#republicans make america weak | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

robertreich · 1 year

Video

youtube

Why Child Labor in America is Skyrocketing

Corporations are bringing back child labor in America.

And some Republicans want to make it easier for them to get away with it.

Since 2015, child labor violations have risen nearly 300%. And those are just the violations government investigators have managed to uncover and document.

The Department of Labor says it's currently investigating over 600 cases of illegal child labor in America. Major American companies like General Mills, Walmart, and Ford have all been implicated.

Why on Earth is this happening? The answer is frighteningly simple: greed.

Employers have been having difficulty finding the workers they need at the wages they are willing to pay. Rather than reduce their profits by paying adult workers more, employers are exploiting children.

The sad fact of the matter is that many of the children who are being exploited are considered to be “them” rather than “us” because they’re disproportionately poor and immigrant. So the moral shame of subjecting “our” children to inhumane working conditions when they ought to be in school is quietly avoided.

And since some of these children (or their parents) are undocumented, they dare not speak out or risk detention and deportation. They need the money. This makes them easily exploitable.

It’s a perfect storm that’s resulting in vulnerable children taking on some of the most brutal jobs.

Folks, we’ve seen this before.

Reformers fought to establish the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for a reason — to curb the grotesque child labor seen during America’s first Gilded Age.

The U.S. banned most child labor.

But now, pro-business trade groups and their Republican lackeys are trying to reverse nearly a century of progress, and they're using the so-called "labor shortage" as their excuse.

Arkansas will no longer require 14 and 15 year olds to get a work permit before taking a job — a process that verified their age and required permission from a parent or guardian.

A bill in Ohio would let children work later on school nights.

Minnesota Republicans are pushing to let 16 year-olds work in construction.

And 14-year-olds in Iowa may soon be allowed to take certain jobs in meatpacking plants and operate dangerous machinery.

It’s all a coordinated campaign to erode national standards, making it even easier for companies to profit off children.

Across America, we’re witnessing a resurgence of cruel capitalism in which business lobbyists and lawmakers justify their actions by arguing that they are not exploiting the weak and vulnerable, but rather providing jobs for those who need them and would otherwise go hungry or homeless.

Conveniently, these same business lobbyists and lawmakers are often among the first to claim we “can’t afford” stronger safety nets that would provide these children with safe housing and adequate nutrition.

So what can stop this madness?

First: Fund the Department of Labor so it can crack down on child labor violations. When I was Secretary of Labor, the department was chronically underfunded and understaffed. It still is, because lawmakers and their corporate backers want it that way.

Second: Increase fines on companies that break child labor laws. Current fines are too low, and are treated as costs of doing business by hugely profitable companies that violate the law.

Third: Hold major corporations accountable. Many big corporations contract with smaller companies that employ children, which allows the big corporations to play dumb and often avoid liability. It’s time to demand that large corporations take responsibility for their supply chains.

Fourth: Reform immigration laws so undocumented children aren’t exploited.

And lastly: Organize. Fight against state laws that are attempting to bring back child labor.

Are corporate profits really more important than the safety of children?

#youtube #videos #video #child labor #economy #labor shortage #Republicans

332 notes · View notes

tpquill · 7 months

Text

What would another 4 years under Trump be like?

Imagine if you will, someone who has zero empathic qualities. A person vibrating with revenge. Someone who has spent their entire life self indulging on a brand, a purpose that is all they ever care about. A narcissistic sociopath; deeply entrenched in outbursts of anger, hatred and lustful ignorance. Living life on “my brand is higher turnover than any loan a bank can give you.” A gentleman’s agreement, but they are no gentleman. This person has spent their entire life; 70+ years on this planet, growing up in a standard of living he has only ever known. A man, whose father was a businessman and through his businesses, met a lot of wealth, a lot of influence and a lot of questionable behaviour. This person was surrounded by people he was introduced to in a world of social ignorance and old money wealth, because he had become his narcissistic father’s business protégé.

Throughout his entire academic and business career he has bought, bullied or faked his way out of everything, resplendent in the firm belief “dearest daddy” bred into him “everyone can be bought for a price”

Banks, businesses, criminals, judges…the list is endless in their world, because money speaks many languages, including Russian. His deep needed greed to be famous, to be talked about, to be adulated and praised - strokes his fragile ego. He demands attention like a toddler in the throes of a temper tantrum, because he’s always got what he wanted. Not an only child, but definitely a high maintenance one. Reminding me of a character from a well known book series, whose ridiculous parents spoilt their child endlessly while ignoring the child in their foster care. A child who demanded everything and got it no matter the cost - this is how this person has lived their entire life, bully into submission, threaten legal action if they never got it.

I watched in 2015 this person proclaim they were setting their sights on the presidency and I laughed with concerned hysteria. This idiot, who had spent his entire business career in and out of court due to bankruptcies. Casinos and hotels foreclose due to overdue loans, employees not being paid. Employees who had invested most if not all of their pension money in “shares” that would make them a sizeable profit to pay off their mortgages - to later find out it was just another scheme to help pay off or pay into his businesses, while they lost everything. His desire to hire undocumented migrants is old news he’s always done it. That’s why he holds favour with the old dusty republican men and women in congress, because they come from a long line of plantation owners and as you would know through American history, plantation owners had…you guessed it, slaves who they bought at auction to do the menial tasks for next to nothing. He is a man of very little talent but one who has bought and sold everyone and anything for his brand. He wants the celebrity status, he wants the adulation and ceremony of a King, he wants the authoritarian rule and suppression of a dictator, he wants the immunity of god but does not live with a Christian heart (not evangelical brainwashing)

Yes, this very same person wanted to be crowned a King, because he coveted that rule, but settled for Commander in chief instead. And, just like everything else in his life, he took measured steps to secure it through nefarious ways. His questionable admiration for authoritarian leaders puts his loyalty in the right paths of those who see America as their bankable gain. Years of political and foreign resentment balances out evenly when you meet with a weak minded, fragile ego who has always wanted to be praised. The art of the deal was never about the savvy businessman lie he always told but about the “fake it to you make it” mantra and he always excelled at that.

But here’s what lies ahead. He spent four years destroying America the last time. You can listen to the mentally concerned drum on about how he made their lives better, or how he made America great. Or how he made America the best it has ever been and think to yourself - do they actually go outside?

