or which are mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated.
The fact that Levine claims to believe himself to be a woman does not speak positively for his mental health. So what qualifies him to take yet another job from an actual woman? Women are still massively discriminated against in higher paid jobs. As an example, although 51% of the population. only 20% of our congressional representatives are women. Giving yet another job to a man claiming to be a woman does exactly zero for women's rights and your inability to understand this also denies your claim of being a feminist.
Harris is so not fit for the job, if she is elected it will likely make misogyny worse because some will blame her failure (and she will fail) on her sex... which is unfortunate, since mediocrity is an equal opportunity affliction.
You know, statements like this are laughably absurd. They make me question the sanity of the person saying them.
And you think that Trump is better? Okay, so let's say that you aren't a Trump cultist and you are not suggesting a comparison. Of course, Harris vs. Trump IS the choice we are facing, so it seems to me that you should be willing to look at Harris kindly. But you aren't because of the gender thing. But in every other respect, Harris is an obviously accomplished politician. She was a prosecutor and a senator, she united Democrats behind her after Biden pulled out with a level of skill I have never seen before, she made Trump look like a fool in their debate, and she has made NO ERRORS in her campaign. If she turns out to be as skillful a president as she is a campaigner, she may be one of the best presidents in history.
Listen, I am anti-trans too, but at least I understand where the woke liberals are coming from. They see trans people as being the most pitiful minority group in history (and they are right about that), so they want society to be accommodating as much as possible. They are wrong about that too, of course -- and they don't recognize the existential harm that trans people are doing -- but at least their hearts are in the right place. None of us who are anti-trans have been able to figure out why trans ideology is so appealing to the do-gooders in our society. I certainly can't, but as I said, the liberals are at least trying to have a kind response to them. For you to reject Democrats at every level become SOME Democrats are over-compensating towards trans people is just foolish, ESPECIALLY SINCE DONALD THE PUSSY-GRABBER IS OUR ONLY ALERNATIVE. Do you hear what I'm saying? THE LIE-A-MINUTE NARCISSIST AND DEMAGOGUE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. You need to come to your senses. Stop being a one-issue voter -- that is so dumb.
Levine is something of a "point man" for the absolute worst of transgender ideology, for the rather demented idea that some dick-swinging dude can simply click his heels together and say he's changed into a female and should be treated as such. Harris is no better if not worse, as Carol indicated above, in gushing over Dylan Mulvaney.
> "... mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated ..."
I apologize for not being up on what Rachel Levine is doing. If she has in fact done the things you say, then I don't support her either. My point is that trans people have a right to WORK. However, I won't vote for trans politicians because they push gender ideology. (I'm gay, by the way, so I'm part of that LGBT alphabet soup.) And for the same reason I won't vote for Muslim politicians (because Islam is a bad religion), but I also won't vote for devout Christians who are not liberal.
You see: I'm setting a good example for you: I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I'm sensible. I think for myself.
No problemo -- complex issue, and not easy to keep abreast of all the important details.
But I still don't think you, and far too many others, fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak, much if not all of it due to the aiding and abetting by Democrats in general. Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of Republicans, at least they're not butchering autistic and dysphoric children, and turning them into sexless eunuchs -- conversion therapy writ large. Something that, one would think, you in particular should be concerned about.
As further grist for the mill in your thinking, you might try reading that post of mine on Statistics Departments corrupted by gender ideology, as well as my repost of, and elaborations on, one by Carol:
"The Anti-Science Disaster of Gender Ideology in the Schools":
If I don't fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought, why do I have my own Substack about it? Transgender ideology is the worst idea that has come down the pike in the last hundred years. It has to be defeated. It is an existential threat to humanity because it makes all kinds of other bad ideas plausible.
"Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of the Republicans ..." For God's sake, the Republican party has become the TRUMP CULT -- and Trump is a whole lot worse than you want to acknowledge. He is a NARCISSIST who cares only about himself. He is a liar, a thief, a criminal, a demagogue, a RACIST. He is completely incompetent. He did very little in his first term except to send out Tweets. Anyone who would vote for him again is STUPID.
"I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age." Perry, that's just nasty and uncalled for. Can we try to keep our arguing civil? This is no way to make an argument or try to change someone's mind.
You're right, I shouldn't have said that. However, I have nothing but contempt for what she is doing. Because of some conservative streak in her personality, she isn't just questioning SOME Democratic positions, she is questioning ALL of them (or so it seems). That's what I mean by "tribalism". What I see in her article and in these comments is former Democrats deciding to switch ALL of their views to the other "side". But people with integrity do not decide what they believe according to what their adopted "tribe" believes. If you have INTEGRITY, then you make up your mind on each individual issue. Dansereau isn't doing that. She is making a wholesale switch from the Democrats to the Republicans. I can't respect that.
Every state that is Dem-run is pro-trans. CA, MN, OR, WA go further - they are trans-refuge states, where people can go to get mutilated. I believe that children can declare that they are emancipated (legally adults) in these states, get mutilated on state medical funds. This is why your contention of 10 % is a fucking lie.
Yup, I’m a liar, just like Donald Trump is. I did just what he does: I took my own estimate of 10% and I threw it out there as a fact. The difference between me and Trump is that I do that once a week, while he does that 50 TIMES A DAY. Do you understand what I’m saying? DONALD TRUMP IS A LIAR – DON’T VOTE FOR HIM.
