Vance couldn’t answer the question but maybe the Trump voters on here can. You voted for this. Why? It was so vital to get rid of any and all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in America that it was worth unleashing hundreds of violent criminals? The terrible threat of a trans girl playing the sport she loves is more important than punishing the people who tried to sabotage the peaceful transfer of power? The need to terrorize the people fleeing violence and poverty to come here to pick our fruits and vegetables and do all the other s**t jobs we won’t is worth the complete annihilation of law and order in this country?
Oh my god, the comments here. It is simply, yet still tragically astounding, that Conservatives, the group that used to stand for law and order, Old Glory, back the Blue, our revered Founders, the U.S. Constitution, Democracy, the Shining City on a Hill, are trying to normalize the pardoning of convicted felons who violently attacked law enforcement and desecrated perhaps the most venerable symbol of our Democracy because they wanted to overthrow a lawful election, as some sort of minor policy quirk that not everyone agrees with. And DEI, are you kidding me? After centuries of building this nation's wealth and world power on the backs of unpaid slave labor, then convict labor, then decades of Jim Crow discrimination, shutting people of color out of the GI Bill and the Homestead Act, banks redlining to refuse mortgages and real estate agents refusing to show homes to people of color in desirable neighborhoods, rental discrimination and discrimination in hiring, employment and criminal justice that continue to this day, now our biggest priority is doing all we can to prevent discrimination against white people? We have sunk so low as a country that it will take a very long time to dig ourselves out.
“Trying to normalize” is tired. No one here is doing that. Why did you even ask the question? I answered it in good faith. I now think it was rhetorical. You clearly have your mind made up. You aren’t here to learn from and have interesting conversations with people who think differently than you. Conservative’s biggest priority is preventing discrimination against white people? Who is feeding you that disinformation? Did you read Coleman Hughes article? Do you know that many people who aren’t (fill in all the ‘demographics’ you sneer at, starting with white) oppose DEI, Inc.?
I disagree. Normalizing abnormal behavior is definitely not tired as evidenced by your likening Trump's horrific pardons to some policy of Biden's that Biden voters might not agree with. Normalizing is the top of the very slippery slope that led down to the depths where we are now. Normalizing may seem "tired" to you because so much of it had to be done with Trump. We had to normalize an adjudicated sexual abuser in the Oval. We had to normalize a convicted felon in the Oval. We had to normalize a President cashing in on his position in the Oval. We had to normalize a President's multi-billionaire buddy threatening lawmakers over their votes. We had to normalize a violent insurrection at the Capitol as a "day of love." I could go on. It's like if Biden, after the shameful insurrection, declared a Domestic Terrorist National Security Emergency and sent the U.S. Military to fan out across the United States to round up all the Trump supporters. And I, as a Biden supporter, said, hmm, I thought he was only going to round up the people in red MAGA hats, not all of them. Oh well, I really like those economic growth provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, so, I guess it's all cool.
If I'm not mistaken, Kate asked Sharon if Republicans were in attendance at her book tour events. I fear there is no listening to understand here. Kate's disdain for conservatives is palpable.
I believe you are mistaken. Must've been some other disdainful Kate, not I. Though I do admit I have quite a lot of disdain for almost everything that has come out of the White House in the last week and thus struggle to understand the reasoning of people who have enabled it.
I’m not a Trump voter*, but I can say that among the conservatives here, many have expressed disagreement with blanket (as opposed to case-by-case) pardons for January 6 participants. Trump campaigned on pardoning J6 defendants, initially indicating he would approach it case by case. However, he ultimately took a broader approach, which many conservatives have criticized. Similarly, I imagine there are Biden or Harris voters who disagree with some of their administration’s actions—if I’m mistaken, feel free to correct me.
As for conservative priorities, they include (to respond to what you specifically listed) protecting women’s sports, securing stronger borders, ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity, and deporting individuals who are in the country unlawfully. That's not to say every conservative feels the same about every issue (and the same goes for liberals). Generally speaking, conservatives don’t see these issues as the “annihilation of law and order.” Instead, they’ve viewed movements like “defund the police,” sanctuary cities, antisemitic campus protests, and the leadership of a president perceived as struggling with cognitive sharpness as challenges to law and order. Headlines like the recent New York Times article, “How Labeling Cartels ‘Terrorists’ Could Hurt the U.S. Economy,” reinforce these concerns.
Since you brought up migrants, Biden oversaw the highest level of deportations since 2014: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/biden-deportations-report/index.html. I'm guessing based on your comments, that this is not an action of his, if you voted for him, that you support. And yet you still voted for Harris (and I'm going to assume would've voted for Biden had he stayed in). And I understand that, because I understand presidents aren't perfect even to their own party.
*For transparency: I didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. I cast a write-in vote for a Republican. I’m a conservative-leaning Independent who voted for Biden in 2020 but chose not to support him or Harris in 2024.
I am not politically conservative, but I just want to say I really respect the way you answered this. I voted for Biden and definitely didn't agree with everything he did and in some or several cases was appalled by his behavior. Unfortunately our country only has two viable parties at this time and the reality is that most people are more complex than those two boxes would lead us to believe.
Agreed. I struggled with voting with third party for the first time in my life (for lack of a better way to characterize writing in someone's name). I know now that even if everyone who voted third party in my state had voted for Harris instead, she still would not have carried the state - and it's a state that swung for Biden in 2020. I probably will go back to Dem or Rep in 2028 unless there is a welcome, more moderate and viable third option. Hope is a choice!
