> doctors don't want to save them out of fear of performing
then perhaps they should leave the profession if they’re so unsure of themselves. they’re supposed to be among some of the most educated people in society and they can’t read and understand a law? or hire a lawyer?
also have you asked the women what they want? because my wife for instance is against abortion. both of my sisters as well.
> they’re supposed to be among some of the most educated people in society and they can’t read and understand a law? or hire a lawyer?
Yes, that's the biggest concern for a (probably overworked) doctor, read laws and hire lawyers to make sure if they're allowed to perform a medical procedure.
> also have you asked the women what they want? because my wife for instance is against abortion. both of my sisters as well.
And I hope neither of them is dying while pregnant, willingly or not, and the doctor has to chose before doing the right thing and going to prison. If all three of them cannot realise this and why it's important to have a fucking say on the matter, they're either absurdly dumb or absurdly heartless. If they're willing to let women die of sepsis or be forced to give birth to unviable feti because they think their version of a diety tells them so, there is something wrong with them. (And I'm wording this as politely as I can, believe in whatever shit you want, but if your shit means letting people die of preventable causes because of your beliefs, you're a terrible person)
they are required to follow laws in their normal every day job. for instance they must also be concerned when they prescribe narcotics or other controlled substances but that doesn’t paralyze them.
so again, if they can’t handle the job and know when it’s appropriate to give an abortion and when it isn’t then they need to quit.
That’s not going to work, but at least you’re sticking to your principles. We need to abolish political parties altogether. I’ve been trying to get traction on this for years with no luck.
Us third party voters need to work together for change to the voting system, no matter how different our politics might be from one another. In fact, us working together despite our different politics would underline our point: democracy is about everyone having their say, not about agreement.
Im not entirely confident 3rd party will do anything of substance. I’m still in favor of banning all political parties but I am willing to concede I may be wrong.
Crazy idea, if you’re confused and can’t figure out why the brain washing didn’t hold then maybe they’re seeing something you don’t? Maybe you’re wrong?
Yea look more into the Russian disnfo BS. The campaign has been running likely since before you were born and the intent is to destabilize the country not pick a particular candidate. If you pay attention to the flip flopping from them you’d notice the same.
many women I asked are absolutely ready, but every single one of them were depressed at the idea of Harris being the first. given she can’t put a sentence together they didn’t want the shame.
Sorry but no. Doctors need to do their job and read the laws. They’re smart enough. Keep going though, that’s clearly a winning topic with even women voting against it.
> Keep going though, that’s clearly a winning topic with even women voting against it
Results in Missouri, Kansas, Montana, Arizona, Ohio, Nevada either yesterday or in the last year, that voted for trump but also voted protections for it say otherwise.
National ban is on the cards now, controlling the courts, Senate and presidency and likely the house it is quite within reach. There is nothing further to say, predictions and warnings have no clearly no effect, perhaps lived experience might, or we keep blaming healthcare workers or immigrants for everything, whatever works.
nope. still the left haven’t learned what decentralized power and states rights are. there will be no federal ban. keep spreading misinformation if you like but as the country has already shown you, we don’t believe it anymore.
Comstock act and its power exists . Even if it doesn’t , there is no state law which can supersede the federal government right to regulate interstate commerce , no healthcare system can survive today without interstate commerce .
I would be happy to be proven wrong , but I wouldn’t count on a strongman being restrained in using the power the court; legislatures and executives have given him.
Likely because you’ve sheltered yourself from it. I have been told on HN even that I’m privileged (implying I should be ashamed or aware of such privilege). Also all that recently about how racism is alive and well and it’s our fault.
If you are a white male (I am) then you almost certainly ARE privileged at some level and imo should be aware of that.
This is a completely separate matter from being ashamed of said privilege (I don't think this is reasonable or productive), or being held responsible for racism in general (obviously ridiculous unless you are right now a bona fide racist). But that level of nuance doesn't fit neatly in a 30 second inflammatory commercial.
