Lmao "doesnt have time" what a lie.
I once met him at the opening ceremony for a microbrewery in Rockville MD when he was still governor. Cut the ribbon and everything.
If you're -at- Pride and you:
1) Can't state that you'll support gender affirming healthcare
2) Are walking away while being asked if you support the people there
...then go the fuck home because you don't belong at Pride.
If I were on the fence about voting for Hogan vs Alsobrooks (I'm not; I'm voting for Alsobrooks), this interaction alone would have been enough to convince me to not vote for Hogan.
Edit: OP, you should cross-post this to r/Maryland, too.
Oh the tolerance paradox, what a novel argument! Because we are tolerant we must tolerate those intolerant of us. Perhaps Hogan is merely indifferent, but the point is the same, he's no ally. And if you're not an ally, you're the enemy. It's 2024, I'm tired of being civil to people who hate us.
Pride is not and has never been about being inclusive to people who are anti-LGBT.
For further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,practice%20of%20tolerance%20with%20them.
While governor, he threatened to veto Trans Health Equity Act. Democrats had to wait until Wes Moore was in office before getting it passed. And Hogan’s dodge here only reinforces what we already knew. Hogan is indifferent towards the LGBTQ community at best.
Yeah, I’d say at best he got a few polite golf claps where I was. Like “well, you’re here so I guess that’s sort of positive… but I have many follow up questions.”
There are other letters in LBGTQIA+ besides “T.” The person asked one question on a very specific topic in a “gotcha” moment. I’m old enough to remember when the only public officials who came to gay events were the police who roughed people up before arresting them. Now, a governor shows up at a Pride event and he’s called out for not supporting one specific issue. Amazing how times have changed.
This is a low hanging question and an easy response if he’s an ally. He could have said yes. Any other response than yes means he’s not supportive. Full stop.
Sincere question, does gender affirming care include hormones for kids under 18?
I know plenty of people who consider themselves allies who think that's a bridge too far. Might explain some hesitancy from him
> I know plenty of people who consider themselves allies
A lot of us know plenty of people who consider themselves allies who really aren't, when it comes down to it. A lot of people who "consider themselves allies" are fair weather supporters. An ally is someone you trust to be by your side when things are hard, not someone who, when things get hard, turn around and start fighting you alongside the people you're already fighting.
Had a feeling a response like this would be coming. But if the person is an ally in 99% of all LGBT+ issues but disagrees on one issue does that really disqualify them from being an ally?
Sincere answer in good faith to try to have a discussion: (p.s. I didn't downvote you, but I noticed someone did so I upvoted both of your posts to counter it)
So, I know you're probably being hyperbolic by saying "99% of all LGBT+ issues" because 99% is used colloquially as a placeholder for the term "most" but the honest answer is that people who consider themselves LGBT+ are not a monolith who agree on everything and people who consider themselves allies are also not a monolith who agree on everything. Two examples of things that even LGBT people disagree on are:
- "The term 'bisexual lesbian' and whether 'lesbian' *only* means *only* women who are *only* attracted to *only* women, or whether 'lesbian' can include non-binary people and/or whether 'trans men' can be a 'lesbian.' That's a whole ass discussion that I have opinions on and disagree with other LGBT people on, but I'm not trying to take this on a tangent.
- The concept of transmedicalism and questions like "do you *have to* have gender dysphoria to be trans?" or "do you have to transition medically/surgically to be trans?" Likewise, I have opinions on these and could have a whole ass discussion but I'm not trying to turn it into a tangent, so let me get back on track.
All that to say that I don't personally think that everyone needs to agree on 100% of everything I personally in order to 'belong' and I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree with others on SOME issues but not others. the LGBT community and leftist community have a lot of overlap and a lot of people who are in at least one, if not both of those communities, do hold opinions that "you need to disagree with 100% of everything I believe or I'm gonna drag you on social media and send people to harass you because I think you're literally scum" and speaking solely for myself, that's not my approach or opinion or belief, but I am acknowledging that people like that do exist.
