This coupled with the fact that every action taken (like not putting her name on the house) is likely intended to prevent her from leaving him, points to some underlying insecurity.
CleverOleg
joined 2 years ago
Molotov or Malenkov would have likely pursued the same policies as Stalin, but with the understanding that some things did need to change - just not in the ways that Khrushchev did. They would never have denounced Stalin, they never would have gone the route Khrushchev did with his market reforms, and they wouldn’t have given liberal intelligentsia so much leeway as he did.
Thanks for letting me know!
Asa Winstanley had his devices taken and his house searched by the pigs, even though he wasn’t charged with anything. This was in the UK where that’s a lot easier for them to do than in the US, but laws are changing every day.
I bring up Asa because I’m familiar with his work and his social media, and I can say what he says is tame compared to us. We’re all pretty openly very supportive of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran (just yesterday I was asking if someone could help make an Al-Qassam Brigades wallpaper). If we got hit for anything, I think it would be for “supporting terrorism”.
Granted, I really think that would only involve trying to shut down the website, which we could always just create a new one in a worst case scenario. I don’t think going after individual users is really on the table, that would require NSA type action and the feds aren’t going to break out those resources on some poxy commie website.
I don’t have much money but I try to donate whatever I can to organizations that help Palestinians, usually UNRWA and the Palestine Childrens Relief Fund. Do know of any other organizations that do good work or that have helped out you and others?
What does that even mean? There are at least 50 different laws regarding gender affirming care in the US because of our dumbass constitution. So this means… whatever each state has as their laws on the books is a-ok with her? So if goddamn Alabama has shitty laws, you (Kamala) support those laws?
If “leave it to the states to decide” is her actual implied position, then she isn’t actually supporting trans rights and won’t do anything to preserve them. Trans rights were literally the very thing every dem brings up when we say there’s no difference between her and Trump. To let the states restrict trans rights as much as they want IS the position of Trump and the GOP, jfc!
And not that it should matter ofc, but note that the interviewer didn’t say something like “let minors have access to gender affirming care”. So according to Kamala, if a state makes a law that blocks say a 45 year old from accessing care, then she’s good with that I guess? I mean there are transphobes out there who would pass laws for that.
Not only is this statement anti-trans rights, I assume that she is also staking that position to ensure she doesn’t commit to giving anyone actually healthcare either.
If there’s one statement that has a 100% approval rating among hexbears…
Seriously incredible, thank you!
I genuinely believe she won’t enact anti-trans bullshit herself, at the executive level.
However, what she will do - and frankly this is maybe more destructive - is allow every state to make their own anti-trans laws without any pushback from the federal government. Texas will ban and gender affirming care for people under 26 (this is an idea that’s already been floated since “your brain isn’t fully developed until your mid 20s”) and Kamala won’t do shit to stop it.