Update the stock market is "still" in the red, apparently they didn't fall for his "actions." "HE" got cold feet and didn't like the reaction of whatever happened. But the markets aren't falling for it!
Totally agree with you in all you have said Joe, I've said for a very long time that our leaders should be chosen because of their "integrity"! We shouldn't NEED money to pick candidates. AND here's the big one WE SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING! NOT blindly get caught up in all of the BS and chaos! There are many that can govern well. The current one cannot. I have also said that businessmen have NO place in politics because they don't understand that government is NOT like a business, it has many entities. So if you fire thousands of people not knowing exactly what they are doing for the government you make HUGE mistakes. I guess I've said enough, but again integrity supercedes GREED in my book any day of the week.
The American economic system is broken, as evidenced by the unbalanced income disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots." Costs have risen while incomes haven't, and people have seen the wealthy increase their wealth while they struggle to keep up. So, of course, they voted for someone to shake up the system. The problem is we are stuck with the wrong someone.
The Republicans (and their Project 2025) started creating an opening with Regan in the 1980s and have developed it to their benefit. Their benefit is prosperity for the wealthy while dismantling the rules and regulations on their businesses and ignoring the rest of us. We are the Serfs of the 14th century, financing the Knights on their Crusades.
We need to fix our broken system, but not like this! We need to re-establish democracy as we thought it was meant to be: fair to everyone!
Just Now: "HE'S" rolling back the Tariffs for 90 days. That will be approximately July when he will most likely implement them in the middle of the summer when nobody's looking. However I DO think those people that work for NASDAQ and S & P will cautiously watch just what "HE" does from now on. I don't think the Tariffs were part of the Project 2025. That was between him and Navarro. (who was crucial in drawing up the PROJECT).
Agree with you as well Carol, actually the Heritage Foundation may have started earlier than the 80's in a different form. But "IT" was what they eventually what they based the "Project" on. A bunch of wealthy (Kochs and more) decided "THEY" wanted it all and wanted to go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when rich were very rich and the poor didn't matter.
Thank you. If by saying "started earlier than the '80s," you mean The John Burch Society, you're right. I believe the Birchers were the current iteration's roots. However, I also think what HEATHER COX Richardson says about the turning of republicans was because of FDR's New Deal. Maybe even earlier than that. Maybe going back to the Reformation after the Civil War (democrats at the time).
Trump is reflecting those same beliefs that the white slave owners stated about using their tax dollars to support the newly emancipated slaves who they said were lazy and wanted to freeload off of them. Our country has a dark history regarding equality and the rule of law. It's always been about who you are and how much money you have.
We woke up and discovered that the Founders, attempting to create a more perfect union, boxed us into a suicide pact. That's why they left us with those obscure quotes obliquely mentioning how it may be necessary for us to take it down, maybe even by force. Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin all said versions of "if it's not working out for you, it's up to you to reset it". They saw the limitations of their own creation, and of the very flawed human beings who would follow them.
We cannot reverse what's happening. Trump has discovered that the system was set up assuming that there would be at least logic and rationality applied by the participants. Nobody had the impulse or the will before to just dare everyone to stop him while taking a match to it all. In the face of that audacity, we are helpless. We are still bound to the old Enlightenment values of logic and reasoning, and so cannot defend ourselves against raw violence.
Um, right.
History lesson: the wailing in America was very loud that to enter the war with Germany in WWII would be suicide because "what could a bunch of hayseed farmboys do against the Wehrmacht, the most powerful military the world had ever seen?" Well, those farmboys gutted the Wehrmacht like a hog, and left their mighty cities smoking husks. 'Smart Guys(R)' who speak with smug assurance about how things "really are" are clearly correct, until they're not. I'm not saying there's no risk, of course there's risk, of course the Mango has destroyed huge chunks of the country. I'm also not going to insult anyone's intelligence by bleating "all we have to do is ... ", because that is always crap.
All I'm saying is the only way out of this is through. But let's not push through it yet. Let's enjoy this moment for a while before we actually exercise our agency. It's such an interesting experience.
I like this but there is no mention of the role white supremacy and deep racism played in trumpism. Hatred dominated his campaign with dehumanizing and othering non-whites. Racism was a major part of his appeal. Thankfully, his margin of victory was not only thin, but highly suspect.
Trump’s share of Black voters rose slightly, driven largely by younger men
Trump was able to make slight inroads with Black voters nationally, who made up about 1 in 10 voters across the country.
Nationally, about 8 in 10 Black voters supported Harris. But, that was down from about 9 in 10 in the last presidential election who went for Biden.
Trump about doubled his share of young Black men – which helped him among key Democratic voting group. About 3 in 10 Black men under the age of 45 went for Trump, roughly double the number he got in 2020.
Misogyny also played a role. Why else vote for an openly racist felon. Now, we hear regret from Black males, Latinos and White MAGA voters who can't believe how easily he dismantle their systems of support, removes legal immigrants, and works to erase historical contributions of Black Americans.
