You're not wrong. If Harris gets elected, we may never recover. She is an existential threat to free speech and the concept of the nuclear family, choice in education, etc. The state will decide what is best for children, not the parents. It will be a horror show. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 but I sure as hell am voting for him now!
It might be a "horror show" for you, Margaret, but if Trump is elected, it will be a horror show for the world!
How could you even think of voting for this man? Yesterday, he performed simulated oral sex on his microphone stand. For heaven's sake, Trump should have nothing to do with any decision making that affects the lives of people. He is amoral!
When you vote for a person, you actually vote for a party. The Dem Party is the party of perverts like Robert Levine (who goes by Rachel), drag queens, child mutilation, falsehoods about sex, and DEI. The Republicans will stop all of that from going forward.
By voting for Trump, you are voting for a pervert. Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse. Recently, several women have accused Trump of sexual abuse, and these will go to trial after the elections, together with the three other trials that have been delayed by the election. On top of all of this are the recently released Epstein tapes that appear to claim that Trump had sex with under age girls, and a lot more to come!
As for his running mate, I really don't want to go into his proclivities! I could go down the list of Republicans who have been involved in the types of activities you have mentioned, but why bother? You can check that out for yourself.
Having said all of that, you will find VP Harris above all of that messy stuff, who is intent on running the country for all Americans, especially those who are in need. Give her a chance and then evaluate her performance at the next election.
This has been said about every woman who's gotten ahead in business or politics since I started working in 1983. It was pathetic then and it's pathetic now. You give a bad name to all old white men. Frankly, I believe 95% of you would blow Trump if he gave you half a chance. And I mean literally.
Your crude comments don't contribute to the conversation. No one wants to listen to anyone, of any political persuasion, go on ad hominem rants. Brown had separated from his wife long before he dated Harris. Yes, she slept with a man 30 years her senior and got a government job from him.
God what a nasty remark. Yeah, hard to believe but only by being romantically involved with an important political figure could she have achieved what she did. Her middle class upbringing, politically active parents, her remarkable education that focused on building powerful women, law school and experience mean nothing. Get lost.
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace.
Between studies done from the National Blood Bank on Parental Fraud we find the 1/3 of the children had the wrong father listed, and since the 90,000 mothers make a good sample of all Modern Western Womanhood, we can say that on average 1/3 of women can and do [life-destroying] lies to those they profess to love; husbands, lovers, children, rest of family, as well as community & secular authorities.
In a study of Rape Accusations filed by police if was found that near 80% were false, and yet unlikely those women were punished at all or near to the reputational, employment, family, lifelong whispers and targeting, .., damages that the men faced, with women often rewarded for lying about rape, ..
.. and many cases of public use to attack Political and other men of significant power, False Witnessing for political uses.
(Assange was accused by the Nation of Sweden when his lovers rejected the accusation, Sweden use it to extradite and to greatly reduce support in that most women and society assumes guilt, and the falsely accused are often life-time punished even if shown to be innocent.)
But we can gather that not less than 80% of Accusations from women are lies, and that any Rape Accusation with proof is like a lie, and the Accuser should be punished to some degree that the man does suffer to the years in prison he would if found guilty - as the vicious lying woman wanted of him.
Interestingly enough those studies and similar were once easily found on Google, but have been 'disappeared' as Evil mind-raping became their policy. What corp-Satanic reason, or is it protective VagFeelie excused lies?
So, when I hear such accusations made against political [white] man, I assume that the accuser is lying and those that pass it on are vile vicious man-hating lying delusional Toxic psychopathic women that Poison all near them and destroying society.
Misogyny does not have one meaning, it can and does also mean the distrust of women - and should be the default for all the West towards them .. until they gain self-group control from the lying baby-killing male-hating walking toxic nightmare many are.
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace.
One other recent public example of State use of false Rape accusation, to attack Fatherhood in general.
Remember many people's favorite TV father, at a time when no-fault divorce - and wives & mothers marrying the State - had created a generation of fatherlessness in not only Black community but through the destroyed middle-classes, that roll played by Bill Cosby as a doctor and ideal father, a head of a decent family?
Many then boys and girls and young men and women took his roll as an ideal of fatherhood, and so modeled themselves and what the seek in a husband after that roll - after him.
Of course, at the time he was attractive, and wealthy and women were getting in line to do drugs and have sex with him - often in hopes he would diverse and remarry them.
Years later the State in wanting to damage not only Fatherhood but injure those people who integrated that roll into themselves, the State found some bitter old women that sought and consented to drugs and sex with him, and were still resentful their plans never resulted in marrying him, and used them to attack our TV Father, and anchor to so many of that generation who needed a Father.
Of course, when he was found not guilty in the first trial, they retried him - against Double-Jeopardy it seems - because media and women demanded him guilty, vindicative vile vicious male-hating horrors that so many are.
> By voting for Trump, you are voting for a pervert.
Nonsense. Trump isn't a pervert he's a lecher. He's rich and famous and like so very many other rich and famous men he scores as frequently as he can, which is quite frequently.
As you said, many, not all. There are lots of perverted people out there. I think the attitude is important. Trumps attitude toward women is misogynistic. He doesn’t just score…he assaults.
Interesting that you say a vote for the person is a vote for the political party. In Trump's case that is no longer true. The GOP and Trump have merged into one beast. Trump took over when all the never-Trumpers lost their principles and caved to his will. "He said Republican politicians would be easy to break. He was right," says Mark Leibovich in this Atlantic magazine article that sums up Trump's takeover: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/10/trump-gop-support-jd-vance-2024/679564/
"How could you even think of voting for this man?"
The question you ask is answered in the article you are commenting on. If you feel the cons of Trump outweigh the pros of voting anti-woke, vote accordingly. Just don't dismiss the points Colin made as false or meaningless. They are serious and backed up by mountains of evidence.
The point is, Scott, why would people want an unrepentant sexual abuser, a person who has currently a number of accusations of sexual abuse made against him pending and "mountains of evidence" of underage
abuse of girls coming out of the Epstein tapes to be the President of the United States?
Did you read the article? Those are Colin's reasons and he encourages you to think for yourself. Of course Trump is a cretin, although your Epstein take is a bit thin and could apply to many other men. I won't attempt to detail the remarkable harm that Progressives have wrought, and aspire to continue, but I suspect you are less familiar with this than you could be. The fact that they dominate the media and academia is of great concern to many thoughtful people. I'll be writing in my choice as I believe both candidates are genuinely dangerous and authoritarian in their own ways.
If you're not aware of her father's Marxist professorship at an ivy League university and her husband's slapping a previous girlfriend and her quotes of unburdened coming straight from the Communist manifesto, you are now, she's a malignant malevolent nefarious maoist
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace.
How right you are Margaret, and although Trump is a Zionist, it is likely that he will have more freedom of actions that benefit us, not as much of the endless wars, genocides, Western social, family, Womanhood, Manhood, Fatherhood, institutional, Judicial, .. destruction we have suffered a good part or all our lives.
Since 'money is speech' and the Billions and Billions we add to our debt and send abroad is returned to those that bride, threaten, black-mail, .. in Capturing of Gov and forming the DeepState, none of us can expect that only a Black-Swan event such as Nuclear War can relieve us of the Satanic Oppression and control over our and world's lives and situation - for those that survive.
All that said, after Obama increased racial anti-white hate, what horrors of same and sexism-based nightmares could we expect from her?
I saw a decent video about why she was not voted in, and I added some extra not covered in the video;
--
Perhaps it is time for many to reconsider the Sickness in Politics and our Godless selves?
About blaming 'racism' perhaps one might consider the fact we had a black man as president that actively increased racism, what feminist horrors would a black women vomit on us all? Expectedly one who was directly responsible for enslaving men in private prison by not releasing them when due, as I will mention here with other aspects. Perhaps your Class has isolated you from the reality most of our population (and likely your countries') but can you imagine the deeper levels of Hell most of us would be in if she won?
.. Once people accept that white men are the least racist group that exists now Christian values have been crushed throughout commie-Satan West, where most mothers killing our babies, mutilating our children, raising us all to accept insanity and evil as 'acceptable', actively destroying fatherhood, families, truth, justice, good order, and when most have power sexually-abusing is disrespect and hurt men and boys under their power.
Two points not mentioned in that video, but connected;
1. When she had power over others in gov years before, she refused to release men from prison when sentence was over - because they were working as forced-slaves in private prison. What kind of monster is she, and when she has power over us all, and world-wide?
2. That the corp-media refused to address or report this. And no alt-media seem to know this, and me and any others that did were without a voice, or like I face daily when discussing Gaza or other topics with details that mind-raping corp-gov controllers of communication (of YouTube, Facebook, or other social media) think you should not know, and those that would kill me (monsters like Harris, supporters of genocide,.. ) if I became effective.
Abortion aspects not in video;
Kamala Harris would climb a mountain of during-birth torn-apart baby-parts, and those that might not be pro-life realize that such people that support this, and perhaps most all women have turned into monsters that are machines-for-hell spreading soul-poison to all they have authority, influence, and interactions with, that a policy of forced-silence and perhaps humane limited isolation of such unrepentant horrors before they poison untold more for the rest of their lives, or until repentance and change of life-values.
What if Kamala Harris said at every political event this below, how many more votes would she have gotten?
"I was imaging a country less than a century old that 90% of them were either murdering-pedo or supported them, and that around the world to powerful people and families controlling gov.s were both kid-napping - sexually-torture them to death on private islands - or sending them to this country or using our tax-dollars and the banking-investing world-wide power to support that country.
And they will not Stop. Even if the populations of the world See them doing this, and corp-gov-media supporting and hiding it.
Who would you call a Nazi or such if it was suggested that such a concentration of evil and horror-souls, unrepentant country be removed with nukes - if needed - but stopped and those unrepentant made gone? That since only the very powerful wealthy or those in significant position throughout all gov could be identified - that they be removed, before any more young children are tortured to death by psychotic sexual demons-possessed peoples?
Call such people what names, beside decent God-Fearing protectors of Children, Families, societies, nations and humanity, Or Nazis? Terrorists?
What the hell is wrong with you? Is your acceptance of mothers killing our babies affecting you like a demonic-voice you cannot refuse?
(Inquiring minds want to know.)"
As long as the ADL and those offshore and internal controllers of our gov-Empire policies of endless destruction, horror, death, Hell for us and world-wide, can you imagine anyone they allow us to see, allow us to think or discuss - saying that or similar? If they were part of the system mentioned?
Would you be ashamed to be call names like Nazis or Terrorist for supporting those willing to put their lives on line, since we are too castrated in West by our Sick motherhood, vile male-hating women teachers of young, most [retarded, baby-killing, mutilating children & supporters of] women and gov.s-corp-media and other Significant mind-raping population contempt-filled controlling Institutions such murdering-pedo horrors own?
Excellent article! You address the fact that woke ideology and the behavior of its adherents are a lot more than "a right wing talking point." I have found it really difficult to express in a concise way why I think it is a much bigger deal than that, and is in fact the "existential threat" that everyone in Western Civ should be fighting. Your article is a strong effort to compose a concise argument against woke. The more successful we can be in articulating what threats the woke movement poses to civilization and to the freedoms we once took for granted, the more successful we will be in raising citizens' consciousness about how to reverse its momentum.
Great opinion story. I came away from listening to the Harris v Shapiro 'debate' thinking that Harris mainly is gambling on the effectiveness of guardrails for one candidate over another. I'm inclined to think that because Trump is such a loose cannon that guardrails will be stronger. With Kamala Harris we will definitely have more of the entrenched 'woke' and the guardrails will be lax, like we have now. I don't think Sam Harris has been personally touched by any of the issues that have brought a regular lifer Dem to cast a ballot for Trump, with the exception of Israel but on that he gives Kamala grace.
Are you kidding?? You couldn't be more wrong. The guardrails you speak up should have disqualified Trump YEARS ago. Impeachments, indictments, and an election loss that should have ended his career have not stopped him. Every horrible, despicable thing he says gets excused or overlooked by his supporters. He can do nothing that would cost him their votes, and that's terrifying. This is a cult of personality we are dealing with, and guardrails aren't stopping him now. What makes you think they'd reign him in if he got elected again?
Yup. I reached the same conclusion. I vote the closest to my values, not for perfection or any particular slate or blue no matter who nonsense. Even though I'm a Democrat, I'm not progressivist. It's a struggle to live in Seattle and suffer from one-party zealotry. If the fundamentalists from both parties could be tuned out and moderates from both parties surged, then real stable progress can be made. I know it's possible. To move in that direction requires a vote for Trump. I'm good with that.
