What exactly is the democratic party going to stand for in 2026 and 2028?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

Lets also talk about science advancing toward male uterus implants meanwhile childbirth is as gory and medieval as ever. Viagra is over the counter because God knows a 85 year old male needs sex, but birth control pills are not.There's a deeper conversation here beyond politics. It shows that men regardless of sexuality or identity are privileged over women. Nothing was ever accomplished for women and in fact, women are losing rights. Maternal mortality rates are increasing and wage gaps are also increasing despite women outpacing men in education.

All of this. I have been saying for years that the way doctors and Democrats pander to trans women's every whim is how you know Democrats are fully aware that trans women are men.

Even comparing trans people to each other, anyone who really wants a laugh needs to look up the very short list of surgeries considered "gender affirming" and necessary for trans men versus the ever expanding list of dozens of surgeries considered "gender affirming" for trans women. One of these groups is getting a whole lot more out of the transgender racket. Wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

Republicans will, however, keep you on life support against your and your family's will, just to birth your baby. Dark times indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5405542/a-brain-dead-womans-pregnancy-raises-questions-about-georgias-abortion-law

"Adriana Smith, a 30 year-old nurse and mother, was about nine weeks pregnant in February when doctors declared her brain dead after she suffered a medical emergency.

But Smith's mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA that doctors at Emory University Hospital have been keeping her organs functioning since then until the fetus can be delivered, citing Georgia's law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

Smith is now roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy and has been on life support for more than 90 days.

"My grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, we don't know if he'll live once she has him," Newkirk told WXIA last week. "And I'm not saying we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have had a choice."

Republicans took that choice away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

Republicans will, however, keep you on life support against your and your family's will, just to birth your baby. Dark times indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5405542/a-brain-dead-womans-pregnancy-raises-questions-about-georgias-abortion-law

"Adriana Smith, a 30 year-old nurse and mother, was about nine weeks pregnant in February when doctors declared her brain dead after she suffered a medical emergency.

But Smith's mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA that doctors at Emory University Hospital have been keeping her organs functioning since then until the fetus can be delivered, citing Georgia's law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

Smith is now roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy and has been on life support for more than 90 days.

"My grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, we don't know if he'll live once she has him," Newkirk told WXIA last week. "And I'm not saying we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have had a choice."

Republicans took that choice away.

As someone cleverer than me once said, Democrats will get you raped by a man in the women's bathroom, and Republicans will make you keep his baby. Pick your poison. Progress, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

Republicans will, however, keep you on life support against your and your family's will, just to birth your baby. Dark times indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5405542/a-brain-dead-womans-pregnancy-raises-questions-about-georgias-abortion-law

"Adriana Smith, a 30 year-old nurse and mother, was about nine weeks pregnant in February when doctors declared her brain dead after she suffered a medical emergency.

But Smith's mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA that doctors at Emory University Hospital have been keeping her organs functioning since then until the fetus can be delivered, citing Georgia's law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

Smith is now roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy and has been on life support for more than 90 days.

"My grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, we don't know if he'll live once she has him," Newkirk told WXIA last week. "And I'm not saying we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have had a choice."

Republicans took that choice away.

That’s horrifying too.

I am not sure I can vote for either party at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

Republicans will, however, keep you on life support against your and your family's will, just to birth your baby. Dark times indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5405542/a-brain-dead-womans-pregnancy-raises-questions-about-georgias-abortion-law

"Adriana Smith, a 30 year-old nurse and mother, was about nine weeks pregnant in February when doctors declared her brain dead after she suffered a medical emergency.

But Smith's mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA that doctors at Emory University Hospital have been keeping her organs functioning since then until the fetus can be delivered, citing Georgia's law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

Smith is now roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy and has been on life support for more than 90 days.

"My grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, we don't know if he'll live once she has him," Newkirk told WXIA last week. "And I'm not saying we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have had a choice."

Republicans took that choice away.