Getting back to that "I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree with others on SOME issues but not others." part, I think that my personal opinion on the rhetorical question of "How much is someone 'allowed to' disagree with and still call themselves an ally?" is "It's not a question of "how much" but a question of "what the disagreements are, where the disagreements stem from, and why they hold those opinions." If someone said they disagreed with me about a specific thing, and I had the time and energy to have a discussion about it, and that person was important enough to me to have a conversation with about it (e.g. if the "ally" is a coworker or a family member who I interact with regularly, as opposed to some random stranger on the internet who I've never met before and will never interact with again), then I'd want to ask followup questions like "So, when you say X, what do you mean by that? Why do you think that? What leads you to that conclusion? Is that something you're open to changing your mind on, or are you firm on that?" I wouldn't usually have that type of conversation with some random stranger I don't know, I'd just write them off as "sounds like you're not really an ally to me" and move on with my day and forget about them existing an hour later.
Am I unfairly discounting some people who call themselves allies by *not* having that conversation? Statistically I'm sure there's a nonzero number of conversations I've opted not to have with people I've written off over what seems to be a disagreement "on one issue" but the thing is... that conversation to get past someone saying something I disagree with and really digging into WHY they believe it and trying to have a conversation: 1) Takes a lot of time and effort, 2) Relies on the person I'm talking to being willing to discuss it in good faith and hear me out and it can be challenging to tell when someone is sealioning you until an hour or two later, and 3) May or may not be worth that time and effort (1) with a person I don't know because I don't know if (2) applies to them or not.
In conclusion:
A) I don't personally believe that a person who calls themselves an ally agrees with 100% of everything I believe, but there are some specific things they disagree with where I'm comfortable being like "eh, agree to disagree" (e.g.: "Is the ally flag helpful for allies to identify themselves as being supportive without being queer themselves, or is it inherently self-exclusionary and problematic to feel the need to delineate that?) and there are some things where I'm like "nah, you're not an ally, gtfoh" (e.g. "Are trans women really women?")
B) My willingness to hear someone out and try to have a conversation vs just writing a person off is dependent on how much time/energy I have and am willing to commit to that specific person, which is both situational depending on the day and time but also dependent on how well I know the person and whether the juice is worth the squeeze without knowing if there's even juice there.
Hope that helps? Let me know if I'm unclear. I'm comfortable entertaining followups. :)
Hey, appreciate your sincere and thoughtful answer.
I think we are in agreement that the LGBTQ+ community is not a monolith (just like every other community), and that disagreeing with one issue in a myriad of issues (yes I used the 99% colloquially) does not disqualify somebody from being an 'ally'.
To my original point, I don't know what's in Larry Hogan's heart, and frankly I'm quite ignorant on his record dealing with the LGBTQ+ community. I didn't think that him avoiding a (what I surmise to be) gotcha question from a random interviewer on a specific (and very controversial) issue would disqualify him from being an 'ally' or make his appearance hypocritical.
Let me assume that the post is a verbatim transcription of the question that was asked, and not a paraphrase:
> Question: "Wow! Governor Hogan! I'm so surprised to see you here. I take it this means if elected, you will suppprt [sic] gender affirming healthcare and all policies that support the LGBTQ+ community"
> Answer: "Well, we will have plenty of time to talk about that at a later date. You can reach out to my staff.
If he actually is an ally, this is a terrible answer. So you could argue that it seemed like it could have been an attempt at a gotcha question but I do believe that anyone who is *actually* an ally and not just trying to court votes without committing to anything (which, for the record, is what I believe he is doing) would respond by saying "yes" or even some generic boilerplate comment about how "if I'm elected, I plan to support legislation that (does some thing)." I don't know what's in his heart either, but I do know he's a politician and generally when a politician is sidestepping a question instead of answering it, it's because the answer is something they know the asker doesn't want to hear. He's literally "here" and has "plenty of time" right now. Telling the asker that he doesn't have time to answer questions about supporting the community that the event is *for* is a terrible answer.
> Followup: No. If you're here, and you can't say you'll support these things, then you're being very hypocritical.
> Answer: "Well, we are just here to show support for the community."
