Wtf Meghan Murphy

[CassieMaddox]

A feminist I used to really admire, deciding pussy grabbing, porn loving, convicted felon Trump and his misogynistic, fickle, anti abortion, running mate Vance are the best choice for American women.

https://x.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1814817323754381763

Feminists/'feminist' men keep insisting to me that @JDVance1 is a misogynist who wants to 'take away women's rights' yet Trump/Vance are the only choice if we wish to restore women's sex-based rights in America (never mind the fact that Vance is anti-p*rn). I am not a fan of letting the government have any say over what women do with their bodies, but 'abortion rights' have for decades been used as a pawn in political games, and women keep letting themselves be played.

Voting Democrat solely because they'll let you have an abortion while they allow all the rest of our sex-based rights to be destroyed seems unwise to me. Women need to take their bodily autonomy into their own hands imo — this means we need to learn about and educate other women about their bodies and reproductive system, so we aren't relying on the government to dole out hormonal birth control (which is HORRIBLE for us) and dictate our reproductive choices. It's far from an ideal situation, but I resent being told I must vote for a party that can't even define the word 'woman' because they'll allow women to have abortions. That gives me the icks and should give you the icks as well.

I don't believe we should be handing over our power to governments, and the more we understand about our own bodies, the power of food/herbal medicine, the less we need to rely on the state or the medical establishment to allow us bodily autonomy and pretend to be invested in our health and wellbeing.

I do think we should fight against anyone/any laws that tell us what we may or may not do with our bodies, but the Democrats are not the party of body sovereignty either, so I'm not sure why women give them that credit.

I'm not sure what's going on with her but this is a huge shock. Very glad I'm not in the States right now.

There is a lot to be said for the stability of constitutional monarchies.......

Other than that the rhetoric seems so over-blown and hyperbolic around Trump and Vance. It is verging on hysteria. Do you really understand what a theocracy involves? Seeing the images of rabid crowds burning effigies of Netanyahu yesterday, comes to mind.

Can you explain in which specific ways you think democracy is at stake?

Complaints about commenting on US politics from elsewhere comes a bit strong if directed at the UK (I know, you mean Canada, but we share a king and an ethos). I dislike Biden, not because he is a Democrat (which afaik means he is roughly equivalent to the centre-right wing of the Conservative party), but because of his stance - as a proud Irish American - on Ireland. My mother heard the bang that was the destruction of the Chiswick flyover by the PIRA, my late brother used a pub they bombed. Proud 'Irish Americans' (I am more Irish, my paternal grandparents were Irish, dairymen from Dublin, and I am English) funded Noraid - funded blowing up British people to force a settlement that most in NI did not want, and was none of the US's business. The UK upholds the principle of self-determination. It is up to Northern Ireland whether it is part of the UK or the RoI, not anyone else.
The other reason I don't like Biden is that he is pro the trans agenda, a misogynistic men's rights movement. True, in the UK we have an abortion law which allows abortion up to 24 weeks, abortion is not an issue here. But the trans agenda impinges on us and we have seen our sex-based rights chipped away at by this movement, seen women abused and injured by its activists, seen women (and men) deplatformed, lose their jobs and their livelihoods. It's serious.
So serious, I spoiled my vote in the last election because none of the parties standing stood for women.
Given Noraid I think the UK has some right to comment on US politics. If the US wants us not to it should stop trying to stir up non-existent trouble in Northern Ireland, which has voted to remain as part of the UK - and may change its mind when it wishes with no interference from Westminster.

Well, I'm assuming the absolute mantrum Trump had when he lost and also all the "STOP THE COUNT!!!!" meltdown he had on Twitter.
He declared it all a fix, kind of like your toddler does when they lose a game of something.
Riled people up, refused to go quietly.
Him.in power again would be a threat to democracy imo.

And rigging the judiciary.

But are you suggesting that if he does get elected in November - then that in itself would be "against democracy?" Or do you think the vote may somehow be manipulated by his team? And on what basis is he being referred to as "like Hitler"?

Don't all presidents effectively "rig" the judiciary, though?

In the UK political parties give peerages to their chosen ones.

But are you suggesting that if he does get elected in November - then that in itself would be "against democracy?