Abortions affect only menstrual age women. Breast cancer or simply using the bathroom affects women of all ages.

At least Republicans believe in harsh sentences (life sentence, deportation, or death penalty) for rapists in the case of abortion. Democrats think crime is a misunderstanding.


The problem with progressives is they dont have a stop button or any self awareness and they are just like the religious right wingers they dislike. There's a need to evangelize and fellowship and preach the ideology to families and attack anyone that doesnt accept the belief as backward or lost.

Most Americans are smart and see the bullshit with the Democrat Party and its donors. The erasure of gender , decriminalizing theft/ property vandalism, defunding police, disarming the public of guns, government censored media, jailing political opponents, universal basic income, gas/carbon taxes, even AI is literal communism right before our eyes.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article regarding the Democrats' trans problem.

Based on this, I dont think Democrats stand a chance until 2032.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/democratic-party-transgender-ideology-gavin-newsom

California governor Gavin Newsom surprised many recently when he labeled transgender-identified male athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair.” The forum, a podcast discussion with MAGA activist Charlie Kirk, was almost as striking as the statement itself.

But Newsom’s comments were conspicuously not a full-throated repudiation of gender ideology. They merely reflect a new trend within the Democratic Party that involves expressing public skepticism of transgender ideology while remaining unable to act against it.

This apparent mismatch between rhetoric and action is not just political expediency; it’s a structural problem. The Democratic Party increasingly finds itself in a balancing act: acknowledging how unpopular its activist class has become but remaining dependent on it for funding, organizing, and electoral mobilization. As long as Democrats are unable to break with their fringe, Republicans will keep using gender ideology as a stand-in for a broader critique of Democrats as a party that cannot be trusted to govern competently.

The Democratic base is not committed to the liberal line on transgender issues. A January New York Times poll, in fact, found that more than two-thirds of Democrats—and 79 percent of Americans—oppose allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports. The political risk in disagreeing should be obvious.

Yet, when Republicans forced a Senate vote last week on a bill to bar biological males from female athletics, not a single Democrat broke ranks. Even Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, the Left’s purported blue-collar truth-teller, didn’t budge. Though he has diverged from his party on immigration and Israel, he toed the line, casting trans-identified athletes as innocent children caught in a “political maelstrom.” Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin struck a similar note on Meet the Press, saying the issue should be left to local communities.

The refusal to moderate reveals where the real power lies within the Democratic Party. Though elected officials must win over voters every few years, they rely on the party’s activist class every day. Progressive NGOs, donor networks, and advocacy organizations exert enormous influence over Democratic primaries and policymaking—and they have zero interest in compromising on gender ideology. As a result, elected officials are incentivized to move away from majority opinion and toward ideological purity.

As Ruy Teixeira and John Judis argue in Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, the party’s reliance on educated, activist-minded elites has alienated working-class and nonwhite voters. But for activists, staking out extreme positions is a feature, not a bug. It’s how they raise money, rally supporters, and consolidate control over the party’s policy apparatus.

In 2020, Newsom signed California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, which allows male inmates who identify as female to be housed in women’s prisons. California continues to permit males to participate in female sports and is actively fighting the federal government on this issue, despite Newsom’s podcast-friendly talk of “fairness.” In his conversation with Kirk, Newsom claimed that no one in his office has ever used the term “Latinx,” yet his own past statements prove otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article regarding the Democrats' trans problem.

Based on this, I dont think Democrats stand a chance until 2032.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/democratic-party-transgender-ideology-gavin-newsom

California governor Gavin Newsom surprised many recently when he labeled transgender-identified male athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair.” The forum, a podcast discussion with MAGA activist Charlie Kirk, was almost as striking as the statement itself.

But Newsom’s comments were conspicuously not a full-throated repudiation of gender ideology. They merely reflect a new trend within the Democratic Party that involves expressing public skepticism of transgender ideology while remaining unable to act against it.