Our “broken” democracy doesn’t necessarily mean the “American experiment” has failed. We just need to split off from those who don’t believe in it. We need leaders strong and visionary enough to make that division happen as peacefully as possible. Florida and Texas can lead the way out, take the Dump Truck and concentration camps with them, and California and New York can forge a new union with a stronger Constitution. Imagine no Second Amendment or Electoral College. Corporations don’t have constitutional rights but ALL humans do. Can you see it?
But this may be premature. I don't think we really KNOW our enemies in that opposition. The reason I say that is that, aside from the isolated murder of abortion providers and radio hosts, what actual action have they taken? Jan-6. That's it. The rest is hot air.
Compare that to the decades of bellowing they've done about how they were going to take up their gunz and murder us all.... because "Freedom!". They're incoherent and blinded by their rage and fear. Their children are dying of preventable diseases. They've spent generations refusing to get educated, wallowing in beliefs about their inherent "superiority", encouraged by their political elite who found them useful idiots who could be duped into voting their way. They're so ignorant that they don't know that seizing all the guns is on page one of the totalitarian playbook.
But here's the thing: they're losing their jobs and their savings are being gutted. They are being weakened daily by the Mango's destruction of the country. They are a self-selecting group of stupid and ignorant people, do we *really* think they are capable of forming or maintaining a nation of their "like-minded"?
Maybe we do still believe that. Maybe we just have to wait longer for more proof until they are betrayed and subjugated by their self-interested elites.
I'd like to say that those who voted for Trump did so out of concern for the economy. Nah. I'd like to say that those who voted for Trump did so because they understand and support his policies. Nope, not that either. OK, I'd like to say that those who voted for Trump did so because they believe everything he says. ... that is a lot more believable than that they are fixated on the economy. But - I believe that those who voted for Trump did so because he validated and encouraged their prejudices, their envy, their jealousy, their failures, their hatreds, and their fake-to-the-core, faux Christianity. They always forget, as well, that their Jesus was a Jew. How can they possibly forget that while roaring "Jews will not replace us"? Rhetorical. I already explained how.
Thanks, Joe. Fight we must. We are living in a time--perhaps for along time---of capitalism run amuck. Capitalism subservient to democracy. I like this idea. Basically using "our" money for the good of all. Why is that so hard?
More precisely, capitalism left to its own devices degenerates into cartels and monopolies. That statement was attributed to Adam Smith, but I can't find the reference.
A "capitalist system" provides benefit to the consumer class only if the markets are competitive and free, free of fraud and collusion, not free of policing. Capitalists are by nature predators. Capitalists without competition can extort unlimited profits, and that's essentially corporate feudalism. Don't confused the existence of capitalists alone with the existence of a capitalist system, which is the interaction of the capitalism and free markets. Only through democracy can the consumer majority prevent corporate interests from using their consolidated power to pervert the discipline of market competition.
I think you have it wrong. the Republicans won because they used fear based on lies to sway the voters. They convinced people the economy was awful, when it was making a remarkable recovery. They convinced people immigrants were evil, when our economy depends on many of them. Regarding fear of transsexuals, they spread the Cass Report as if it had any rigorous scientific basis. it does not.
Speaking of lie, trans activists and their zealous cishet allies have been spreading lies about the Cass Report. They don't want the American public to know that:
The Cass Report, officially known as the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, was commissioned by NHS England and led by Dr. Hilary Cass, a respected pediatrician and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It carries a robust scientific basis for several reasons:
🧪 1. Methodological Rigor
Systematic Evidence Reviews: The Cass Review commissioned independent evidence reviews from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other academic teams. These reviews followed systematic review protocols, evaluating studies on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and psychosocial outcomes.
Critical Appraisal of Quality: The report carefully assessed the methodological quality and limitations of the existing evidence base. It did not take studies at face value but evaluated their design, sample sizes, biases, and long-term follow-up quality.
🧠 2. Interdisciplinary Expertise
The review drew on a multi-disciplinary team of experts, including clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and ethicists from different fields—ensuring a balance between clinical experience and academic rigor.
The Cass Review also consulted international experts, ensuring that its findings were informed by practices and data from outside the UK.
📚 3. Evidence-Based Conclusions
The Cass Report does not reject gender-affirming care, but argues that the evidence base is weak for certain medical interventions—especially when used in children and adolescents.
It emphasizes the importance of individualized care, psychosocial support, and careful clinical oversight, in contrast to protocol-driven, one-size-fits-all models.
🔍 4. Transparency and Accountability
The Cass team published interim reports, commissioned studies, and background documents throughout the process.
All findings are publicly available, and the report details how evidence was gathered, what standards were used, and how conclusions were reached.
🌍 5. Alignment with International Trends
The Cass findings are broadly consistent with recent policy shifts in countries like Sweden, Finland, and Norway, which have also reevaluated pediatric gender medicine due to concerns about the quality of evidence and long-term outcomes.
🧾 Summary
In short, the Cass Report has a robust scientific basis because it:
Relied on systematic evidence reviews.