Regarding what I said, the situation is complicated. Your average Democrat probably doesn’t know what “transgender ideology” is. All they know is that transgender people are the most pitiful people on earth, and so we have to be nice to them and give them what they want, which includes calling trans women “she” even when they are 6'2" tall and have male faces and baritone voices. However, the agenda of Democratic politicians is entirely different, and I’ll get to that in a moment.
So what is the central idea of transgender ideology? It is this idea (using a man as an example): “I am a man who feels like a woman, which means I have the ‘gender identity’ of a woman. Having the gender identity of a woman makes me a REAL woman; and being a REAL woman, I have the right to enter into ALL of women’s single-sex spaces, including sports, rest rooms, locker rooms, shelters and prisons.” Now, when explained like this, I suspect that 90% of Republicans will call it nonsense, and perhaps 80% of Democrats will call it nonsense – so yes, my 10% was too low. The point is, Democrats have the same common sense that Republicans do (actually, much more so given Trump’s popularity), and MOST of them will reject the idea.
Democratic politicians are a different matter. Just as Republican politicians are trying to please their right-most flank, Democratic politicians don’t want to alienate the “woke” ultra-liberals. Besides which, it does, at some level, seem to be a good idea to give trans people what they want, especially since they’ll demonstrate in front of your house if you don’t, and they’ll call you a “transphobe” forever after. Democratic politicians can also point to the fact that 90% of medical organizations now subscribe to transgender ideology, and if the politicians disagree, they’ll look like bigots. So Democratic politicians are making a calculated political move (just as Republican politicians do), and they are accepting the most liberal position, figuring that most Democratic voters don’t even understand it, so why not? But believe me, most Democrats don't believe this nonsense.
"If elected, will Trump follow through on promises to work with Kennedy to tackle toxic pollution and chronic disease, including by dealing with regulatory capture by big corporations?...I won’t hold my breath."
Nor will I. But at least the Trump campaign is opening up public discourse on the topic.
"Can we count on Republican leaders to stand up for democracy? No. But it’s absurd to present putting Democrats in office as a way to protect democracy."
Trust me, we conservatives are just as critical of most of the Republicans now in office, and we also recognize that we cannot count on them to stand up for "democracy," as you say, or - more to the point - our inherent human rights that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.
Dear Lord do you believe any woke indoctrinated Democrat would permit this radioactive collection of political facts to cross their in-box? I envy your optimism.
I said that I was going to read the entire article, but I just can’t. I have a life to live. I did, however, read and/or skim about half of it more carefully this time.
That’s the first thing that makes this writing poor: It is way too long. It isn’t focussed or concise. There are a lot of asides and detours and generalities in your writing, and they just take up space.
The second thing is that it is unnecessarily provocative. The article is addressed to progressives, and it is extremely condescending in places. It’s clear that you are contemptuous of progressives, and yet you argue that they should be open-minded towards Trump and Trump supporters (!). Your slap-downs are so nasty and gratuitous that it’s clear you aren’t really addressing progressives at all, but throwing red meat to your conservative readers. There is a Moses-Handing-Down-the-Ten-Commandments quality to your writing, but you are in no position to assume such a posture. You think you are a dispenser of the truth, but you have only your own opinion.
And therein is the biggest weakness of the article. You state a lot facts which sound like opinions to me. Unless you have sources in the government, you don’t really know what the truth is about “Russiagate”, which you make too big a deal of. There are always false accusations during campaigns. I don’t like to think that Democrats are lying, but I suspect that their lying was more along the lines of exaggerating or vocalizing their suspicions. I was reading the news in 2016 and I never thought that trump was in cahoots with the Russians – he isn’t bright enough to do such things.
Another obvious weakness of the article is that you make a big deal over this Russian thing while Trump was telling a hundred lies a day. And regardless of what you say now, I know you are sympathetic towards Trump. Indeed, with Former President Lie-A-Minute Grabby Hands at the head of the Republican party, I find it astonishing that Republicans aren’t walking around with their heads hanging in shame. What I was worried would happen has finally happened, and that is that Trump has become normalized for Republicans, and that includes you. But by every objective measure, Trump is a total incompetent. He’ll be remembered as our worst president without any disagreement among historians.
What you’ve described in this article is one big, bloated conspiracy theory. Well, I’ve got news for you: Politics is full of conspiracies. There’s nothing new or significant about that.
The real story of the 2016 election was the way the Republicans made a big deal over Clinton’s email server. Nobody ever talks about this, but Colin Powell, a Republican, did the same thing before she did it. I have never seen so much character assassination in all my life, and for such a ridiculously minor reason. What it was, really, was pure misogyny. No one, it seems – even you – can stand a strong woman. And now you are ready to vote against another strong woman in deference to a man whose masculine take-charge personality is just an act.
If Democrats considered Trump to be an illegitimate president, it was probably more because of the electoral college than because of his love for Vladimir Putin.
Another notable thing is that your article is full of hyperbole. The threat to free speech is fairly minor. To say that there is now a “censorship regime” in this country is almost laughable. The truth is, our society is very polarized, and everyone is trying to censor everyone else. This is nothing new. Shortly after the founding of our country, people were trying to jail each other for saying the wrong things. These kinds of power struggles have been with us forever.
You know, I’ve now lost my patience with your thesis-long article. I don’t need to read any more. You are a very poor, undisciplined writer. Overall, there are too many opinions stated as facts, too many exaggerations, too many generalizations, too many unnecessary details, too much emphasis on essentially unimportant things, and too many conclusions drawn without good evidence.