There was only one thing on Donald Trump’s mind from 2016 to 2020, how can I benefit from all of this? He used the office and seal of the president of the United States to enrich both himself and his blood sucking family of hangers on. He made his children (all adults) head of administration in the White House with no formal training in anything, including business (fake it to you make it) the nepotism he used in his questionable business practices, he simply transferred to the “People’s House” he installed a cabinet of lawmakers who lusted for fame, but felt left out. Grievance and vengeance because a black man had held that coveted office for 8 years and they needed (dusty and white privileged republicans) to drive that stench out. His plan was to stay there to show the world he wasn’t just Trump the businessman (6 bankruptcies, several business failures, university & charity disasters) but also the greatest world leader ever.

* stock market tanked

* economic downturn

* unemployment at an all time high

* infrastructure never fixed

* Medicare never looked at

* tax breaks for the filthy rich, tax increases for the working class

* migrants put into cages and separated from their children (white privileged free world)

* racism raised its ugly head and laughed, fascism, xenophobia, homophobia soon followed.

* gun related deaths increased, because why not? he abolished or allowed laws to lapse that had been put in place.

* scraped bills that he deemed unnecessary, pulled out of the Paris agreement, called America veterans suckers & losers, disgraced the military, threw paper towels at hurricane ravaged states claiming they weren’t part of America anyway.

Went on the world’s stage and mocked NATO demanding the countries pay more (America had only started paying more) or he was pulling out of NATO and Russia could occupy them all. Completely made himself an absolute laughing stock in front of other well respected leaders by throwing temper tantrums if he didn’t get his way.

Kissed the ass of Putin on more than one occasion. Ignored daily briefings, hired horrible actors to be his press secretary on multiple occasions. Went through more “chief of staff” positions than any former president.

And then came Covid and his botched handling of that. Nearly 5 thousand deaths, the worst of any country’s handling of the pandemic due to the size of the population of the United States. Mocked the scientists and doctors, refused states (who did not support him) of vital PPE instead, used another nepotistic family member to sell it off to states that didn’t use it because they questioned the vaccine and any easier way to keep their people alive.

His disastrous handling of the very serious pandemic led to so many unnecessary loss of life, ignorance into vital medicine that could help, instead advertising the use of injecting bleach into your veins. Once again Trump’s ignorance of not listening to sound advice, instead using his own because, he knows everything.

I won’t beat on about what happened during the previous election (we all witnessed it) the insurrection, the riots, the deaths and the damage when he very legally as witnessed by over 60 court cases all saying the same thing - lost the 2020 election, it was not stolen. Since then, he has done daily if not weekly rallies (he needs that hit of serotonin that can only be found through crowd adulation) he seeks to be re elected back into the White House. Not because he did such a fantastic job the last time, but because he could very well go to prison. 91 felonies, he’s already lost one tax fraud case and one sexual assault and rape case. He still has the hush money case, the RICO and espionage case to go through all while pleading he needs immunity, because without it, a president can be subjected to influence from foreign countries or leaders. Donald J. Trump already is, he just wants the freedom to do it all over again only this time, not get caught and answer for it, because immunity means he will be like Vladimir Putin and the leaders he greatly admires from Saudi Arabia - Turkey - Israel - China - North Korea - Russia -self appointed leaders with a regime that cripples the people of their country.

The point to this journalistic account on my tumblr is simply this;

After everything I have documented (not all in order) after all I have written, after everything that has been witnessed and grieved for. Even in the face of terrorism in your own country. The birth of a very dangerous ideology of Making America Great Again, christofacists plotting revenge on the country built on freedom and democracy, where in its constitutional legislations simply put the rule that divides church and state and successfully removed its colonial predecessors - the stripping of women’s rights and freedom of anatomy, the destruction of legal abortion (Roe vs Wade) and the push to go back in time to the 1800’s - will people still firmly believe this hate filled, vengeful, egotistical, delusional narcissistic sociopath is still worth electing him as the next president, knowing full well that once he gets in again he will do everything in his power to stay there. To then elect his predecessor (another Trump) to take over from him? He successfully taught his children well - grift, lie, squander, tax evade, hide business assets - they won’t let him down.

Or do you look at all that you went through, all that has taken 4 years to recover. To put right the horrors of the predecessor. To make the economy grow, to improve the medical system. To fix and improve the infrastructure, to raise employment and lower the cost of living. To help with student debt and get more money back in your pockets. To make America respected on the world’s stage and warn authoritarian leaders that this is not the way a countries people should be ruled. To stand up to murderous dictators and help a country fighting for its freedom from tyranny. To try and unify their country, not divide it. To have empathy and compassion, respect and loyalty to their people, not to themselves. To lift all voices including women’s to fight for what is most important up.

I hope this time you don’t send yourselves backwards, but move forwards to a better place. There is only one place Donald J Trump needs to go, one time he will ever be held accountable for his poor behaviour. One place he needs to be shown and to answer for all he has done for far too long…

Prison.

TPQ

#president of the united states #crooked donald #donald j trump #j6 insurrection

57 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 30 days

Text

In their 2024 national convention, Democrats reclaimed the mantle of freedom.

It’s about time.

The first indication was Vice President Harris’s choice of Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” as her campaign anthem. It has been playing at her rallies and it played at the end of the film before her entrance onto the stage. In addition to placards that said, “Thank you Joe” or “Vote” or “Coach Walz,” the DNC had thousands of placards printed for the delegates to wave that simply read, “Freedom.” Many of the convention speeches invoked the term in some way. Governor Walz’s acceptance speech for the vice presidency was especially heavy on it:

“Freedom. When Republicans use the word freedom, they mean that the government should be free to invade your doctor’s office. Corporations—free to pollute your air and water. And banks—free to take advantage of customers.

“But when we Democrats talk about freedom, we mean the freedom to make a better life for yourself and the people that you love. Freedom to make your own health care decisions. And yeah, your kids’ freedom to go to school without worrying about being shot dead in the hall.”

Freedom was an especially welcome theme in this convention because, in recent political history, Democrats ceded freedom to the Republicans. This was wrong. Nothing is as central to America’s cultural DNA as freedom. After all, we as a nation were born out of a desire for freedom from King George.

One of the seminal speeches of the 20th century was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union address. In it, he announced what he called the “Four Freedoms”—freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear—principles that were incorporated into the war aims of the Allied Powers, and eventually into the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A generation later, the Civil Rights Movement marched for freedom from the oppression of segregation and unequal citizenship, goals that the modern Democratic Party embraced. After the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973, Democrats defended women’s freedom to choose against conservative attempts to restrict access to abortion, and even to prohibit it nationwide.