Involved expert interdisciplinary input.
Emphasized clinical caution in the face of uncertain long-term outcomes.
Prioritized transparency and public accountability.
Reflected broader trends in evidence-based pediatric care internationally.
Please see New England Journal of Medicine, Published January 15, 2025
N Engl J Med 2025;392:526-528. It took them too long to respond, but it is clear this "report" was not scientifically rigorous, but the rants of anti-trans people.
Some trans allies are as impervious to facts as Trumpists. Have you even read the Cass Report or summary I provided? Specifically, which parts are "the rants of anti-trans people"?
About the NEJM piece:
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article on January 15, 2025, titled "The Future of Gender-Affirming Care — A Law and Policy Perspective on the Cass Review," authored by Daniel G. Aaron, M.D., J.D., and Craig Konnoth, J.D. This article critiques the Cass Review, an independent evaluation of gender-affirming care for minors in the UK, asserting that the review "transgresses medical law, policy, and practice," and is "at odds with mainstream U.S. expert guidelines."
From a gender-critical perspective, several concerns have been raised regarding the NEJM article:
Misrepresentation of the Cass Review's Standards: Critics argue that the NEJM article inaccurately claims the Cass Review imposes an unreasonably high standard of evidence for gender-affirming treatments. In reality, the Cass Review applies standard evidence-based medicine principles, similar to those used in other medical fields. The NEJM article's assertion that the Cass Review's standards are excessively stringent is contested by those who believe rigorous evaluation is necessary for such interventions.
Editorial Bias and Selective Publication: Concerns have been raised about potential bias within the NEJM's editorial process. Reports indicate that when a group of psychologists submitted an article offering a perspective sympathetic to the Cass Review, the NEJM declined to consider it. This has led to accusations that the journal may be favoring certain viewpoints over others, potentially stifling balanced discourse on the topic.
Questionable Claims About Evidence Quality: The NEJM article suggests that the Cass Review's findings are not aligned with mainstream U.S. guidelines. However, gender-critical commentators note that the Cass Review's emphasis on the lack of high-quality evidence supporting gender-affirming interventions is consistent with concerns raised in various medical communities. This alignment suggests that the Cass Review's cautious approach is warranted and not as isolated as the NEJM article implies.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: The authors of the NEJM article, Daniel G. Aaron and Craig Konnoth, have backgrounds in law and policy rather than clinical practice in gender medicine. This raises questions about their qualifications to critique a clinical review like the Cass Review. Additionally, their perspectives may be influenced by legal and political considerations, which could introduce bias into their analysis.
In summary, from a gender-critical standpoint, the NEJM article's critique of the Cass Review appears to misrepresent the review's standards, exhibit editorial bias, questionably assess evidence quality, and reflect potential conflicts of interest. These factors collectively suggest that the NEJM article may not provide a fully balanced or accurate evaluation of the Cass Review's findings and recommendations.
There are quite a few lies, half-truths and insinuations in circulation about the Cass Review. Fortunately, they are easily dispelled by readily available facts.
First, the document is referred to as the "Cass Review," not "Cass Report" because the UK's National Health Service commissioned Dr. Hillary Cass to lead an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people. These are Dr. Cass's credentials and qualifications:
Dr. Hilary Cass, Baroness Cass OBE FRCP FRCPCH, is a distinguished British paediatrician with a notable career in child health and disability. She graduated from the Royal Free Hospital Medical School in 1982 with an MB BS degree and a BSc in Paediatrics and Child Health.
ThirdSector Awards+5MPs and Lords - UK Parliament+5Wikipedia+5
Wikipedia
Dr. Cass has held several prominent positions, including serving as President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) from 2012 to 2015. She was also Chair of the British Academy of Childhood Disability from 2017 to 2020. In 1992, she founded the UK's Rett Clinic for children with Rett syndrome. Her clinical roles have encompassed consultant positions at Great Ormond Street Hospital and the Evelina London Children's Hospital, where she focused on paediatric disability.
In recognition of her services to child health, Dr. Cass was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 2015. She is a Fellow of both the Royal College of Physicians (FRCP) and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (FRCPCH).
(Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2PolicyMogul+2)
In 2024, Dr. Cass was appointed as a life peer in the House of Lords, taking the title Baroness Cass of Barnet.
(Wikipedia)
Next, the Cass Review project commissioned nine studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals, primarily in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, a reputable, peer-reviewed medical journal. The editorial by Camilla C. Kingdon and the systematic reviews by Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, and colleagues underwent rigorous peer review processes before publication. These publications contribute significantly to the academic discourse on gender dysphoria and related interventions in children and adolescents.
