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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

And this is why Californian politicians aren't viewed favorably nationally. They're all lumped in with one another in being viewed as too liberal. Dem politicians in swing states are much more moderate and therefore have a much better chance of success nationally. This same dynamic exists in the GOP. There is no way in heck an evangelically extreme conservative politician from Mississippi is going to fare well nationally.

San Francisco (!) has already gone sharply rightward. Still Democrats of course but politically adverse to the progressives.

I think it is actually possible a Republican who came across as reasonable could win California. Now whether California’s crazy Republicans could manage to find a reasonable Republican is another question, but never in my adult life have I even thought that possible before.

The Democratic dedication to elevating gender-based rights over sex-based rights is going to lose the party even in places like California. It is incomprehensible, and I can only conclude there are massive donations involved, because it’s a suicidal party policy otherwise.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with sex and genitalia? It’s all you morons ever talk about. Meanwhile Trump is torpedoing America’s middle class and wrecking our standing in the world. But no, let’s talk about which track team your spawn should be allowed to join.

I’m a lifelong California Democrat, you idiot.

And you are losing. Badly. Between homelessness, trans, and education, California progressives are despised here. Nobody believes the progressives care one bit about the middle class. Nobody believes the Democrats care about our global standing when they sent Biden out on the world stage and lied about his competence. Nobody believes you.

You are losing badly here.

The odds of California going Republican in 2028 are about 0.1%. And I grew up in California, so don't lecture me on who is "losing" idiot. And if you are so upset about basic human rights for trans people, then go vote for Trump at age 82.

Ex-Californians are always the most ignorant about what is going on in the state. Your mental model is thirty years old and it shows. You are too dumb to understand how out of touch you are, I’m sure.

And I’m not just talking about the presidential election. I am talking about a rightward shift across the whole state that is generational. Everyone in California except for a few wealthy university kids and rich suburban moms hates the progressives. When the progressive brand is so toxic that they’ve lost San Francisco, something significant is afoot.

No, you’re still an idiot.
California is a diverse state. Far left progressives were popular in San Francisco, Berkeley, and parts of Los Angeles. But most of the state leans moderate. San Francisco is understandably moving toward “law and order” candidates, but that’s a far cry from supporting Trumpism. Californians across all major population centers still support moderate Democrstic positions on the environment, reproductive freedom, gun control, and LGBT rights.

But to reiterate my main point, you’re still an idiot.

Please keep talking. 😂😂😂

You keep demonstrating how out of touch you are with actual Californians every time you open your mouth. When was the last time you were even here? 1998?

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.

Yes, women are losing rights. Notably the right to compete in sports with other women and the right to single sex prisons which is quite clearly in violation of UN human rights principles.

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.

We are also clearly not ready for a woman president.

A gay man is probably likelier to become president than a woman.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

And this is why Californian politicians aren't viewed favorably nationally. They're all lumped in with one another in being viewed as too liberal. Dem politicians in swing states are much more moderate and therefore have a much better chance of success nationally. This same dynamic exists in the GOP. There is no way in heck an evangelically extreme conservative politician from Mississippi is going to fare well nationally.

San Francisco (!) has already gone sharply rightward. Still Democrats of course but politically adverse to the progressives.

I think it is actually possible a Republican who came across as reasonable could win California. Now whether California’s crazy Republicans could manage to find a reasonable Republican is another question, but never in my adult life have I even thought that possible before.

The Democratic dedication to elevating gender-based rights over sex-based rights is going to lose the party even in places like California. It is incomprehensible, and I can only conclude there are massive donations involved, because it’s a suicidal party policy otherwise.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with sex and genitalia? It’s all you morons ever talk about. Meanwhile Trump is torpedoing America’s middle class and wrecking our standing in the world. But no, let’s talk about which track team your spawn should be allowed to join.

Sex and genitalia is a huge part of public safety, and it's actually more of what Democrats ever talk about including to 4 year olds. People do not want their kids to be molested or attacked by some weirdo in a dress. I know gay men who are voting Republican because they think the elevation of trans when they had to fight for 60 years for rights is a bit too much. It's not even necessarily trans that is the problem. It's the gender erasure that is a problem. When any man can lie and claim to be trans to have access to girls locker rooms, bathrooms, pools, or prisons, that is problematic.