The same Soviet-class derision for all-important First Amendment freedoms has come from far more influential people than John Kerry—like Biden's Supreme Court appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in the Murthy v. Missouri hearings described our First Amendment as her "greatest concern" because it "hamstrings the government" from censoring or punishing free speech and dissident opinions.
•_____• Never mind that "hamstring[ing] the government" in ••the sole and entire purpose•• of the First Amendment, and indeed of all 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
The same Ketanji Brown who can't define what a woman is because she is not a biologist?
That's the one.
The "trans rights" movements are a pharma profits to "non-profit" employment agencies, refusing to admit that detransitioners exist, that trans widows have been abused and that the iatrogenic harms of "affirmative care" are now undeniable. Even minorities having a long history of oppression to overcome have been gaslit into believing "trans genders" are more oppressed than their ancestors. It is a cult because it walks like a cult, it waddles like a cult and it quacks like a cult.
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
OMG, this is terrific! I am going to promote this as far and wide as I can. This is the article I wish I had time to write myself. You nailed it, Carol, right down to the recommended reading list. Thank you so much for doing this. You have performed a tremendous public service!
Thanks for this, Carol.
I appreciate your willingness to speak out.
I have always voted Democrat--not this time.
Not voting for Harris or Trump.
When you lose a child to the trans cult, who is there to support you?
(Not the Progressives, not the Democrats.)
Thank you. You may have started your awakened journey on your Christian path and I am a Jewish (spiritual-not-religious) Metaphysical Astrologer, but we seem to have arrived at very similar conclusions about the state of our world. I call it the 2nd Dark Age that we're going through. The first saw women healers they called witches, burned at the stake in order for men to steal health care from women. I read that in some towns there wasn't a woman left alive. Now, again under the aegis of government allied with misogynist health care practitioners, are seeking to colonize, perhaps eventually erase women altogether. I've always assumed that the dems were the more progressive party - until I didn't. With the onset of covid which I believe is a hoax, I was "accused" of being a Trump supporter because I refused to wear a mask - I was 82 at the onset and felt if it was true, I'd die at 82,already old, and would escape the worst of the fascism I saw coming. If not, I'd be fine and here I am, I'll be 86 Friday, if I live till then, which I suspect I will as I avoid doctors and look and feel a lot younger than I am. I finally realized that our entry into both world wars was caused by a democrat. Woodrow Wilson, touted as one of our great democratic presidents, also showed "Birth of a Nation" at the White House, decl;aring it to be a great classic and also gained the presidency by his promise to sell out the American people by agreeing to give power to the Federal Reserve. It took me until Barack Obama to wake up to them though. I'm ashamed to say I voted for him once, saw him in action and vowed to never again vote for a democrat. We are in need of a people's government which we will never have while the USA stands. They seek global and I do believe the only real answer is local governance. I'm in disagreement about climate change though as I believe our climate is being deliberately tampered with in order to serve the interests of the oligarchs who, unelected, are jet setting around the world in their private planes deciding what OUR sacrifices need to be to avert this climate change. And what a coincidence! It's always what will harm us (and the planet) and enrich them. I also think TDS is a real thing - and democrats have turned into nazis who definitely don't support democracy. They want the candidate they don't choose to be killed and say so unashamedly. Try the opposite though, it wouldn't go over so well. But then I don't see Trump or Other supporters wishing for death for those who oppose them. I have family that censors me if I dare say anything impugning their dem ideology. Biden with dementia is infinitely better than "fascist" Trump and they've now given their full support to Kamala the Selected. Perhaps some people are hopelessly brainwashed and incapable of critical thinking.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. (And yes, TDS is a real thing and we're seeing it in some of the comments on this article!) Just a quick note to say that I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist.
If the Dems have TDS, so do conservatives like DubbyDove here -- Transgender Derangement Syndrome. Like lobotomies, transgender ideas will fall out of favor with progressives before long. Eventually, Democrats will see that they are losing votes because of it.
They don’t care about votes just like they don’t care about free speech or any of your other rights.
I'm with you 100% on the trans issue and Biden's betrayal of women on Title IX. However, you're not going to persuade me that Trump did not foment January 6th, that he didn't shirk his responsibility to calm it down after it started, or that it was in any way a "peaceful" demonstration. I saw what they did. I saw the crowds breaking into the Capitol, erecting a scaffold and chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!" I also saw how Trump planted the seeds that the election results were going to be untrustworthy long before they happened, but as soon as he started to believe he might lose. And unlike the Democrats who held an FBI investigation of Russiagate, Trump tried 1,000 different ways to overturn the election of Biden through threats, lawsuits, lies, false electors, etc. etc. Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump. She didn't launch lawsuits for months trying to overturn the election. She didn't encourage a group of Democrats to storm the Capitol and then step back and let it rage on when it happened. Did Russiagate turn out to be unfounded? Yes. And none of that should be censored. But it's a far cry from the election lies Trump has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate.
No. Clinton didn't encourage others to dispute Trump's election. All she did was start a propaganda campaign claiming he was a Russian tool. And why exactly is Russia our enemy? It seems to elude me. She and Obama together destroyed Libya, the richest country in Africa. They murdered Gadaffi, the man who had brough them from the status of poorest African country to richest in less than 40 years. They bombed the water pipeline that Gadaffi had constructed through Africa to provide irrigation to other African nations. Gadaffi also enacted equal rights for women, still not the law (in fact now the opposite) in the U.S. The Libyan people also had free or low cost health care and education. But he committed the cardinal sin. He said that Libyan oi9l belonged to the Libyan people, not to western predatory corporations. So they illegally invaded, destroyed the country and murdered Gadaffi, their chosen leader, while Clinton laughed her demented laugh. Now it's a failed state with open air slave markets - more to the democrats liking. The only thing I see Clinton eligible for is a long prison sentence as a war criminal, certainly not as president.