Nowhere did I say that. I answered your question. It's democracy to let people vote for who they .
like
If you read my question again, see that I said *if he got voted in again that he HIMSELF would be a threat to democracy.

But why would he be a threat to democracy. In what way? He has already been president and the nation didn't collapse. Let's not over-look the fact that there has been severe disorder, violence and looting on the streets of some of America's big cities - due to movements like Defund the Police/Antifa.

😂
I've literally just said why I think so!
Lol, your response reminded me of my when my kids were toddlers - but WHY 😁
You're clearly not reading comments, or if you are you're choosing not to listen.
Crack on if so.

Your post reminds me of my students when it becomes clear they have not before learned any critical thinking skills.

I repeat. In what way would Trump in office be a threat to democracy? All you've said is what happened when he lost the last election.

Just making statements is not enough. We keep hearing how American democracy is at stake, and that he's like Hitler.

So you did read it after all then.
Good
👍

The Peers don’t get to do something such as overturn Roe vs Wade, or do something such as dismiss the Classified Documents Case against the former president.

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. They are different forms of government.

All POTUS do that if they get the chance. Time to stop electing judges and have them appointed on merit by something like the Lord Chancellor's Dept/Dept of Justice.

Though the Lords can be very influential when it comes to either passing, or especially blocking/delaying, certain bits of legislation.

No time to read the whole thread, so ignore this if someone already said it. Clinton exposed himself to Paula Jones, sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey, and raped Juanita Broaddrick. Allegedly, but they’re all very credible accusations from women whose accounts have been consistent for decades.

But why would he be a threat to democracy. In what way?

He has said he will not accept the next election results if he loses.

American violence is due to many reasons, some directly at the hands of conservatives who won't regulate guns.

Regarding democracy...who exactly has been in charge these last few years when Biden's decline has been all too evident, even to those of us witnessing with horror, and incredulity, from a distance? Let's not pretend it has been Joe Biden, nor Kamala Harris. Furthermore, who exactly are these donors who have the power to annoint Kamala Harris the nominee, even before the convention meets in August?

Isn't one of the reasons ( I know there are many) that Trump has been perceived as a threat to the establishment - is the fact he has his own money, and isn't beholden to those that hold the purse strings and pull the levers?

Gun control has not much to do with the shocking displays of violence and intimidation by the BLM and Defund the Police mobs in cities such as Portland; nor the sight of crowds waving pan arab flags and setting fire to effigies of Netanyahu; and targeting Jewish people, including children, on the streets, on university campuses, and even in hospitals.

But if he does win again...how is that a threat? People are saying him winning would be a "threat to democracy?"

I agree completely that there was some serious, serious issues with whoever is covering for Biden. So much that the Democratic party, including its biggest leaders like Nancy Pelosi, strong-womaned him to drop his second bid for presidency. Most of the country didn't want him to run, and Democrats who'd previously supported his run changed their minds after seeing the debate. Calls to him to step down and him stepping down SHOWS that democracy is more important than a single man's ego or fear or denial.

A friend sent me this, and I haven't read it in full, just a skim, but she was concerned by it.
newrepublic.com/article/183971/jd-vance-weird-terrifying-techno-authoritarian-ideas

But his condition has been quite evident for a lot longer than the disastrous television debate...yet people were told they were conspiracy theorists and that he was "sharp as a tack" when they mentioned this? Why did his wife encourage him, if it wasn't just for the sake of his ego...it certainly wasn't for the country.
Who are these donors whose dollars mean the difference between him staying put, and him standing down? And why are they now funding Kamala Harris in the way they seem to be?

Peter Thiel is just one of many very, very wealthy americans who feel they can shape society according to their own vision or ideal. For the Democrats you have people like Martine Rothblatt whose goal is transhumanism and who promotes and funds gender ideology; and also the Pritzkers who fund similar.