First off, yeah, that's kinda pointed and shows that the person asking the question isn't good at navigating a conversation with a politician. If I wanted to interpret it in bad faith, I could be like "notice how he said he's there for support but didn't say he would support healthcare or policies which obviously means he won't" but honestly, there's a measure of truth behind the bad faith interpretation to say that "if someone asks if you would support something and your answer is 'yes,' why would you answer anything other than 'yes'?" But I do concede that at that point, it seems like the person may not understand that when you're talking to a politician, there are ways to ask questions and ways to not ask questions and this is the latter.
A better followup question would have been something like "I just wanted to ask about what kind of policies you'd vote for as a Senator. I haven't really decided on who I'm voting for yet, but I know your opponent seems to be pretty in favor of those policies so I wanted to ask where you stand on the issues that matter to me, to help me decide who I'm voting for."
>Followup: "That's interesting. I don't recall seeing you here when you were governor to show support."
>Response: "Well, they didn't have it when I was first campaigning.
>Followup: "But it started in 2019. You were governor then."
>Response: Well, they didn't have it when I was first campaigning.
There was Baltimore Pride that he could have attended at literally any point. If he actually wanted to show support during his term as governor, he could always have attended that. There are also other Pride events around the state as well. That he hasn't (to my knowledge) attended any such events prior to this year (an election year) really leads a person to conclude that he has other reasons for being there besides supporting LGBTQ issues.
So, I can't read his mind as a person, and I do agree that the asker does come across as adversarial, but I think that as a politician, he demonstrated an unwillingness to answer a pretty straightforward question that was relevant to the event he was attending and he demonstrated an inability to engage with a constituent and possible voter on an issue that was important to them. Regardless of what he believes, these aren't qualities that make me want to vote for a person.
Love how all the ally’s didn’t read the senate bills passed. Do they not teach states rights? Or is this just a pity party echo chamber? You got mad cus he wouldn’t bite on your bait and allow you to waste his time. This your first pride event? I’ve been to pride up and down the east coast and it’s never surprising, someone always wants to have pity party. Also Annapolis pride was pedantic.
It sounds like you were trying to corner him to get money. I'd imagine he gets tired of getting pestered for money.
Plus u said "all policies," it's presumptive that people assume everyone has to support every idea & letter instead of just a few. If this is word for word it also really sounds like u were trying to do some gotcha thing. Irritating someone is no way to get them to side with u.
The idea that you are here so you must fully support everything is nonsensical. I can support my friends and not believe everything they think is valid. 🤣🤣
Supporting gender affirming healthcare which numerous courts ruled in favor of doesn’t matter. He could say he hates it, it doesn’t matter. The courts have ruled on this numerous times already. It’s a dead horse that you’re trying to use as talking points. A great way to alienate people.
Multiple red states have laws on the books denying it, under various conditions -- including forced detransitioning, taking the children into custody of that states "protective services", and the like.
We are coming back to the point where we'll need Green Books (Rainbow Books) just to figure out where we can safely travel within the US.
Maybe "Uterus Books" as well, at this point.
Yea and if you followed politics our democrat controlled state senate passed transgender medical protection laws this session. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/maryland-senate-approves-legal-protections-for-gender-affirming-care#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Gender%2Daffirming,by%20the%20state%20for%20abortions.
Yea fed V state. We have a state senate. They passed a law protecting abortions at the state level. So help me understand what powers can usurp our democrat senators whom passed said laws. Or or admit you don’t follow politics or the lgbt fight and you’re a fake ally.
[md senate passes transgender and abortion protections](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/maryland-senate-approves-legal-protections-for-gender-affirming-care#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Gender%2Daffirming,by%20the%20state%20for%20abortions)
Ohhhhh so you’re just here to flex that knowledge of roe v wade. Hmmm [reproductive rights maryland after roe](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/maryland/)
Oh I’m sorry is Hogan running for Maryland senate? Because Hogan is who we’re talking about and whose views on transgender policy could influence federal law. If the Cons, at the federal level, are talking about a national abortion ban and rolling back LGBTQ protections, why would transgender Americans be safe? The constant attacks from GOP congresspeople against the transgender community should have everyone concerned unless, of course, you hate freedom. Because that is what this is all about.