You saw carefully curated propaganda about January 6.
The footage wasn’t fully released until this year, and it shows people quietly walking around the building, exactly like tourists.
This entire article is a stew of right-wing talking points that has come from conservative media. Carol Dansereau is one of those people who likes to think that she has the inside track on the "truth", but her idea of the truth is whatever nonsense is being spread by Fox or the Heritage Foundation. I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age.
The worst thing that Democrats are doing right now is giving lip-service to transgender ideas, but eventually they will come to their senses. That is not a good reason to jump ship to the Republican party, which has become nothing more than a cult with Donald Trump as its leader. Nothing has changed since 2016: It is still a measure of stupidity and corrupt values to support the Lying Pig. It is also a measure of ignorance, since the Pig's supporters never bother to find out what he is actually doing.
Now, if I got the notice for this article because I am subscribed to your Substack, I'll have to remedy that immediately. What you are saying here is mostly paranoid trash. Even when you get your facts right, you draw the wrong conclusions. You should get yourself to a doctor to see if you can't slow down that early dementia you have.
And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most "woke" among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out.
Perry, in this and other comments you've called me a dementia-entering person, a brainwashed rat, a tribalist/Cult member, a person devoid of integrity, etc. You might want to read more carefully what I wrote. Your responses to my article are not rational and do not flow from what I said. Just for the record: I'm not a Republican; have never supported Democrats except for a brief stint decades ago, and have faced all sorts of grief for dissent and NOT being a Cult/tribe follower. I am not endorsing Trump nor do I like him. As I said: read the piece more carefully, especially paragraphs about how neither Ds nor Rs are tolerable, and we must work together to get beyond these unacceptable choices.
You're right. I just skimmed through it. Later today I'll take a stiff drink and read every word. However, your commenters are all Republicans, and some of them are Democrats-cum-Republicans, and everything I said was appropriate for them.
The title of your article and your opening lines do not support the bipartisan spirit of what you just said to me.
"This is a letter to my progressive friends. Your political parties and agendas are tanking in the theater of public opinion. And this makes no sense to you. You view with horror the substantial support Donald Trump enjoys, realizing he could well be elected President again, which shocks you."
Those are tribalist words. You can't have it both ways. You can't be a tribalist and an independent thinker too.
New edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more I feel that you aren't being honest. You claim to be independent and bipartisan, and yet your article is condescendingly addressed to progressives as if we were stupid people with bad ideas. You are being provocative. And if a "progressive" like me decides to call you a few names, then I think you've earned them.
You love the ad hominim (are all Republicans, etc). So fucking what? Discuss the arguments.
Perhaps you are stupid people with bad ideas.
You certainly have done nothing to persuade anyone otherwise.
Stop calling people names you fascist.
I don't know who you are talking to, but it is conservatives and Republicans who are fascist in our society. The worst things that Dems do is to bend too far to give minorities their rights, and to provide perhaps too many benefits to poor people. Historically, fascists are always conservatives.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Fascism was invented by Mussolini who was a socialist. It is a left-wing, nationalist form of socialism that advocates for the total reorganization of society— for which Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" as a description—in service to the state, which is not at ALL conservative. It isn't at all a coincidence that the full name of the Nazi Party was National SOCIALISM, not National Conservatism. Only someone who has no understanding of what conservative means could believe that fascists are conservative. There is, in fact, nothing conservative about fascism, which is why it is impossible to be conservative and also a fascist. Some European conservatives did ally with fascists in the '20s and '30s because they saw Soviet Communism, with its advocacy for international revolution, as a greater threat. But that was a tactical alliance, not an expression of any commonality between fascism and actual conservative politics.
Democrats aren't just giving "lip service" to gender ideology. They've passed all sorts of laws and policies to proselytize, incentivize and enforce it. For example, here in Washington State (and elsewhere):
-schools have been mandated by the legislature to adopt "gender-inclusive schools" policies to allow boys into girls spaces and sports and keep secrets from parents
-insurance companies mandated to cover "gender-affirming" drugs and surgeries
-prisons allow men into women's prisons; taxpayers paying for "gender-affirming care" for trans-identifying inmates
-SB 5599 equates parental disagreement regarding gender identity and medicalization with abuse and facilitates receipt of gender-affirming care while keeping kids separated from parents; $1.8 million taxpayer funded grants recently awarded to support this.
-recently passed laws will make it harder for local school boards to remove controversial books and more likely gender ideology will appear in curriculum
And all of this has been done with only "10 percent" of Democrats supporting it? Quite a democracy we have.
Regarding the first section of Carol's post: what is one specific thing (or more, if you like) that she and her right wing sources got wrong?
Yes, I know all that, and the reasons for it are complex. Trans activists have done a very good job of selling transgenderism as the newest minority interest that must be included in diversity. I myself haven't figure out why their ideas have brainwashed so many liberals. But to my knowledge (this article not withstanding) that is the only serious weak spot that Democrats have.