This apparent mismatch between rhetoric and action is not just political expediency; it’s a structural problem. The Democratic Party increasingly finds itself in a balancing act: acknowledging how unpopular its activist class has become but remaining dependent on it for funding, organizing, and electoral mobilization. As long as Democrats are unable to break with their fringe, Republicans will keep using gender ideology as a stand-in for a broader critique of Democrats as a party that cannot be trusted to govern competently.

The Democratic base is not committed to the liberal line on transgender issues. A January New York Times poll, in fact, found that more than two-thirds of Democrats—and 79 percent of Americans—oppose allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports. The political risk in disagreeing should be obvious.

Yet, when Republicans forced a Senate vote last week on a bill to bar biological males from female athletics, not a single Democrat broke ranks. Even Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, the Left’s purported blue-collar truth-teller, didn’t budge. Though he has diverged from his party on immigration and Israel, he toed the line, casting trans-identified athletes as innocent children caught in a “political maelstrom.” Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin struck a similar note on Meet the Press, saying the issue should be left to local communities.

The refusal to moderate reveals where the real power lies within the Democratic Party. Though elected officials must win over voters every few years, they rely on the party’s activist class every day. Progressive NGOs, donor networks, and advocacy organizations exert enormous influence over Democratic primaries and policymaking—and they have zero interest in compromising on gender ideology. As a result, elected officials are incentivized to move away from majority opinion and toward ideological purity.

As Ruy Teixeira and John Judis argue in Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, the party’s reliance on educated, activist-minded elites has alienated working-class and nonwhite voters. But for activists, staking out extreme positions is a feature, not a bug. It’s how they raise money, rally supporters, and consolidate control over the party’s policy apparatus.

In 2020, Newsom signed California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, which allows male inmates who identify as female to be housed in women’s prisons. California continues to permit males to participate in female sports and is actively fighting the federal government on this issue, despite Newsom’s podcast-friendly talk of “fairness.” In his conversation with Kirk, Newsom claimed that no one in his office has ever used the term “Latinx,” yet his own past statements prove otherwise.

Fortunately voters see through this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

Republicans will, however, keep you on life support against your and your family's will, just to birth your baby. Dark times indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5405542/a-brain-dead-womans-pregnancy-raises-questions-about-georgias-abortion-law

"Adriana Smith, a 30 year-old nurse and mother, was about nine weeks pregnant in February when doctors declared her brain dead after she suffered a medical emergency.

But Smith's mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA that doctors at Emory University Hospital have been keeping her organs functioning since then until the fetus can be delivered, citing Georgia's law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

Smith is now roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy and has been on life support for more than 90 days.

"My grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, we don't know if he'll live once she has him," Newkirk told WXIA last week. "And I'm not saying we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have had a choice."

Republicans took that choice away.

That’s horrifying too.

I am not sure I can vote for either party at this point.

If you are still on the fence, just be maga. I don’t think that the Democrats need you, you are just going to f@ck it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article regarding the Democrats' trans problem.

Based on this, I dont think Democrats stand a chance until 2032.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/democratic-party-transgender-ideology-gavin-newsom

California governor Gavin Newsom surprised many recently when he labeled transgender-identified male athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair.” The forum, a podcast discussion with MAGA activist Charlie Kirk, was almost as striking as the statement itself.

But Newsom’s comments were conspicuously not a full-throated repudiation of gender ideology. They merely reflect a new trend within the Democratic Party that involves expressing public skepticism of transgender ideology while remaining unable to act against it.

This apparent mismatch between rhetoric and action is not just political expediency; it’s a structural problem. The Democratic Party increasingly finds itself in a balancing act: acknowledging how unpopular its activist class has become but remaining dependent on it for funding, organizing, and electoral mobilization. As long as Democrats are unable to break with their fringe, Republicans will keep using gender ideology as a stand-in for a broader critique of Democrats as a party that cannot be trusted to govern competently.

The Democratic base is not committed to the liberal line on transgender issues. A January New York Times poll, in fact, found that more than two-thirds of Democrats—and 79 percent of Americans—oppose allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports. The political risk in disagreeing should be obvious.