There is no excuse to vote for that rapist POS. I can imagine what a nightmare it is to live in Seattle. I live in California. But there is so much more to this election than "wokeness". Maybe you should move. I am moving out of the SF Bay Area to a more politically moderate area to get away from this bullshit, but I am STILL a Dem, and my values are still humane and sane.
You will move away from the results of progressive stupidity, but you will remain a stupid progressive and vote to destroy your new residential area. Your neighbors will NOT thank you.
Donald Trump is only a rapist in the sense that a jury in a civil suit thought it more likely than not that he had sexually assaulted what’s-er-name 30 years ago but less likely than so that he actually penetrated her. This is not a finding of criminal guilt of anything beyond reasonable doubt, the standard even an unpleasant human being should be able to rely on before someone calls him a rapist POS.
Making excuses for his egregious behavior is exactly what Trump counts on. Did you hear what he said about Liz Cheney? And you're okay with that? I can't imagine letting him get away with it.
Unfortunately, conservatives are braindead on 99% of the issues because they genuinely don't care about women or children, or basic civil rights, the environment, the economy, or world politics. They hate trans ideology because they are essentially knee-jerk homophobic bigots. I've been a liberal all of my life, and the idiocy of wokeism isn't going to change that. You and I see and understand the nuances of the issues. Trumpers don't have the capacity to parse it out. All we can do is keep trying to explain it, and hope some portion of reality is absorbed by osmosis.
Half the country seems willing to. What are you going to do if they do? Are you questioning the peaceful transfer of power? You might have to adjust your window of what you can imagine. 48% seems enough for him to win, given the Electoral College. If your candidate was any good, surely she’d be beating a guy like him 70:30.
You didn't answer the question, but that's to be expected. I have no idea why you think I'm questioning the peaceful transfer of power. It's Trump who has a problem with accepting the outcome of an election he doesn't win. He even said the 2016 election was rigged, but only because he thought he was losing.
It's beyond disappointing that Trump's supporters don't care what he says or does. I understand that it's because they're caught up in his personality cult and they're attracted to authoritarianism, but the rest of the country watches them in horror.
Her unburdened quote came straight from the Communist manifesto, her father is a Marxist ivy league professor, her daughter fundraises for Gaza and has an odd modeling career despite her looks, pay for play in the same way that Hunter got paid for his mediocre paintings equals access to politicians
I might well do that in the future, but I still have some fight in me and I have some ideas for bipartisanship so I’ll work on that for a little bit longer before I jump out
Have you watched E.gene Carroll's interviews where she gleefully discusses women's rape fantasies with Gloria Vanderbilt's son?
Trump could score any gal he wanted and he would rape her?
For an objective article, it sure is triggering the TDS in many here, like yours
Tell me you're not aware of Joe biden's naked showering with his daughter and the dozens of sniffing incidents and his daughter attributing her drug addiction to his odd inappropriate behavior, or even better Joe's relationship with his wife and his wife's relationship as a prior babysitter, and Hunter oh Hunter how much for the big guy?
Oh dear. Majority rule leads to the mobilis vulgatus voting to loot the Treasury for themselves. And when that runs out, they’ll pillage one another. You absolutely do not want majority rule.
"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chose the President. But in chosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice."
The U.S. Constitution balances majority rule with minority rights, the latter mostly accomplished via amendments. When minority preferences override those of the majority our form of government is no longer functioning according to the plan of its creators.
Specifying that the Electors from the States shall vote as a majority is not the same as allowing every ignorant lazy fool who lives in those states to vote for those Electors (and legislators and judges and DAs and sheriffs and dogcatchers.) When the U.S. Constitution was written the suffrage was limited to male owners of property, as it was in contemporary Parliamentary monarchies elsewhere. Once you allow every adult to vote, you have a very different kind of majority from what the Founding Fathers envisioned. So minoritarian rule becomes more important, vital even, to prevent communism, not just to protect individual rights to liberty.
It’s not meant to be democratic. It’s meant to be a brake against the dangers of untrammelled democracy. In a pure democracy where everyone votes on everything, the majority can vote to suppress ideas it doesn’t like or pass laws that victimize a minority, or the poor (who are numerous) can vote to loot the rich. This is what a dictatorship of the proletariat theoretically is, although in practice it becomes a dictatorship by one dictator. Once people without property can vote, they can vote to end the right to own property so they can steal it. Fortunately Americans show no sign of being willing to do that. But you do hear a lot of progressive Democrats bellyaching about the majority that elected Donald Trump. Bet you they’re not so keen on “democracy” now.
If you allowed only property owners and people with businesses, even small businesses like hairdressers and plumbers, to vote, the Democratic progressive coalition of renters and welfare recipients would never get near power. Wealthy Hollywood celebrity property-owners wouldn’t be numerous enough, against the hairdressers and plumbers, to elect anyone. The government would still need the consent of the people to govern. It just wouldn’t be “those people.”
This is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek thought experiment because obviously no one currently eligible to vote is going to agree to have his vote taken away from him, so it will never happen. My point is only to answer the OP: We don’t have pure democracy now, never did, and our governments in democracies are all deliberately set up to avoid the dangers of pure democracy because of what mob rule will do: the poor will loot the rich and when that money is gone they will loot each other.
Four or five years ago very few people dared to openly oppose wokeness and related ideas. Now that’s actually happening openly, even in liberal spaces. To me, voting for Trump to end wokeness is a mistake, it’s much more effective to work against it on a local level, while staying off social media.
Thank you for saying this. I've been thinking a lot about how to oppose these harmful ideas, and I don't think it's by voting in authoritarian right-wing governments who also see and target the problem. I think it's about winning the war of ideas, one mind at a time, through in-person discussion on a local level. So that's what I've started doing with my own MLA, colleagues, and friends.
Perfectly reasonable approach, but good luck to you changing the minds of people who's very identity is built on an arrogant ignorance of the issues and contempt for other people. By questioning a Progressive's beliefs, you are committing heresy and will be relegated to "them" status.
This is why hard conversations should happen in the context of relationship, and in-person, not online through snippets of information. People change their minds slowly, but it is possible. It’s much harder to “other” a person about whom you feel positively.
Good for you and keep it up. Sadly I am familiar with many examples of the opposite. Criticize Progressive dogma and you are immediately defined as an ignorant Trumper. Progressives need permission from their thought leaders in the media to change their opinions. When NPR and the New York Times finally acknowledge that sex changes for vulnerable teens are based on ideology, not evidence, Progressives will claim to have been concerned about this all along, and that rushing to transition was actually very rare. There will be no repercussions for the media or Dem politicians. In the meantime, I see no indication that people will respond to facts. Their whole sense of self is tied to being one of the "good" people fighting against ugly rubes.
It might change a little now? Or, admittedly, it might get much worse.
Ever heard of the Braver Angels organization? It's of course a select group of people, but it has been a pretty transformational for me, talking to more people of different political convictions in a few months than I had for years before.
The point here is valid, but it seems to gloss over that a vote for Ttump is a vote endorsing cronyism, loyalty to boss over ethics, endorsing blatant lies, disrespect, etc. All choices are a this or that, so one cannot only look at longterm effects of this but also longterm effects of that.
I think it's just the opposite! Kamala is the embodiment of cronyism. Corporate cronyism. She is an avatar for whoever is controlling her, as in crony corporations, and we will all be at their mercy. Sadly, it is abundantly clear that she is not making any of these decisions. Whoever is running her and writing her teleprompter stuff is getting her to back off on her extreme positions such as providing gender reassignment surgery for inmates. Even more worrying, is the fact that she has no international ties or relationships with anyone. And since she's incapable of clear thought without a teleprompter, I worry very much about her interacting with international leaders. She will leave us vulnerable. Trump's appearance on the Joe Rogan show illustrated that he is lucid.
There are many, I assume dozens of examples of Donald Trump engaging in cronyism. One of the most high profile ones was his son in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Kushner The examples are probably numerous enough that I doubt it makes sense to make a list of them. If you are aware of examples of Kamala Harris engaging in cronyism, feel free to post them. "Corporate Cronyism" is something different. However, if you are aware of even one case of corporate cronyism of Kamala Harris, I will be happy to learn about that also. You've also raised issues about how well they can perform within certain areas, which is a reasonable thing to talk about, but is a bit different from the values associated with their political actions (that one is implicitly endorsing by their vote), which is what I wish to discuss in this thread.
I agree with everything you say wholeheartedly, except your conclusion. I even use your cartoon to illustrate my political unhousedness, we just end up in different places about how to push back.
I respectfully disagree here. A vote for Trump is indeed a gamble, but maybe not the one you think.
There is never a right time to elect the wrong person, and Donald Trump is about as wrong as it gets. He is petty, incurious, vindictive, arrogant, avaricious, and egotistical. He's got thirty-four felony convictions and has been indicted for about sixty more. He's been found civilly liable for fraud, sexual assault, and defamation ABOUT that sexual assault. He's been impeached more than any other president. As has been said, he possesses none of the qualities you'd want in a president, and all of the ones you wouldn't.
Sure, Trump opposes wokeness, but not because he has some kind of ideological objection. Trump has no ideology; he is 100% transactional. He's giving his base what *they* want, not what he wants. so while he's whacking at weird leftists, he's *also* breaking laws left and right, fumbling foreign policy, putting his cronies in positions of power for which they are as unsuited as he is, and generally sowing chaos. Is that worth opposing DEI?
Obviously, people can vote as they choose, but no one should kid themselves that Trump is the lesser of two evils. He's the greater of just about ALL evils.
No one can be truly guilty of 34 felonies. A lot of us foreigners see his legal troubles brought by his own failings but aggravated by a campaign to do him in that began in 2015.
Donald Trump is a woman-hating psychopath. There is NO excuse to vote for him. The trans frenzy is already spiraling the drain. Everyone is fed up with their demands, and the backlash is gaining momentum. I'm not going to vote to burn the world down over a few assholes.
In New York State, ballot Proposal 1 inserts trans frenzy into the state constitution with "gender expression" and "gender identity" included in a laundry list of extra protected classes like "pregnancy choices.' I do not see it spiraling down the drain. On a zoom call with protectkidsny.org, seeking to defeat the proposal and save girls' and women's sports, a pediatrician who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan is asking if this organization can please organize meetings for doctors, to do the work that the actual AMA, APA and AAP should be doing, to admit to physicians that there is no valid research supporting the iatrogenic harms of "affirmative care." Others on the call were exciting, thinking she could help get the word out. She said she's silenced by the AAP and by the hospital she's affiliated with, where those surgeries are carried out. I do not see Pink Mist cult floating away any time soon, unfortunately.
And with the Biden Admin, which is fully endorsed by Cackles Heels-up Harris, they are suing states and schools to force the misreading of Title IX on schools. Cackles will continue this perversion of Title IX
Then just vote out AOC. Or are all Republicans who are trying to put the brakes on this dangerous ideology tainted, and we have to go around saying what our "assigned sex at birth" is and be forced to change our speech at all times for a "kink" hobbyist like swimmer, Will/Lia Thomas?
He's a serial rapist who supports allowing states to decide the legal restrictions that they want to apply to abortion and birth control. Seriously, your question is beyond stupid.
Oh, you mean he "raped" some old has-been woman whose civil (not criminal) lawsuit was funded by Adam Shitface and slipped in under a special statute-of-limitations exception carved out just for her? The hag who couldn't even tie down the right year? Oh, that one? Beyond stupid that the NY legal system allowed such a farce.
The answer offered does not address cat's question? She is asking for evidence. You offer disapproval and imply she should see the world in the way you do. Not at all persuasive.
I didn't offer evidence (though I have loads of it), because that isn't what she wants. She is already certain she is right, and no one will convince her otherwise. So, why bother? I mean, it could hardly be more obvious that Trump is a woman-hating psychopath, but MAGA voters are blind to the reality of Donald Trump. There's nothing that would convince these people not to vote for him.
You may believe evidence isn’t what she wants, but it is what she asked for. If you can, it’s best to give people what they ask for. Once they receive it, reality presents them the opportunity to decide if they were wrong. It provides them the opportunity to struggle with themselves, not you.
Trumpers are indeed a special breed of devoted nutjobs. Just so you know, I have attempted many times to "Like" your comments but the system is not allowing me for some reason. Maybe you have to be a paying subscriber? It's odd that I can reply but not like, sorry. I do enjoy your comments very much. <3
Once again, cat is asking for evidence. She’s responding to irrational and unverified accusations. In this situation it is absolutely the most intelligent thing to ask for. Cat is asking Ms. Lee to “prove it,” to prove the allegations! Show me the evidence!