I'm sure you've heard the adage, "You can fool some of the people all of time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Well, Donald Trump is a con-man who has fooled some of the people all of time; and when coupled with the electoral college, that's enough to get him elected. Because he is a liar and a thief* and a corrupt person in general, we just can't have him in power again. It is too dangerous for the country. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are wrong on this one issue, the Republicans as a group have become a functioning cult. If you care for our democracy, you will not vote for Trump. * He stole money from most of his business associates.
The Dems are wrong on 20% of the issues, and the Republicans are wrong on 80% of the issues. If you disagree with that, then your values are screwed up. If you don't disagree with that, then you need to vote for Harris no matter what she says about the trans issue.
I'm going to bed now.
Democrats have also been wrong about:
Housing First
drug decriminalization
defund the police
open borders and related forms of human trafficking
sanctuary city/state policies
vaccine mandates
green energy grifts and taxation
EV mandates
phasing out natural gas
restorative justice
race essentialism
equity at all costs
pro-choice extremism
reducing academic rigor and school choice options
radical "liberated" ethnic studies curriculum
That is a nice list you have there. How many hours should I spend examining every issue in my response? I have a life to live. However, I'll say a few things.
What is the issue over "housing first"? Probably very few Democrats support drug decriminalization or defunding the police or open borders and several other things on the list. Vaccine mandates save lives because they give human beings "herd" immunity, but I support them only for children, and only the most necessary vaccines should be required. What does "restorative justice" mean? All forms of fossil fuels must eventually be banned because they damage the planet. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen later. WHAT pro-choice extremism? I only support late-term abortions if there is an excellent reason (like the baby will be born dead or the mother could die), and I think most Dems agree with me on that. Who wants to reduce academic rigor??? And there's nothing radical about teaching ethnic culture in schools since the country is full of ethnic people.
Throwing out a vague list does no good in a comment section like this. But you have shown me one thing: You are a tribalist too, like the others commenting here. If you thought for yourself, you would not be choosing the Republican position on EVERY TOPIC. You would agree with some Republican positions and disagree with others. It's called "integrity", which you seem to be lacking.
I'll provide a proper response in a little while, but the fact that you seem unaware of any of the problems with the democratic positions and policies on these issues perhaps betrays your own tribalism.
Don't bother. I have other things to do than to argue every Republican talking point with you.
What a perfect example you are of exactly what Ms. Dandereau has written. An inability to hear and respect the viewpoint of others hardly makes you a paragon of democracy. And of course you start with the obvious - as a woman, she must be influenced by others since she would hardly possess the intelligence to actually form an opinion just out of her own pretty little "right-wing" head. She clearly states that, neithr side is representative of the best interests of eitherthe people or the planet and yet you persist in the usual dimdumbdemocrat rant about Trump. I, like her, awakened from a long sleep in which I actually thought the dems were the "good guys". I have been disabused by such as yourself, who while calling yourself a democrat, hardly support the values of a democracy. When you are able to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, you will have made some progress. We all have been massively brainwashed to serve the interests of the few over, finally, the very life of our species, at aminimum.
Well said. Disaffected Democrats, i.e., progressives like you and I and Dansereau, still cherish the values that the Democrats once championed, foremost among them, freedom of speech, press, and affiliation. The degradation of these values that we've seen since the election of Donald Trump occurred not because of Trump but because the Democrats were terrified of losing and, when they lost, they were sore losers.
During the campaign, the liberal media took sides. Donald Trump was given lots of sensationalized attention because it increased their audience, while Bernie Sanders, who had a large base and was competing with Trump for the same voting pool, was ignored. I was a compulsive listener to NPR at the time, and I observed the lopsided coverage of the candidates, even though I intended to vote for Clinton, which I did. She was so secure in her victory that it didn't occur to her that half the country might not appreciate being called deplorable.
(Note to Hillary: "I will call you bigoted fools now, and you will vote for me later" is not a good strategy for winning elections.)
When Trump won, the plot was hatched to ensure that such a monstrous thing never occurred again. The liberal media adopted a non-stop strategy of "All Trump All The Time,” featuring the excesses that Dansereau describes in her article; e.g., "Russiagate," a term that the Democrats don't use and don't even know what it means.
The incessant fear mongering about Trump, exacerbated by the hysteria surrounding covid, acted as a fear pathogen more potent than anything cooked up in a lab in China. It wormed its way into the brains of Democrats, who now suffer from advanced cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They know all they need to know, and Carol Dansereau, bless her heart, is senile.
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I’m 72, so that's a pretty longtime. As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won. Today, the ACLU supports the banning of books, like Abigail Shrier’s “Irreversible Damage," and defends the “right” of biologically intact male rapists and murderers to be housed in women’s prisons. Today, some of our Supreme Court justices and politicians call free speech dangerous and are working to legislate it out of existence. This is how far we've fallen.
I don't try to convince my Democrat friends of anything. They live in a bubble of paralyzing fear and hatred. Conversation is impossible because they are right about everything and I'm a bigot who has lost my marbles.
Dansereau's well-written essay may influence some folks who are on the fence but I doubt that entrenched Democrats will read past the first paragraph, never mind take it seriously. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't have written it, because it's better than staying silent and because you never know.
The recent rally in D.C. organized by Matt Taibbi, a lifelong liberal and a courageous defender of objective journalism and free speech, is a sign of the times.
Thank you for this. If you're 72 then you remember when the most popular quote of the 20th century was "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It seems for the 21st century it's changed Ito "I wish you job loss, cancellation, death and dismemberment for disagreeing with me because I am right and you are evil". May we be saved from the zealots, those so convinced that whatever it is that they believe is all that they can hear.