+1 million

Now is the time democrats.  We have to pass amnesty for 17,000,000 immigrants. We owe them this.  It will never happen again!!!

Screw the deficit or budgets.   Screw the US middle class.  Focus on helping immigrants !!!!!

The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission.”
—Ted Kennedy, 1965 Immigration Bill (Hart-Celler)

“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”
— Ted Kennedy on the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Bill

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

And this is why Californian politicians aren't viewed favorably nationally. They're all lumped in with one another in being viewed as too liberal. Dem politicians in swing states are much more moderate and therefore have a much better chance of success nationally. This same dynamic exists in the GOP. There is no way in heck an evangelically extreme conservative politician from Mississippi is going to fare well nationally.

San Francisco (!) has already gone sharply rightward. Still Democrats of course but politically adverse to the progressives.

I think it is actually possible a Republican who came across as reasonable could win California. Now whether California’s crazy Republicans could manage to find a reasonable Republican is another question, but never in my adult life have I even thought that possible before.

The Democratic dedication to elevating gender-based rights over sex-based rights is going to lose the party even in places like California. It is incomprehensible, and I can only conclude there are massive donations involved, because it’s a suicidal party policy otherwise.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with sex and genitalia? It’s all you morons ever talk about. Meanwhile Trump is torpedoing America’s middle class and wrecking our standing in the world. But no, let’s talk about which track team your spawn should be allowed to join.

Sex and genitalia is a huge part of public safety, and it's actually more of what Democrats ever talk about including to 4 year olds. People do not want their kids to be molested or attacked by some weirdo in a dress. I know gay men who are voting Republican because they think the elevation of trans when they had to fight for 60 years for rights is a bit too much. It's not even necessarily trans that is the problem. It's the gender erasure that is a problem. When any man can lie and claim to be trans to have access to girls locker rooms, bathrooms, pools, or prisons, that is problematic.

In the 2024 Presidential Election in California, Kamala Harris won with 9,276,179 votes, representing 58.5% of the vote. Donald Trump received 6,081,697 votes, which accounted for 38.3

Note that it is illegal to ask for voter ID in California. Make of these results what you will.

Trump also flipped 10 counties in California in 2024 in Harris' home state. He flipped 4 counties in Waltz' Minnesota in 2024.

Biden was so horrible, he made the map worse for the Democrats

Kamala barely won California. When the progressive Governor stood by the ocean and cried about no water for the fire department in Malibu, I laughed and snorted out loud. Trump was 100% right about Newsome and the nutjob progresssives out there. Progressives redirect all the ice melt from Vancouver to the Pacific Ocean for the fish who apparently need more water than the actual citizens living in the desert of Southern Cal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

And this is why Californian politicians aren't viewed favorably nationally. They're all lumped in with one another in being viewed as too liberal. Dem politicians in swing states are much more moderate and therefore have a much better chance of success nationally. This same dynamic exists in the GOP. There is no way in heck an evangelically extreme conservative politician from Mississippi is going to fare well nationally.

San Francisco (!) has already gone sharply rightward. Still Democrats of course but politically adverse to the progressives.

I think it is actually possible a Republican who came across as reasonable could win California. Now whether California’s crazy Republicans could manage to find a reasonable Republican is another question, but never in my adult life have I even thought that possible before.

The Democratic dedication to elevating gender-based rights over sex-based rights is going to lose the party even in places like California. It is incomprehensible, and I can only conclude there are massive donations involved, because it’s a suicidal party policy otherwise.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with sex and genitalia? It’s all you morons ever talk about. Meanwhile Trump is torpedoing America’s middle class and wrecking our standing in the world. But no, let’s talk about which track team your spawn should be allowed to join.

I’m a lifelong California Democrat, you idiot.

And you are losing. Badly. Between homelessness, trans, and education, California progressives are despised here. Nobody believes the progressives care one bit about the middle class. Nobody believes the Democrats care about our global standing when they sent Biden out on the world stage and lied about his competence. Nobody believes you.

You are losing badly here.

The odds of California going Republican in 2028 are about 0.1%. And I grew up in California, so don't lecture me on who is "losing" idiot. And if you are so upset about basic human rights for trans people, then go vote for Trump at age 82.