Here is a list of the studies and their authors:
Editorial
Holistic approach to gender questioning children and young people
Camilla C Kingdon
Systematic Reviews
Characteristics of children and adolescents referred to specialist gender services: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
Impact of social transition in relation to gender for children and adolescents: a systematic review
Ruth Hall, Jo Taylor, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Claire Heathcote, Stuart William Jarvis, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser
Psychosocial support interventions for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review
Claire Heathcote, Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Stuart William Jarvis, Trilby Langton, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Lorna Fraser
Interventions to suppress puberty in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Alex Mitchell, Ruth Hall, Claire Heathcote, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
Masculinising and feminising hormone interventions for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Alex Mitchell, Ruth Hall, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
Care pathways of children and adolescents referred to specialist gender services: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
International Guidelines
Clinical guidelines for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review of guideline quality (part 1)
Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Claire Heathcote, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser
Clinical guidelines for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review of recommendations (part 2)
Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Claire Heathcote, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser
International Survey
Gender services for children and adolescents across the EU-15+ countries: an online survey
Ruth Hall, Jo Taylor, Claire Heathcote, Trilby Langton, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Lorna Fraser
Why was the Cass Review itself not published in a journal? There's nothing shady about it.
The Cass Review, officially titled the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, was commissioned by NHS England as a service evaluation rather than an academic research project. Such evaluations are typically conducted to assess and improve specific services within the NHS and are often published as official reports rather than in academic journals. This approach allows for more immediate dissemination and implementation of findings within the healthcare system.
While the main report itself was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, the systematic reviews that informed the Cass Review were conducted by the University of York's Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and were published in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood. This indicates that while the overarching report was designed as a policy document, components of its underlying research underwent academic peer review.
Please complete the thought you started. To sway limited-intelligence voters with fear is immoral and should not be allowed. The Right's loathsome tactics make any of their objectives invalid. There, I said it.
Well, since we have objectives, too, how about we develop skill at swaying voters with fear? Joe Biden was a terrible tyrant and destroyed the country, so they chant. Yet, their children weren't dying of preventable diseases under Biden. Their 401Ks did not evaporate under Biden. They don't want to see that, they still want to believe that the Mango is their savior and will blah blah blah. How can we maximize their fear? How do we scare them so bad that their mental defenses just collapse. It maybe easier, rather than harder, to do, since they are stupid and do not have critical thinking skills.
I don't think they're stupid, but their information sources are limited. I wouldn't want to use fear except now I am afraid at the loss of our democracy.
I subscribe to a simplified explanation for human behavior, since I don't have access to advanced information, especially regarding people I don't know. For me the "Gump" model works pretty well: "stupid is as stupid does".
They could have access to as much quality information as they could consume, but they choose to indulge in the sugar high they get from listening to their own opinions echoed back to them. The only way to access what minds they have is through their amygdala, channeling fear to them. That's because they get to vote, for now, and obviously skew the results in a destructive direction. That might not always be true, in the future the burdens of civic participation may be lifted from their weary shoulders.
It’s about time (imho) folks stopped obsessing over Project 2025 and following every jot and tittle as we watch our democracy die. It’s time to start solving the problem (no, I don’t have the magic wand) and START TODAY to campaign (like PINO and his gang) for 2026 and 2028. Dems cannot lose another minute, focusing only on how horrible the Orange Turd (and other wonderful names) can be to us, and aim for making him fear our eventual reprisal. Let’s go!!
Just planning for the next election won’t solve the problems. We can’t keep jerking policies back and forth every two or four years and having the same arguments every day. Let’s set up competing countries and it will soon become apparent which is stronger.
Agree with Tasmin, great piece today Joe. I especially love Nolan's quote. So very true. Thanks for your statement on it not being Democrats fault. Lots of it to of around. But WE have had the righteous truth and actions for decades; Republicans not so much. Many of us are out here working our asses off for democracy. Thanks again.
“We have to burn it all down and start over” JD Vance July 2024
The primary objective of the Nazi aka Republican party takeover of the levers of government with Project 2025 as its blueprint is to decimate the federal institutions of government and then rebuild the structure to their liking This includes an authoritarian government with an oligarchic support system much like in Russia
The takeover plan is to create chaos and confusion so that anxiety levels amongst the population are at an all time high By eradicating functional federal institutions such as HHS, IRS, SSA etc disorganization creates mayhem and instability This can be further accelerated by a punishing global tariff scheme creating even more havoc and turmoil Even if Der Fuhrer is stopped in his tariff tracks it will make little difference The point is to generate pubic anxiety
After the destruction the stage is set for an authoritarian regime to take over and tear up the Constitution WE the People will become irrelevant Hang on America This is a test of a lifetime
What the architects of this plan are oblivious to is the credit bubble that has been growing over the last 5 decades is coincidentally bursting and with it a fiat currency crisis with runaway inflation This credit bubble explosion will ironically save the democratic republic In the meantime get into the safe haven of gold/silver
Update the stock market is "still" in the red, apparently they didn't fall for his "actions." "HE" got cold feet and didn't like the reaction of whatever happened. But the markets aren't falling for it!