I do indeed remember that slogan, and it informs my thinking to this day. Thank you.
First, that quote is much older than you think it is. Second, above you gave as an example of liberal excess the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis to march, and now you seem to be saying the opposite. If you believe in that quote, then you had best believe that the Nazis had a right to march. (Wasn't it the Ku Klux Klan that marched?)
Also, I do not support the ACLU any more because they have been infected by transgender ideology. You see, I am a liberal who is not liberal on every issue. Why can't you parse your views like that? SHOW SOME INTEGRITY AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND ON EVERY ISSUE. DON'T JUST ADOPT ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN BELIEFS.
You misinterpreted what I wrote regarding the ACLU. Here again, is what I wrote:
"As a Jew, I supported the right of nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois in 1977, not because I love nazis, but because I love the First Amendment and the principles upon which this country was founded. That was also the ACLU's position back then. Despite the fact that most of their attorneys were Jews, they defended the nazis in court, and won."
At no point did I state or even imply that the ACLU's defense of the Nazis was an "example of liberal excess." It was not. It was consistent with the ACLU's values in support of free speech, which I supported at the time, and still do.
The problem with the ACLU is that it has changed its mission. It now supports the banning of gender critical books because pro-trans ideology has infected its thinking. The ACLU also actively defends the so-called rights of trans-identified men to be housed in women's prisons. Women's bodily autonomy and safety have become irrelevant to the ACLU. Their mission is corrupted, and therefore, I no longer support them.
No, the Ku Klux Klan did not march with the Nazis in Skokie. The Nazi group in question was an offshoot run by a man named Frank Collin. If you have any interest in the details, I recommend this superb article, "The Skokie Case: How I Came to Represent the Free Speech Rights of Nazis," written by ACLU attorney, David Goldberger.
I offer this reply as a service to other readers of this Substack who might want some clarification. I won't be responding to you again.
And oh yes, have a lovely day.
You have the same problem that Dansereau and DubbyDove have: You are tribe-driven. You can't just select individual issues on which you disagree with the Democrats. Rather, you have to make a full conversion from your old tribe (Dems) to your new tribe (Trump cult). You are like a prostitute who becomes a born-again Christian. If the prostitute had poor values, why should I trust the new values of the obnoxious proselytizer? It's called "integrity", of which you seem to have none. If you had integrity, you would have your disagreements with the Democrats, but you would still agree with them overall. Why? Because Donald Trump is a fool, a liar, a criminal, a thief, a pretender. He is the Pied Piper leading the rats. Enjoy your new status as a brain-washed rat.
Thank you so much for your insightful and enlightened comment. Where would we without your wisdom, compassion and commitment to the Truth?
Have a lovely day.
And good luck being a cult follower. Have a lovely day.
Bruh
No, Dandereau's foolishness is all her own. If I were a misogynist, I wouldn't have supported Hillary Clinton and wouldn't now support Kamala Harris. To the extent that a man can be a feminist, I've been one all my life.
What I'm seeing in disaffected Democrats is not a reasonable disagreement on individual issues (as I disagree with them on gender), but people changing "tribes". I am not tribe-driven. I can disagree on some issues and still recognize that the Dems are more rational over all.
If supporting Lady MacBeth makes you a "feminist" sobeit. I will not argue wih you about your delusions.
PJ: "And by the way, probably only 10% of Democrats agree with trans ideas. Only the most 'woke' among us do. Democratic politicians will eventually figure that out."
Don't see that happening anytime soon. When Harris boots "Rachel" Levine out on "her" ear is when, if I were able to vote in US elections, I might think Harris and the Democrats were the "lesser of two weevils" and not Trump.
Carol seems to have done a decent job of naming the usual suspects and itemizing a fairly extensive and quit damning bill of particulars on the transgender issue. But if you need more then see Joanna Williams' article on "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology" and my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" which provides a link to Williams' article:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Unless Rachel Levine is doing her job poorly, I see no reason why she should lose it. So what are you saying, that you don't want trans people to get any jobs at all?
The "usual suspects" are mostly Republican talking points that have little truth to them, or which are mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated.
The fact that Levine claims to believe himself to be a woman does not speak positively for his mental health. So what qualifies him to take yet another job from an actual woman? Women are still massively discriminated against in higher paid jobs. As an example, although 51% of the population. only 20% of our congressional representatives are women. Giving yet another job to a man claiming to be a woman does exactly zero for women's rights and your inability to understand this also denies your claim of being a feminist.
Excuse me, Dubby, but why do you think that Lavine's position would have been given to a real woman if Levine didn't get it?
I know all about misogyny. If you want to end misogyny in this country, then vote for Kamala Harris. Help her break the ultimate glass ceiling.
Harris is so not fit for the job, if she is elected it will likely make misogyny worse because some will blame her failure (and she will fail) on her sex... which is unfortunate, since mediocrity is an equal opportunity affliction.
You know, statements like this are laughably absurd. They make me question the sanity of the person saying them.
And you think that Trump is better? Okay, so let's say that you aren't a Trump cultist and you are not suggesting a comparison. Of course, Harris vs. Trump IS the choice we are facing, so it seems to me that you should be willing to look at Harris kindly. But you aren't because of the gender thing. But in every other respect, Harris is an obviously accomplished politician. She was a prosecutor and a senator, she united Democrats behind her after Biden pulled out with a level of skill I have never seen before, she made Trump look like a fool in their debate, and she has made NO ERRORS in her campaign. If she turns out to be as skillful a president as she is a campaigner, she may be one of the best presidents in history.