Since the 1980s, however, Republicans claimed freedom for themselves; starting with the presidency of Republican Ronald Reagan, they narrowed it to mean free markets and limited government. This redefinition rested on the argument that government represented the main threat to freedom, which is at best a half-truth. Yes, government can become oppressive. But weak government can also pose a threat to freedom. Citizens cannot live free from fear unless government minimizes threats to the security of persons and property as citizens act within the structure of law. They cannot enjoy freedom from want unless government protects markets from force, fraud, and threats to competition, and unless it protects individuals from economic privation. In his 1944 State of the Union, FDR declared: “Necessitous men are not free men. Men who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

Despite the power of such arguments, modern Democrats have found it difficult to persuade the electorate that they were the true champions of freedom. And then in 2022, the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and jeopardized women’s freedom of choice across the nation. The reaction has been striking; with one decision, the government was suddenly in the middle of the most personal decisions women and men could make.

Since then, not a month has passed without some horror story making national news about a woman denied abortion care that could save her life and/or her fertility. On stage at the Democratic convention, some of these women told their heartbreaking stories. Since then, abortion has been on the ballot in seven states—many of which, like Kansas and Kentucky, are conservative, deep red states. And in every single instance, the pro-choice position won. Since then, abortion has played a major role in the Virginia legislative elections, the congressional midterm elections, and many special elections. In 2024, abortion referendums will be on the ballot in eight states, two of which, Arizona and Nevada, are swing states and where the issue may very well bring out young Democratic voters.

Against this backdrop, it’s not surprising that Harris’s speech spent more time on abortion than any other single policy issue. Her unique ability to prosecute this issue was evident back when she was a senator from California who asked then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh if he could think of a law that controlled men’s bodies. In addition to warning the country about Republican plans to take away reproductive freedom by enacting a national abortion ban and installing a national anti-abortion coordinator in the White House, Harris expanded on threats to freedoms.

“In this election, many other fundamental freedoms are at stake. The freedom to live safe from gun violence—in our schools, communities, and places of worship. The freedom to love who you love openly and with pride. The freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis. And the freedom that unlocks all the others. The freedom to vote.”

Beyond the articulation of a freedom agenda, the speech had other tasks, which Harris crisply carried out. She introduced herself to the country as a child of a middle-class family and declared that building a strong middle class would be one of the defining purposes of her administration. To that end, she advanced her vision of an “opportunity economy” where everyone would have a chance to compete and where success for some need not mean failure for others.

Harris took on inflation and immigration, two areas of potential vulnerability for her campaign. She promised to bring down prices of everyday goods and services and to attack the nation’s housing crisis. On immigration, she sought to turn the tables on Donald Trump, reminding her audience that he had subverted a bipartisan reform bill that would have helped secure the border.

Surprising some observers, Harris laid out a tough agenda on defense and foreign policy, promising to maintain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, retain our leading position in NATO, defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, stand up against Iran and North Korea, and take democracy’s side in the struggle with tyranny. She articulated a firm pro-Israel stance while mentioning the suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants and endorsing Palestinians’ right to dignity and self-determination.

Taken as a whole, Harris’s acceptance speech positioned her as a center-left Democrat in the mold of Joe Biden rather than Bernie Sanders. It embraced what she termed the pride and privilege of being an American. And as if to show that Republicans have not cornered the market on patriotism and American exceptionalism, she told her audience that together, they had the opportunity to write the next chapter of the most extraordinary story ever told. She ended her speech in the most traditional way imaginable, by asking God to bless the United States of America.

Harris’s speech, which the convention received with unfeigned enthusiasm, did nothing to interrupt the momentum of one of the most explosive campaign launches in American history.

20 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 months

Text

With his spectacular political instincts, directly after the assassination attempt on his life, Donald Trump told the Secret Service agents surrounding him, “wait, wait”, and raised his fist to the crowd, creating one of the more powerful visual effects of recent times. Right before being swept off stage, he mouthed the words, a message to his supporters, “fight fight.” Fascism is a cult of the leader, who promises national restoration in the face of the supposed threat to the nation of humiliation and destruction by liberals, feminists, LGBT, and immigrants. Treating democracy and its institutions – the press, schools, and the courts - as decadent, weak, and controlled by Marxists, a fascist leader promises to replace them with loyalists to him and his party (a process the Nazis termed “Gleichschaltung”). Despite creating disorder and being themselves utterly lawless, the fascist leader promises to crack down on crime (whether the crime wave is real or imaginary). In the vital framework of Ruth Ben-Ghiat, fascists leaders are typically “strongmen”, whose appeal depends on the desire of the public for a macho leader, who protects the nation’s families from these illusory threats. Since the inception of the theoretical literature on fascism, theorists have connected this politics to the appeal of the ideology of patriarchy. It is exactly what we are witnessing today. The world has recently seen the situation America faces before, and it should serve as a warning. One month before Brazil’s 2018 presidential election, Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right candidate for the election, was stabbed at a campaign rally. Like Trump, Bolsonaro’s candidacy was based on a politics of strutting masculinity, taking as its targets LGBT and crime, promising to place weapons in the hands in the hands of many more Brazilians. The stabbing increased Bolsonaro’s popularity, and made explicit criticism of him difficult for some time. The U.S. election is further away, but we can expect the dynamics to be similar. As always, the rules are different for Democrats than they are for Republicans. Republicans have directed incendiary rhetoric at former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for years. When Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s 82-year-old husband, was beaten on the head with a hammer by a far-right extremist, it was a source of amusement and fun for some Republicans, including Trump himself. The rules may be different for Democrats and Republicans, but those are the ones by which this game must be played. If Trump is to be defeated, it can only be by honestly adhering to norms and principles that Trump has long since torn down. The Democrats must make the case to voters that the election is a choice between these norms, and permanent rule by an explicitly fascist political party. [...] The nation’s media has been busy normalizing fascism, speaking of a second four year term as if Trump eventually stepping down is not just a possibility, but a certainty. The Democrats must make the case, against a Supreme Court committed to the election of Donald Trump, and a press largely already aligning itself to serve, that the allure of dictatorship should be resisted. Violence only makes this task more difficult.