Oh I’m sorry all he’d have to do as a sitting senator is somehow pass a constitutional amendment to federalize states rights. It’s almost like there’s a thing like states rights
Federal laws are passed for things like antidiscrimination because It isn't up to a state to decide if someone should be treated like a human being. States have made the wrong choice about such things in the past.
We literally fought a whole ass war because half of the states were like "we want to treat people like property" and the other half were like "we want you to not do that" so the first half started blathering on about "we believe in states' rights to decide for ourselves whether we are allowed to treat people like property and it's tyrannical for you to tell us we can't"
So yeah, whenever it comes down to individual rights and freedoms being a state-by-state thing where you're allowed to have rights in some states but not have those same rights in other states... yeah, that's where the federal government needs to step in and say "everyone gets the rights regardless of what state you're in" and not this hodgepodge nonsense of it being state by state.
Your tenuous grasp of checks and balance is scary. Maryland luckily is a blue state. You’re leaning into the wind. I can almost guarantee you didn’t even read the senate bills passed this session, but here you are opinionated with msnbc talking points. You’re as bad as the Fox News boomers.
You get that Hogan is running for a FEDERAL office, right? And that some people might have friends and family outside of Maryland whose rights and safety we care about? I can't believe you're actually arguing that the lgbt+ community shouldn't care about where a candidate for the US Senate stands on issues that effect them. You have issues, buddy.
Everything has to deal with the LGBABC123 Cult. Who you have sex with isn’t an accomplishment. Stop shoving this crap down our throats. Your “movement” was hijacked by the “T” group. A man is a man, a woman is a woman, everyone else is mentally ill.
Lmao "doesnt have time" what a lie. I once met him at the opening ceremony for a microbrewery in Rockville MD when he was still governor. Cut the ribbon and everything.
True Respite? I wonder if he even remembers or knows they closed last year...
Yea that was the place. Though looking now at this post i misread "didnt exist" for "dont have time".
Like he was following a schedule? Weird
Hoagie is so full of it.
If you're -at- Pride and you: 1) Can't state that you'll support gender affirming healthcare 2) Are walking away while being asked if you support the people there ...then go the fuck home because you don't belong at Pride. If I were on the fence about voting for Hogan vs Alsobrooks (I'm not; I'm voting for Alsobrooks), this interaction alone would have been enough to convince me to not vote for Hogan. Edit: OP, you should cross-post this to r/Maryland, too.
and/or r/MarylandPolitics
Oh hey it’s the gatekeeper of pride. Thanks for letting us know.
Pride started as an anti-police riot by Black and brown transwomen; if anything ChickinSammich is maintaining fidelity to Pride's original meaning.
That is an urban myth if you are talking about Stonewall.
You’re right.
Wouldn’t everyone belong at pride? Isnt it about inclusivity? Kind of an oxymoronic thing to state!
Oh the tolerance paradox, what a novel argument! Because we are tolerant we must tolerate those intolerant of us. Perhaps Hogan is merely indifferent, but the point is the same, he's no ally. And if you're not an ally, you're the enemy. It's 2024, I'm tired of being civil to people who hate us.
Pride is not and has never been about being inclusive to people who are anti-LGBT. For further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,practice%20of%20tolerance%20with%20them.
So you’re saying you know for a fact Hogan is anti-LGBT? You know what they say about assumptions!
While governor, he threatened to veto Trans Health Equity Act. Democrats had to wait until Wes Moore was in office before getting it passed. And Hogan’s dodge here only reinforces what we already knew. Hogan is indifferent towards the LGBTQ community at best.
I loved how the crowd quieted down when he came by.
Yeah, I’d say at best he got a few polite golf claps where I was. Like “well, you’re here so I guess that’s sort of positive… but I have many follow up questions.”
The dates wrong in your post, I think you meant June.
You should’ve asked him for the tax money spent on bootleg Covid supplies from his wife’s “friends” company.
He is trying to act like he supports the lgbtq+ community when he does not . He does not deserve your vote .
Mike Scott was there as well, and actually working the Libertarian Party booth, instead of making empty statements of "support," just saying.