I appreciate these insights as well, thank you for sharing! I absolutely don’t agree with a lot of things Biden did, and would never defend a politician 100%. I do think the article shared on DEI is oversimplifying it. DEI also includes having wheelchair ramps for people who need, braille available at work spaces for those who cannot see, and many other things. To totally roll it back I don’t see a positive. Especially when some want to use it as a way to leave out some key points of history and pretend they didn’t happen.
I find it highly unlikely that the DEI initiatives we're discussing today were focused on implementing braille and wheelchair ramps. Such measures have long been - and are still being - addressed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush.
Ok, I certainly hope so. I am admittedly speaking from anecdotal experience of what our DEI department works on and it’s definitely not all race related.
As someone married to a wheelchair user DEI in *some* places definitely did do this. DEI has evolved over time and doesn't necessarily look like what it might have when it started. I'm always amazed at the minimums of the ADA and what can be considered 'compliant' versus what people actually need. Answering those needs is what some DEI initiatives have evolved into today. Funny enough some of the worst offenders are small hospitals and doctor's offices. It's always nice when the wheelchair doesn't even fit through the front door!
Not putting words in anyone's mouths within these comments. But much of the DEI commentary I've seen in the real world has actually revolved around what would actually be affirmative action. It is important to note that none of what Trump did touches EEOE which is law as well. If work places try to discriminate based on anything related to DEI, rather than just roll back work place DEI programs, they will still have that law to deal with.
That’s what we’ve found at my job too. Our DEI team brings everyone in for discussions, and despite any laws we definitely have a lot of work to do in making all feel included. Which I think is very important!
How are we now going to choose which laws to follow? We’ve already seen Inspectors General attempted removal without the lawful process being followed.
How exactly is disagreement on pardons, over-reaching mandates & tyrannical deportations going to square with voting a man into power based on the price of eggs & middle school hockey players’ gender? We have to prevent the deterioration of decency. Shrugging after the fact doesn’t keep us safe or feed our people.
Who on here is shrugging after the fact? Who is telling you that people voted for Trump based on the price of eggs and middle school hockey players' gender?
Biden carried out the highest level of deportations since 2014. Were those tyrannical?
Aren’t we lucky that there has never been a better time to be alive for white women? I’d like to keep it that way & include the rest of humanity in our progress. I’m an independent voter, but I guess this makes me progressive.
The price of eggs and gas was the excuse many voters gave for someone with whom they could not defend as a moral choice. I did not make that up.
The fight over gender in sports is given as another excuse. Facts.
The Free Press had a really interesting article about DEI in the military that I read today - https://www.thefp.com/p/dei-military-pete-hegseth-trump. Overall, having a blanket anything really can end up backfiring because it lacks context of the situation or needs of the community or group. One size fits all is just not a good approach (in my world we call it a spray and pray and it usually is a bad business strategy). Personally, diversity in background, ethnicity, and thought are paramount to business and education but the rhetoric right now especially in academia and medicine is just backwards racism and exclusionary. Individual companies who do DEI well should continue their programming and continue pushing for diversity as a part of their ethos. But we also shouldn't be looking to individuals who tell others they are born racists as god-like truth sayers.
DEI is a perfect example of marketing -- so is BLM. Their words and names represent incredibly respectable things that people want, but their leadership and founders are corrupt. And just because we want to believe something is good doesn't mean it isn't and we all should call out when something is rotten no matter if we voted for them or didn't!
Even if true, she was born and assigned female gender. About 1 in 60 babies are born with genitalia that don't fully match their sex chromosomes. Most of them are completely unaware of their genetic sex, and at least some of them are surgically "assigned" based on the most apparent physical gender as babies. Biological sex and gender are correlated, but not fully causally related. Most animal species have a gender spectrum, humans included. That said, she is not transgender because she was born female and remains female. But, did you know that some species change gender based on their environment? Also, some mammals can choose the sex of their offspring.
Over 900 females lost medals to trans-identifying females (males) in sports according to the UN. So while we are getting really granular on Iman and discussing interesting points, but points that generally ignore the our human reality, the problem is....bigger.
It's also worth noting that more than twice that many people are injured by lighting each year in Florida alone. We still refer to something as being rare by likening it to the chances of being struck by lightning. Pretty darn rare. Meanwhile, more than 5x that many people die in car wrecks because we've failed to regulate the size of motor vehicles. Seems like that could be readily addressed and have a real impact on lives. I could provide so many more examples where more people are impacted in much more meaningful ways. But I hope you get the drift.
Boxing is about punching people without remorse. Swimming is about going for the gold. I don't know when women became so precious that we lost our sense of competition. Sports is about getting beat sometimes - usually by people with an athletic advantage. No one complains when Michael Phelps - with his unusual anatomy that gives him competitive advantage - wins scores of gold medals.
Genetics IS a thing. But probably not in the way you're suggesting. I'm curious what your background in genetics is. I have a PhD in cancer biology, which required several advanced courses in genetics, not to mention that my thesis revolved around the function of a protein that influenced expression of genes during development. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make me a geneticist, let alone a geneticist that specializes in sex determination and the impact of genetic expression and environmental factors on sex traits. BUT...I am pretty well versed on how genetics isn't the equivalent of fate. If you can speak knowledgeably in the subject, I wouldn't mind discussing how much of a thing genetics is. If not, let's not pretend that the phrase "[this complex scientific concept] is a thing" is a cogent point.