Jason Stanley for Zeteo News on how the assassination attempt on Donald Trump will make the task of stopping Trump and his fascist regime much more difficult (07.14.2024).

Jason Stanley writes in Zeteo News that the assassination attempt against Donald Trump makes stopping him and fascism much more difficult.

#Zeteo #Zeteo News #Opinion #2024 Trump Assassination Attempt #Donald Trump #Assassination #Fascism #2024 Presidential Election #2024 Elections #Jair Bolsonaro

18 notes · View notes

sher-ee · 5 months

Text

Starting Topics:

1. Judge Merchan has found Trump in contempt for 9 violations of the gag order in his election interference trial, fining him $1,000 each. He's also been threatened with jail time if he violates the order again. Trump has now violated his pretrial release conditions in all 4 of his criminal cases. He's testing the limits of the court and judicial system because he has no respect for the rule of law. None of this will matter to his supporters in the Republican Party who now view the rule of law as nothing but a speed bump in their path to absolute power.

2. In a new @Time interview, Trump lays out the most brazen, disturbing picture of what a second Trump term would look like yet. He tells Time he would “let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans." When asked if he will pardon every one of the J6 insurrectionists, "absolutely yes." Nothing about Trump is normal and no one should think that he and President Biden are similar candidates. Biden respects the rule of law, individual rights, and democracy. Trump wants to make himself a dictator and destroy America by turning it into a fascist nation.

3. Trump's ongoing criminal trial continues to highlight his weaknesses on a national stage, and he can't slow it any longer. He tried to delay it but now everyone knows about his indiscretions, and his wife hates him. He's humiliated his family, and is sitting in cold courtrooms alone. His dementia is on full display, as he can barely stay awake in the middle of his own trial proceedings. Trump falls asleep in the courtroom because he stays up all night dejected, afraid and all alone. Try as he might, the only person to blame is Donald Trump.

- TLP

Read the Time Magazine interview here:

#donald trump #hush money trial #president trump #trump presidency #trump family #trump affairs #america #american #united states #vote blue #must vote biden #biden harris 2024 #breaking news #you must understand #we are in this together #save democracy #maga #maga men #maga morons

26 notes · View notes

darkmaga-retard · 2 days

Text

Former President Donald Trump blasted his way into US politics in 2016, with a fresh set of eyes upon what had become an increasingly stagnant political sphere in recent years. With abundant wit, wealth, and business knowledge, the man grabbed the US Congress by the scruff of the neck and shook it up. Since then, there has been a consistent onslaught of mockery, abuse, and now, terrifyingly, even two assassination attempts. Why is this man such a huge threat to so many? Is he still the right candidate to Make America Great Again (again)?

A native New Yorker and a billionaire, the man was, prior to his first run for the presidency, a friend to most in politics, news media, and even in Hollywood. However, literally overnight, he was demonised and thrown out of every high social circle. Why would his possible tenure in the Whitehouse create such a blanket movement to destroy him? After all, he wasn’t the first celebrity President, Ronald Reagan had served as the 40th president between 1981 and 1989. Both men broke into politics with radical plans for their country’s future.

There is no denying, that Donald Trump has had a questionable past with a scattering of scandals throughout the years, however, when it comes to the elite class, there are none with clean hands. If integrity was the focus for a president of the US, there would be very few people in any form of government office! So with that being said, what does this level of visceral hatred achieve? With an increasing lack of true leadership being shown by a number of previous presidents, who had not listened to the average American for so long, along with major infrastructure failing and industry in many states declining or finished altogether, the American public decided to take a chance on a different approach from a man with a business mind and a promise to bring the money back and create a national pride not seen for many years.

Many Republican voters liked the thought of investment being brought back to the states, with many believing this man could negotiate goods deals across the world and be a strong leader for them. With many tepid, weak leaders, Mr Trump, with his impressive stature, stood out at many global gatherings, putting America back at center stage.

In a normal functioning world, most would see that as a very proud position to be in, however, left-leaning commentators could not clamber quick enough to berate this head of state. And this denigration turned into full-blown spite with shocking claims of racist or misogynistic behaviour being the main factor in their dislike of the man, but it’s quite obvious to any level-headed individual, that this was just a patronising smoke screen, because if either of those reasons were true, many, many politicians, on both sides and genders would be found just as guilty, including both his old and new competitors.

8 notes · View notes

1americanconservative · 5 months

Text

My fellow Americans:

This is Vivek Ramaswamy. I hoped to email you on a lighter note but I didn’t have another choice with everything happening right now.

The unholy alliance between Joe Biden, the corrupt Deep State, the DC Swamp, the Liberal Media, and the Radical Left Democrats is a national disgrace.

We, the American People, will never forget what they’ve done to us. Luckily, we have a plan to stop these radicals who: – Desecrated Easter Sunday with wokeism – Arrested the leader of the Republican Party – Removed Trump from the ballot in key states – Raided Mar-a-Lago with armed agents – Censored Conservative voices – Spied on Catholic worshippers – Gutted election integrity measures – Peddled the Russia Hoax for years – Threw open our border to illegals – Abandoned Americans in Afghanistan – Caved to the Chinese Communist Party – Moved to pack the Supreme Court – Forced propaganda into classrooms

And the list goes on and on and on! Never before in the history of the world has a truly great country fallen so far from grace in such a short time. If the Radical Left Democrats somehow win control of the White House, the Senate, and the House… America will be lost forever.

I know this to be true. You know it too. But when everything is on the line, moments like this separate the strong from the weak. And make no mistake – the future of our country hangs in the balance.

That’s why I’m partnering with Majority Leader Steve Scalise for the FIRST TIME. Together, we’re rallying the STRONGEST American Patriots from across the country and building the biggest surge of grassroots support this country has ever seen.

If you consider yourself a strong American Patriot – like the two of us do – I’m personally asking for your full commitment right here and right now.

The resources we collect today will help build the largest GOP voter turnout operation in history, deploy an army of volunteers in swing districts, run hard-hitting ads in battleground states, harvest ballots where it’s legal, and help make this the most secure election EVER.

THAT is how Conservatives will win in a landslide…

THAT is how we take control of the White House, Senate, AND House…

THAT is how we stop the Radical Left Democrats from destroying America…

THAT is how we save our country as we know it…

AND THAT is how we send shockwaves through the heart of the Deep State, DC Swamp, and Liberal Media…

12 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 1 year

Text

Don't think that patiently explaining the legalities and details of the Trump indictment will change the minds of the MAGA crowd about it. Those folks, like Trump, simply don't believe in the rule of law.