It is the Supreme Court, not Donald Trump, that recently decided there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate a woman has a right to an abortion. Thus abortion is not a federal issue and becomes an issue for each of the states to decide.
I can see you are angry, lashing out at Mr. Trump, calling him names because you’re not getting your way. I imagine that must feel really really frustrating. Calling people nasty names is an attempt to control them, to get them to do what you want. Trying to control other people does not usually work very well. Not for either party.
You have placed yourself into the same situation as Ms. Stanley. Thus my response to her now applies to you also.
Ms. Lee, I just saw your post acknowledging both your inability to get the “like” button to work and your appreciation of my previous post. Thank you. ( I hope I got that right)
Colin, I really appreciate your analysis of "Critical Social Justice Theory," and how you link the various driving theories and provide examples of how they play out. I mostly have liberal friends, and I mostly feel like I'm the only one who sees the enormity and scope of this problem, and how embedded it is in our culture and policies (for example, here in Canada, "gender identity" is a protected category alongside "sex" which is problematic in numerous ways). Your analysis accurately incorporates the various tenets and driving forces of this ideology.
However, I also disagree with your conclusion. There is an asymmetry between the threat of authoritarian critical social justice ideology - as pernicious and widespread as it is - and a sitting president who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as Sam frequently states). Fighting left-wing authoritarianism with right-wing authoritarianism is completely misguided. And in Trump's case, it is so threatening to the existence of the institutions and norms that protect the very "arena" in which ideas can be argued about.
I will add also that Sam is not just a "noted Trump critic" but also a "noted woke critic." It's important to be clear what we are against here. We should be against irrationality, ideologically-driven decision-making, and authoritarianism of all kinds. This debate between Christopher Rufo and Yascha Mounk (on Bari Weiss's podcast Honestly) highlights the two different approaches. I agree wholeheartedly with Mounk here: wokeness must be fought by winning the war of ideas, not by enacting countering authoritarian legislation or methods.
I don't know what it's like to be a public intellectual without a political home. I have benefitted greatly from the ideas you put forward here, and I send many of your articles to my friends and colleagues. I include Eva Kurilova in this as well, and many of her guest posts on this site. But just as Eva's credibility is undermined by her schilling for ALL of our provincial UCP's policies, so is yours by not recognizing the threat that right-wing authoritarianism and policies are to liberalism and democracy. The ends cannot justify the means.
Your comment could not be more timely right now btw (just happened to reread it) “wokeness must be fought by winning the war of ideas, not by enacting countering authoritarian legislation or methods.” 👌
I am voting for Trump. I dislike Trump. I think he's an idiot. I will vote for Trump.
A vote for Dems is a vote for crime, trannie insanity, mutilation of children, open borders, gender stupid, DEI, CRT, and all of the other progressive ideology madness. A vote for GOPs is a vote for family, sense, clarity of mission, and not Woke.
Most Democrats are not woke. They don’t talk about it because it’s not worth doing battle with activists. Trump is a threat to democracy across the globe. You’ve done great work focusing on the science of gender. If you had stuck to that, most Democrats would end up on your side. By siding with the MAGA craziness, you’ve thrown away your influence outside the Republican Party in exchange for their warm embrace. Such a shame.
This is what I see in Eva Kurliova as well. She has been a strong, much-needed voice in defending sanity in our provincial politics here in Alberta around gender issues. But then she goes further, defending and plugging the UCP provincial government in its entirety, unable to criticize them for their authoritarianism and ideologically-driven decisions. I imagine it's incredibly difficult as a public intellectual/writer to take heat from both sides of the political spectrum, but this is why I appreciate Sam Harris so much. He's as critical of the left's insanity as he is of the right's, and his stances - even if you disagree with certain conclusions - are always grounded in clear-thinking and evidence.
I have sent numerous articles from Reality's Last Stand to my friends and colleagues, pointing them toward rationality around the gender issue. But if there's ideological capture happening over here, it completely undermines the credibility of the source.
Very well said. I also seek out sources that are not political, or at least are not right-leaning. In the minds of my liberal friends, the views expressed on gender ideology, DEI or wokeism are completely discredited if the source leans to the right. There are liberals who hate this ideology too, and I want to hear more from them.
Totally! Being gender-critical is completely congruent with progressive ideas and values. Most of the people I know who are pro gender-affirming care are well-intentioned but severely confused about this issue, just like the kids/youth they are trying to help. Presenting them with facts that challenge their unquestioned endorsement of gender-affirming care, and showing them that their stance actually goes against their own values, can be effective for changing their minds.
Of course it got politicized, but a) a lot of Democratic support for it is superficial and/or opportunistic, and b) it's already disintegrating.
There are precious few places that aren't pledging their allegiance to one party or another. If you abandon you impartiality everything you do, or have done, becomes suspect.
The items that you list as falling under the rubric of wokeness can indeed be irritating at times. But "wokeness" is not going to take over and ruin the country. And Trump is not a bastion against the underlying philosophical movements that provide the underpinnings for wokeness (post modernism derived CRT, Queer Theory) as well as colonialism. Trump has no intellectual depth, and at the end of the day he is all about Donald Trump, his fortune, his aggrandizement, his own power. He'll do noting about "wokeness". In fact, as Sam Harris points out the could be a resurgence of "wokeness" under Trump. "Wokeness" has been fading. DEI programs are losing their luster. Certainly woke oriented publications will still show up in 3rd rate social oriented journals. But there have always been 3rd rate social oriented journals for as long as I can remember (I'm 69). In science the woke issues you mention, largely related to gender issue, are in retreat. Crap that purports to "queer" some aspect of science will not last - pubs may still show up for a bit, but they won't become main stream. I'll have to say that the "queering" of science was something I had not heard of until about a year ago until I retired even though I had spent the last 10 years of my career working for an instrumentation company that was providing imaging systems for neurobiology and genomics researchers and was in weekly contact with scientists at places like Harvard, MIT, Columbia, U Penn, U California, Pasteur Institute, U College London, Max Planck Institute, etc. and never heard about queering of anything.
In terms of First Amendment issues, While Walz and Kerry made comments about misinformation (like the garbage that is spouted on X and its ilk), don't worry, unlike the UK, we actually have that amendment in our constitution, and its already withstood test, and certainly the current court would uphold any challenge. Interesting that in this piece you did not glorify Elon Musk as a defender of the first amendment like you did in the version of this essay on X. Musk's involvement in X is for his own ego and glorification. But I guess when you post there you need to lick boots and grovel to help ensure a personal revenue flow.
Your points are worth consideration. But another thing that I think about is the fact that Tulsi Gabbard has joined Trump. I deeply respect her and her views. And JD Vance is also solid. I think that looking at the people he is surrounding himself with this time around is enough, at least for me, to believe that he is the person we need to fight back not against the left, or even woke( which I see as the child of far progressive leanings), but they are who we need to keep the freedom of speech and freedom in general as a nation.
JD Vance is intelligent, but untrustworthy. For me, the bottom line is that he refuses to admit Trump lost in 2020 or promise he would follow his constitutional duty to certify the votes in a presidential election. That's a deal breaker.
Furthermore, look at the comments Vance made about Trump back in 2016, before he became a Trump toady:
In 2016, Vance sent a message to his law school roommate in which he wrote that he went “back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole…or that he’s America’s Hitler.”
In an April 2016 op-ed for The New York Times, Vance wrote: “Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”
During a 2016 interview, Kentucky radio host Matt Jones told Vance: “I cannot stand Trump because I think he’s a fraud…I think he’s a total fraud that is exploiting these people.” Vance responded: “I do too…I don’t think he actually cares about folks.”
in August 2016, Vance said: “I think that I’m going to vote third party because I can’t stomach Trump. I think that he’s noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.”
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy. I never liked him,” Vance told Charlie Rose in October 2016.
In Oct. 2016, Vance wrote on Twitter: “Trump makes people I care about afraid. Immigrants, Muslims, etc. Because of this I find him reprehensible. God wants better of us.”
“My God what an idiot,” Vance wrote on Twitter, also in 2016, in reference to Trump.
This is common sense,Sam's Trump-level-narcisism prevents him from understanding this perspective.Trump has his issues and many reasons not to vote for him,but opposing wokeness-even to the point of voting for him-is not being irrational or low-informed,but being consistent with the classic liberal principles and valuing western progress
Um, no. Some issues are far more important than wokeness. It's shortsighted and irrational to vote for this grossly unfit, despicable man -- for any reason.
Still don't understand how some people, including in the comments here, can act as though Trump is an existential threat. That argument made a lot more sense before 2016, but Trump was already president and the sky didn't fall down.
In my opinion it's foolish to vote for a candidate based on that candidate. What you're voting for is an entire machine, and the president is just one cog in that machine. What's more important than Trump, or Harris, are the institutions we have that work against those who wish to gain power. The people on Harris' side, like Kerry, believe that we are at the end of history, they have the one Truth, and they are extremely impatient to gain enough power to force that Truth upon everyone.
Colin says here that the woke stuff is THE issue, but I disagree somewhat. I think that THE issue is authoritarianism vs anti-authoritarianism, and Harris is clearly on the side of the former. She wants to remove the filibuster, accumulate even more power to the Executive office than has already accumulated over the last couple decades, and use that power to force everyone to see the Truth that her party believes in.
With Trump, he couldn't accumulate much power regardless of his desire to do so, because while he's in office the media and captured institutions are hostile to him and watching his every move. With Kamala as president they are complicit and perfectly willing to overlook whatever excesses she carries out.
Here's the argument against Trump. The only thing stopping Trump from really crazy things was the people around him, like Kelly, Barr, Esper, Milley, and Mattis, who have all said he is grossly unfit. There will be no such people next time. Trump said his only mistake was appointing disloyal people. Remember the time when half Obama's cabinet openly called him a monster and a threat to democracy? Me neither.
And the Supreme Court has now given him immunity for anything he wants to do.
Saying that Harris is the authoritarian candidate is laughable. Because of the filibuster? That's the ability of one person in the Senate to stop legislation through a bizarre procedural loophole. That's not a basic piece of democracy.
Trump is the candidate who openly expresses admiration and affection for authoritarian leaders. Putin is a war criminal and mass murderer. Trump loves him. He's not cozying up to him because of his savvy diplomacy.
Trump also waged a campaign to OVERTURN AN ELECTION, in addition to inciting a mob to breach the capital. Trump approved of the call the hang Mike Pence. He refuses to acknowledge that he lost the election. (He's so deluded he thinks he won the popular vote in 2016.) You can't get more anti-democratic.
I get voting for Trump because you dislike wokeness. But thinking it's a vote against authoritarianism makes no sense.
I usually appreciate Colin Wright’s opposition to what I will call radical gender ideology. But this article is the most inaccurate thing I’ve ever seen him write.
In this post, Wright essentially embraces the same type of authoritarianism that he ostensibly opposes. In other words, he abandons Liberalism. He does so explicitly. And he does so in an apparent attempt to save Liberalism. But that sort of misguided effort will never work. Liberalism must be saved by Liberalism; otherwise, it cannot be saved at all. And by unambiguously aligning himself with the illiberal Right (to oppose the illiberal Left) Wright has greatly undermined himself and discredited his argument against the Left.
“Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has expressed vehement opposition to wokeness … and has even signed the Stop WOKE Act, which prohibited the teaching of certain activist concepts surrounding race and gender in schools and businesses”
Anyone who believes in free speech needs to oppose DeSantis’s legislative censorship. If you don’t like wokeness, argue persuasively against it. But if you try to ban it, you are then adopting woke’s own censorious methods.
“This worldview challenges some of our most fundamental and valued beliefs … ‘equity’ demands that all disparities—whether in the workplace, the classroom, or the justice system—be eliminated to produce equal outcomes.”
Wright here indicates that he doesn’t even thoroughly understand his opponent’s argument, and that’s a classic sign of a closed mind. To be clear, I do not approve of the emphasis on equity. But I do believe in knowing what it is that I oppose. And the woke, in general, are not arguing for “equal outcomes.” There may of course be exceptions, but some of the most prominent woke voices are in fact arguing for proportional (not equal) racial outcomes. Fudging this point is, again, to Wright’s discredit.