You'll have to define "physical man." In my experience, the phenotypes of male humans vary significantly, as do the phenotypes of female humans. There's a significant amount of overlap driven by genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. And, no. In many sports, feminine traits provide an advantage over masculine traits. Also, life's not fair and sports are entertainment.
Gender does not have to be the only method for separating sports. Weight classes and skill levels are used in so many sports to create fair footing. The sports you referenced have qualification standards for their athletes (all of which trans athletes must meet to compete). Trans athletes usually don't win first place.
Here, the term "precious" refers to "overly sensitive" or "overly delicate." It's derogatory, not complimentary. The point is that when did women become so weak and helpless that we can't handle competition. When we step into a boxing ring, shouldn't we expect to get punched? That's the point of the sport. As a woman, I'm fine with competing with men. I'm better at a lot of things that many men aren't, and vice versa. Even in "traditionally masculine" areas. Most women are fine with competing with men. And we don't need anyone to protect us. I literally don't have a fight in the ring for women's boxing. But I do recall that Angela Carini, the woman that got beat in the match that set of the rumors that Khelif was transgender (she's not), made it clear that she didn't think that her "defenders" had a fight in the ring, either. Carini doesn't need your protection, so why do you insist on it?
Sure. But recall that you brought it up. If you don't want to discuss the facts, then I recommend you don't open the door to the conversation. The long and short of it is that women boxers get punched because that's what the sport is, and there's absolutely no proof that men are boxing against women in the Olympics. Rumor and innuendo are not a reasonable basis for opinion and debate.
People are way overly concerned about trans people. According to USA Facts, approximately 1.14% of the nation's adult population, or 3 million Americans, identify as transgender. They are not going to take over the world and they are not going to hurt anyone. These sports cases are so rare but they get all blown up, just to be made an example of. They are just people wanting to live their lives like the rest of us get to. As Rachel has explained, gender and sexuality are a continuum. It's religion and dogma in our culture that has made us think otherwise.
The only time I care is when it’s so blatantly bad, live your life but when you play fair you end up at the bottom so you switch teams to win. Then I object.
When has this happened to you, where a transgender person caused you to end up at the bottom? It's happened to me before, though not in sports, but it was just good old fashioned sexism. Let's maybe deal with the inherent sexism of the rules and laws that we already have than tackle the 3 instances in 8.2 billion that it allegedly happens in a world where the least of our worries is whether a game is fair.
Did you address the sexism Rachel, or let it slide? If I worked my entire life to win something and lose it to someone who wouldn’t have been able to just a year or two before, then yeah, I would question it.
I'm sorry to get sarcastic here, but yeah. I waved my anti discrimination wand and it was totally fixed. But I've never had to use my wand to prevent a transgender person from ruining my day, despite knowing several, because systemic transgenderism is vanishingly rare. Instead, I do what I can at the ballot box to deal with common sexism, and I think about systemic transgenderism after I worry about how unfair it is that unicorns don't need wands because they're genetically magic and I'm not.
Let’s not forget that men and women were separated during tournaments due to women’s advancement in competition. Women were showing that they could beat a man, and therefore the men organized a separate category for women. Like bathroom bills, these gender-based concerns aren’t about protecting women at all.
If anything they’re putting cis women at risk as well. What happens when a cis woman is accused of being trans in a public bathroom? What sort of trauma will she be subjected to? Or what about trans women who have undergone bottom surgery? Which bathroom are they supposed to safely use?
I chose to state it here because I replied to a commenter asking Trump voters a question. I clarified - in answering her question - that I wasn't a Trump voter, but I was answering anyway. I'm also not a Harris voter. And I didn't boast of being a Biden voter, so I'm unsure if that was directed to me or to the others on here.
Got it. I believe I’m one of the few here who has shared being a conservative leaning Independent who didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. While I agree that who I voted for shouldn’t necessarily matter, I also see value and transparency when it contributes to the goal of this newsletter: Learning from and having interesting discussions with people who think differently than you. In that context, I feel like sharing my voting stance can help further that goal. But maybe I’m wrong.
Over my many years, I've voted democrat; I've voted republican; I've voted independent. I have never been SCARED of the "other side" winning. Now, I am legitimately worried about what is happening here.
I'm trying to play my part. Do the next best thing I can do. I'm worried that the misinformation, the disinformation, and the quest for retribution are unstoppable. Yes, there are so many good people out there, but a lot of them aren't paying attention or are making excuses.
Sorry...I'm rambling, but wow. I feel really scared for our country.
Exactly this. When a president was elected that I didn't like, I was never terrified for what might happen, or that the president was out to seek revenge on people who didn't agree with him. This is new, in my lifetime at least.
Good on Margaret Brennan for asking Vance that question! The president and VP should both be asked how they justify some of these pardons relentlessly until we get a satisfactory explanation. Disappointing that Vance couldn’t give one. Disgusting to blame the DOJ.
Not only Trump and Vance, but every single Republican senator and Rep should be made uncomfortable with this question over and over. It is simply unacceptable that we should move on from violent criminals being pardoned.
Every time a politician that supports Trump claims they also support law and order, back the blue, etc., ask them which is it, because one of these things is not like the other.
In less than 2 weeks, don the con has made a mockery out of the country. I never want to hear republicans talk about backing the blue again. To think he thought it would be just “too much trouble “ to comb through the cases, is disturbing on a level I can’t comprehend. I’m not sure the county can survive 4 years of his erratic, juvenile and unqualified behavior.