Regarding Peter Thiel....I came across this piece on him by the author of a book about him:

"When I interviewed Peter Thiel for my new book on his nearly decade-long conspiracy to take down Gawker Media (by backing a lawsuit on behalf of Hulk Hogan of all things), I remarked how Elon Musk has his mission to put humanity on Mars. What was his, I asked. Below is his answer from my conversation with him at his office in San Francisco:
“I don't know if I have a super succinct articulation but it probably is something of a life's mission for me to fight political correctness.”
My first reaction was that that didn’t sound like a particularly important mission. But as he explained it to me, he meant it not as the “totalitarian speech codes like you might have on a college campus or in the Soviet Union or something like that.” He meant political correctness, properly understood. As he put it, in his understanding, political correctness is “where it's also just sort of the conformity, the herd-like conformity, that I think is toxic for both intellectual life and free society.” It was this definition, I think, that put Peter Thiel on his collision course against Gawker and ultimately explains, at least in some way, his support of Donald Trump.
Deep down, Peter believes in creating space for weirdos and unique thinkers and the politically incorrect to do what they do. Because he believes that’s where progress came from. And this is something that gets missed in the discussions around his plot to take down Gawker. He wasn’t simply angry or revengeful. At the core of it, Thiel believed that Gawker was a scourge that, once eliminated, would allow for open, collaborative discussion. As he would tell me when I interviewed him for Conspiracy, “I came to believe that the nastiness of the internet was not a function of a technology or various things that have gone wrong, but the function of one particularly nasty media company led by a particularly sociopathic individual and that if I defeated Gawker, it would actually change the media landscape.”
To understand this, take a second to think about Thiel’s life and the contributions he’s made: This is a guy who believed that cryptocurrencies could replace the U.S. monetary system tand ended up creating a business (Paypal) that helped people sell Beanie Babies and laser pointers over the Internet and sold for worth billions of dollars. He put $500k in a social network a lot of people thought was a fad and that turned out to be worth billions too. Then he took fraud technology from Paypal and turned that into another multi-billion dollar company. Where others have seen science fiction, Thiel has always seen opportunities— for real, legitimate business. He was the kind of person who was a libertarian before that word had any kind of social respectability. He was a conservative at Stanford. He founded a kind of reactionary conservative newspaper there. He walked out of a job at one of the best law firms in the country after only a few months on the job--as part of what he called his “rolling quarter life crisis.” In some ways, it seems like he was driven to entrepreneurship because it was a safe space from consensus, and from convention. He names his companies after characters and places in Lord of the Rings. He backed Donald Trump in an election no one believed could be won...and did win, for better or worse.
In summary, Thiel is an anti-conformist, contrarian first principles thinker, who considers herd-like conformity toxic to society at large. You can’t come up with something new if you’re not willing to question the assumptions that make up our status quo.
Peter has talked about how alarming it is that many tech founders have Aspergers or are on the so-called “spectrum.” He says it should scare us that only people who are wired differently seem to be able to break out of that herd mentality and create or discover new things.
So when Thiel told me his mission was to destroy political correctness, I suspect part of his point was a desire to reduce some of that pressure that prevents other people from seeing and thinking differently. Because if he can accomplish that, he believes, it will unlock an incredible amount of innovation and change. Remember, the subtitle of his book Zero to Oneis about how to “build the future.” That’s what he thinks needs to be done and that we’re doing a dangerously bad job of doing it right now. Why? Political correctness would be his answer, I would guess. He sees it as a great evil that seems innocuous as the individual level but in fact causes a great deal of harm to people (by nature of what it deprives us of that we don’t even know we’re being deprived of).
Now there is a lot of room to disagree with his methods for destroying that political correctness (whether it’s taking down a media outlet or backing an unstable man for the presidency) but I actually think most people would support his overall goal. When you see the decisions Thiel makes, I think it’s often a reasonable inference to see him reacting against political correctness and that this is a driving force in his politics, his investments and his philanthropy."

My new book Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue, which the New York Times raved about, is out now. Not only is the book an epic page turner, it’s designed to be a deep meditation on strategy and power inspired by the decade-long conspiracy engineered by the billionaire Peter Thiel to take down Gawker.

Ermm, if anyone standing for election states beforehand that they will only accept the result if they win then, as far as I'm concerned, they've demonstrated that they're not fit for public office. Surely that's obvious?

That said, I'm very pleased to see you say this @Delphinium20
I agree completely that there was some serious, serious issues with whoever is covering for Biden.

I do think Biden's team have some big questions to answer about how long they've known about and presumably been covering up for his condition. I think they need to start answering those questions very soon and I've been a bit dismayed this week at the apparent lack of appetite for this - and even 'whataboutery' - displayed by some Democrat supporters.