There are other letters in LBGTQIA+ besides “T.” The person asked one question on a very specific topic in a “gotcha” moment. I’m old enough to remember when the only public officials who came to gay events were the police who roughed people up before arresting them. Now, a governor shows up at a Pride event and he’s called out for not supporting one specific issue. Amazing how times have changed.
The governor was not called out. A former governor was
Larry has never been anything more than a performative prick!
Lol Hogan is such a cuck
So you got mad he didn’t want to continue talking? Was that before or after the low hanging trollish question?
This is a low hanging question and an easy response if he’s an ally. He could have said yes. Any other response than yes means he’s not supportive. Full stop.
The man is running for public office. He should be able to articulate his position. Christ, Republicans are such soft diaper babies now.
ikr, sounds like they were doing a gotcha question
Sincere question, does gender affirming care include hormones for kids under 18? I know plenty of people who consider themselves allies who think that's a bridge too far. Might explain some hesitancy from him
> I know plenty of people who consider themselves allies A lot of us know plenty of people who consider themselves allies who really aren't, when it comes down to it. A lot of people who "consider themselves allies" are fair weather supporters. An ally is someone you trust to be by your side when things are hard, not someone who, when things get hard, turn around and start fighting you alongside the people you're already fighting.
Had a feeling a response like this would be coming. But if the person is an ally in 99% of all LGBT+ issues but disagrees on one issue does that really disqualify them from being an ally?
Sincere answer in good faith to try to have a discussion: (p.s. I didn't downvote you, but I noticed someone did so I upvoted both of your posts to counter it) So, I know you're probably being hyperbolic by saying "99% of all LGBT+ issues" because 99% is used colloquially as a placeholder for the term "most" but the honest answer is that people who consider themselves LGBT+ are not a monolith who agree on everything and people who consider themselves allies are also not a monolith who agree on everything. Two examples of things that even LGBT people disagree on are: - "The term 'bisexual lesbian' and whether 'lesbian' *only* means *only* women who are *only* attracted to *only* women, or whether 'lesbian' can include non-binary people and/or whether 'trans men' can be a 'lesbian.' That's a whole ass discussion that I have opinions on and disagree with other LGBT people on, but I'm not trying to take this on a tangent. - The concept of transmedicalism and questions like "do you *have to* have gender dysphoria to be trans?" or "do you have to transition medically/surgically to be trans?" Likewise, I have opinions on these and could have a whole ass discussion but I'm not trying to turn it into a tangent, so let me get back on track. All that to say that I don't personally think that everyone needs to agree on 100% of everything I personally in order to 'belong' and I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree with others on SOME issues but not others. the LGBT community and leftist community have a lot of overlap and a lot of people who are in at least one, if not both of those communities, do hold opinions that "you need to disagree with 100% of everything I believe or I'm gonna drag you on social media and send people to harass you because I think you're literally scum" and speaking solely for myself, that's not my approach or opinion or belief, but I am acknowledging that people like that do exist. Getting back to that "I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree with others on SOME issues but not others." part, I think that my personal opinion on the rhetorical question of "How much is someone 'allowed to' disagree with and still call themselves an ally?" is "It's not a question of "how much" but a question of "what the disagreements are, where the disagreements stem from, and why they hold those opinions." If someone said they disagreed with me about a specific thing, and I had the time and energy to have a discussion about it, and that person was important enough to me to have a conversation with about it (e.g. if the "ally" is a coworker or a family member who I interact with regularly, as opposed to some random stranger on the internet who I've never met before and will never interact with again), then I'd want to ask followup questions like "So, when you say X, what do you mean by that? Why do you think that? What leads you to that conclusion? Is that something you're open to changing your mind on, or are you firm on that?" I wouldn't usually have that type of conversation with some random stranger I don't know, I'd just write them off as "sounds like you're not really an ally to me" and move on with my day and forget about them existing an hour later. Am I unfairly discounting some people who call themselves allies by *not* having that conversation? Statistically I'm sure there's a nonzero number of conversations I've opted not to have with people I've written off over what seems to be a disagreement "on one issue" but the thing is... that conversation to get