“Importantly, woke ideology is not a marginal belief”
It most certainly is marginal. It has extremely little public support. It may be influential. It may have impact. But it is not a mass movement. Woke is so unpopular, in fact, that most people just assume that it’s arguing for equality of opportunity (it’s not). So even the tepid support that woke comes up with is based largely on granting it a benefit of the doubt that it does not deserve.
“Its impacts are profound and widespread, representing a degradation at the core of numerous values that Americans hold dear.”
Marginal movements of various elites can indeed be influential while staying distinctly marginal. Yes, it’s an important distinction. I personally believe wokeness to be a paper tiger (to some extent). It has some institutional support but close to zero public support.
“Let’s be clear: Trump is the anti-woke candidate.”
This is simply an unintelligent statement, and that genuinely surprises me coming from Wright. Trump demonstrates clear authoritarian tendencies. He tried to steal the 2020 election. The list of people or entities that Trump has tried to cancel (from Disney to every media outlet that criticizes him) is arguably longer than all of the woke cancellations put together. Simply put: Trump cannot be anti-woke because he’s an authoritarian. And woke is also authoritarian. They have that in common. And the only truly anti-woke people are the ones who disavow authoritarianism altogether.
“The woke ideologues possessing our institutions will not relinquish their power voluntarily, and will go absolutely bonkers in the process of losing it. Nevertheless, this should not deter us from initiating the exorcism process.”
This is a shockingly explicit endorsement of “by any means necessary.” This is the sort of statement that demagogues use to grab (and keep) power. It is not just illiberal, it is downright un-American. And if Wright had any sense he would feel deeply embarrassed for writing such a thing.
Now if someone wanted to write that both candidates are risky propositions, I would agree. I don’t like Harris’s promotion of equity. But only the Reactionary (MAGA) right has shown itself to be an explicit threat to our constitutional system (refusing to concede the election in 2020 and staging a deadly riot at the Capitol).
With Harris, there will certainly be differences to work out. But we can work them out within our system of Liberal democracy. We can’t work anything out, however, with a right wing movement that rejects the very legitimacy of that system altogether.
So vote Harris. And then hold her to account. And if you don’t like wokeness, here’s what you do: promote more dialog, not less. Promote pluralism, not purity. Work within the Liberal system, not outside of it. Otherwise you are no better than they are.
I think you are wrong or even deceitful if you want us to take reassurance that the woke seek not equal but only proportional outcomes. If by that you mean, Relax, we don’t want half the doctors to be black, only 13% of them, that would still be too many if the merit endowment of the black population means only 5% of them should be doctors. And if you want only 13% of prison inmates to be black, that is probably too few, given criminality. Using DEI to get undeserved *proportional* outcomes is still pernicious. Even more pernicious, really, because everyone knows that you can’t get the medical school classes to 50% black no matter what you do. But 13% might be do-able if you scrape the bottom of the barrel hard enough to get black bums in seats. That makes it evil. And illegal.
“I think you are wrong or even deceitful if you want us to take reassurance that the woke seek not equal but only proportional outcomes.”
There is nothing in my post indicating that I want anyone to take reassurance from that fact. In fact, here’s a challenge: please provide a quote from my post above where I give any such indication.
What you will find, if you actually read my post, is my repeated assertion that I do not approve of equity. My condemnation of the woke movement could scarcely be more obvious.
But you know what else needs to be called out? Columnists like Colin Wright who inadvertently undermine the fight against woke, and whip readers such as yourself into a frenzy, by spreading misinformation.
I’m obviously borrowing from JS Mill when I point out that we simply are not qualified to debate a topic without accurately knowing our opponent’s views. And, to his immense discredit, Wright shows in this column that he does not actually know the views of the woke movement that he spends the whole column arguing against.
“Using DEI to get undeserved *proportional* outcomes is still pernicious.”
Agreed. But you know what’s worse? Leading a failed coup attempt (in the form of both a legal campaign and a public riot) after you’ve lost your reelection bid as President of the USA.
Or actually filing a lawsuit against a national broadcaster because you don’t like how they edited an interview with your opponent. Tell me, in the last so many years of woke cancellation attempts, did the woke ever try any type of censorship as utterly brazen as Trump’s chilling lawsuit against CBS?
And the list goes on, as anyone who actually pays attention knows perfectly well. Trump is the canceller-in-chief. His knowledge of fundamental rights like the first amendment is so shockingly abysmal that he is openly campaigning on the idea of throwing flag burners in jail.
He is the dictionary definition of a demagogue come to life, and as such he is by far the greatest threat that our constitutional system currently faces. And that’s a hell of a lot scarier than some “pernicious” DEI.
So for the love of God and country vote Harris. Then we deal with DEI. And we deal with it legally. And persuasively. With malice towards none and with charity for all. Because that is the only approach that will in fact secure this country’s survival as a pluralistic and liberal democracy.
"But you know what’s worse? Leading a failed coup attempt" -- Whataboutism. Does not address the argument you're responding to.
"filing a lawsuit against a national broadcaster because you don’t like how they edited an interview with your opponent." -- Misleading. Editing a presidential candidate's words in order to change their meaning is considered election interference. At best, it's disinformation and thus hypocritical. At worst, it's illegal.
"did the woke ever try any type of censorship as utterly brazen...?" -- Worse. They've codified the criminalization of "hate speech" (aka protected speech) into law.
You cannot allow teachers to push the gender moron shit on kindergartners, which apparently you are comfy with. This is plain flat-out wrong, and perverted. This is what DeSantis is stopping.
What is obvious is that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. The Woke want equality of outcome. That motivates their push on race in policing where inequities in arrests are considered proof of racism. Get a fucking clue, Boz. Your complete idiocy is shown in the last sentence: "prominent woke voices are in fact arguing for proportional (not equal) racial outcomes" - we know that black criminal arrests should not be proportionate - they should be way higher than white arrests because blacks are criminals far more often. This is Basic Obvious Stuff.
Your violent and unhinged tone indicates that you are speaking in neither a rational nor a good faith manner.
“You cannot allow teachers to push the gender moron shit on kindergartners, which apparently you are comfy with.”
Your statement in fact raises good free speech questions, but your accusation is self-incriminating. There is nothing in my post that indicates that I’m comfy with the woke movement, so, in asserting as much, you indicate that you’re likely not a very prudent thinker or careful reader.
What I do assert (more or less) is that in a free society, we will all have to put up with speech that we don’t like. And if anyone argues against that idea (as I believe DeSantis has done), then they are an enemy of a free society, and as such I will not support them. In fact, I will oppose all enemies of our free society, utterly regardless of their Left or Right affiliations. And I encourage all good citizens to drop their tribal connections and do the same.
So, since we do need to defend free speech, what then is the correct response to school topics that we don’t personally like? I’m inclined to think that the answer is more pluralism and less (right or left wing) purity.
If you’re against indoctrination, I agree with you. But that may not be what you’re opposing. Rather, it sounds like you may instead be arguing for your own preferred form of indoctrination. Why?
Because insisting that students must accept a certain perspective can be just as radical as arguing that they must be denied a perspective that you don’t like.
So my own inclination is to increase the perspectives available to students, not censor them. There may indeed, as you indicate, be some age appropriate considerations, but your reference to kindergartners is so misleading that it may in fact be misinformation. DeSantis’s law impacts not just all grade levels but even businesses as well. And parts of it have already been declared unconstitutional in court.
Are you saying that our constitution must be overthrown in order to stop anyone in Florida from promoting woke social justice? If so, sorry, but you then become exactly like the woke censors you supposedly oppose.
And with age appropriate considerations in mind, I would say that kids in general can be taught about the “gender moron shit” that both of us dislike. Their heads won’t explode. But they should also be taught the controversies around “gender moron shit.” The conversation should be expanded, not limited.
Also you state: “Your complete idiocy is shown in the last sentence: ‘prominent woke voices are in fact arguing for proportional (not equal) racial outcomes’”
That is simply a statement of fact. That is an accurate description of what the “antiracist” movement is advocating. So, I’m not sure what your problem is with that point. Are you saying that you don’t want accurate info? That you don’t want to know what your opponents believe? You have provided an odd reaction when simply presented with reality. And that’s not a good sign.
Unfortunately kindergartners are being encouraged to obsess about which gender they are, which is particularly bad as they are actually developmentally supposed to begin to understand that stereotypes are not biological sex by this point. So it is crazy. You can probably see some of the books at a local library.
But no one will be able to hold Harris to account. Because she is being run, quite obviously, behind the scenes. And until we see who is holding those puppet strings we cannot hold them accountable. They will just shift and morph to whatever they need to to keep us under their power. I believe that the people pulling the strings are the uber rich corporate elite whose goal is to continue to grow and hold the power over the rest of us. I think that's what this fight is about.
To be perfectly blunt, Mary, you comment sounds paranoid and uninformed. If any of us find ourselves spreading conspiracy theories about puppets and puppet masters, we need to reevaluate our information sources, our online habits, and our life choices. And I wish all of us the best of luck with that endeavor.
On the contrary, Mary seems more informed, while you sound naive (with yet more condescension, ironically) about the inner workings and real agendas of the government and global elite.
I will set aside the clear condescension in your TDS-laden comment to address some specific points:
"if you try to ban [wokeness] you are then adopting woke’s own censorious methods." False equivalency. As Colin said, Critical Theory teaches ACTIVIST concepts, and is more akin to a religion. Both religion and activism have NO place being taught in the classroom. Banning it in schools is not censorship.
"the woke, in general, are not arguing for 'equal outcomes.'” -- The woke advocate for DEI. The 'E' stands for equity. Equity means equal outcomes.
"[Trump tried to steal the 2020 election." -- No. He claimed the election was stolen from him.
"entities that Trump has tried to cancel (from Disney to every media outlet that criticizes him)." -- Specifically, how did he try to cancel Disney? And critical media outlets?
"[Trump is] an authoritarian." -- How exactly?
"This is a shockingly explicit endorsement of 'by any means necessary.'” -- This is a strawman. How exactly is restoring our institutions to their pre-DEI states by exorcising woke ideology from them "illiberal" and "un-American?"
"staging a deadly riot at the Capitol" -- Hyperbolic and misleading. It was a peaceful protest of those who truly believed Biden did not win fairly, which turned violent due to the infiltration by FBI-agent and Antifa provocateurs.
"we can work [our differences] out within our system of Liberal democracy." -- Because that worked out so well over the last 4 years.
I agree with everything you said about wokeness. It has, and will, cause dreadful things on society. If the "Republican" candidate were anyone except tRump, I'd vote for them, even though I'm a classical liberal. However, tRump is much more dangerous than wokeism. If Kamala wins, we will still have a democracy and we can continue to fight against wokeism. If tRump wins, democracy looses. There will be no guardrails because tRump has learned how to keep all of the adults out of the room. He has already bought the Supreme Court. He will appoint only sickophants. He will hand Ukraine to Putin. Xi will take Taiwan. Who knows what will happen in the Middle East. And life will be hell in the USA. The best way to fight wokeism is to elect Kamala and continue to fight for reason. It's already beginning to happen. Some universities have already stopped using DEI. We can win, but only if Kamala and democracy win.
As always, think for yourself and vote for whoever you want. This is just my opinion, and I could very well be wrong!
You're not wrong. If Harris gets elected, we may never recover. She is an existential threat to free speech and the concept of the nuclear family, choice in education, etc. The state will decide what is best for children, not the parents. It will be a horror show. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 but I sure as hell am voting for him now!
It might be a "horror show" for you, Margaret, but if Trump is elected, it will be a horror show for the world!
How could you even think of voting for this man? Yesterday, he performed simulated oral sex on his microphone stand. For heaven's sake, Trump should have nothing to do with any decision making that affects the lives of people. He is amoral!
I'm voting Trump.
When you vote for a person, you actually vote for a party. The Dem Party is the party of perverts like Robert Levine (who goes by Rachel), drag queens, child mutilation, falsehoods about sex, and DEI. The Republicans will stop all of that from going forward.
By voting for Trump, you are voting for a pervert. Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse. Recently, several women have accused Trump of sexual abuse, and these will go to trial after the elections, together with the three other trials that have been delayed by the election. On top of all of this are the recently released Epstein tapes that appear to claim that Trump had sex with under age girls, and a lot more to come!
As for his running mate, I really don't want to go into his proclivities! I could go down the list of Republicans who have been involved in the types of activities you have mentioned, but why bother? You can check that out for yourself.
Having said all of that, you will find VP Harris above all of that messy stuff, who is intent on running the country for all Americans, especially those who are in need. Give her a chance and then evaluate her performance at the next election.