Totally agree with you in all you have said Joe, I've said for a very long time that our leaders should be chosen because of their "integrity"! We shouldn't NEED money to pick candidates. AND here's the big one WE SHOULD LISTEN TO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING! NOT blindly get caught up in all of the BS and chaos! There are many that can govern well. The current one cannot. I have also said that businessmen have NO place in politics because they don't understand that government is NOT like a business, it has many entities. So if you fire thousands of people not knowing exactly what they are doing for the government you make HUGE mistakes. I guess I've said enough, but again integrity supercedes GREED in my book any day of the week.
The American economic system is broken, as evidenced by the unbalanced income disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots." Costs have risen while incomes haven't, and people have seen the wealthy increase their wealth while they struggle to keep up. So, of course, they voted for someone to shake up the system. The problem is we are stuck with the wrong someone.
The Republicans (and their Project 2025) started creating an opening with Regan in the 1980s and have developed it to their benefit. Their benefit is prosperity for the wealthy while dismantling the rules and regulations on their businesses and ignoring the rest of us. We are the Serfs of the 14th century, financing the Knights on their Crusades.
We need to fix our broken system, but not like this! We need to re-establish democracy as we thought it was meant to be: fair to everyone!
Just Now: "HE'S" rolling back the Tariffs for 90 days. That will be approximately July when he will most likely implement them in the middle of the summer when nobody's looking. However I DO think those people that work for NASDAQ and S & P will cautiously watch just what "HE" does from now on. I don't think the Tariffs were part of the Project 2025. That was between him and Navarro. (who was crucial in drawing up the PROJECT).
Agree with you as well Carol, actually the Heritage Foundation may have started earlier than the 80's in a different form. But "IT" was what they eventually what they based the "Project" on. A bunch of wealthy (Kochs and more) decided "THEY" wanted it all and wanted to go back to the "GOOD OLD DAYS" when rich were very rich and the poor didn't matter.
Thank you. If by saying "started earlier than the '80s," you mean The John Burch Society, you're right. I believe the Birchers were the current iteration's roots. However, I also think what HEATHER COX Richardson says about the turning of republicans was because of FDR's New Deal. Maybe even earlier than that. Maybe going back to the Reformation after the Civil War (democrats at the time).
Trump is reflecting those same beliefs that the white slave owners stated about using their tax dollars to support the newly emancipated slaves who they said were lazy and wanted to freeload off of them. Our country has a dark history regarding equality and the rule of law. It's always been about who you are and how much money you have.
We woke up and discovered that the Founders, attempting to create a more perfect union, boxed us into a suicide pact. That's why they left us with those obscure quotes obliquely mentioning how it may be necessary for us to take it down, maybe even by force. Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin all said versions of "if it's not working out for you, it's up to you to reset it". They saw the limitations of their own creation, and of the very flawed human beings who would follow them.
We cannot reverse what's happening. Trump has discovered that the system was set up assuming that there would be at least logic and rationality applied by the participants. Nobody had the impulse or the will before to just dare everyone to stop him while taking a match to it all. In the face of that audacity, we are helpless. We are still bound to the old Enlightenment values of logic and reasoning, and so cannot defend ourselves against raw violence.
Um, right.
History lesson: the wailing in America was very loud that to enter the war with Germany in WWII would be suicide because "what could a bunch of hayseed farmboys do against the Wehrmacht, the most powerful military the world had ever seen?" Well, those farmboys gutted the Wehrmacht like a hog, and left their mighty cities smoking husks. 'Smart Guys(R)' who speak with smug assurance about how things "really are" are clearly correct, until they're not. I'm not saying there's no risk, of course there's risk, of course the Mango has destroyed huge chunks of the country. I'm also not going to insult anyone's intelligence by bleating "all we have to do is ... ", because that is always crap.
All I'm saying is the only way out of this is through. But let's not push through it yet. Let's enjoy this moment for a while before we actually exercise our agency. It's such an interesting experience.
I like this but there is no mention of the role white supremacy and deep racism played in trumpism. Hatred dominated his campaign with dehumanizing and othering non-whites. Racism was a major part of his appeal. Thankfully, his margin of victory was not only thin, but highly suspect.
And yet:
Trump’s share of Black voters rose slightly, driven largely by younger men
Trump was able to make slight inroads with Black voters nationally, who made up about 1 in 10 voters across the country.
Nationally, about 8 in 10 Black voters supported Harris. But, that was down from about 9 in 10 in the last presidential election who went for Biden.
Trump about doubled his share of young Black men – which helped him among key Democratic voting group. About 3 in 10 Black men under the age of 45 went for Trump, roughly double the number he got in 2020.
https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latinos-black-voters-0f3fbda3362f3dcfe41aa6b858f22d12
Misogyny also played a role. Why else vote for an openly racist felon. Now, we hear regret from Black males, Latinos and White MAGA voters who can't believe how easily he dismantle their systems of support, removes legal immigrants, and works to erase historical contributions of Black Americans.
The Project 2025 playback is racist, misogynistic, and anti-democratic. It was obvious he would and is following it.