Ex-Californians are always the most ignorant about what is going on in the state. Your mental model is thirty years old and it shows. You are too dumb to understand how out of touch you are, I’m sure.

And I’m not just talking about the presidential election. I am talking about a rightward shift across the whole state that is generational. Everyone in California except for a few wealthy university kids and rich suburban moms hates the progressives. When the progressive brand is so toxic that they’ve lost San Francisco, something significant is afoot.

No, you’re still an idiot.
California is a diverse state. Far left progressives were popular in San Francisco, Berkeley, and parts of Los Angeles. But most of the state leans moderate. San Francisco is understandably moving toward “law and order” candidates, but that’s a far cry from supporting Trumpism. Californians across all major population centers still support moderate Democrstic positions on the environment, reproductive freedom, gun control, and LGBT rights.

But to reiterate my main point, you’re still an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't seem like democrats are going to adjust their platform at all. They seem to be doubling down, if anything. They are spending millions to learn "how to talk to young men," learning their slang in a "hello fellow kids" way. That means they are going to be consistent with their issues but adjust their messaging a bit. Probably this time, they won't hire a bunch of gay actors to pretend to be straight white men and say hilarious things like "I'm man enough to vote for Kamala Harris."

Dem top issues will remain the same: trans, gay, race quotas, the patriarchy, white women as "the problem," Palestine, protesting as the peak expression of politics, and getting more women to have abortions.

Not a single one of those issues was a significant part of Harris’ platform except for reproductive freedom. Why to you insist on lying?

Be serious. Trans wasn’t part of her platform because it was unpopular and voters hate it. And yet Democrats persist in putting men in women’s sports, locker rooms, and prisons. I don’t what they campaign on, I pay attention to what they are actually doing. Let me know when Dems stop pushing men in women’s spaces and maybe I’ll consider voting for them again.

If the majority of people in California are okay with biological males competing in female sports, so be it. I don't live in California. If you live in California and don't like it, move or vote better. "Men in women's sports" isn't something Dems are pushing for nationally. It's a local thing. Get over it.

Californian here. I think it is possible this state will go red over issues like this, and I didn’t think that was possible for most of my life.

And this is why Californian politicians aren't viewed favorably nationally. They're all lumped in with one another in being viewed as too liberal. Dem politicians in swing states are much more moderate and therefore have a much better chance of success nationally. This same dynamic exists in the GOP. There is no way in heck an evangelically extreme conservative politician from Mississippi is going to fare well nationally.

San Francisco (!) has already gone sharply rightward. Still Democrats of course but politically adverse to the progressives.

I think it is actually possible a Republican who came across as reasonable could win California. Now whether California’s crazy Republicans could manage to find a reasonable Republican is another question, but never in my adult life have I even thought that possible before.

The Democratic dedication to elevating gender-based rights over sex-based rights is going to lose the party even in places like California. It is incomprehensible, and I can only conclude there are massive donations involved, because it’s a suicidal party policy otherwise.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with sex and genitalia? It’s all you morons ever talk about. Meanwhile Trump is torpedoing America’s middle class and wrecking our standing in the world. But no, let’s talk about which track team your spawn should be allowed to join.

I’m a lifelong California Democrat, you idiot.

And you are losing. Badly. Between homelessness, trans, and education, California progressives are despised here. Nobody believes the progressives care one bit about the middle class. Nobody believes the Democrats care about our global standing when they sent Biden out on the world stage and lied about his competence. Nobody believes you.

You are losing badly here.

The odds of California going Republican in 2028 are about 0.1%. And I grew up in California, so don't lecture me on who is "losing" idiot. And if you are so upset about basic human rights for trans people, then go vote for Trump at age 82.

You need to be less concerned about "Basic Human Rights" as a foil for whatever you want, and a little more concerned about running government well when you win a campaign.

If I wanted morality police, I'd go live in a middle eastern country. But I don't.

I want federal/state/local governments that are efficient, common sense policies and government employees that stay within their defined charter.

The government should only do what it is chartered to do, do it well, and don't do what it is not supposed to do. Got it?

I don't give a crap about your color revolutions and social agendas.