I’m not sure I understand the WHY behind any pardons. Unless you are looking at those truly innocent (West Memphis 3), and others who maybe took the Alford plea, then my brain just says why? You still have approx 32,000 people convicted of marijuana charges who remain in prison. WHY are the violent offenders, the drug dealers, those who commit crimes against the US the ones who get the free passes? It’s a disgusting, perversion of justice and only part of our problems.
I don’t agree with the pardoning of any violent criminals. Period. But I especially disagree with pardoning violent criminals who attacked our Capitol in a coup attempt.
Thank you for telling it like it is, Sharon. I appreciate your hard work and research. We need to read the truth and each of us needs to figure out what we are going to do with the information. At the very least we can write letters, call, email, or text our politicians and let them know our opinions. If we all saturate their inboxes, maybe they will take notice.
I tried to post this elsewhere but now I can’t find it. I want to back up my statement that Trump is a purveyor of revenge politics. Here is some information:
Boy that’s some fine hair splitting going on. Rhetoric is often the first step in the chain that leads to political violence. And he’s only been in power a few days.
I disagree. He's been saying some of these things for quite some time. I'm in the camp that Trump says a lot of things and is to be taken seriously but not literally. I suppose time will tell if he politically prosecutes his "enemies." I understand you believe he will, but I hope you are wrong.
Oops. We’ve accidentally changed the subject instead of addressing the core question. The question was, is Trump an arbiter of revenge politics. His rhetoric strongly suggests he is.
What about preemptive pardons? I’d listen to this if I felt like the same level of critical thinking was being made on those. But people can easily justify those and sweep them under the rug. “But, but… what Trump did is so much worse”. I want zero comments justifying what Biden did. I want honest, fair holding EVERYONE accountable. The same people who can justify Biden won’t acknowledge the many examples of J6ers who Were over zealously prosecuted for political points. I agree there were violent ones who shouldn’t have been pardoned. (Although I haven’t looked at time served and appropriate levels of charges and sentencing - have you??)
Pardoning people back to 2014? You’ve got No concerns about that?
Deena, I agree with honesty, fairness, and holding everyone accountable. Yes, I am keeping track of all of the pardoned J6ers in my area because I don’t want them running for my school board. Kimberly Dragoo ran for the St. Joseph, MO school board.
They are insurrectionists and they are emboldened. We must be vigilant!
The “but” does matter here. I wonder what you would do if your family was facing legitimate threats from a sitting president. It’s not a justification for what Biden did, but it is reality. And another reason (among many) that Kash Patel is unqualified for FBI Director.
What kind of accountability are you looking for in terms of preemptive pardons?
Just how much of the kook aid have you had??? The pardons from President Biden are not remotely like don the cons. All the trump supporters kept saying he’s not really going to do…….fill in the blank, he’s just saying that. Well less that 2 weeks in and he’s already done a lot of what you said he wouldn’t. He said he was going after the people president Biden pardoned. Not because they did something wrong, but because they enraged don and his ego. The January sixers were not prosecuted for political points, they actually broke the law and were found guilty. Maga has been fear mongered into hating the wrong people all so an unscrupulous man can stoke his ego and line his pockets.
The problem is Trump doesn't care because he can't be re-elected, however, Vance and other Republicans with future political aspirations might need to start caring because it's all going to fall on them and they will be the ones ultimately voted out for excusing these terrible decisions.
Yes, I know that however, he danced around and gave excuses when questioned about Trump doing it rather than pushing back and reiterating that he was against it. I would have actually respected him had he held his stance on it.
Vance couldn’t answer the question but maybe the Trump voters on here can. You voted for this. Why? It was so vital to get rid of any and all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in America that it was worth unleashing hundreds of violent criminals? The terrible threat of a trans girl playing the sport she loves is more important than punishing the people who tried to sabotage the peaceful transfer of power? The need to terrorize the people fleeing violence and poverty to come here to pick our fruits and vegetables and do all the other s**t jobs we won’t is worth the complete annihilation of law and order in this country?
Oh my god, the comments here. It is simply, yet still tragically astounding, that Conservatives, the group that used to stand for law and order, Old Glory, back the Blue, our revered Founders, the U.S. Constitution, Democracy, the Shining City on a Hill, are trying to normalize the pardoning of convicted felons who violently attacked law enforcement and desecrated perhaps the most venerable symbol of our Democracy because they wanted to overthrow a lawful election, as some sort of minor policy quirk that not everyone agrees with. And DEI, are you kidding me? After centuries of building this nation's wealth and world power on the backs of unpaid slave labor, then convict labor, then decades of Jim Crow discrimination, shutting people of color out of the GI Bill and the Homestead Act, banks redlining to refuse mortgages and real estate agents refusing to show homes to people of color in desirable neighborhoods, rental discrimination and discrimination in hiring, employment and criminal justice that continue to this day, now our biggest priority is doing all we can to prevent discrimination against white people? We have sunk so low as a country that it will take a very long time to dig ourselves out.
“Trying to normalize” is tired. No one here is doing that. Why did you even ask the question? I answered it in good faith. I now think it was rhetorical. You clearly have your mind made up. You aren’t here to learn from and have interesting conversations with people who think differently than you. Conservative’s biggest priority is preventing discrimination against white people? Who is feeding you that disinformation? Did you read Coleman Hughes article? Do you know that many people who aren’t (fill in all the ‘demographics’ you sneer at, starting with white) oppose DEI, Inc.?