As far as the pervert Tampon Tim, who Kamala selected, he signed a law making mutilation of children the rule in MN.
She's a whore who serviced Willy Brown, adulterously, to get ahead. So, no, I don't vote for her.
A whore? You say you don't like Trump, but you sound a lot like him. You apparently don't respect women any more than he does.
This has been said about every woman who's gotten ahead in business or politics since I started working in 1983. It was pathetic then and it's pathetic now. You give a bad name to all old white men. Frankly, I believe 95% of you would blow Trump if he gave you half a chance. And I mean literally.
Your crude comments don't contribute to the conversation. No one wants to listen to anyone, of any political persuasion, go on ad hominem rants. Brown had separated from his wife long before he dated Harris. Yes, she slept with a man 30 years her senior and got a government job from him.
God what a nasty remark. Yeah, hard to believe but only by being romantically involved with an important political figure could she have achieved what she did. Her middle class upbringing, politically active parents, her remarkable education that focused on building powerful women, law school and experience mean nothing. Get lost.
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace.
Between studies done from the National Blood Bank on Parental Fraud we find the 1/3 of the children had the wrong father listed, and since the 90,000 mothers make a good sample of all Modern Western Womanhood, we can say that on average 1/3 of women can and do [life-destroying] lies to those they profess to love; husbands, lovers, children, rest of family, as well as community & secular authorities.
In a study of Rape Accusations filed by police if was found that near 80% were false, and yet unlikely those women were punished at all or near to the reputational, employment, family, lifelong whispers and targeting, .., damages that the men faced, with women often rewarded for lying about rape, ..
.. and many cases of public use to attack Political and other men of significant power, False Witnessing for political uses.
(Assange was accused by the Nation of Sweden when his lovers rejected the accusation, Sweden use it to extradite and to greatly reduce support in that most women and society assumes guilt, and the falsely accused are often life-time punished even if shown to be innocent.)
But we can gather that not less than 80% of Accusations from women are lies, and that any Rape Accusation with proof is like a lie, and the Accuser should be punished to some degree that the man does suffer to the years in prison he would if found guilty - as the vicious lying woman wanted of him.
Interestingly enough those studies and similar were once easily found on Google, but have been 'disappeared' as Evil mind-raping became their policy. What corp-Satanic reason, or is it protective VagFeelie excused lies?
So, when I hear such accusations made against political [white] man, I assume that the accuser is lying and those that pass it on are vile vicious man-hating lying delusional Toxic psychopathic women that Poison all near them and destroying society.
Misogyny does not have one meaning, it can and does also mean the distrust of women - and should be the default for all the West towards them .. until they gain self-group control from the lying baby-killing male-hating walking toxic nightmare many are.
God Bless., Steve
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace.
One other recent public example of State use of false Rape accusation, to attack Fatherhood in general.
Remember many people's favorite TV father, at a time when no-fault divorce - and wives & mothers marrying the State - had created a generation of fatherlessness in not only Black community but through the destroyed middle-classes, that roll played by Bill Cosby as a doctor and ideal father, a head of a decent family?
Many then boys and girls and young men and women took his roll as an ideal of fatherhood, and so modeled themselves and what the seek in a husband after that roll - after him.
Of course, at the time he was attractive, and wealthy and women were getting in line to do drugs and have sex with him - often in hopes he would diverse and remarry them.
Years later the State in wanting to damage not only Fatherhood but injure those people who integrated that roll into themselves, the State found some bitter old women that sought and consented to drugs and sex with him, and were still resentful their plans never resulted in marrying him, and used them to attack our TV Father, and anchor to so many of that generation who needed a Father.
Of course, when he was found not guilty in the first trial, they retried him - against Double-Jeopardy it seems - because media and women demanded him guilty, vindicative vile vicious male-hating horrors that so many are.
> By voting for Trump, you are voting for a pervert.
Nonsense. Trump isn't a pervert he's a lecher. He's rich and famous and like so very many other rich and famous men he scores as frequently as he can, which is quite frequently.
"Scores?" Are you in fifth grade in 1980?
As you said, many, not all. There are lots of perverted people out there. I think the attitude is important. Trumps attitude toward women is misogynistic. He doesn’t just score…he assaults.
Interesting that you say a vote for the person is a vote for the political party. In Trump's case that is no longer true. The GOP and Trump have merged into one beast. Trump took over when all the never-Trumpers lost their principles and caved to his will. "He said Republican politicians would be easy to break. He was right," says Mark Leibovich in this Atlantic magazine article that sums up Trump's takeover: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/10/trump-gop-support-jd-vance-2024/679564/
You didn't acknowledge that the Atlantic is a deep State mouthpiece
Magic words, caved to his will
I'm unaware of times in my past where I've caved to anyone's will
Trump will pull in GOP control of all of government.
"How could you even think of voting for this man?"
The question you ask is answered in the article you are commenting on. If you feel the cons of Trump outweigh the pros of voting anti-woke, vote accordingly. Just don't dismiss the points Colin made as false or meaningless. They are serious and backed up by mountains of evidence.
The point is, Scott, why would people want an unrepentant sexual abuser, a person who has currently a number of accusations of sexual abuse made against him pending and "mountains of evidence" of underage
abuse of girls coming out of the Epstein tapes to be the President of the United States?
Did you read the article? Those are Colin's reasons and he encourages you to think for yourself. Of course Trump is a cretin, although your Epstein take is a bit thin and could apply to many other men. I won't attempt to detail the remarkable harm that Progressives have wrought, and aspire to continue, but I suspect you are less familiar with this than you could be. The fact that they dominate the media and academia is of great concern to many thoughtful people. I'll be writing in my choice as I believe both candidates are genuinely dangerous and authoritarian in their own ways.
Agree 1,000%
If you're not aware of her father's Marxist professorship at an ivy League university and her husband's slapping a previous girlfriend and her quotes of unburdened coming straight from the Communist manifesto, you are now, she's a malignant malevolent nefarious maoist
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Peace.
How right you are Margaret, and although Trump is a Zionist, it is likely that he will have more freedom of actions that benefit us, not as much of the endless wars, genocides, Western social, family, Womanhood, Manhood, Fatherhood, institutional, Judicial, .. destruction we have suffered a good part or all our lives.
Since 'money is speech' and the Billions and Billions we add to our debt and send abroad is returned to those that bride, threaten, black-mail, .. in Capturing of Gov and forming the DeepState, none of us can expect that only a Black-Swan event such as Nuclear War can relieve us of the Satanic Oppression and control over our and world's lives and situation - for those that survive.
All that said, after Obama increased racial anti-white hate, what horrors of same and sexism-based nightmares could we expect from her?
I saw a decent video about why she was not voted in, and I added some extra not covered in the video;
--
Perhaps it is time for many to reconsider the Sickness in Politics and our Godless selves?
About blaming 'racism' perhaps one might consider the fact we had a black man as president that actively increased racism, what feminist horrors would a black women vomit on us all? Expectedly one who was directly responsible for enslaving men in private prison by not releasing them when due, as I will mention here with other aspects. Perhaps your Class has isolated you from the reality most of our population (and likely your countries') but can you imagine the deeper levels of Hell most of us would be in if she won?
.. Once people accept that white men are the least racist group that exists now Christian values have been crushed throughout commie-Satan West, where most mothers killing our babies, mutilating our children, raising us all to accept insanity and evil as 'acceptable', actively destroying fatherhood, families, truth, justice, good order, and when most have power sexually-abusing is disrespect and hurt men and boys under their power.
A decent video;
"10 Reasons Why Kamala LOST!"
by Sabby Sabs
https://youtu.be/AEhX7NSUV1s
Two points not mentioned in that video, but connected;
1. When she had power over others in gov years before, she refused to release men from prison when sentence was over - because they were working as forced-slaves in private prison. What kind of monster is she, and when she has power over us all, and world-wide?
2. That the corp-media refused to address or report this. And no alt-media seem to know this, and me and any others that did were without a voice, or like I face daily when discussing Gaza or other topics with details that mind-raping corp-gov controllers of communication (of YouTube, Facebook, or other social media) think you should not know, and those that would kill me (monsters like Harris, supporters of genocide,.. ) if I became effective.
Abortion aspects not in video;
Kamala Harris would climb a mountain of during-birth torn-apart baby-parts, and those that might not be pro-life realize that such people that support this, and perhaps most all women have turned into monsters that are machines-for-hell spreading soul-poison to all they have authority, influence, and interactions with, that a policy of forced-silence and perhaps humane limited isolation of such unrepentant horrors before they poison untold more for the rest of their lives, or until repentance and change of life-values.
What if Kamala Harris said at every political event this below, how many more votes would she have gotten?
"I was imaging a country less than a century old that 90% of them were either murdering-pedo or supported them, and that around the world to powerful people and families controlling gov.s were both kid-napping - sexually-torture them to death on private islands - or sending them to this country or using our tax-dollars and the banking-investing world-wide power to support that country.
And they will not Stop. Even if the populations of the world See them doing this, and corp-gov-media supporting and hiding it.
Who would you call a Nazi or such if it was suggested that such a concentration of evil and horror-souls, unrepentant country be removed with nukes - if needed - but stopped and those unrepentant made gone? That since only the very powerful wealthy or those in significant position throughout all gov could be identified - that they be removed, before any more young children are tortured to death by psychotic sexual demons-possessed peoples?
Call such people what names, beside decent God-Fearing protectors of Children, Families, societies, nations and humanity, Or Nazis? Terrorists?
What the hell is wrong with you? Is your acceptance of mothers killing our babies affecting you like a demonic-voice you cannot refuse?
(Inquiring minds want to know.)"
As long as the ADL and those offshore and internal controllers of our gov-Empire policies of endless destruction, horror, death, Hell for us and world-wide, can you imagine anyone they allow us to see, allow us to think or discuss - saying that or similar? If they were part of the system mentioned?
Would you be ashamed to be call names like Nazis or Terrorist for supporting those willing to put their lives on line, since we are too castrated in West by our Sick motherhood, vile male-hating women teachers of young, most [retarded, baby-killing, mutilating children & supporters of] women and gov.s-corp-media and other Significant mind-raping population contempt-filled controlling Institutions such murdering-pedo horrors own?
God Bless., Steve
Excellent article! You address the fact that woke ideology and the behavior of its adherents are a lot more than "a right wing talking point." I have found it really difficult to express in a concise way why I think it is a much bigger deal than that, and is in fact the "existential threat" that everyone in Western Civ should be fighting. Your article is a strong effort to compose a concise argument against woke. The more successful we can be in articulating what threats the woke movement poses to civilization and to the freedoms we once took for granted, the more successful we will be in raising citizens' consciousness about how to reverse its momentum.
Outstanding article Mr. Right!! (yes I intended to spell it that way)
Great opinion story. I came away from listening to the Harris v Shapiro 'debate' thinking that Harris mainly is gambling on the effectiveness of guardrails for one candidate over another. I'm inclined to think that because Trump is such a loose cannon that guardrails will be stronger. With Kamala Harris we will definitely have more of the entrenched 'woke' and the guardrails will be lax, like we have now. I don't think Sam Harris has been personally touched by any of the issues that have brought a regular lifer Dem to cast a ballot for Trump, with the exception of Israel but on that he gives Kamala grace.
There will be no guardrails with Trump. Believing that guardrails will protect us from his authoritarianism and incompetence is naive.
Are you kidding?? You couldn't be more wrong. The guardrails you speak up should have disqualified Trump YEARS ago. Impeachments, indictments, and an election loss that should have ended his career have not stopped him. Every horrible, despicable thing he says gets excused or overlooked by his supporters. He can do nothing that would cost him their votes, and that's terrifying. This is a cult of personality we are dealing with, and guardrails aren't stopping him now. What makes you think they'd reign him in if he got elected again?
Yes, I could be wrong. The risks are great with both candidates and they are acting reprehensibly in plain sight.
I agree !
Yup. I reached the same conclusion. I vote the closest to my values, not for perfection or any particular slate or blue no matter who nonsense. Even though I'm a Democrat, I'm not progressivist. It's a struggle to live in Seattle and suffer from one-party zealotry. If the fundamentalists from both parties could be tuned out and moderates from both parties surged, then real stable progress can be made. I know it's possible. To move in that direction requires a vote for Trump. I'm good with that.
There is no excuse to vote for that rapist POS. I can imagine what a nightmare it is to live in Seattle. I live in California. But there is so much more to this election than "wokeness". Maybe you should move. I am moving out of the SF Bay Area to a more politically moderate area to get away from this bullshit, but I am STILL a Dem, and my values are still humane and sane.