Listen, I am anti-trans too, but at least I understand where the woke liberals are coming from. They see trans people as being the most pitiful minority group in history (and they are right about that), so they want society to be accommodating as much as possible. They are wrong about that too, of course -- and they don't recognize the existential harm that trans people are doing -- but at least their hearts are in the right place. None of us who are anti-trans have been able to figure out why trans ideology is so appealing to the do-gooders in our society. I certainly can't, but as I said, the liberals are at least trying to have a kind response to them. For you to reject Democrats at every level become SOME Democrats are over-compensating towards trans people is just foolish, ESPECIALLY SINCE DONALD THE PUSSY-GRABBER IS OUR ONLY ALERNATIVE. Do you hear what I'm saying? THE LIE-A-MINUTE NARCISSIST AND DEMAGOGUE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. You need to come to your senses. Stop being a one-issue voter -- that is so dumb.
"poorly" is an understatement:
"Unsealed Court Documents Show That Admiral Rachel Levine Pressured WPATH To Remove Age Guidelines From The Latest Standards Of Care" https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/unsealed-court-documents-show-that?triedRedirect=true
Levine is something of a "point man" for the absolute worst of transgender ideology, for the rather demented idea that some dick-swinging dude can simply click his heels together and say he's changed into a female and should be treated as such. Harris is no better if not worse, as Carol indicated above, in gushing over Dylan Mulvaney.
> "... mostly irrelevant or explainable, or exaggerated ..."
None so blind and all that.
I apologize for not being up on what Rachel Levine is doing. If she has in fact done the things you say, then I don't support her either. My point is that trans people have a right to WORK. However, I won't vote for trans politicians because they push gender ideology. (I'm gay, by the way, so I'm part of that LGBT alphabet soup.) And for the same reason I won't vote for Muslim politicians (because Islam is a bad religion), but I also won't vote for devout Christians who are not liberal.
You see: I'm setting a good example for you: I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I'm sensible. I think for myself.
No problemo -- complex issue, and not easy to keep abreast of all the important details.
But I still don't think you, and far too many others, fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought -- so to speak, much if not all of it due to the aiding and abetting by Democrats in general. Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of Republicans, at least they're not butchering autistic and dysphoric children, and turning them into sexless eunuchs -- conversion therapy writ large. Something that, one would think, you in particular should be concerned about.
As further grist for the mill in your thinking, you might try reading that post of mine on Statistics Departments corrupted by gender ideology, as well as my repost of, and elaborations on, one by Carol:
"The Anti-Science Disaster of Gender Ideology in the Schools":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-anti-science-disaster-of-gender
"Disaster" is something of an understatement.
If I don't fully appreciate the rot that transgenderism has wrought, why do I have my own Substack about it? Transgender ideology is the worst idea that has come down the pike in the last hundred years. It has to be defeated. It is an existential threat to humanity because it makes all kinds of other bad ideas plausible.
"Whatever crimes and misdemeanors you can lay at the feet of the Republicans ..." For God's sake, the Republican party has become the TRUMP CULT -- and Trump is a whole lot worse than you want to acknowledge. He is a NARCISSIST who cares only about himself. He is a liar, a thief, a criminal, a demagogue, a RACIST. He is completely incompetent. He did very little in his first term except to send out Tweets. Anyone who would vote for him again is STUPID.
"I'm so sorry, Carol, that you are slipping into dementia at an early age." Perry, that's just nasty and uncalled for. Can we try to keep our arguing civil? This is no way to make an argument or try to change someone's mind.
You're right, I shouldn't have said that. However, I have nothing but contempt for what she is doing. Because of some conservative streak in her personality, she isn't just questioning SOME Democratic positions, she is questioning ALL of them (or so it seems). That's what I mean by "tribalism". What I see in her article and in these comments is former Democrats deciding to switch ALL of their views to the other "side". But people with integrity do not decide what they believe according to what their adopted "tribe" believes. If you have INTEGRITY, then you make up your mind on each individual issue. Dansereau isn't doing that. She is making a wholesale switch from the Democrats to the Republicans. I can't respect that.
Your inability to comprehend her arguments and thought process is not an argument. It is merely an indication of your own lack of imagination.
Every state that is Dem-run is pro-trans. CA, MN, OR, WA go further - they are trans-refuge states, where people can go to get mutilated. I believe that children can declare that they are emancipated (legally adults) in these states, get mutilated on state medical funds. This is why your contention of 10 % is a fucking lie.
Yup, I’m a liar, just like Donald Trump is. I did just what he does: I took my own estimate of 10% and I threw it out there as a fact. The difference between me and Trump is that I do that once a week, while he does that 50 TIMES A DAY. Do you understand what I’m saying? DONALD TRUMP IS A LIAR – DON’T VOTE FOR HIM.
Regarding what I said, the situation is complicated. Your average Democrat probably doesn’t know what “transgender ideology” is. All they know is that transgender people are the most pitiful people on earth, and so we have to be nice to them and give them what they want, which includes calling trans women “she” even when they are 6'2" tall and have male faces and baritone voices. However, the agenda of Democratic politicians is entirely different, and I’ll get to that in a moment.