I disagree. Normalizing abnormal behavior is definitely not tired as evidenced by your likening Trump's horrific pardons to some policy of Biden's that Biden voters might not agree with. Normalizing is the top of the very slippery slope that led down to the depths where we are now. Normalizing may seem "tired" to you because so much of it had to be done with Trump. We had to normalize an adjudicated sexual abuser in the Oval. We had to normalize a convicted felon in the Oval. We had to normalize a President cashing in on his position in the Oval. We had to normalize a President's multi-billionaire buddy threatening lawmakers over their votes. We had to normalize a violent insurrection at the Capitol as a "day of love." I could go on. It's like if Biden, after the shameful insurrection, declared a Domestic Terrorist National Security Emergency and sent the U.S. Military to fan out across the United States to round up all the Trump supporters. And I, as a Biden supporter, said, hmm, I thought he was only going to round up the people in red MAGA hats, not all of them. Oh well, I really like those economic growth provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, so, I guess it's all cool.
Ok. Your opinion has been noted.
If I'm not mistaken, Kate asked Sharon if Republicans were in attendance at her book tour events. I fear there is no listening to understand here. Kate's disdain for conservatives is palpable.
I believe you are mistaken. Must've been some other disdainful Kate, not I. Though I do admit I have quite a lot of disdain for almost everything that has come out of the White House in the last week and thus struggle to understand the reasoning of people who have enabled it.
You described this situation so well and concise Kate. Thanks for sharing your perspective here.
I’m not a Trump voter*, but I can say that among the conservatives here, many have expressed disagreement with blanket (as opposed to case-by-case) pardons for January 6 participants. Trump campaigned on pardoning J6 defendants, initially indicating he would approach it case by case. However, he ultimately took a broader approach, which many conservatives have criticized. Similarly, I imagine there are Biden or Harris voters who disagree with some of their administration’s actions—if I’m mistaken, feel free to correct me.
As for conservative priorities, they include (to respond to what you specifically listed) protecting women’s sports, securing stronger borders, ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity, and deporting individuals who are in the country unlawfully. That's not to say every conservative feels the same about every issue (and the same goes for liberals). Generally speaking, conservatives don’t see these issues as the “annihilation of law and order.” Instead, they’ve viewed movements like “defund the police,” sanctuary cities, antisemitic campus protests, and the leadership of a president perceived as struggling with cognitive sharpness as challenges to law and order. Headlines like the recent New York Times article, “How Labeling Cartels ‘Terrorists’ Could Hurt the U.S. Economy,” reinforce these concerns.
Coleman Hughes: The End of DEI (https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/the-end-of-deittps://www.thefp.com/p/coleman-hughes-the-end-of-dei) might offer additional insight.
Since you brought up migrants, Biden oversaw the highest level of deportations since 2014: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/biden-deportations-report/index.html. I'm guessing based on your comments, that this is not an action of his, if you voted for him, that you support. And yet you still voted for Harris (and I'm going to assume would've voted for Biden had he stayed in). And I understand that, because I understand presidents aren't perfect even to their own party.
*For transparency: I didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. I cast a write-in vote for a Republican. I’m a conservative-leaning Independent who voted for Biden in 2020 but chose not to support him or Harris in 2024.
I am not politically conservative, but I just want to say I really respect the way you answered this. I voted for Biden and definitely didn't agree with everything he did and in some or several cases was appalled by his behavior. Unfortunately our country only has two viable parties at this time and the reality is that most people are more complex than those two boxes would lead us to believe.
Agreed. I struggled with voting with third party for the first time in my life (for lack of a better way to characterize writing in someone's name). I know now that even if everyone who voted third party in my state had voted for Harris instead, she still would not have carried the state - and it's a state that swung for Biden in 2020. I probably will go back to Dem or Rep in 2028 unless there is a welcome, more moderate and viable third option. Hope is a choice!
I appreciate these insights as well, thank you for sharing! I absolutely don’t agree with a lot of things Biden did, and would never defend a politician 100%. I do think the article shared on DEI is oversimplifying it. DEI also includes having wheelchair ramps for people who need, braille available at work spaces for those who cannot see, and many other things. To totally roll it back I don’t see a positive. Especially when some want to use it as a way to leave out some key points of history and pretend they didn’t happen.
I find it highly unlikely that the DEI initiatives we're discussing today were focused on implementing braille and wheelchair ramps. Such measures have long been - and are still being - addressed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush.
Ok, I certainly hope so. I am admittedly speaking from anecdotal experience of what our DEI department works on and it’s definitely not all race related.
As someone married to a wheelchair user DEI in *some* places definitely did do this. DEI has evolved over time and doesn't necessarily look like what it might have when it started. I'm always amazed at the minimums of the ADA and what can be considered 'compliant' versus what people actually need. Answering those needs is what some DEI initiatives have evolved into today. Funny enough some of the worst offenders are small hospitals and doctor's offices. It's always nice when the wheelchair doesn't even fit through the front door!
Not putting words in anyone's mouths within these comments. But much of the DEI commentary I've seen in the real world has actually revolved around what would actually be affirmative action. It is important to note that none of what Trump did touches EEOE which is law as well. If work places try to discriminate based on anything related to DEI, rather than just roll back work place DEI programs, they will still have that law to deal with.