You will move away from the results of progressive stupidity, but you will remain a stupid progressive and vote to destroy your new residential area. Your neighbors will NOT thank you.
Don't Californicate the rest of the US.
🎯
Donald Trump is only a rapist in the sense that a jury in a civil suit thought it more likely than not that he had sexually assaulted what’s-er-name 30 years ago but less likely than so that he actually penetrated her. This is not a finding of criminal guilt of anything beyond reasonable doubt, the standard even an unpleasant human being should be able to rely on before someone calls him a rapist POS.
Making excuses for his egregious behavior is exactly what Trump counts on. Did you hear what he said about Liz Cheney? And you're okay with that? I can't imagine letting him get away with it.
Unfortunately, conservatives are braindead on 99% of the issues because they genuinely don't care about women or children, or basic civil rights, the environment, the economy, or world politics. They hate trans ideology because they are essentially knee-jerk homophobic bigots. I've been a liberal all of my life, and the idiocy of wokeism isn't going to change that. You and I see and understand the nuances of the issues. Trumpers don't have the capacity to parse it out. All we can do is keep trying to explain it, and hope some portion of reality is absorbed by osmosis.
Your first sentence tells people that you are filled with hate. You can only blame the internet for some of that. The rest is on you.
Half the country seems willing to. What are you going to do if they do? Are you questioning the peaceful transfer of power? You might have to adjust your window of what you can imagine. 48% seems enough for him to win, given the Electoral College. If your candidate was any good, surely she’d be beating a guy like him 70:30.
You didn't answer the question, but that's to be expected. I have no idea why you think I'm questioning the peaceful transfer of power. It's Trump who has a problem with accepting the outcome of an election he doesn't win. He even said the 2016 election was rigged, but only because he thought he was losing.
It's beyond disappointing that Trump's supporters don't care what he says or does. I understand that it's because they're caught up in his personality cult and they're attracted to authoritarianism, but the rest of the country watches them in horror.
Her unburdened quote came straight from the Communist manifesto, her father is a Marxist ivy league professor, her daughter fundraises for Gaza and has an odd modeling career despite her looks, pay for play in the same way that Hunter got paid for his mediocre paintings equals access to politicians
https://www.youtube.com/live/X4JY10OAhxE?si=YGtvFDNsjApDXH-M
I might well do that in the future, but I still have some fight in me and I have some ideas for bipartisanship so I’ll work on that for a little bit longer before I jump out
Have you watched E.gene Carroll's interviews where she gleefully discusses women's rape fantasies with Gloria Vanderbilt's son?
Trump could score any gal he wanted and he would rape her?
For an objective article, it sure is triggering the TDS in many here, like yours
Tell me you're not aware of Joe biden's naked showering with his daughter and the dozens of sniffing incidents and his daughter attributing her drug addiction to his odd inappropriate behavior, or even better Joe's relationship with his wife and his wife's relationship as a prior babysitter, and Hunter oh Hunter how much for the big guy?
"If the fundamentalists from both parties could be tuned out and moderates from both parties surged, then real stable progress can be made."
Yes, we need to have majority rule back again in the U.S.
Oh dear. Majority rule leads to the mobilis vulgatus voting to loot the Treasury for themselves. And when that runs out, they’ll pillage one another. You absolutely do not want majority rule.
"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chose the President. But in chosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice."
The U.S. Constitution balances majority rule with minority rights, the latter mostly accomplished via amendments. When minority preferences override those of the majority our form of government is no longer functioning according to the plan of its creators.
Specifying that the Electors from the States shall vote as a majority is not the same as allowing every ignorant lazy fool who lives in those states to vote for those Electors (and legislators and judges and DAs and sheriffs and dogcatchers.) When the U.S. Constitution was written the suffrage was limited to male owners of property, as it was in contemporary Parliamentary monarchies elsewhere. Once you allow every adult to vote, you have a very different kind of majority from what the Founding Fathers envisioned. So minoritarian rule becomes more important, vital even, to prevent communism, not just to protect individual rights to liberty.
That doesn’t sound very democratic. Which adults should be denied a vote?
It’s not meant to be democratic. It’s meant to be a brake against the dangers of untrammelled democracy. In a pure democracy where everyone votes on everything, the majority can vote to suppress ideas it doesn’t like or pass laws that victimize a minority, or the poor (who are numerous) can vote to loot the rich. This is what a dictatorship of the proletariat theoretically is, although in practice it becomes a dictatorship by one dictator. Once people without property can vote, they can vote to end the right to own property so they can steal it. Fortunately Americans show no sign of being willing to do that. But you do hear a lot of progressive Democrats bellyaching about the majority that elected Donald Trump. Bet you they’re not so keen on “democracy” now.
If you allowed only property owners and people with businesses, even small businesses like hairdressers and plumbers, to vote, the Democratic progressive coalition of renters and welfare recipients would never get near power. Wealthy Hollywood celebrity property-owners wouldn’t be numerous enough, against the hairdressers and plumbers, to elect anyone. The government would still need the consent of the people to govern. It just wouldn’t be “those people.”
This is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek thought experiment because obviously no one currently eligible to vote is going to agree to have his vote taken away from him, so it will never happen. My point is only to answer the OP: We don’t have pure democracy now, never did, and our governments in democracies are all deliberately set up to avoid the dangers of pure democracy because of what mob rule will do: the poor will loot the rich and when that money is gone they will loot each other.
Four or five years ago very few people dared to openly oppose wokeness and related ideas. Now that’s actually happening openly, even in liberal spaces. To me, voting for Trump to end wokeness is a mistake, it’s much more effective to work against it on a local level, while staying off social media.
Thank you for saying this. I've been thinking a lot about how to oppose these harmful ideas, and I don't think it's by voting in authoritarian right-wing governments who also see and target the problem. I think it's about winning the war of ideas, one mind at a time, through in-person discussion on a local level. So that's what I've started doing with my own MLA, colleagues, and friends.
Perfectly reasonable approach, but good luck to you changing the minds of people who's very identity is built on an arrogant ignorance of the issues and contempt for other people. By questioning a Progressive's beliefs, you are committing heresy and will be relegated to "them" status.
This is why hard conversations should happen in the context of relationship, and in-person, not online through snippets of information. People change their minds slowly, but it is possible. It’s much harder to “other” a person about whom you feel positively.
That is not my experience, and I live in the progressive hellscape that is Portland, Or. But it doesn’t happen online.
Good for you and keep it up. Sadly I am familiar with many examples of the opposite. Criticize Progressive dogma and you are immediately defined as an ignorant Trumper. Progressives need permission from their thought leaders in the media to change their opinions. When NPR and the New York Times finally acknowledge that sex changes for vulnerable teens are based on ideology, not evidence, Progressives will claim to have been concerned about this all along, and that rushing to transition was actually very rare. There will be no repercussions for the media or Dem politicians. In the meantime, I see no indication that people will respond to facts. Their whole sense of self is tied to being one of the "good" people fighting against ugly rubes.
It might change a little now? Or, admittedly, it might get much worse.
Ever heard of the Braver Angels organization? It's of course a select group of people, but it has been a pretty transformational for me, talking to more people of different political convictions in a few months than I had for years before.
The point here is valid, but it seems to gloss over that a vote for Ttump is a vote endorsing cronyism, loyalty to boss over ethics, endorsing blatant lies, disrespect, etc. All choices are a this or that, so one cannot only look at longterm effects of this but also longterm effects of that.
I think it's just the opposite! Kamala is the embodiment of cronyism. Corporate cronyism. She is an avatar for whoever is controlling her, as in crony corporations, and we will all be at their mercy. Sadly, it is abundantly clear that she is not making any of these decisions. Whoever is running her and writing her teleprompter stuff is getting her to back off on her extreme positions such as providing gender reassignment surgery for inmates. Even more worrying, is the fact that she has no international ties or relationships with anyone. And since she's incapable of clear thought without a teleprompter, I worry very much about her interacting with international leaders. She will leave us vulnerable. Trump's appearance on the Joe Rogan show illustrated that he is lucid.
There are many, I assume dozens of examples of Donald Trump engaging in cronyism. One of the most high profile ones was his son in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Kushner The examples are probably numerous enough that I doubt it makes sense to make a list of them. If you are aware of examples of Kamala Harris engaging in cronyism, feel free to post them. "Corporate Cronyism" is something different. However, if you are aware of even one case of corporate cronyism of Kamala Harris, I will be happy to learn about that also. You've also raised issues about how well they can perform within certain areas, which is a reasonable thing to talk about, but is a bit different from the values associated with their political actions (that one is implicitly endorsing by their vote), which is what I wish to discuss in this thread.
I agree with everything you say wholeheartedly, except your conclusion. I even use your cartoon to illustrate my political unhousedness, we just end up in different places about how to push back.
I respectfully disagree here. A vote for Trump is indeed a gamble, but maybe not the one you think.
There is never a right time to elect the wrong person, and Donald Trump is about as wrong as it gets. He is petty, incurious, vindictive, arrogant, avaricious, and egotistical. He's got thirty-four felony convictions and has been indicted for about sixty more. He's been found civilly liable for fraud, sexual assault, and defamation ABOUT that sexual assault. He's been impeached more than any other president. As has been said, he possesses none of the qualities you'd want in a president, and all of the ones you wouldn't.
Sure, Trump opposes wokeness, but not because he has some kind of ideological objection. Trump has no ideology; he is 100% transactional. He's giving his base what *they* want, not what he wants. so while he's whacking at weird leftists, he's *also* breaking laws left and right, fumbling foreign policy, putting his cronies in positions of power for which they are as unsuited as he is, and generally sowing chaos. Is that worth opposing DEI?
Obviously, people can vote as they choose, but no one should kid themselves that Trump is the lesser of two evils. He's the greater of just about ALL evils.
No one can be truly guilty of 34 felonies. A lot of us foreigners see his legal troubles brought by his own failings but aggravated by a campaign to do him in that began in 2015.
Of course he can be guilty of 34 felonies! Don't fall his lies and excuses. Trump plays the victim, but it's a sham.
Donald Trump is a woman-hating psychopath. There is NO excuse to vote for him. The trans frenzy is already spiraling the drain. Everyone is fed up with their demands, and the backlash is gaining momentum. I'm not going to vote to burn the world down over a few assholes.
In New York State, ballot Proposal 1 inserts trans frenzy into the state constitution with "gender expression" and "gender identity" included in a laundry list of extra protected classes like "pregnancy choices.' I do not see it spiraling down the drain. On a zoom call with protectkidsny.org, seeking to defeat the proposal and save girls' and women's sports, a pediatrician who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan is asking if this organization can please organize meetings for doctors, to do the work that the actual AMA, APA and AAP should be doing, to admit to physicians that there is no valid research supporting the iatrogenic harms of "affirmative care." Others on the call were exciting, thinking she could help get the word out. She said she's silenced by the AAP and by the hospital she's affiliated with, where those surgeries are carried out. I do not see Pink Mist cult floating away any time soon, unfortunately.
And with the Biden Admin, which is fully endorsed by Cackles Heels-up Harris, they are suing states and schools to force the misreading of Title IX on schools. Cackles will continue this perversion of Title IX
The doesn't justify supporting a monster like Donald Trump being given control of the free world.
Then just vote out AOC. Or are all Republicans who are trying to put the brakes on this dangerous ideology tainted, and we have to go around saying what our "assigned sex at birth" is and be forced to change our speech at all times for a "kink" hobbyist like swimmer, Will/Lia Thomas?
I would LOVE to see AOC voted out. She's dangerously stupid.
Well, thanks for that.
How is he "woman-hating" or a "psychopath?"
He's a serial rapist who supports allowing states to decide the legal restrictions that they want to apply to abortion and birth control. Seriously, your question is beyond stupid.
Oh, you mean he "raped" some old has-been woman whose civil (not criminal) lawsuit was funded by Adam Shitface and slipped in under a special statute-of-limitations exception carved out just for her? The hag who couldn't even tie down the right year? Oh, that one? Beyond stupid that the NY legal system allowed such a farce.
I'm more concerned about the UNDER-AGED GIRLS he raped with Jeffrey Epstein's assistance. Apparently, you hate women as much as Trump does.
How can you not see that he is???
The answer offered does not address cat's question? She is asking for evidence. You offer disapproval and imply she should see the world in the way you do. Not at all persuasive.