Yet, when Republicans forced a Senate vote last week on a bill to bar biological males from female athletics, not a single Democrat broke ranks. Even Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, the Left’s purported blue-collar truth-teller, didn’t budge. Though he has diverged from his party on immigration and Israel, he toed the line, casting trans-identified athletes as innocent children caught in a “political maelstrom.” Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin struck a similar note on Meet the Press, saying the issue should be left to local communities.

The refusal to moderate reveals where the real power lies within the Democratic Party. Though elected officials must win over voters every few years, they rely on the party’s activist class every day. Progressive NGOs, donor networks, and advocacy organizations exert enormous influence over Democratic primaries and policymaking—and they have zero interest in compromising on gender ideology. As a result, elected officials are incentivized to move away from majority opinion and toward ideological purity.

As Ruy Teixeira and John Judis argue in Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, the party’s reliance on educated, activist-minded elites has alienated working-class and nonwhite voters. But for activists, staking out extreme positions is a feature, not a bug. It’s how they raise money, rally supporters, and consolidate control over the party’s policy apparatus.

In 2020, Newsom signed California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, which allows male inmates who identify as female to be housed in women’s prisons. California continues to permit males to participate in female sports and is actively fighting the federal government on this issue, despite Newsom’s podcast-friendly talk of “fairness.” In his conversation with Kirk, Newsom claimed that no one in his office has ever used the term “Latinx,” yet his own past statements prove otherwise.

Im not sure why this article suggests “moderates” feel pressure from progressive activists and funding and vote against their own morals to allow men to compete in women’s sports. I think the reality is that the “moderates” don’t exist and they fully support this unpopular position. Federman is a perfect example. Why should we believe he is willing to fight against progressive pressure to support Israel yet is unable to do so to support female athletes and vulnerable female prisoners? No. He simply supports the trans ideology and should acknowledge that instead of lying to voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

Republicans will, however, keep you on life support against your and your family's will, just to birth your baby. Dark times indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5405542/a-brain-dead-womans-pregnancy-raises-questions-about-georgias-abortion-law

"Adriana Smith, a 30 year-old nurse and mother, was about nine weeks pregnant in February when doctors declared her brain dead after she suffered a medical emergency.

But Smith's mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA that doctors at Emory University Hospital have been keeping her organs functioning since then until the fetus can be delivered, citing Georgia's law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

Smith is now roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy and has been on life support for more than 90 days.

"My grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, we don't know if he'll live once she has him," Newkirk told WXIA last week. "And I'm not saying we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have had a choice."

Republicans took that choice away.

Abortions affect only menstrual age women. Breast cancer or simply using the bathroom affects women of all ages.

At least Republicans believe in harsh sentences (life sentence, deportation, or death penalty) for rapists in the case of abortion. Democrats think crime is a misunderstanding.


The problem with progressives is they dont have a stop button or any self awareness and they are just like the religious right wingers they dislike. There's a need to evangelize and fellowship and preach the ideology to families and attack anyone that doesnt accept the belief as backward or lost.

Most Americans are smart and see the bullshit with the Democrat Party and its donors. The erasure of gender , decriminalizing theft/ property vandalism, defunding police, disarming the public of guns, government censored media, jailing political opponents, universal basic income, gas/carbon taxes, even AI is literal communism right before our eyes.

My word. I don’t even know where to begin with this one. You’re really saying that issues around abortion/childbirth aren’t as important because it is only a portion of a woman’s life? I have to assume you are a man because no woman would say that. So maybe you don’t realize that those menstrual years are from about 10-55 years old. Those 45 years are less important than who is in the bathroom??? I don’t know why/how republicans have so much knowledge of the genitals of people they share public restrooms with. I am 50 years old. I have used hundreds of piblic restrooms and locker rooms. Never once saw someone’s genitals, so I hsve no idea how many trans women I have been around in those situations. Maybe stop looking at everyone’s genitals..?