That’s what we’ve found at my job too. Our DEI team brings everyone in for discussions, and despite any laws we definitely have a lot of work to do in making all feel included. Which I think is very important!
How are we now going to choose which laws to follow? We’ve already seen Inspectors General attempted removal without the lawful process being followed.
How exactly is disagreement on pardons, over-reaching mandates & tyrannical deportations going to square with voting a man into power based on the price of eggs & middle school hockey players’ gender? We have to prevent the deterioration of decency. Shrugging after the fact doesn’t keep us safe or feed our people.
Who on here is shrugging after the fact? Who is telling you that people voted for Trump based on the price of eggs and middle school hockey players' gender?
Biden carried out the highest level of deportations since 2014. Were those tyrannical?
How are we now going to choose which laws to follow? Really? I recommend everyone watch this, Sharon's interview last week with Isaac Saul, there has never been a better time to be alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=GWldKcItsQU&t=2766s
Aren’t we lucky that there has never been a better time to be alive for white women? I’d like to keep it that way & include the rest of humanity in our progress. I’m an independent voter, but I guess this makes me progressive.
The price of eggs and gas was the excuse many voters gave for someone with whom they could not defend as a moral choice. I did not make that up.
The fight over gender in sports is given as another excuse. Facts.
The Free Press had a really interesting article about DEI in the military that I read today - https://www.thefp.com/p/dei-military-pete-hegseth-trump. Overall, having a blanket anything really can end up backfiring because it lacks context of the situation or needs of the community or group. One size fits all is just not a good approach (in my world we call it a spray and pray and it usually is a bad business strategy). Personally, diversity in background, ethnicity, and thought are paramount to business and education but the rhetoric right now especially in academia and medicine is just backwards racism and exclusionary. Individual companies who do DEI well should continue their programming and continue pushing for diversity as a part of their ethos. But we also shouldn't be looking to individuals who tell others they are born racists as god-like truth sayers.
DEI is a perfect example of marketing -- so is BLM. Their words and names represent incredibly respectable things that people want, but their leadership and founders are corrupt. And just because we want to believe something is good doesn't mean it isn't and we all should call out when something is rotten no matter if we voted for them or didn't!
It’s more about the trans boxer that bashed the girl’s face in with no remorse. The swimmer who took a gold medal from a female…
What trans boxer? If you're referring to Iman Khalif, she's not trans, so your source is not trustworthy.
Fallon Fox?
Even if true, she was born and assigned female gender. About 1 in 60 babies are born with genitalia that don't fully match their sex chromosomes. Most of them are completely unaware of their genetic sex, and at least some of them are surgically "assigned" based on the most apparent physical gender as babies. Biological sex and gender are correlated, but not fully causally related. Most animal species have a gender spectrum, humans included. That said, she is not transgender because she was born female and remains female. But, did you know that some species change gender based on their environment? Also, some mammals can choose the sex of their offspring.
Over 900 females lost medals to trans-identifying females (males) in sports according to the UN. So while we are getting really granular on Iman and discussing interesting points, but points that generally ignore the our human reality, the problem is....bigger.
Yet, the problem is still miniscule. And will never actually amount to being important enough to trade our democracy for.
It's also worth noting that more than twice that many people are injured by lighting each year in Florida alone. We still refer to something as being rare by likening it to the chances of being struck by lightning. Pretty darn rare. Meanwhile, more than 5x that many people die in car wrecks because we've failed to regulate the size of motor vehicles. Seems like that could be readily addressed and have a real impact on lives. I could provide so many more examples where more people are impacted in much more meaningful ways. But I hope you get the drift.
No one has presented any evidence that her chromosomes are XY.
Boxing is about punching people without remorse. Swimming is about going for the gold. I don't know when women became so precious that we lost our sense of competition. Sports is about getting beat sometimes - usually by people with an athletic advantage. No one complains when Michael Phelps - with his unusual anatomy that gives him competitive advantage - wins scores of gold medals.
Genetics is a thing.
Genetics IS a thing. But probably not in the way you're suggesting. I'm curious what your background in genetics is. I have a PhD in cancer biology, which required several advanced courses in genetics, not to mention that my thesis revolved around the function of a protein that influenced expression of genes during development. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make me a geneticist, let alone a geneticist that specializes in sex determination and the impact of genetic expression and environmental factors on sex traits. BUT...I am pretty well versed on how genetics isn't the equivalent of fate. If you can speak knowledgeably in the subject, I wouldn't mind discussing how much of a thing genetics is. If not, let's not pretend that the phrase "[this complex scientific concept] is a thing" is a cogent point.
Then you know that a physical man has differences that will pummel a woman every time, no matter what the sport is. How is that fair?
You'll have to define "physical man." In my experience, the phenotypes of male humans vary significantly, as do the phenotypes of female humans. There's a significant amount of overlap driven by genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. And, no. In many sports, feminine traits provide an advantage over masculine traits. Also, life's not fair and sports are entertainment.
Let’s let men have all the things then. Why even start a female division of anything??? Who needs equal rights or a fair footing?
Gender does not have to be the only method for separating sports. Weight classes and skill levels are used in so many sports to create fair footing. The sports you referenced have qualification standards for their athletes (all of which trans athletes must meet to compete). Trans athletes usually don't win first place.
Michael Phelps had all those factors and was praised for it. We love genetic anomalies in athletics.
What study has shown that? Please cite your sources.
As far as Michael Phelps, you could argue he was born that way, sports figures today say they’re women and we automatically accept it?