Our “broken” democracy doesn’t necessarily mean the “American experiment” has failed. We just need to split off from those who don’t believe in it. We need leaders strong and visionary enough to make that division happen as peacefully as possible. Florida and Texas can lead the way out, take the Dump Truck and concentration camps with them, and California and New York can forge a new union with a stronger Constitution. Imagine no Second Amendment or Electoral College. Corporations don’t have constitutional rights but ALL humans do. Can you see it?
... or join Canada as their 11th province.
But this may be premature. I don't think we really KNOW our enemies in that opposition. The reason I say that is that, aside from the isolated murder of abortion providers and radio hosts, what actual action have they taken? Jan-6. That's it. The rest is hot air.
Compare that to the decades of bellowing they've done about how they were going to take up their gunz and murder us all.... because "Freedom!". They're incoherent and blinded by their rage and fear. Their children are dying of preventable diseases. They've spent generations refusing to get educated, wallowing in beliefs about their inherent "superiority", encouraged by their political elite who found them useful idiots who could be duped into voting their way. They're so ignorant that they don't know that seizing all the guns is on page one of the totalitarian playbook.
But here's the thing: they're losing their jobs and their savings are being gutted. They are being weakened daily by the Mango's destruction of the country. They are a self-selecting group of stupid and ignorant people, do we *really* think they are capable of forming or maintaining a nation of their "like-minded"?
Maybe we do still believe that. Maybe we just have to wait longer for more proof until they are betrayed and subjugated by their self-interested elites.
I'd like to say that those who voted for Trump did so out of concern for the economy. Nah. I'd like to say that those who voted for Trump did so because they understand and support his policies. Nope, not that either. OK, I'd like to say that those who voted for Trump did so because they believe everything he says. ... that is a lot more believable than that they are fixated on the economy. But - I believe that those who voted for Trump did so because he validated and encouraged their prejudices, their envy, their jealousy, their failures, their hatreds, and their fake-to-the-core, faux Christianity. They always forget, as well, that their Jesus was a Jew. How can they possibly forget that while roaring "Jews will not replace us"? Rhetorical. I already explained how.
Thanks, Joe. Fight we must. We are living in a time--perhaps for along time---of capitalism run amuck. Capitalism subservient to democracy. I like this idea. Basically using "our" money for the good of all. Why is that so hard?
More precisely, capitalism left to its own devices degenerates into cartels and monopolies. That statement was attributed to Adam Smith, but I can't find the reference.
A "capitalist system" provides benefit to the consumer class only if the markets are competitive and free, free of fraud and collusion, not free of policing. Capitalists are by nature predators. Capitalists without competition can extort unlimited profits, and that's essentially corporate feudalism. Don't confused the existence of capitalists alone with the existence of a capitalist system, which is the interaction of the capitalism and free markets. Only through democracy can the consumer majority prevent corporate interests from using their consolidated power to pervert the discipline of market competition.
I think you have it wrong. the Republicans won because they used fear based on lies to sway the voters. They convinced people the economy was awful, when it was making a remarkable recovery. They convinced people immigrants were evil, when our economy depends on many of them. Regarding fear of transsexuals, they spread the Cass Report as if it had any rigorous scientific basis. it does not.
Speaking of lie, trans activists and their zealous cishet allies have been spreading lies about the Cass Report. They don't want the American public to know that:
The Cass Report, officially known as the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, was commissioned by NHS England and led by Dr. Hilary Cass, a respected pediatrician and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It carries a robust scientific basis for several reasons:
🧪 1. Methodological Rigor
Systematic Evidence Reviews: The Cass Review commissioned independent evidence reviews from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other academic teams. These reviews followed systematic review protocols, evaluating studies on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and psychosocial outcomes.
Critical Appraisal of Quality: The report carefully assessed the methodological quality and limitations of the existing evidence base. It did not take studies at face value but evaluated their design, sample sizes, biases, and long-term follow-up quality.
🧠 2. Interdisciplinary Expertise
The review drew on a multi-disciplinary team of experts, including clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and ethicists from different fields—ensuring a balance between clinical experience and academic rigor.
The Cass Review also consulted international experts, ensuring that its findings were informed by practices and data from outside the UK.
📚 3. Evidence-Based Conclusions
The Cass Report does not reject gender-affirming care, but argues that the evidence base is weak for certain medical interventions—especially when used in children and adolescents.
It emphasizes the importance of individualized care, psychosocial support, and careful clinical oversight, in contrast to protocol-driven, one-size-fits-all models.
🔍 4. Transparency and Accountability
The Cass team published interim reports, commissioned studies, and background documents throughout the process.
All findings are publicly available, and the report details how evidence was gathered, what standards were used, and how conclusions were reached.
🌍 5. Alignment with International Trends
The Cass findings are broadly consistent with recent policy shifts in countries like Sweden, Finland, and Norway, which have also reevaluated pediatric gender medicine due to concerns about the quality of evidence and long-term outcomes.
🧾 Summary
In short, the Cass Report has a robust scientific basis because it:
Relied on systematic evidence reviews.