Who's done with it? The right? because no one loves identity politics more than them. Every single word that comes out of trumps mouth is about someones identity.
do you not believe Im a veteran? or maybe the degree? or maybe that I came from a poor family? which is it and why would someone lie about that? or maybe your world view was shattered?
The other reply to this post has it right. Your argument against identity politics appears to be to engage in identity politics, and that was the reason for my snarky comment. But I'll bite and make a serious reply, I'd like to think HN is better than a place to shitpost (and that's on me).
I have no reason to doubt any of what you said, and in all seriousness, I am happy that you have come from a poor background and made a good life for yourself without the so-called required college degree. My point is that if all those things were true about you and you were also black for example, you'd probably have been at a relative disadvantage to your white self in this country.
That in no way takes away from your success in life, or implies you didn't work hard to get there. I grew up in a family without much money, but one that valued education and hard work. I have worked, and worked hard my entire life, and things have by and large worked out very well for me. In my younger days I did plenty of stupid things that might very well have gotten me shot were my skin tone darker. I have black family members who have been handcuffed and thrown down on the driveway of their house that they own because it was late at night they "looked suspicious". Would I have gotten to where I am today if I were black? Maybe yes, maybe no, but the macro-level odds are I'd be worse off if I weren't white.
My view is that if we want to change things for the better - whether in politics or business or personal life - it's better to be honest about the nature and degree of the problems than to try and pretend they don't exist. My great-grandparents owned businesses and my black friend's great-grandparents were owned by other people. My parents could do whatever they wanted and my black friend's parents had to go to separate schools and use separate drinking fountains. None of this is your fault nor mine, and I'm not going to feel bad about myself because of what my ancestors did. But I am willing to consider that actual history should inform our approach to improving things going forward. Maybe consider it a blameless postmortem for society https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/
If you want to reduce that to "identity politics" and write it off in a with-us-or-against-us calculation, that's certainly your right. It is still a free country after all. For the record, I've been an unaffiliated voter my entire life, and I believe the surest sign that the democratic party is terrible at what they do is that Donald Trump has been considered a serious presidential candidate three times now. The two party system has done an amazing job of splitting people who may otherwise agree on 95% of issues over relatively trivial issues. But truly, you really are with us or against us, and there is no other way unless we can get rid of the two party system. So for me I am against the sycophancy and nepotism and kleptocracy and hypocrisy of Donald Trump and the republican party, and if that means I have to deal with some ill-advised identity politics from the democrats, then the reality at a national level is that I have to hold my nose and deal. What I'm not going to do is vote against the interests of myself and my family (and, I believe, my country) because someone is trying to make me feel bad about my ancestors.
This lack of evidence thing is old and still doesn’t work.
I certainly remember hateful women lambasting men, including myself, for things like saying a woman is attractive.
Also Obama just said:
"[P]art of it makes me think, and I’m speaking to men directly… that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that."
I wonder what he meant? That men are sexist because we don’t want a woman president? Or maybe that they wouldn’t vote because they’re heading to the grocery store or something?
Do you seriously actually think that Obama acknowledging that sexist bias exists when it comes to electing the president is an "attack on men"?
I love how whenever someone on the left says they're offended by something outrageous and awful, the right says "grow a thicker skin, snowflake", but whenever someone on the left calmly asserts an obvious truth, that bias exists, people on the right whine that they're being attacked and their way of life is being destroyed.
I'm a man and I don't think the Democratic party "hates me". Maybe Republicans need to grow a thicker skin and stop being offended by every little thing. (See, I can be an asshole and argue in bad faith too!)
Kamala being a woman absolutely had a negative impact on her results. That is probably not the main reason she lost though. Again, do you have any real proof that the left is systematically antagonizing men, or can you only provide anecdotal evidence?
It's really easy to find instances of right-wing politicans or pundits saying abhorrent things about women as a group (refer to my previous comment), but no one seems to care. On the other hand Obama makes vague implications that sexist bias may negatively influence their candidates and now half the country hates men.