Why wouldn’t we? If they meet the sports’ qualifications to compete, I do not care how they identify.
The women’s movement just died
The women's movement is rather feeble if it is built solely on having a sports category to ourselves.
The good news is the women's movement that is built on women being recognized as fully autonomous people is still alive, (mostly) well, and thriving.
And yes, women are precious and should be treated well.
Here, the term "precious" refers to "overly sensitive" or "overly delicate." It's derogatory, not complimentary. The point is that when did women become so weak and helpless that we can't handle competition. When we step into a boxing ring, shouldn't we expect to get punched? That's the point of the sport. As a woman, I'm fine with competing with men. I'm better at a lot of things that many men aren't, and vice versa. Even in "traditionally masculine" areas. Most women are fine with competing with men. And we don't need anyone to protect us. I literally don't have a fight in the ring for women's boxing. But I do recall that Angela Carini, the woman that got beat in the match that set of the rumors that Khelif was transgender (she's not), made it clear that she didn't think that her "defenders" had a fight in the ring, either. Carini doesn't need your protection, so why do you insist on it?
There are lawsuits handling it so I’ll let them argue.
Sure. But recall that you brought it up. If you don't want to discuss the facts, then I recommend you don't open the door to the conversation. The long and short of it is that women boxers get punched because that's what the sport is, and there's absolutely no proof that men are boxing against women in the Olympics. Rumor and innuendo are not a reasonable basis for opinion and debate.
People are way overly concerned about trans people. According to USA Facts, approximately 1.14% of the nation's adult population, or 3 million Americans, identify as transgender. They are not going to take over the world and they are not going to hurt anyone. These sports cases are so rare but they get all blown up, just to be made an example of. They are just people wanting to live their lives like the rest of us get to. As Rachel has explained, gender and sexuality are a continuum. It's religion and dogma in our culture that has made us think otherwise.
It's about objective truth.
The only time I care is when it’s so blatantly bad, live your life but when you play fair you end up at the bottom so you switch teams to win. Then I object.
When has this happened to you, where a transgender person caused you to end up at the bottom? It's happened to me before, though not in sports, but it was just good old fashioned sexism. Let's maybe deal with the inherent sexism of the rules and laws that we already have than tackle the 3 instances in 8.2 billion that it allegedly happens in a world where the least of our worries is whether a game is fair.
Did you address the sexism Rachel, or let it slide? If I worked my entire life to win something and lose it to someone who wouldn’t have been able to just a year or two before, then yeah, I would question it.
I'm sorry to get sarcastic here, but yeah. I waved my anti discrimination wand and it was totally fixed. But I've never had to use my wand to prevent a transgender person from ruining my day, despite knowing several, because systemic transgenderism is vanishingly rare. Instead, I do what I can at the ballot box to deal with common sexism, and I think about systemic transgenderism after I worry about how unfair it is that unicorns don't need wands because they're genetically magic and I'm not.
Let’s not forget that men and women were separated during tournaments due to women’s advancement in competition. Women were showing that they could beat a man, and therefore the men organized a separate category for women. Like bathroom bills, these gender-based concerns aren’t about protecting women at all.
If anything they’re putting cis women at risk as well. What happens when a cis woman is accused of being trans in a public bathroom? What sort of trauma will she be subjected to? Or what about trans women who have undergone bottom surgery? Which bathroom are they supposed to safely use?
“Im not a Trump voter…” why do people think they have to post that in a nonpartisan group? And why does one boast of being a Biden voter? 🤔
Since I'm the one who said it:
I chose to state it here because I replied to a commenter asking Trump voters a question. I clarified - in answering her question - that I wasn't a Trump voter, but I was answering anyway. I'm also not a Harris voter. And I didn't boast of being a Biden voter, so I'm unsure if that was directed to me or to the others on here.
It just ended up under a post instead of on its own. A general observation since I see it a lot here.
Got it. I believe I’m one of the few here who has shared being a conservative leaning Independent who didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. While I agree that who I voted for shouldn’t necessarily matter, I also see value and transparency when it contributes to the goal of this newsletter: Learning from and having interesting discussions with people who think differently than you. In that context, I feel like sharing my voting stance can help further that goal. But maybe I’m wrong.
Over my many years, I've voted democrat; I've voted republican; I've voted independent. I have never been SCARED of the "other side" winning. Now, I am legitimately worried about what is happening here.
I'm trying to play my part. Do the next best thing I can do. I'm worried that the misinformation, the disinformation, and the quest for retribution are unstoppable. Yes, there are so many good people out there, but a lot of them aren't paying attention or are making excuses.
Sorry...I'm rambling, but wow. I feel really scared for our country.
Exactly this. When a president was elected that I didn't like, I was never terrified for what might happen, or that the president was out to seek revenge on people who didn't agree with him. This is new, in my lifetime at least.
Bridget I feel the same way 😞
❤️
Yes. I would have happily voted for Bush as an alternative.
His justification is it would take too much time to evaluate each case. Pathetic!
Good on Margaret Brennan for asking Vance that question! The president and VP should both be asked how they justify some of these pardons relentlessly until we get a satisfactory explanation. Disappointing that Vance couldn’t give one. Disgusting to blame the DOJ.
Not only Trump and Vance, but every single Republican senator and Rep should be made uncomfortable with this question over and over. It is simply unacceptable that we should move on from violent criminals being pardoned.
Do Not Move On!