There may be some Republicans who secretly believe the charges have merit but are scared shitless of what may happen if they say so in public.

A reasonably healthy party might give its indicted leader some benefit of the doubt, while calling for judgment to be withheld before he has his day in court. But Republicans correctly understand that their party will consider Trump an innocent martyr regardless. The sickness of the Republican Party as it is presently constituted is that there is no conceivable set of facts that would permit it to acknowledge Trump’s guilt. What has brought the party to this point is the convergence of its decades-long descent into paranoia with its idiosyncratic embrace of a career criminal.

Yep, the GOP has been drifting in this direction for a long time. Trump's emergence finally nudged them into being a full-blown paranoid cult.

The Republican Party’s internal culture has been shaped by what Richard Hofstadter famously described as “the paranoid style” in American politics. Hofstadter specifically attributed this description to the conservative movement, which, at the time, was a marginalized faction on the far right but has since completely taken control of the party and imposed its warped mentality on half of America. To its adherents, every incremental expansion of the welfare state is incipient communism, each new expansion of social liberalism the final death blow to family and church. Lurking behind these endless defeats, they discern a vast plot by shadowy elites. In recent years, the Republican Party’s long rightward march on policy has ground to a halt, and it has instead radicalized on a different dimension: ruthlessness. Attributing their political travails to weakness, Republicans converged on the belief that their only chance to pull back from the precipice of final defeat is to discard their scruples. A willingness to do or say anything to win was the essence of Trump’s appeal, an amorality some Republicans embraced gleefully and others reluctantly. Trump, by dint of his obsessive consumption of right-wing media, grasped where the party was going more quickly than its leaders did. This aspect of Trump’s rise was historically necessary. All Trump did was to hasten it along.

This is Trump's legal philosophy (if you want to call it that) in a nutshell...

Trump was not raised in a traditional conservative milieu. He came into a seedy, corrupt world in which politicians could be bought off and laws were suggestions. He worked with mobsters and absorbed their view of law enforcement: People who follow the law are suckers, and the worst thing in the world is a rat.

Trump is basically a petty mobster. That explains why he hates the FBI.

It is the interplay of the two forces, the paranoia of the right and the seamy criminality of the right’s current champion, that has brought the party to this point. Trump’s endlessly repeated “witch hunt” meme blends together the mobster’s hatred of the FBI with the conservative’s fear of the bureaucrat. His loyalists have been trained to either deny any evidence of misconduct by their side or rationalize it as a necessary countermeasure against their enemies. The concept of “crime” has been redefined in the conservative mind to mean activities by Democrats. They insist upon Trump’s innocence because they believe a Republican, axiomatically, cannot be a criminal.

That Manichean view fits in well with the radical Christian fundamentalist tendency in the GOP. Though instead of Jesus Christ, the credo of Republicans is to accept Donald Trump as their personal Lord and Savior. By that reasoning, Donald Trump is incapable of wrongdoing.

#donald trump #trump's indictment #trump's guilt #republicans #the gop #maga zombies #the far right #the paranoid style in american politics #conservatives #election 2024 #jonathan chait

346 notes · View notes

hasufin · 2 months

Text

Progress and Regress

I've been reluctant to say this, but... well, republicans actually just plain want to make the world a worse place.

I've tended to buy that their leadership wants to live in a feudal society; and that their followers want a hierarchical society as well, but they think it would be better than what we have now. And that they legitimately believe the world would be better if we didn't offer so much compassion to those in need, if we didn't protect the weak from the strong, &c.

But I think the Trump shooting proves otherwise. I hate to say it, but there it is.

Okay, first: yes, it was timed such that it would give attention back to a particularly needy narcissist. However, the idea that it's a conspiracy just doesn't hold water. All the evidence so far suggests that the shooter was, well, the archetype of a shooter in America: a young white man, emotionally disturbed but not actually victimized, who had access to weapons of war and decided to make his life notable by ending the lives of many other people. According to the FBI he was considering going after Harris or Biden, and it just so happened that Trump was more available. In spite of the rightwing jumping immediately to blame him on leftist communist woke transgender activists, he was a registered republican and he didn't leave any particular manifesto. The only salient thing about him seems to be, he had the ability to do this and probably shouldn't.

Now, if this were Democrats - if the shoe were on the other foot - this would be a significant moment of reckoning. If, for example, a hitter for a Colombian Cartel tried to take out Kamala Harris, Democrats would be having a serious conversation about tightening border controls. Even though the actual motive would indicate she was doing a good job, it would make Democrats rethink their policies a little: "Hey, the stuff I'm doing is actually make us less safe, maybe there's another way we can do this?"

But not republicans. That is not their way. As one commenter noted: when Trump gets shot, they wear a bandage on their ear to show solidarity with Trump; when schoolkids get shot, they wear an AR-15 pin to show solidarity with the gun.

So you'd think they'd maybe care, right? In spite of never giving a single solitary fuck about little kids getting killed, in spite of mostly being motivated by a primal urge to hurt the Other... you'd think they'd at least care when there's a direct demonstration that their policies tangibly put their own guy at risk. This isn't even a case where you need empathy or compassion. One doesn't even need imagination. It's a thing that happened: young man had ready access to powerful weapons, young man used one of those weapons to try and kill the rightwing leader. It's very direct and simple.

And they are unfazed. It's horrible that Trump got shot, but wow how fast they switch to the passive voice on that. He wasn't shot by a person with a knowable motive, there wasn't anything that could have been done to keep it from happening. The shooter just spawned on that rooftop, the Secret Service failed to stop him, and that's it.

In fact, if anything I'd say the republican response has been one of glee. Their guy got a chance to look strong and be a martyr! They can fling blame around like a monkey with poo! Zero introspection, just blatantly exploiting a tragedy to claw onto more power. Even when the target was their own guy.

The truth is, they don't mind. They want the world to be a more violent, crueler, harsher place. They want people to suffer more. Themselves included. So long as they can have more power, they are perfectly pleased with this - even when it hurts them, just so long as The Other Guy is suffering more.