Involved expert interdisciplinary input.
Emphasized clinical caution in the face of uncertain long-term outcomes.
Prioritized transparency and public accountability.
Reflected broader trends in evidence-based pediatric care internationally.
Please see New England Journal of Medicine, Published January 15, 2025
N Engl J Med 2025;392:526-528. It took them too long to respond, but it is clear this "report" was not scientifically rigorous, but the rants of anti-trans people.
Some trans allies are as impervious to facts as Trumpists. Have you even read the Cass Report or summary I provided? Specifically, which parts are "the rants of anti-trans people"?
About the NEJM piece:
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article on January 15, 2025, titled "The Future of Gender-Affirming Care — A Law and Policy Perspective on the Cass Review," authored by Daniel G. Aaron, M.D., J.D., and Craig Konnoth, J.D. This article critiques the Cass Review, an independent evaluation of gender-affirming care for minors in the UK, asserting that the review "transgresses medical law, policy, and practice," and is "at odds with mainstream U.S. expert guidelines."
From a gender-critical perspective, several concerns have been raised regarding the NEJM article:
Misrepresentation of the Cass Review's Standards: Critics argue that the NEJM article inaccurately claims the Cass Review imposes an unreasonably high standard of evidence for gender-affirming treatments. In reality, the Cass Review applies standard evidence-based medicine principles, similar to those used in other medical fields. The NEJM article's assertion that the Cass Review's standards are excessively stringent is contested by those who believe rigorous evaluation is necessary for such interventions.
Editorial Bias and Selective Publication: Concerns have been raised about potential bias within the NEJM's editorial process. Reports indicate that when a group of psychologists submitted an article offering a perspective sympathetic to the Cass Review, the NEJM declined to consider it. This has led to accusations that the journal may be favoring certain viewpoints over others, potentially stifling balanced discourse on the topic.
Questionable Claims About Evidence Quality: The NEJM article suggests that the Cass Review's findings are not aligned with mainstream U.S. guidelines. However, gender-critical commentators note that the Cass Review's emphasis on the lack of high-quality evidence supporting gender-affirming interventions is consistent with concerns raised in various medical communities. This alignment suggests that the Cass Review's cautious approach is warranted and not as isolated as the NEJM article implies.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: The authors of the NEJM article, Daniel G. Aaron and Craig Konnoth, have backgrounds in law and policy rather than clinical practice in gender medicine. This raises questions about their qualifications to critique a clinical review like the Cass Review. Additionally, their perspectives may be influenced by legal and political considerations, which could introduce bias into their analysis.
In summary, from a gender-critical standpoint, the NEJM article's critique of the Cass Review appears to misrepresent the review's standards, exhibit editorial bias, questionably assess evidence quality, and reflect potential conflicts of interest. These factors collectively suggest that the NEJM article may not provide a fully balanced or accurate evaluation of the Cass Review's findings and recommendations.
If the Cass Report is so scientifically rigorous, why isn't it published in a major journal? Why aren't the authors names released?
There are quite a few lies, half-truths and insinuations in circulation about the Cass Review. Fortunately, they are easily dispelled by readily available facts.
First, the document is referred to as the "Cass Review," not "Cass Report" because the UK's National Health Service commissioned Dr. Hillary Cass to lead an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people. These are Dr. Cass's credentials and qualifications:
Dr. Hilary Cass, Baroness Cass OBE FRCP FRCPCH, is a distinguished British paediatrician with a notable career in child health and disability. She graduated from the Royal Free Hospital Medical School in 1982 with an MB BS degree and a BSc in Paediatrics and Child Health.
ThirdSector Awards+5MPs and Lords - UK Parliament+5Wikipedia+5
Wikipedia
Dr. Cass has held several prominent positions, including serving as President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) from 2012 to 2015. She was also Chair of the British Academy of Childhood Disability from 2017 to 2020. In 1992, she founded the UK's Rett Clinic for children with Rett syndrome. Her clinical roles have encompassed consultant positions at Great Ormond Street Hospital and the Evelina London Children's Hospital, where she focused on paediatric disability.
(Wikipedia+5Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre+5The CoLab+5
PolicyMogul+4Wikipedia+4Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre+4)
In recognition of her services to child health, Dr. Cass was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 2015. She is a Fellow of both the Royal College of Physicians (FRCP) and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (FRCPCH).
(Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2PolicyMogul+2)
In 2024, Dr. Cass was appointed as a life peer in the House of Lords, taking the title Baroness Cass of Barnet.
(Wikipedia)
Next, the Cass Review project commissioned nine studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals, primarily in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, a reputable, peer-reviewed medical journal. The editorial by Camilla C. Kingdon and the systematic reviews by Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, and colleagues underwent rigorous peer review processes before publication. These publications contribute significantly to the academic discourse on gender dysphoria and related interventions in children and adolescents.