Keep asking!
Every time a politician that supports Trump claims they also support law and order, back the blue, etc., ask them which is it, because one of these things is not like the other.
Scary that the answer was "It would have taken too much time and effort to do it right, so we did it wrong."
In less than 2 weeks, don the con has made a mockery out of the country. I never want to hear republicans talk about backing the blue again. To think he thought it would be just “too much trouble “ to comb through the cases, is disturbing on a level I can’t comprehend. I’m not sure the county can survive 4 years of his erratic, juvenile and unqualified behavior.
I’m not sure I understand the WHY behind any pardons. Unless you are looking at those truly innocent (West Memphis 3), and others who maybe took the Alford plea, then my brain just says why? You still have approx 32,000 people convicted of marijuana charges who remain in prison. WHY are the violent offenders, the drug dealers, those who commit crimes against the US the ones who get the free passes? It’s a disgusting, perversion of justice and only part of our problems.
I don’t agree with the pardoning of any violent criminals. Period. But I especially disagree with pardoning violent criminals who attacked our Capitol in a coup attempt.
This is the glaring most hypocritical pardon, considering he is supposedly trying to keep drugs from coming in at the border...https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pardons-silk-road-founder-ulbricht-online-drug-scheme-2025-01-22/
It doesn't look like we have enough representatives in Congress or the Senate who will stand up to him, so now what?
Angela- Replace Them!
It doesn't look like we have time for that.
Thank you for telling it like it is, Sharon. I appreciate your hard work and research. We need to read the truth and each of us needs to figure out what we are going to do with the information. At the very least we can write letters, call, email, or text our politicians and let them know our opinions. If we all saturate their inboxes, maybe they will take notice.
I tried to post this elsewhere but now I can’t find it. I want to back up my statement that Trump is a purveyor of revenge politics. Here is some information:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4996981-trump-enemies-fear-retribution/
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/1211597189/a-look-into-trumps-recent-rhetoric-focusing-on-revenge-and-threats
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-has-threatened-dozens-of-times-to-use-the-government-to-target-political-enemies/
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/07/trump-dr-phil-interview-revenge
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-guilty-verdict-revenge-retribution-rcna155743
Adfontes puts the Hill squarely in the middle. More to the point, does it matter? The relevant question is, are the reports true or false?
These all seem to be examples of threats and threatening language. No actual implementation if I'm correct?
Boy that’s some fine hair splitting going on. Rhetoric is often the first step in the chain that leads to political violence. And he’s only been in power a few days.
I disagree. He's been saying some of these things for quite some time. I'm in the camp that Trump says a lot of things and is to be taken seriously but not literally. I suppose time will tell if he politically prosecutes his "enemies." I understand you believe he will, but I hope you are wrong.
Oops. We’ve accidentally changed the subject instead of addressing the core question. The question was, is Trump an arbiter of revenge politics. His rhetoric strongly suggests he is.
What about preemptive pardons? I’d listen to this if I felt like the same level of critical thinking was being made on those. But people can easily justify those and sweep them under the rug. “But, but… what Trump did is so much worse”. I want zero comments justifying what Biden did. I want honest, fair holding EVERYONE accountable. The same people who can justify Biden won’t acknowledge the many examples of J6ers who Were over zealously prosecuted for political points. I agree there were violent ones who shouldn’t have been pardoned. (Although I haven’t looked at time served and appropriate levels of charges and sentencing - have you??)
Pardoning people back to 2014? You’ve got No concerns about that?
Deena, I agree with honesty, fairness, and holding everyone accountable. Yes, I am keeping track of all of the pardoned J6ers in my area because I don’t want them running for my school board. Kimberly Dragoo ran for the St. Joseph, MO school board.
They are insurrectionists and they are emboldened. We must be vigilant!
The “but” does matter here. I wonder what you would do if your family was facing legitimate threats from a sitting president. It’s not a justification for what Biden did, but it is reality. And another reason (among many) that Kash Patel is unqualified for FBI Director.
What kind of accountability are you looking for in terms of preemptive pardons?
Just how much of the kook aid have you had??? The pardons from President Biden are not remotely like don the cons. All the trump supporters kept saying he’s not really going to do…….fill in the blank, he’s just saying that. Well less that 2 weeks in and he’s already done a lot of what you said he wouldn’t. He said he was going after the people president Biden pardoned. Not because they did something wrong, but because they enraged don and his ego. The January sixers were not prosecuted for political points, they actually broke the law and were found guilty. Maga has been fear mongered into hating the wrong people all so an unscrupulous man can stoke his ego and line his pockets.
I remember when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. I never got over that. And neither did the American people. He was not re-elected.
The problem is Trump doesn't care because he can't be re-elected, however, Vance and other Republicans with future political aspirations might need to start caring because it's all going to fall on them and they will be the ones ultimately voted out for excusing these terrible decisions.
It’s up to us to uphold standards. Remember those?
Yes, I know that however, he danced around and gave excuses when questioned about Trump doing it rather than pushing back and reiterating that he was against it. I would have actually respected him had he held his stance on it.
What would changing the way Presidents can use the pardon going forward look like? Congress? I’m wondering if there is enough political will to do so.
All it seems to take is for Trump or ‘president musk ‘ to threaten a member of congress w funding am opponent and they all fall right into line . 😓
Can you plz compare Biden's commutations and pardons to Trump's. Someone said Biden's were worse...??? How so?? Did he release murderers, etc??