#politics

4 notes · View notes

samuraisharkie · 3 months

Text

I’m still not voting for either Biden or Trump btw. Bc I actually have a backbone that doesn’t crumble when it gets scary. I’m not going to “vote but feel bad about it” like you spineless fucks. You people have suddenly started to pretend like voting blue is going to save the world, as if it’s not crumbling right now under the same democratic fucks you guys are pretending will hold back the evil republicans that are somehow nothing like democrats. It’s not going to change a damn thing. Biden is the same as Trump, barely anything has changed under Biden, he just pretends he’s Democratic and that’s somehow enough for you people. They’re going to lose, anyway. They are not going to win this. It is fucking bleak, but we survived four years before, and at this point I’d rather have someone that at least owns up to being a total piece of shit than one that pretends badly that he cares about anything in a remotely human manner and yet somehow manages to fool people. I refuse to compromise my morals for my own selfishness. I’m not voting for a genocidal fascist no matter what. You people seem to think that makes me weak or stupid, but your efforts are wasted on something that ultimately isn’t even our choice. We don’t live in a democracy. The money and electoral college are the rulers of our fate for the next four years. So while you people show you ultimately cannot hold your ground for anything, I will be focusing on what matters. Surviving in solidarity with those suffering the most from America (hint: it’s not Americans, no matter what the people that constantly crow about Project 2025 say. We are not the last bastion of hope for the world, we are doom to the world one candidate or another.)

#politics #current events #trump tw

3 notes · View notes

misfitwashere · 14 days

Text

Friends,

I would not normally send you anything written by Karl Rove. I’ve always thought of Rove as the evil genius of the Republican Party. He worked for Richard Nixon and was senior advisor and deputy chief of staff to George W. Bush, where he became one of the architects of the Iraq War.

But the fact that Rove wrote the following piece in today’s Wall Street Journal reveals both what the Republican establishment thinks of Trump and the civil war now brewing inside the Republican Party. I thought you might find it as interesting as I did:

***

A Catastrophic Debate for Trump

Karl Rove

Tuesday’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined.

Ms. Harris was often on offense, leaving Mr. Trump visibly rattled as she launched rocket after rocket at him. A New York Times analysis found she spent 46% of her time on the attack while Mr. Trump devoted 29% of his time to going after her. Debates aren’t won on defense.

Ms. Harris pressed Mr. Trump on the economy, the Ukraine war, foreign policy, healthcare, the Jan. 6 attack and especially abortion, leaving him flustered and often incoherent. In return, he criticized her on border security, climate change and the Israel-Hamas war.

Mr. Trump had to know the vice president would try to get him to lose his cool. She did. She went after him on his multiple indictments. She called him “weak” and belittled him as a six-time bankrupt, spoiled inheritor of wealth. She said his former national security adviser thought him, in her words, “dangerous and unfit” for the Oval Office.

As is frequently the case with Mr. Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him. He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did. Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Mr. Trump got furious. As her attacks continued, his voice rose. He gripped the podium more often and more firmly. He grimaced and shook his head, at times responding with wild and fanciful rhetoric. Short, deft replies and counterpunches would have been effective. He didn’t deliver them.

Mr. Trump did a terrible job at his most important task—tying her to President Biden’s failed policies. He did an even worse job prosecuting the argument that she’s a far-left politician out of sync with America’s values. The Trump campaign’s mid-debate fact-check bulletins that flooded email inboxes were far more substantive and effective than his responses at the podium.

Mr. Trump’s failure wasn’t for a lack of material. He had plenty in the Biden-Harris administration’s record to work with, especially on inflation and the crisis at the border. In one of his strongest moments, he hit hard on the botched Afghan withdrawal. Even then, he got sucked into an argument about his administration’s negotiations with the Taliban.

There was no sustained, specific indictment of her record on almost any issue. Mr. Trump offered angry responses, pursed lips and eyes darting mostly down, seldom looking at her. And what was it with his makeup that left white circles around his eyes? This was his most important opportunity to make an impression of strength and relative stability.

Both candidates made significant misstatements. Ms. Harris said her opponent “left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression” and Mr. Trump declared inflation under Biden-Harris “probably the worst in our nation’s history.” But his false statements far outnumbered hers by my count.

Mr. Trump had a great comeback to Ms. Harris’s agenda for change. She’s had 3½ years as vice president, he said, so “why hasn’t she done it?” But that was in his closing statement. It should have been the attack he started with, continually repeated, and closed with, undercutting every new policy proposal she offered.

It matters how debating candidates carry themselves. There, it was no contest. Ms. Harris came across as calm, confident, strong and focused on the future. Mr. Trump came across as hot, angry and fixated on the past, especially his own. She mastered the split screen, projecting confidence and wordlessly undercutting him by smiling while shaking her head as he spoke.

Many undecided and swing voters will make up their minds less on any single issue than on their visceral reactions to the candidates. Ms. Harris did herself much good with that crowd Tuesday. Mr. Trump didn’t.

Even more voters wanted to learn something new and reassuring about the candidates in the debate. She provided them plenty, while he didn’t.

Trump enthusiasts will be upset that the ABC interviewers fact-checked the former president far more than they did Ms. Harris. Then again, he gave them plenty of material to work with—such as repeating the bizarre claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating the pets of local residents. That was probably Team Trump’s lowest moment.

Will this debate have an effect? Yes, though perhaps not as much as Team Harris hopes or as much as Team Trump might fear. But there’s no putting lipstick on this pig. Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as “dumb as a rock.” Which raises the question: What does that make him?

***

#robert reich #Karl Rove

2 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year

Text

By: Jesse Singal

Published: Apr 18, 2023

Do people with severe depression have a right to accurate information about antidepressants? I suspect most people would answer “yes”. There is a general understanding that individuals who suffer from medical conditions are in a vulnerable position, making them susceptible to misinformation. There is also increased awareness of the influence that the profit motive can have on how medical research is funded, undertaken and communicated to the public.

But for some reason, this basic principle doesn’t seem to apply to the hyper-politicised subject of gender medicine. On one side, Republican states are attempting to ban youth gender medicine — and, in some cases, to dial back access to adult gender medicine. On the other, liberals maintain that there is solid evidence for these treatments, and that only an ignorant person could suggest otherwise.

Whether or not you agree with the GOP’s stance (I do not), the latter view is simply false. The trajectory of youth gender medicine in nations with nationalised healthcare systems has been relatively straightforward: these countries keep conducting careful reviews of the evidence for puberty blockers and hormones, and they keep finding that there is very little such evidence to speak of. That was the conclusion in Sweden, Finland, the UK, and, most recently, Norway. As a recent headline in The Economist had it: “The evidence to support medicalised gender transitions in adolescents is worryingly weak.”