Here is a list of the studies and their authors:
Editorial
Holistic approach to gender questioning children and young people
Camilla C Kingdon
Systematic Reviews
Characteristics of children and adolescents referred to specialist gender services: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
Impact of social transition in relation to gender for children and adolescents: a systematic review
Ruth Hall, Jo Taylor, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Claire Heathcote, Stuart William Jarvis, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser
Psychosocial support interventions for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review
Claire Heathcote, Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Stuart William Jarvis, Trilby Langton, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Lorna Fraser
Interventions to suppress puberty in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Alex Mitchell, Ruth Hall, Claire Heathcote, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
Masculinising and feminising hormone interventions for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Alex Mitchell, Ruth Hall, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
Care pathways of children and adolescents referred to specialist gender services: a systematic review
Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
International Guidelines
Clinical guidelines for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review of guideline quality (part 1)
Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Claire Heathcote, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser
Clinical guidelines for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: a systematic review of recommendations (part 2)
Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Claire Heathcote, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser
International Survey
Gender services for children and adolescents across the EU-15+ countries: an online survey
Ruth Hall, Jo Taylor, Claire Heathcote, Trilby Langton, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Lorna Fraser
Why was the Cass Review itself not published in a journal? There's nothing shady about it.
The Cass Review, officially titled the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, was commissioned by NHS England as a service evaluation rather than an academic research project. Such evaluations are typically conducted to assess and improve specific services within the NHS and are often published as official reports rather than in academic journals. This approach allows for more immediate dissemination and implementation of findings within the healthcare system.
While the main report itself was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, the systematic reviews that informed the Cass Review were conducted by the University of York's Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and were published in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood. This indicates that while the overarching report was designed as a policy document, components of its underlying research underwent academic peer review.
The full text of the Cass Review can be found here: https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf
Reading it may answer many of your questions.
Please complete the thought you started. To sway limited-intelligence voters with fear is immoral and should not be allowed. The Right's loathsome tactics make any of their objectives invalid. There, I said it.
Well, since we have objectives, too, how about we develop skill at swaying voters with fear? Joe Biden was a terrible tyrant and destroyed the country, so they chant. Yet, their children weren't dying of preventable diseases under Biden. Their 401Ks did not evaporate under Biden. They don't want to see that, they still want to believe that the Mango is their savior and will blah blah blah. How can we maximize their fear? How do we scare them so bad that their mental defenses just collapse. It maybe easier, rather than harder, to do, since they are stupid and do not have critical thinking skills.
I don't think they're stupid, but their information sources are limited. I wouldn't want to use fear except now I am afraid at the loss of our democracy.
I subscribe to a simplified explanation for human behavior, since I don't have access to advanced information, especially regarding people I don't know. For me the "Gump" model works pretty well: "stupid is as stupid does".
They could have access to as much quality information as they could consume, but they choose to indulge in the sugar high they get from listening to their own opinions echoed back to them. The only way to access what minds they have is through their amygdala, channeling fear to them. That's because they get to vote, for now, and obviously skew the results in a destructive direction. That might not always be true, in the future the burdens of civic participation may be lifted from their weary shoulders.
It’s about time (imho) folks stopped obsessing over Project 2025 and following every jot and tittle as we watch our democracy die. It’s time to start solving the problem (no, I don’t have the magic wand) and START TODAY to campaign (like PINO and his gang) for 2026 and 2028. Dems cannot lose another minute, focusing only on how horrible the Orange Turd (and other wonderful names) can be to us, and aim for making him fear our eventual reprisal. Let’s go!!
Just planning for the next election won’t solve the problems. We can’t keep jerking policies back and forth every two or four years and having the same arguments every day. Let’s set up competing countries and it will soon become apparent which is stronger.
Agree with Tasmin, great piece today Joe. I especially love Nolan's quote. So very true. Thanks for your statement on it not being Democrats fault. Lots of it to of around. But WE have had the righteous truth and actions for decades; Republicans not so much. Many of us are out here working our asses off for democracy. Thanks again.
Great piece Joe. We have no choice but to fight.
Thanks Tasmin
“We have to burn it all down and start over” JD Vance July 2024
The primary objective of the Nazi aka Republican party takeover of the levers of government with Project 2025 as its blueprint is to decimate the federal institutions of government and then rebuild the structure to their liking This includes an authoritarian government with an oligarchic support system much like in Russia
The takeover plan is to create chaos and confusion so that anxiety levels amongst the population are at an all time high By eradicating functional federal institutions such as HHS, IRS, SSA etc disorganization creates mayhem and instability This can be further accelerated by a punishing global tariff scheme creating even more havoc and turmoil Even if Der Fuhrer is stopped in his tariff tracks it will make little difference The point is to generate pubic anxiety
After the destruction the stage is set for an authoritarian regime to take over and tear up the Constitution WE the People will become irrelevant Hang on America This is a test of a lifetime
What the architects of this plan are oblivious to is the credit bubble that has been growing over the last 5 decades is coincidentally bursting and with it a fiat currency crisis with runaway inflation This credit bubble explosion will ironically save the democratic republic In the meantime get into the safe haven of gold/silver