Give me one instance of a child being raped in a bathroom by a trans woman and democrats called it a misunderstanding. But let’s play along and say these trans women are rapists and shouldn’t be in women’s restrooms. Ok. So you think they should be in men’s restrooms where they can rape little boys? This is what I have never understood.

Everything you listed in your last paragraph is pure BS. Until I got to that paragraph, I thought you were brainwashed by Fox News, but even they aren’t that unhinged and delusional. I am guessing you spend a lot of time getting your “news” from youtube and tiktok. You seem to be deep into some effed up algorithms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article regarding the Democrats' trans problem.

Based on this, I dont think Democrats stand a chance until 2032.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/democratic-party-transgender-ideology-gavin-newsom

California governor Gavin Newsom surprised many recently when he labeled transgender-identified male athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair.” The forum, a podcast discussion with MAGA activist Charlie Kirk, was almost as striking as the statement itself.

But Newsom’s comments were conspicuously not a full-throated repudiation of gender ideology. They merely reflect a new trend within the Democratic Party that involves expressing public skepticism of transgender ideology while remaining unable to act against it.

This apparent mismatch between rhetoric and action is not just political expediency; it’s a structural problem. The Democratic Party increasingly finds itself in a balancing act: acknowledging how unpopular its activist class has become but remaining dependent on it for funding, organizing, and electoral mobilization. As long as Democrats are unable to break with their fringe, Republicans will keep using gender ideology as a stand-in for a broader critique of Democrats as a party that cannot be trusted to govern competently.

The Democratic base is not committed to the liberal line on transgender issues. A January New York Times poll, in fact, found that more than two-thirds of Democrats—and 79 percent of Americans—oppose allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports. The political risk in disagreeing should be obvious.

Yet, when Republicans forced a Senate vote last week on a bill to bar biological males from female athletics, not a single Democrat broke ranks. Even Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, the Left’s purported blue-collar truth-teller, didn’t budge. Though he has diverged from his party on immigration and Israel, he toed the line, casting trans-identified athletes as innocent children caught in a “political maelstrom.” Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin struck a similar note on Meet the Press, saying the issue should be left to local communities.

The refusal to moderate reveals where the real power lies within the Democratic Party. Though elected officials must win over voters every few years, they rely on the party’s activist class every day. Progressive NGOs, donor networks, and advocacy organizations exert enormous influence over Democratic primaries and policymaking—and they have zero interest in compromising on gender ideology. As a result, elected officials are incentivized to move away from majority opinion and toward ideological purity.

As Ruy Teixeira and John Judis argue in Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, the party’s reliance on educated, activist-minded elites has alienated working-class and nonwhite voters. But for activists, staking out extreme positions is a feature, not a bug. It’s how they raise money, rally supporters, and consolidate control over the party’s policy apparatus.

In 2020, Newsom signed California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, which allows male inmates who identify as female to be housed in women’s prisons. California continues to permit males to participate in female sports and is actively fighting the federal government on this issue, despite Newsom’s podcast-friendly talk of “fairness.” In his conversation with Kirk, Newsom claimed that no one in his office has ever used the term “Latinx,” yet his own past statements prove otherwise.

Im not sure why this article suggests “moderates” feel pressure from progressive activists and funding and vote against their own morals to allow men to compete in women’s sports. I think the reality is that the “moderates” don’t exist and they fully support this unpopular position. Federman is a perfect example. Why should we believe he is willing to fight against progressive pressure to support Israel yet is unable to do so to support female athletes and vulnerable female prisoners? No. He simply supports the trans ideology and should acknowledge that instead of lying to voters.

I think you're close, but as demonstrated by the swift pivot that unprincipled idiot, Newsom, has made, the Democrats pushing the leftist Men's Rights movement that is trans ideology know full well that all its tenets are false, exploitative lies. They just think women and children are expendable and they don't feel guilt taking vast sums from donors to continue allowing men with personality disorders to erode our rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

This is apparently what the Democrats are going to stand for in 2026 and 2028. Horrifying.