Yet despite this evidentiary crisis in Europe, and despite multiple scandals vividly demonstrating the downside of administering these treatments in a careless way, liberal institutions in the US have only become more enthusiastic about them. In recent years, everyone from Jon Stewart and John Oliver to reporters and pundits at the New York Times, The Washington Post and NPR have exaggerated the evidence for these interventions.

The logic seems to be that if activists, doctors and journalists repeat “The evidence is great!” enough times, regardless of whether the evidence actually is great, the controversy will go away — as though the state of Arkansas could be shamed into reversing its policy on trans youth because Jon Stewart made fun of them. Meanwhile, as I can tell you from experience, if you openly question these treatments or highlight just how little we know about them, you’re going to have a bad time.

But look a little closer, and it swiftly becomes clear that the evidence for both adult and youth gender medicine is frequently drawn from alarmingly low-quality studies. Almost invariably, when you examine the latest study to go viral, there’s much less there than meets the eye — whether because of serious overhyping and questionable statistical choices on the part of the researchers, outright missing data, flawed survey instruments, more missing data, or just generally beyond-broken methods.

Since any individual study or group of studies can suffer from these issues, serious researchers know that you can’t just take a few that point in the right direction and herald them as evidence. Rather, you need to sum up the available evidence while also accounting for its quality. This is what European countries have done, and they have all come to roughly the same conclusion: the evidence supporting these treatments isn’t there.

But even at the level of sweeping summaries, America’s conclusions are often distorted. A prime example came in a recent New York Times column by Marci Bowers, a leading gender surgeon and the president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Bowers paints a very rosy picture of the evidence base:

“Decades of medical experience and research since has found that when patients are treated for gender dysphoria, their self-esteem grows and their stress, anxiety, substance use and suicidality decrease. In 2018, Cornell University’s Center for the Study of Inequality released a comprehensive literature review finding that gender transition, including hormones and surgery, ‘improves the well-being of transgender people’. Nathaniel Frank, the project’s director, said that ‘a consensus like this is rare in social science’. “The Cornell review also found that regret… became even less common as surgical quality and social support improved. All procedures in medicine and surgery inspire some percentage of regret. But a study published in 2021 found that fewer than 1% of those who have received gender-affirming surgery say they regret their decision to do so… A separate analysis of a survey of more than 27,000 transgender and gender-diverse adults found that the vast majority of those who detransition from medical affirming treatment said they did so because of external factors (such as family pressure, financial reasons or a loss of access to care), not because they had been misdiagnosed or their gender identities had changed.”

Here we have a leading expert (Bowers) citing a leading institution (Cornell) and relating astonishing claims (what medical procedure has a 1% regret rate?). The case appears to be closed — until you actually click the links and read Bowers’s sources. (Bowers and WPATH did not return emailed interview requests.)

Let’s start with Cornell’s data. According to a summary at its “What We Know Project“:

“We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm.”

If you are familiar with systematic literature reviews, you will find the above unusual. Researchers don’t generally ask whether a procedure works or not in such a vague a manner, then tally up the results. To usefully gauge the level of evidence, a review has to carefully define its research questions, and factor in the potential biases of the existing studies. The Cornell project does none of this.

I emailed Gordon Guyatt, one of the godfathers of the so-called evidence-based medicine movement, to ask him whether he thought the Cornell project qualified as a systematic literature review. His response was: “It meets criteria for a profoundly flawed systematic review!” When we later spoke, he explained why he didn’t trust it. “Presumably, they are trying to make a causal connection between what the patients received and their outcomes,” he said. “That is not possible unless one has a comparator.” In other words, if you’re only tracking people who received a treatment, and don’t compare their outcomes to another group not receiving the treatment, you simply can’t learn that much. Guyatt offers the example of someone taking hormones and saying afterwards that they feel better. “That does not mean that the hormones have anything to do with your feeling good.”

This is a very basic, very well-understood problem in both medical and social-scientific research. If all you have is before-and-after measurements of how someone who received a treatment changed over time, there are all sorts of potential confounds, from the placebo effect to regression towards the mean to the possibility that receiving the treatment coincided with some other salutary intervention, such as therapy, that wasn’t accounted for.

Because the Cornell team made no effort to even evaluate the risk of bias in the individual studies it evaluated, the final product tells us very little. It’s roughly analogous to coming upon a pile of coins and trying to determine its worth simply by counting how many coins there are, rather than sorting the pile by denomination. When I raised this with Nathaniel Frank, the head of the Cornell project, he said via email that “we don’t publish traditional systematic reviews”, but rather web summaries of important research questions. So the first words of its overview might confuse readers: “We conducted a systematic literature review.”

If Bowers had wanted to cite a carefully conducted, peer-reviewed systematic review of the gender medicine literature, she actually had one at her fingertips: her own organisation, WPATH, funded one a few years ago. The results, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society in 2021, revealed that there is almost no high-quality evidence in this field of medicine. After they summarised every study they could find that met certain quality criteria, and applied Cochrane guidelines to evaluate their quality, the authors could find only low-strength evidence to support the idea that hormones improve quality of life, depression, and anxiety for trans people. Low means, here, that the authors “have limited confidence that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect for this outcome. The body of evidence has major or numerous deficiencies (or both).” Meanwhile, there wasn’t enough evidence to render any verdict on the quality of the evidence supporting the idea that hormones reduce the risk of death by suicide, which is an exceptionally common claim.

Oddly, though, the authors of this systematic review conclude by writing that the benefits of these treatments “make hormone therapy an essential component of care that promotes the health and well-being of transgender people”. That claim completely clashes with their substantive findings about the quality of the evidence. So, when Bowers cited the Cornell project, she was citing a review that is of very limited evidentiary value — while also ignoring a much more professionally conducted, and much more pessimistic, though strangely concluded, review that her own organisation paid for.

But what about the study which, she claims, “found that fewer than 1% of those who have received gender-affirming surgery say they regret their decision to do so”? Here’s where things get downright weird.

The study in question, published in 2021 in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, has dozens of errors that its nine authors and editors have refused to correct. Indeed, it appears to have been executed and published to such an unprofessional standard that one might ask why it hasn’t been retracted entirely.