I don't get what you're trying to prove with Obama's quote. Is pointing out the existence of a sexist bias the same as taking an anti-men stance? Is being anti-racist the same as being anti-white? If some believe those things then right-wing propaganda really has succeded into making their brains impervious to logic, and I'm afraid nothing the democrats can say will undo that.
Why do you do these broad generalizations where you demonize an entire group, when it's exactly the problem you have (or, perceive you have..) with how "the left" speak?
any leftists that aren’t hateful are trying to leave the party and create a new one. or attempting to save the existing party. there is no non hateful democrat doing nothing
Former president. If he were president when people tried to kill him, he wouldn't be eligible to run again.
Also, it was disgruntled right-wingers who tried to kill him, so it's more likely it was his own hateful rhetoric and his own actions (like pedophilia) that motivated the would be assassins.
Yes, sorry, I in fact require you to provide me some evidence before I believe your insane take of "the left is demonizing men".
As a cisgender heterosexual white man myself, I can't recall any piece of legislation, passed or proposed, that would discriminate against me based on those adjectives. I have never felt any kind of animosity toward myself coming from democrats.
If you really want examples of hate, go listen to literally any talk from Trump and cie. on gays, lesbians, muslims, blacks, puerto ricans, transgender people, jews, single women, atheists, political opponents...
So, I don't require absolute evidence, just any evidence that the democrats have an anti-men agenda. Like the Republicans have an overt anti-lgbt agenda, through laws like "don't say gay", bans on same-sex marriages, redefining sex (a scientific term) in the law...
The video linked at the top of this thread is the evidence you asked for, have you even watched it? It doesn't matter if you consider that person a viable source or not, it has clear examples of men being demonized by left leaning sources. So much so that it leaks into pop culture/media. Men clearly feel like they are no longer welcome in many spaces, or are lesser/undervalued. I'm not here to comment on whether thats deserved or not, but it has consequences.
You seem to be under the opinion that there has to be a legislative policy or that it needs to have been said by a politician for it to affect someones sentiment, opinion, and voting choice. It doesn't.
This said as somebody who did not vote for Trump, not that I liked the other candidate that much though either. There is clear evidence of blatant hateful rhetoric towards men to the point of being considered okay to just openly talk hatefully about men that by nature of cause and affect has also led to growing blatant anti-female rhetoric, and it is driving younger males towards the right by simple gender divide. The right is just better at capitalizing on it.
To be clear, you can find people hating on any group you could come up with. But let's be real here, the hate is largely coming from one side, and that one is not the dems.
I know of no mainstream liberal figure that have spoken hateful words against men as a group, while I can rewatch the latest RNC and find many instances of abhorrent speech towards minorities.
They are still plenty of white men on TV and in the movies, I have never been insulted because of who I am. I have plenty of LGBT friends who could not care less about my "orthodoxy" and are perfectly happy to spend time with me.
> men in this country have been demonized by the left repeatedly
Again, fucking cite a source. You can't feel you're being demonised if nobody ever said anything against you. Stop and try to think for a second or two. (And no, me telling you you're stupid for victimising yourself with no proof doesn't mean "the left" is demonising you, because I'm not American).
> stop looking for evidence and just freaking listen to people’s perspectives
What? Stop looking for evidence and listen to people's feelings? How about people grow a brain and start looking at facts?
You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. You broke them badly and repeatedly in this thread, ignoring the admonition at the top. Not cool.
You also broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread, ignoring the admonition at the top. That's seriously not cool. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.
do you remember a time when the republicans were even keeled and tempered and the democrats kept calling them hitler, nazis, facists, and so on? I certainly remember.
The only way to counter this message is to stop with the hate speech. Like the parent above said. Even independents are tired of it now.
Of course likely the left will again ignore the warnings and continue on so I’m quite anxious to see what 2026 and 2028 bring.
I don't know of a time in recent memory with "even keeled" republicans (at least beyond the Primary). Romney and McCain would be the last I'm aware of.
I'm confident that I've heard both sides saying exactly what you're saying though... and I remember many times that "the end of democracy" was around the corner.... and if such-and-such wins a race war is going to break out etc.