I didn't offer evidence (though I have loads of it), because that isn't what she wants. She is already certain she is right, and no one will convince her otherwise. So, why bother? I mean, it could hardly be more obvious that Trump is a woman-hating psychopath, but MAGA voters are blind to the reality of Donald Trump. There's nothing that would convince these people not to vote for him.
You may believe evidence isn’t what she wants, but it is what she asked for. If you can, it’s best to give people what they ask for. Once they receive it, reality presents them the opportunity to decide if they were wrong. It provides them the opportunity to struggle with themselves, not you.
Trumpers are indeed a special breed of devoted nutjobs. Just so you know, I have attempted many times to "Like" your comments but the system is not allowing me for some reason. Maybe you have to be a paying subscriber? It's odd that I can reply but not like, sorry. I do enjoy your comments very much. <3
Once again, cat is asking for evidence. She’s responding to irrational and unverified accusations. In this situation it is absolutely the most intelligent thing to ask for. Cat is asking Ms. Lee to “prove it,” to prove the allegations! Show me the evidence!
It is the Supreme Court, not Donald Trump, that recently decided there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate a woman has a right to an abortion. Thus abortion is not a federal issue and becomes an issue for each of the states to decide.
I can see you are angry, lashing out at Mr. Trump, calling him names because you’re not getting your way. I imagine that must feel really really frustrating. Calling people nasty names is an attempt to control them, to get them to do what you want. Trying to control other people does not usually work very well. Not for either party.
You have placed yourself into the same situation as Ms. Stanley. Thus my response to her now applies to you also.
Ms. Lee, I just saw your post acknowledging both your inability to get the “like” button to work and your appreciation of my previous post. Thank you. ( I hope I got that right)
Colin, I really appreciate your analysis of "Critical Social Justice Theory," and how you link the various driving theories and provide examples of how they play out. I mostly have liberal friends, and I mostly feel like I'm the only one who sees the enormity and scope of this problem, and how embedded it is in our culture and policies (for example, here in Canada, "gender identity" is a protected category alongside "sex" which is problematic in numerous ways). Your analysis accurately incorporates the various tenets and driving forces of this ideology.
However, I also disagree with your conclusion. There is an asymmetry between the threat of authoritarian critical social justice ideology - as pernicious and widespread as it is - and a sitting president who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as Sam frequently states). Fighting left-wing authoritarianism with right-wing authoritarianism is completely misguided. And in Trump's case, it is so threatening to the existence of the institutions and norms that protect the very "arena" in which ideas can be argued about.
I will add also that Sam is not just a "noted Trump critic" but also a "noted woke critic." It's important to be clear what we are against here. We should be against irrationality, ideologically-driven decision-making, and authoritarianism of all kinds. This debate between Christopher Rufo and Yascha Mounk (on Bari Weiss's podcast Honestly) highlights the two different approaches. I agree wholeheartedly with Mounk here: wokeness must be fought by winning the war of ideas, not by enacting countering authoritarian legislation or methods.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000643146358
I don't know what it's like to be a public intellectual without a political home. I have benefitted greatly from the ideas you put forward here, and I send many of your articles to my friends and colleagues. I include Eva Kurilova in this as well, and many of her guest posts on this site. But just as Eva's credibility is undermined by her schilling for ALL of our provincial UCP's policies, so is yours by not recognizing the threat that right-wing authoritarianism and policies are to liberalism and democracy. The ends cannot justify the means.
Thanks for the podcast link
You bet! It was a good one.
Your comment could not be more timely right now btw (just happened to reread it) “wokeness must be fought by winning the war of ideas, not by enacting countering authoritarian legislation or methods.” 👌
https://www.hpluckrose.com/p/seriously-what-is-going-wrong-with?r=jyjfn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You might appreciate this article by Helen Pluckrose as well!
Thanks Lisa! I wish things weren't playing out like this... but here we are.
I am voting for Trump. I dislike Trump. I think he's an idiot. I will vote for Trump.
A vote for Dems is a vote for crime, trannie insanity, mutilation of children, open borders, gender stupid, DEI, CRT, and all of the other progressive ideology madness. A vote for GOPs is a vote for family, sense, clarity of mission, and not Woke.
It's simple, really.
It's simple, but not in the way you think it is. And you aren't voting for what you think you are.
Most Democrats are not woke. They don’t talk about it because it’s not worth doing battle with activists. Trump is a threat to democracy across the globe. You’ve done great work focusing on the science of gender. If you had stuck to that, most Democrats would end up on your side. By siding with the MAGA craziness, you’ve thrown away your influence outside the Republican Party in exchange for their warm embrace. Such a shame.
This is what I see in Eva Kurliova as well. She has been a strong, much-needed voice in defending sanity in our provincial politics here in Alberta around gender issues. But then she goes further, defending and plugging the UCP provincial government in its entirety, unable to criticize them for their authoritarianism and ideologically-driven decisions. I imagine it's incredibly difficult as a public intellectual/writer to take heat from both sides of the political spectrum, but this is why I appreciate Sam Harris so much. He's as critical of the left's insanity as he is of the right's, and his stances - even if you disagree with certain conclusions - are always grounded in clear-thinking and evidence.
I have sent numerous articles from Reality's Last Stand to my friends and colleagues, pointing them toward rationality around the gender issue. But if there's ideological capture happening over here, it completely undermines the credibility of the source.
Very well said. I also seek out sources that are not political, or at least are not right-leaning. In the minds of my liberal friends, the views expressed on gender ideology, DEI or wokeism are completely discredited if the source leans to the right. There are liberals who hate this ideology too, and I want to hear more from them.
Totally! Being gender-critical is completely congruent with progressive ideas and values. Most of the people I know who are pro gender-affirming care are well-intentioned but severely confused about this issue, just like the kids/youth they are trying to help. Presenting them with facts that challenge their unquestioned endorsement of gender-affirming care, and showing them that their stance actually goes against their own values, can be effective for changing their minds.
I too think it's a strategic mistake.
It *should* be an across-the-board issue.
Of course it got politicized, but a) a lot of Democratic support for it is superficial and/or opportunistic, and b) it's already disintegrating.
There are precious few places that aren't pledging their allegiance to one party or another. If you abandon you impartiality everything you do, or have done, becomes suspect.
The items that you list as falling under the rubric of wokeness can indeed be irritating at times. But "wokeness" is not going to take over and ruin the country. And Trump is not a bastion against the underlying philosophical movements that provide the underpinnings for wokeness (post modernism derived CRT, Queer Theory) as well as colonialism. Trump has no intellectual depth, and at the end of the day he is all about Donald Trump, his fortune, his aggrandizement, his own power. He'll do noting about "wokeness". In fact, as Sam Harris points out the could be a resurgence of "wokeness" under Trump. "Wokeness" has been fading. DEI programs are losing their luster. Certainly woke oriented publications will still show up in 3rd rate social oriented journals. But there have always been 3rd rate social oriented journals for as long as I can remember (I'm 69). In science the woke issues you mention, largely related to gender issue, are in retreat. Crap that purports to "queer" some aspect of science will not last - pubs may still show up for a bit, but they won't become main stream. I'll have to say that the "queering" of science was something I had not heard of until about a year ago until I retired even though I had spent the last 10 years of my career working for an instrumentation company that was providing imaging systems for neurobiology and genomics researchers and was in weekly contact with scientists at places like Harvard, MIT, Columbia, U Penn, U California, Pasteur Institute, U College London, Max Planck Institute, etc. and never heard about queering of anything.
In terms of First Amendment issues, While Walz and Kerry made comments about misinformation (like the garbage that is spouted on X and its ilk), don't worry, unlike the UK, we actually have that amendment in our constitution, and its already withstood test, and certainly the current court would uphold any challenge. Interesting that in this piece you did not glorify Elon Musk as a defender of the first amendment like you did in the version of this essay on X. Musk's involvement in X is for his own ego and glorification. But I guess when you post there you need to lick boots and grovel to help ensure a personal revenue flow.
Your points are worth consideration. But another thing that I think about is the fact that Tulsi Gabbard has joined Trump. I deeply respect her and her views. And JD Vance is also solid. I think that looking at the people he is surrounding himself with this time around is enough, at least for me, to believe that he is the person we need to fight back not against the left, or even woke( which I see as the child of far progressive leanings), but they are who we need to keep the freedom of speech and freedom in general as a nation.
JD Vance is intelligent, but untrustworthy. For me, the bottom line is that he refuses to admit Trump lost in 2020 or promise he would follow his constitutional duty to certify the votes in a presidential election. That's a deal breaker.
Furthermore, look at the comments Vance made about Trump back in 2016, before he became a Trump toady:
(Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/15/jd-vance-donald-trump-comments-00168450)
In 2016, Vance sent a message to his law school roommate in which he wrote that he went “back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole…or that he’s America’s Hitler.”
In an April 2016 op-ed for The New York Times, Vance wrote: “Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”
During a 2016 interview, Kentucky radio host Matt Jones told Vance: “I cannot stand Trump because I think he’s a fraud…I think he’s a total fraud that is exploiting these people.” Vance responded: “I do too…I don’t think he actually cares about folks.”
in August 2016, Vance said: “I think that I’m going to vote third party because I can’t stomach Trump. I think that he’s noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.”
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy. I never liked him,” Vance told Charlie Rose in October 2016.
In Oct. 2016, Vance wrote on Twitter: “Trump makes people I care about afraid. Immigrants, Muslims, etc. Because of this I find him reprehensible. God wants better of us.”
“My God what an idiot,” Vance wrote on Twitter, also in 2016, in reference to Trump.
You're wrong about that - Wokeness IS destroying the country.
So true, go woke go broke.
This is common sense,Sam's Trump-level-narcisism prevents him from understanding this perspective.Trump has his issues and many reasons not to vote for him,but opposing wokeness-even to the point of voting for him-is not being irrational or low-informed,but being consistent with the classic liberal principles and valuing western progress
Um, no. Some issues are far more important than wokeness. It's shortsighted and irrational to vote for this grossly unfit, despicable man -- for any reason.
Still don't understand how some people, including in the comments here, can act as though Trump is an existential threat. That argument made a lot more sense before 2016, but Trump was already president and the sky didn't fall down.
In my opinion it's foolish to vote for a candidate based on that candidate. What you're voting for is an entire machine, and the president is just one cog in that machine. What's more important than Trump, or Harris, are the institutions we have that work against those who wish to gain power. The people on Harris' side, like Kerry, believe that we are at the end of history, they have the one Truth, and they are extremely impatient to gain enough power to force that Truth upon everyone.
Colin says here that the woke stuff is THE issue, but I disagree somewhat. I think that THE issue is authoritarianism vs anti-authoritarianism, and Harris is clearly on the side of the former. She wants to remove the filibuster, accumulate even more power to the Executive office than has already accumulated over the last couple decades, and use that power to force everyone to see the Truth that her party believes in.
With Trump, he couldn't accumulate much power regardless of his desire to do so, because while he's in office the media and captured institutions are hostile to him and watching his every move. With Kamala as president they are complicit and perfectly willing to overlook whatever excesses she carries out.
Here's the argument against Trump. The only thing stopping Trump from really crazy things was the people around him, like Kelly, Barr, Esper, Milley, and Mattis, who have all said he is grossly unfit. There will be no such people next time. Trump said his only mistake was appointing disloyal people. Remember the time when half Obama's cabinet openly called him a monster and a threat to democracy? Me neither.
And the Supreme Court has now given him immunity for anything he wants to do.
Saying that Harris is the authoritarian candidate is laughable. Because of the filibuster? That's the ability of one person in the Senate to stop legislation through a bizarre procedural loophole. That's not a basic piece of democracy.
Trump is the candidate who openly expresses admiration and affection for authoritarian leaders. Putin is a war criminal and mass murderer. Trump loves him. He's not cozying up to him because of his savvy diplomacy.
Trump also waged a campaign to OVERTURN AN ELECTION, in addition to inciting a mob to breach the capital. Trump approved of the call the hang Mike Pence. He refuses to acknowledge that he lost the election. (He's so deluded he thinks he won the popular vote in 2016.) You can't get more anti-democratic.
I get voting for Trump because you dislike wokeness. But thinking it's a vote against authoritarianism makes no sense.
I usually appreciate Colin Wright’s opposition to what I will call radical gender ideology. But this article is the most inaccurate thing I’ve ever seen him write.
In this post, Wright essentially embraces the same type of authoritarianism that he ostensibly opposes. In other words, he abandons Liberalism. He does so explicitly. And he does so in an apparent attempt to save Liberalism. But that sort of misguided effort will never work. Liberalism must be saved by Liberalism; otherwise, it cannot be saved at all. And by unambiguously aligning himself with the illiberal Right (to oppose the illiberal Left) Wright has greatly undermined himself and discredited his argument against the Left.
“Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has expressed vehement opposition to wokeness … and has even signed the Stop WOKE Act, which prohibited the teaching of certain activist concepts surrounding race and gender in schools and businesses”
Anyone who believes in free speech needs to oppose DeSantis’s legislative censorship. If you don’t like wokeness, argue persuasively against it. But if you try to ban it, you are then adopting woke’s own censorious methods.
“This worldview challenges some of our most fundamental and valued beliefs … ‘equity’ demands that all disparities—whether in the workplace, the classroom, or the justice system—be eliminated to produce equal outcomes.”
Wright here indicates that he doesn’t even thoroughly understand his opponent’s argument, and that’s a classic sign of a closed mind. To be clear, I do not approve of the emphasis on equity. But I do believe in knowing what it is that I oppose. And the woke, in general, are not arguing for “equal outcomes.” There may of course be exceptions, but some of the most prominent woke voices are in fact arguing for proportional (not equal) racial outcomes. Fudging this point is, again, to Wright’s discredit.
“Importantly, woke ideology is not a marginal belief”
It most certainly is marginal. It has extremely little public support. It may be influential. It may have impact. But it is not a mass movement. Woke is so unpopular, in fact, that most people just assume that it’s arguing for equality of opportunity (it’s not). So even the tepid support that woke comes up with is based largely on granting it a benefit of the doubt that it does not deserve.
“Its impacts are profound and widespread, representing a degradation at the core of numerous values that Americans hold dear.”
Marginal movements of various elites can indeed be influential while staying distinctly marginal. Yes, it’s an important distinction. I personally believe wokeness to be a paper tiger (to some extent). It has some institutional support but close to zero public support.
“Let’s be clear: Trump is the anti-woke candidate.”
This is simply an unintelligent statement, and that genuinely surprises me coming from Wright. Trump demonstrates clear authoritarian tendencies. He tried to steal the 2020 election. The list of people or entities that Trump has tried to cancel (from Disney to every media outlet that criticizes him) is arguably longer than all of the woke cancellations put together. Simply put: Trump cannot be anti-woke because he’s an authoritarian. And woke is also authoritarian. They have that in common. And the only truly anti-woke people are the ones who disavow authoritarianism altogether.
“The woke ideologues possessing our institutions will not relinquish their power voluntarily, and will go absolutely bonkers in the process of losing it. Nevertheless, this should not deter us from initiating the exorcism process.”
This is a shockingly explicit endorsement of “by any means necessary.” This is the sort of statement that demagogues use to grab (and keep) power. It is not just illiberal, it is downright un-American. And if Wright had any sense he would feel deeply embarrassed for writing such a thing.
Now if someone wanted to write that both candidates are risky propositions, I would agree. I don’t like Harris’s promotion of equity. But only the Reactionary (MAGA) right has shown itself to be an explicit threat to our constitutional system (refusing to concede the election in 2020 and staging a deadly riot at the Capitol).
With Harris, there will certainly be differences to work out. But we can work them out within our system of Liberal democracy. We can’t work anything out, however, with a right wing movement that rejects the very legitimacy of that system altogether.
So vote Harris. And then hold her to account. And if you don’t like wokeness, here’s what you do: promote more dialog, not less. Promote pluralism, not purity. Work within the Liberal system, not outside of it. Otherwise you are no better than they are.
I think you are wrong or even deceitful if you want us to take reassurance that the woke seek not equal but only proportional outcomes. If by that you mean, Relax, we don’t want half the doctors to be black, only 13% of them, that would still be too many if the merit endowment of the black population means only 5% of them should be doctors. And if you want only 13% of prison inmates to be black, that is probably too few, given criminality. Using DEI to get undeserved *proportional* outcomes is still pernicious. Even more pernicious, really, because everyone knows that you can’t get the medical school classes to 50% black no matter what you do. But 13% might be do-able if you scrape the bottom of the barrel hard enough to get black bums in seats. That makes it evil. And illegal.
“I think you are wrong or even deceitful if you want us to take reassurance that the woke seek not equal but only proportional outcomes.”
There is nothing in my post indicating that I want anyone to take reassurance from that fact. In fact, here’s a challenge: please provide a quote from my post above where I give any such indication.
What you will find, if you actually read my post, is my repeated assertion that I do not approve of equity. My condemnation of the woke movement could scarcely be more obvious.
But you know what else needs to be called out? Columnists like Colin Wright who inadvertently undermine the fight against woke, and whip readers such as yourself into a frenzy, by spreading misinformation.
I’m obviously borrowing from JS Mill when I point out that we simply are not qualified to debate a topic without accurately knowing our opponent’s views. And, to his immense discredit, Wright shows in this column that he does not actually know the views of the woke movement that he spends the whole column arguing against.
“Using DEI to get undeserved *proportional* outcomes is still pernicious.”
Agreed. But you know what’s worse? Leading a failed coup attempt (in the form of both a legal campaign and a public riot) after you’ve lost your reelection bid as President of the USA.
Or actually filing a lawsuit against a national broadcaster because you don’t like how they edited an interview with your opponent. Tell me, in the last so many years of woke cancellation attempts, did the woke ever try any type of censorship as utterly brazen as Trump’s chilling lawsuit against CBS?
And the list goes on, as anyone who actually pays attention knows perfectly well. Trump is the canceller-in-chief. His knowledge of fundamental rights like the first amendment is so shockingly abysmal that he is openly campaigning on the idea of throwing flag burners in jail.
He is the dictionary definition of a demagogue come to life, and as such he is by far the greatest threat that our constitutional system currently faces. And that’s a hell of a lot scarier than some “pernicious” DEI.
So for the love of God and country vote Harris. Then we deal with DEI. And we deal with it legally. And persuasively. With malice towards none and with charity for all. Because that is the only approach that will in fact secure this country’s survival as a pluralistic and liberal democracy.
Bravo! You're the voice of reason.
"But you know what’s worse? Leading a failed coup attempt" -- Whataboutism. Does not address the argument you're responding to.
"filing a lawsuit against a national broadcaster because you don’t like how they edited an interview with your opponent." -- Misleading. Editing a presidential candidate's words in order to change their meaning is considered election interference. At best, it's disinformation and thus hypocritical. At worst, it's illegal.
"did the woke ever try any type of censorship as utterly brazen...?" -- Worse. They've codified the criminalization of "hate speech" (aka protected speech) into law.
Shouldn’t leading a failed coup attempt be disqualifying for a presidential candidate, whatever their policies?
You cannot allow teachers to push the gender moron shit on kindergartners, which apparently you are comfy with. This is plain flat-out wrong, and perverted. This is what DeSantis is stopping.
What is obvious is that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. The Woke want equality of outcome. That motivates their push on race in policing where inequities in arrests are considered proof of racism. Get a fucking clue, Boz. Your complete idiocy is shown in the last sentence: "prominent woke voices are in fact arguing for proportional (not equal) racial outcomes" - we know that black criminal arrests should not be proportionate - they should be way higher than white arrests because blacks are criminals far more often. This is Basic Obvious Stuff.
Your violent and unhinged tone indicates that you are speaking in neither a rational nor a good faith manner.
“You cannot allow teachers to push the gender moron shit on kindergartners, which apparently you are comfy with.”
Your statement in fact raises good free speech questions, but your accusation is self-incriminating. There is nothing in my post that indicates that I’m comfy with the woke movement, so, in asserting as much, you indicate that you’re likely not a very prudent thinker or careful reader.
What I do assert (more or less) is that in a free society, we will all have to put up with speech that we don’t like. And if anyone argues against that idea (as I believe DeSantis has done), then they are an enemy of a free society, and as such I will not support them. In fact, I will oppose all enemies of our free society, utterly regardless of their Left or Right affiliations. And I encourage all good citizens to drop their tribal connections and do the same.
So, since we do need to defend free speech, what then is the correct response to school topics that we don’t personally like? I’m inclined to think that the answer is more pluralism and less (right or left wing) purity.
If you’re against indoctrination, I agree with you. But that may not be what you’re opposing. Rather, it sounds like you may instead be arguing for your own preferred form of indoctrination. Why?
Because insisting that students must accept a certain perspective can be just as radical as arguing that they must be denied a perspective that you don’t like.
So my own inclination is to increase the perspectives available to students, not censor them. There may indeed, as you indicate, be some age appropriate considerations, but your reference to kindergartners is so misleading that it may in fact be misinformation. DeSantis’s law impacts not just all grade levels but even businesses as well. And parts of it have already been declared unconstitutional in court.
Are you saying that our constitution must be overthrown in order to stop anyone in Florida from promoting woke social justice? If so, sorry, but you then become exactly like the woke censors you supposedly oppose.
And with age appropriate considerations in mind, I would say that kids in general can be taught about the “gender moron shit” that both of us dislike. Their heads won’t explode. But they should also be taught the controversies around “gender moron shit.” The conversation should be expanded, not limited.
Also you state: “Your complete idiocy is shown in the last sentence: ‘prominent woke voices are in fact arguing for proportional (not equal) racial outcomes’”
That is simply a statement of fact. That is an accurate description of what the “antiracist” movement is advocating. So, I’m not sure what your problem is with that point. Are you saying that you don’t want accurate info? That you don’t want to know what your opponents believe? You have provided an odd reaction when simply presented with reality. And that’s not a good sign.
Unfortunately kindergartners are being encouraged to obsess about which gender they are, which is particularly bad as they are actually developmentally supposed to begin to understand that stereotypes are not biological sex by this point. So it is crazy. You can probably see some of the books at a local library.
But no one will be able to hold Harris to account. Because she is being run, quite obviously, behind the scenes. And until we see who is holding those puppet strings we cannot hold them accountable. They will just shift and morph to whatever they need to to keep us under their power. I believe that the people pulling the strings are the uber rich corporate elite whose goal is to continue to grow and hold the power over the rest of us. I think that's what this fight is about.
To be perfectly blunt, Mary, you comment sounds paranoid and uninformed. If any of us find ourselves spreading conspiracy theories about puppets and puppet masters, we need to reevaluate our information sources, our online habits, and our life choices. And I wish all of us the best of luck with that endeavor.
On the contrary, Mary seems more informed, while you sound naive (with yet more condescension, ironically) about the inner workings and real agendas of the government and global elite.
@TeeJae you get an LOL 😉
I will set aside the clear condescension in your TDS-laden comment to address some specific points:
"if you try to ban [wokeness] you are then adopting woke’s own censorious methods." False equivalency. As Colin said, Critical Theory teaches ACTIVIST concepts, and is more akin to a religion. Both religion and activism have NO place being taught in the classroom. Banning it in schools is not censorship.
"the woke, in general, are not arguing for 'equal outcomes.'” -- The woke advocate for DEI. The 'E' stands for equity. Equity means equal outcomes.
"[Trump tried to steal the 2020 election." -- No. He claimed the election was stolen from him.
"entities that Trump has tried to cancel (from Disney to every media outlet that criticizes him)." -- Specifically, how did he try to cancel Disney? And critical media outlets?
"[Trump is] an authoritarian." -- How exactly?
"This is a shockingly explicit endorsement of 'by any means necessary.'” -- This is a strawman. How exactly is restoring our institutions to their pre-DEI states by exorcising woke ideology from them "illiberal" and "un-American?"
"staging a deadly riot at the Capitol" -- Hyperbolic and misleading. It was a peaceful protest of those who truly believed Biden did not win fairly, which turned violent due to the infiltration by FBI-agent and Antifa provocateurs.
"we can work [our differences] out within our system of Liberal democracy." -- Because that worked out so well over the last 4 years.
I agree with everything you said about wokeness. It has, and will, cause dreadful things on society. If the "Republican" candidate were anyone except tRump, I'd vote for them, even though I'm a classical liberal. However, tRump is much more dangerous than wokeism. If Kamala wins, we will still have a democracy and we can continue to fight against wokeism. If tRump wins, democracy looses. There will be no guardrails because tRump has learned how to keep all of the adults out of the room. He has already bought the Supreme Court. He will appoint only sickophants. He will hand Ukraine to Putin. Xi will take Taiwan. Who knows what will happen in the Middle East. And life will be hell in the USA. The best way to fight wokeism is to elect Kamala and continue to fight for reason. It's already beginning to happen. Some universities have already stopped using DEI. We can win, but only if Kamala and democracy win.