Before we get into all that, though, it’s worth pointing out that even if it had been competently conducted, the review could not have provided us with a reliable estimate of the regret rate following gender-affirming surgery: the studies it meta-analyses are just too weak. Many of those included did not actually contact people who had undergone surgery to ask them if they regretted it; rather, the authors searched medical records for mentions of regret and/or for other evidence of surgical reversals. Yet this method is inevitably going to underestimate the number of regretters, because plenty of people regret a procedure without going through the trouble of either reversing it or informing the doctor who performed it. In one study of detransitioners — albeit one focusing on a fairly small and non-random online sample — three quarters of them said they did not inform their clinicians that they had detransitioned.

The studies included in this review also failed to follow up with a very large number of patients. The meta-analysis had a total sample size of about 5,600; the largest study, with a sample size of 2,627 — so a little under half the entire sample — had a loss-to-follow-up rate of 36%. If you’re losing track of a third of your patients, you obviously don’t really know how they’re doing and can’t make any strong claims about their regret rates. And yet, the authors don’t mention the loss-to-follow-up issue anywhere in their paper. No version of this meta-analysis, then, was likely to provide a reliable estimate of the regret rate for gender-affirming surgery.

Even so, the version that was published was particularly disastrous. Independent researcher J.L. Cederblom summed it up: “What are these numbers? These are all wrong… And these weren’t even simple one-off errors — instead different tables disagreed with each other. The metaphor that comes to mind is drunk driving.”

To take one example, the authors initially reported that the aforementioned largest paper in their meta-analysis had a sample size of 4,863. But they misread it — the true figure was actually only 2,627. They also misstated other aspects of that report, such as how regret was investigated (they said it was via questionnaire but it was via medical records search) and the age of the sample (they said it included some juveniles, but it did not).

Not all the errors were significant, but they were remarkably numerous. And because of the abundance of issues, the paper attracted the attention of other researchers. “In light of these numerous issues affecting study quality and data analysis, [the authors’] conclusion that ‘our study has shown a very low percentage of regret in TGNB population after GAS’ is, in our opinion, unsupported and potentially inaccurate,” wrote two critics, Pablo Expósito-Campos and Roberto D’Angelo, in a letter to the editor that the journal subsequently published. In her own letter, the researcher Susan Bewley highlighted what appears to be an absence of vital information about the authors’ method of putting together the meta-analysis.

The authors and the editors decided to simply not correct any of this. They did publish an erratum, in which they republished seven tables that still contained errors, while maintaining that all those errors had no impact on the paper’s takeaway findings. But the paper itself remains published, in its original form, complete with those 2,200 ghost-patients inflating the sample size.

Bewley and Cederblom have continued to ask the journal to reveal the process that led to the paper getting published, and to address why so many of the errors remain uncorrected. In an email in January to Bewley, Aaron Weinstein, its editorial director, claimed that because critical letters to the editor had been published, and because the corrected data was reanalysed by a statistical expert, “the Publisher and the ASPS [American Society of Plastic Surgeons] feel that PRS Global Open has done due diligence on this article and this case is closed”. He also claimed, curiously, that he had no power to force the authors to address the many serious remaining questions raised by the paper’s critics, saying “there is no precedent for an editorial office to do so”. Neither Weinstein nor the paper’s corresponding author, Oscar Manrique, responded to my emailed requests for comments.

Finally, there is Bowers’s claim that “a separate analysis of a survey of more than 27,000 transgender and gender-diverse adults found that the vast majority of those who detransition from medical affirming treatment said they did so because of external factors”. This is technically true, but is also rather misleading because the survey in question — the 2015 United States Transgender Survey (which has profound sampling issues) — was of currently transgender people. It says so in the first sentence of the executive summary. Research based on this survey obviously can’t provide us with any reliable information about why people detransition, because it is not a survey of detransitioners. If you want to know how often people detransition, you need to follow large groups of trans people over time and check in to see if they still identify that way later on — and we don’t have high-quality research on that front.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of studies being discussed here concern adults, while the legislative discussion mostly centres on adolescents. The most recent version of WPATH’s Standards of Care is very open about the lack of evidence when it comes to the latter: “Despite the slowly growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of early medical intervention, the number of studies is still low, and there are few outcome studies that follow youth into adulthood. Therefore, a systematic review regarding outcomes of treatment in adolescents is not possible.” Again, WPATH is Bowers’s own organisation — surely she is familiar with its output?

Despite the backbreaking errors of that nine-authored paper, the severe limitations of the Cornell review, and the near-utter-irrelevance of the United States Transgender Survey, all three are chronically trotted out as evidence that we know transgender medicine is profoundly helpful, or that detransition or regret are rare — or both. It’s frustrating enough that these lacklustre arguments are constantly made on social media, where all too many people get their scientific information. But what’s worse is that many journalists have perpetuated this sad state of affairs. A cursory Google search will reveal that these three works have been treated as solid evidence by the Associated Press, Slate, Slate again, The Daily Beast, Scientific American and other outlets. The NYT, meanwhile, further publicised Cornell’s half-baked systematic review by giving Nathaniel Frank a whole column to tout its misleading findings back in 2018.

Why does such low-quality work slip through? The answer is straightforward: because it appears, if you don’t read it too closely, or if you are unfamiliar with the basic concepts of evidence-based medicine, to support the liberal view that these treatments are wonderful and shouldn’t be questioned, let alone banned. That’s enough for most people, who are less concerned with whether what they are sharing is accurate than whether it can help with ongoing, high-stakes political fights.

But you’re not being a good ally to trans people if you disseminate shoddy evidence about medicine they might seek. Whatever happens in the red states seeking to ban these treatments, transgender people need to make difficult healthcare choices, many of which can be ruinously expensive. And yet, if you call for the same standards to be applied to gender medicine that are applied to antidepressants, you’ll likely be told you don’t care about trans people.

As Gordon Guyatt, who has done an enormous amount to increase the evidentiary standards of the medical establishment, told me: “You’re doing harm to transgender people if you don’t question the evidence. I believe that people making any health decisions should know about what the best evidence is, and what the quality of evidence is. So by pretending things are not the way they are — I don’t see how you’re not harming people.”

#Jesse Singal #gender ideology #genderwang #queer theory #medical transition #poor research #sex trait modification #poor evidence #Marci Bowers #WPATH #World Professional Association for Transgender Health #ideological capture #ideological corruption #medical corruption #medical malpractice #medical scandal #religion is a mental illness

29 notes · View notes