Yup, I hate Trump, but I definitely didn't vote for Harris. Both parties are captured by shadowy groups of very creepy, wealthy white men with disturbing social agendas. Republicans, however, won't make me refer to their white male overlords as women. This is what we're reduced to in this country. Dark times.

Republicans will, however, keep you on life support against your and your family's will, just to birth your baby. Dark times indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5405542/a-brain-dead-womans-pregnancy-raises-questions-about-georgias-abortion-law

"Adriana Smith, a 30 year-old nurse and mother, was about nine weeks pregnant in February when doctors declared her brain dead after she suffered a medical emergency.

But Smith's mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA that doctors at Emory University Hospital have been keeping her organs functioning since then until the fetus can be delivered, citing Georgia's law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, or roughly six weeks into pregnancy.

Smith is now roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy and has been on life support for more than 90 days.

"My grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, we don't know if he'll live once she has him," Newkirk told WXIA last week. "And I'm not saying we would have chose to terminate her pregnancy. What I'm saying is we should have had a choice."

Republicans took that choice away.

Abortions affect only menstrual age women. Breast cancer or simply using the bathroom affects women of all ages.

At least Republicans believe in harsh sentences (life sentence, deportation, or death penalty) for rapists in the case of abortion. Democrats think crime is a misunderstanding.


The problem with progressives is they dont have a stop button or any self awareness and they are just like the religious right wingers they dislike. There's a need to evangelize and fellowship and preach the ideology to families and attack anyone that doesnt accept the belief as backward or lost.

Most Americans are smart and see the bullshit with the Democrat Party and its donors. The erasure of gender , decriminalizing theft/ property vandalism, defunding police, disarming the public of guns, government censored media, jailing political opponents, universal basic income, gas/carbon taxes, even AI is literal communism right before our eyes.

My word. I don’t even know where to begin with this one. You’re really saying that issues around abortion/childbirth aren’t as important because it is only a portion of a woman’s life? I have to assume you are a man because no woman would say that. So maybe you don’t realize that those menstrual years are from about 10-55 years old. Those 45 years are less important than who is in the bathroom??? I don’t know why/how republicans have so much knowledge of the genitals of people they share public restrooms with. I am 50 years old. I have used hundreds of piblic restrooms and locker rooms. Never once saw someone’s genitals, so I hsve no idea how many trans women I have been around in those situations. Maybe stop looking at everyone’s genitals..?

Give me one instance of a child being raped in a bathroom by a trans woman and democrats called it a misunderstanding. But let’s play along and say these trans women are rapists and shouldn’t be in women’s restrooms. Ok. So you think they should be in men’s restrooms where they can rape little boys? This is what I have never understood.

Everything you listed in your last paragraph is pure BS. Until I got to that paragraph, I thought you were brainwashed by Fox News, but even they aren’t that unhinged and delusional. I am guessing you spend a lot of time getting your “news” from youtube and tiktok. You seem to be deep into some effed up algorithms.

NP. At this point, there are so many examples that your refusal to Google them or your pretense that you're not fully aware of them immediately exposes you as a bad actor who is not worth the effort of somebody else Googling these examples for you. Not only have cross dressing males attacked, raped, and murdered girls and women in a variety of women's spaces, but also ill-intentioned cultist liars like you continue to refuse to acknowledge these growing situations because you don't care.

As far as asking us if we think that predatory men should be in men's spaces, yes, they should be in the men's spaces called men's prisons. They have no claim or right whatsoever to women's spaces, you f--king numbskull. We are not human shields to be used to separate normal men from fetishistic degenerate men.

Fortunately, we don't need your endorsement in order to vote away your entire edifice of lies. The age of trying to reason with the people whose entire identity and political platform is built on refusing to understand the incredible harm you are doing to women and children is over. We'll see you at the voting booth.

[Anonymous]

When the Democrats lose gay men it’s time to throw in the towel.

https://www.thefp.com/p/democrats-lost-men-like-me?utm=