So what is the central idea of transgender ideology? It is this idea (using a man as an example): “I am a man who feels like a woman, which means I have the ‘gender identity’ of a woman. Having the gender identity of a woman makes me a REAL woman; and being a REAL woman, I have the right to enter into ALL of women’s single-sex spaces, including sports, rest rooms, locker rooms, shelters and prisons.” Now, when explained like this, I suspect that 90% of Republicans will call it nonsense, and perhaps 80% of Democrats will call it nonsense – so yes, my 10% was too low. The point is, Democrats have the same common sense that Republicans do (actually, much more so given Trump’s popularity), and MOST of them will reject the idea.
Democratic politicians are a different matter. Just as Republican politicians are trying to please their right-most flank, Democratic politicians don’t want to alienate the “woke” ultra-liberals. Besides which, it does, at some level, seem to be a good idea to give trans people what they want, especially since they’ll demonstrate in front of your house if you don’t, and they’ll call you a “transphobe” forever after. Democratic politicians can also point to the fact that 90% of medical organizations now subscribe to transgender ideology, and if the politicians disagree, they’ll look like bigots. So Democratic politicians are making a calculated political move (just as Republican politicians do), and they are accepting the most liberal position, figuring that most Democratic voters don’t even understand it, so why not? But believe me, most Democrats don't believe this nonsense.
I just spent 15 minutes writing a reply, and then my browser crashed. I'll get an answer to you soon.
Great piece. I will share.
All true - but is Donald Trump just a mirage - a figment of your imagination and desire for greener political pastures? There is little doubt that the assassination attempt was staged: https://peteryim.substack.com/p/four-essential-reasons-to-doubt-the
Dynamite reporting. 👏👏👏
"If elected, will Trump follow through on promises to work with Kennedy to tackle toxic pollution and chronic disease, including by dealing with regulatory capture by big corporations?...I won’t hold my breath."
Nor will I. But at least the Trump campaign is opening up public discourse on the topic.
"Can we count on Republican leaders to stand up for democracy? No. But it’s absurd to present putting Democrats in office as a way to protect democracy."
Trust me, we conservatives are just as critical of most of the Republicans now in office, and we also recognize that we cannot count on them to stand up for "democracy," as you say, or - more to the point - our inherent human rights that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.
Dear Lord do you believe any woke indoctrinated Democrat would permit this radioactive collection of political facts to cross their in-box? I envy your optimism.
Nicely said.
Excellent article. i will write my own "Why I took the red pill in 2014". Many reasons follow your comments.
I said that I was going to read the entire article, but I just can’t. I have a life to live. I did, however, read and/or skim about half of it more carefully this time.
That’s the first thing that makes this writing poor: It is way too long. It isn’t focussed or concise. There are a lot of asides and detours and generalities in your writing, and they just take up space.
The second thing is that it is unnecessarily provocative. The article is addressed to progressives, and it is extremely condescending in places. It’s clear that you are contemptuous of progressives, and yet you argue that they should be open-minded towards Trump and Trump supporters (!). Your slap-downs are so nasty and gratuitous that it’s clear you aren’t really addressing progressives at all, but throwing red meat to your conservative readers. There is a Moses-Handing-Down-the-Ten-Commandments quality to your writing, but you are in no position to assume such a posture. You think you are a dispenser of the truth, but you have only your own opinion.
And therein is the biggest weakness of the article. You state a lot facts which sound like opinions to me. Unless you have sources in the government, you don’t really know what the truth is about “Russiagate”, which you make too big a deal of. There are always false accusations during campaigns. I don’t like to think that Democrats are lying, but I suspect that their lying was more along the lines of exaggerating or vocalizing their suspicions. I was reading the news in 2016 and I never thought that trump was in cahoots with the Russians – he isn’t bright enough to do such things.
Another obvious weakness of the article is that you make a big deal over this Russian thing while Trump was telling a hundred lies a day. And regardless of what you say now, I know you are sympathetic towards Trump. Indeed, with Former President Lie-A-Minute Grabby Hands at the head of the Republican party, I find it astonishing that Republicans aren’t walking around with their heads hanging in shame. What I was worried would happen has finally happened, and that is that Trump has become normalized for Republicans, and that includes you. But by every objective measure, Trump is a total incompetent. He’ll be remembered as our worst president without any disagreement among historians.
What you’ve described in this article is one big, bloated conspiracy theory. Well, I’ve got news for you: Politics is full of conspiracies. There’s nothing new or significant about that.
The real story of the 2016 election was the way the Republicans made a big deal over Clinton’s email server. Nobody ever talks about this, but Colin Powell, a Republican, did the same thing before she did it. I have never seen so much character assassination in all my life, and for such a ridiculously minor reason. What it was, really, was pure misogyny. No one, it seems – even you – can stand a strong woman. And now you are ready to vote against another strong woman in deference to a man whose masculine take-charge personality is just an act.
If Democrats considered Trump to be an illegitimate president, it was probably more because of the electoral college than because of his love for Vladimir Putin.
Another notable thing is that your article is full of hyperbole. The threat to free speech is fairly minor. To say that there is now a “censorship regime” in this country is almost laughable. The truth is, our society is very polarized, and everyone is trying to censor everyone else. This is nothing new. Shortly after the founding of our country, people were trying to jail each other for saying the wrong things. These kinds of power struggles have been with us forever.
You know, I’ve now lost my patience with your thesis-long article. I don’t need to read any more. You are a very poor, undisciplined writer. Overall, there are too many opinions stated as facts, too many exaggerations, too many generalizations, too many unnecessary details, too much emphasis on essentially unimportant things, and too many conclusions drawn without good evidence.