The rhetoric and post-election-dooming is always the same regardless of which side wins.
I pretty firmly believe that things like the economy, incumbents tendency to remain in power, and a party switch after hitting the term-limit are the biggest factors. What people actually say once the primaries are over just doesn't matter to most people. People will cherry-pick what they want to hear.
I have no clue what you're talking about? Did Gore call Bush a fascist? Obama?
Ultimately, I see the world this way: people want good things for others. Most people who voted for Trump aren't directly fascists. Trump himself I wouldn't even qualify as a fascist. But he espouses fascistic policies. Immigrants polluting the blood of America, stuff like that, those are fascist ways of talking about immigration. So at some point we have to talk about things, and denounce them. And no, Trump himself is not Mussolini. But the shortcut of calling him a fascist is ultimately okay.
Same thing with racisms. Most people aren't fundamentally racist, but they'll espouse racist opinions. So they're racist.
if you believe the left hasn’t ramped up the vitriol against their supposed enemies then you’re living under a rock. have you already forgotten this same hatred almost got Trump shot twice? the rest of us haven’t.
trump is running at least partially on a revenge-tour platform. his rhetoric is unlike anything else I've personally heard from another candidate on any side of the aisle.
I understand that we don't agree here and that we all view things that are said through a distorted lens... so you may feel that certain speech from one person isn't violent, but said by another person is.... and I clearly would flip that around.
Its a shame that things are the way they are, but hopefully we can all understand each other at some point and things are less polarized. Its pretty miserable to have calm and reasonable conversations about anything even broaching politics. Its just contributes to the echo chambers.
Trump is literally a convicted rapist. Mounted an insurrection. Pedophile. Serial cheater. Mocked disabled people and veterans. Literally stole money from a children's cancer charity. You can literally, no exaggeration, pull out tens of those indisputable facts, which in a normal world, would be immediately disqualifying. You wouldn't hire someone who has said any of the millions of things he has said. Do you remember grab them by the pussy? Would you be friends, or hire, or tolerate anyone speaking like that?
Pointing them out and how fundamentally unsuited that man is for any job, let alone the presidency of any country, is not "hatred". If you have a problem with people being shot at, take this up with your local representative to get better controls on who can acquire a weapon.
Stopping here because this is a blatant lie. He was NOT convicted of rape but instead sexual abuse. They are not the same and if you need further evidence then consult a lawyer.
Remember that disinformation the left claimed the right was spreading? guess what you’re doing now?
'But Judge Lewis Kaplan called Trump’s semantic argument “entirely unpersuasive.” He clarified that the jury found that the former president did indeed “rape” Carroll based on the common definition of the word.'
Oh, my deepest apologies. He's not a convicted rapist, only a convicted sexual abuser. Also a close associate and friend to a known pedophile ringleader, so very highly probably a rapist and child molester too.
Does rape vs sexual abuse change much in your view? Especially when there's also him bragging about grabbing them right by the pussy.
Sorry you believe what you believe, but sexual abuse is not akin to rape. The law has said so. Do you disagree with the law or just want to punish Trump?
> It's literally on the same sliding scale of nonconsensual sexual activity.
Human relationships are messy and complex, treating sex in such a manichean fashion is not helpful. Under Biden there were new Title IX regulations that made it virtually impossible for universities to expel students for sexual assault because they were so strict, often after being removed from school solely on the basis of an accusation they would sue and win and come right back. Its become nothing more than a formality at this point used only in the most extreme cases.
I don’t think Trump is the model of sexual freedom or anything, but the situation was far more authoritarian—at least in that respect—than before. Sometimes people get hurt when they have sex, it doesn’t mean we have to get the law involved.
Both times were by a disgruntled right-wing/Republican and not a left-wing/Democrat. (and no, a single $20 donation to a Democrat does not make someone a Democrat).
The left can’t admit they’re continue not understanding voter IDs, it doesn’t mean we’re going to shut up until they’re implemented nationwide.
reply