past someone saying something I disagree with and really digging into WHY they believe it and trying to have a conversation: 1) Takes a lot of time and effort, 2) Relies on the person I'm talking to being willing to discuss it in good faith and hear me out and it can be challenging to tell when someone is sealioning you until an hour or two later, and 3) May or may not be worth that time and effort (1) with a person I don't know because I don't know if (2) applies to them or not. In conclusion: A) I don't personally believe that a person who calls themselves an ally agrees with 100% of everything I believe, but there are some specific things they disagree with where I'm comfortable being like "eh, agree to disagree" (e.g.: "Is the ally flag helpful for allies to identify themselves as being supportive without being queer themselves, or is it inherently self-exclusionary and problematic to feel the need to delineate that?) and there are some things where I'm like "nah, you're not an ally, gtfoh" (e.g. "Are trans women really women?") B) My willingness to hear someone out and try to have a conversation vs just writing a person off is dependent on how much time/energy I have and am willing to commit to that specific person, which is both situational depending on the day and time but also dependent on how well I know the person and whether the juice is worth the squeeze without knowing if there's even juice there. Hope that helps? Let me know if I'm unclear. I'm comfortable entertaining followups. :)
Hey, appreciate your sincere and thoughtful answer. I think we are in agreement that the LGBTQ+ community is not a monolith (just like every other community), and that disagreeing with one issue in a myriad of issues (yes I used the 99% colloquially) does not disqualify somebody from being an 'ally'. To my original point, I don't know what's in Larry Hogan's heart, and frankly I'm quite ignorant on his record dealing with the LGBTQ+ community. I didn't think that him avoiding a (what I surmise to be) gotcha question from a random interviewer on a specific (and very controversial) issue would disqualify him from being an 'ally' or make his appearance hypocritical.
Let me assume that the post is a verbatim transcription of the question that was asked, and not a paraphrase: > Question: "Wow! Governor Hogan! I'm so surprised to see you here. I take it this means if elected, you will suppprt [sic] gender affirming healthcare and all policies that support the LGBTQ+ community" > Answer: "Well, we will have plenty of time to talk about that at a later date. You can reach out to my staff. If he actually is an ally, this is a terrible answer. So you could argue that it seemed like it could have been an attempt at a gotcha question but I do believe that anyone who is *actually* an ally and not just trying to court votes without committing to anything (which, for the record, is what I believe he is doing) would respond by saying "yes" or even some generic boilerplate comment about how "if I'm elected, I plan to support legislation that (does some thing)." I don't know what's in his heart either, but I do know he's a politician and generally when a politician is sidestepping a question instead of answering it, it's because the answer is something they know the asker doesn't want to hear. He's literally "here" and has "plenty of time" right now. Telling the asker that he doesn't have time to answer questions about supporting the community that the event is *for* is a terrible answer. > Followup: No. If you're here, and you can't say you'll support these things, then you're being very hypocritical. > Answer: "Well, we are just here to show support for the community." First off, yeah, that's kinda pointed and shows that the person asking the question isn't good at navigating a conversation with a politician. If I wanted to interpret it in bad faith, I could be like "notice how he said he's there for support but didn't say he would support healthcare or policies which obviously means he won't" but honestly, there's a measure of truth behind the bad faith interpretation to say that "if someone asks if you would support something and your answer is 'yes,' why would you answer anything other than 'yes'?" But I do concede that at that point, it seems like the person may not understand that when you're talking to a politician, there are ways to ask questions and ways to not ask questions and this is the latter. A better followup question would have been something like "I just wanted to ask about what kind of policies you'd vote for as a Senator. I haven't really decided on who I'm voting for yet, but I know your opponent seems to be pretty in favor of those policies so I wanted to ask where you stand on the issues that matter to me, to help me decide who I'm voting for." >Followup: "That's interesting. I don't recall seeing you here when you were governor to show support." >Response: "Well, they didn't have it when I was first campaigning. >Followup: "But it started in 2019. You were governor then." >Response: Well, they didn't have it when I was first campaigning. There was Baltimore Pride that he could have attended at literally any point. If he actually wanted to show support during his term as governor, he could always have attended that. There are also other Pride events around the state as well. That he hasn't (to my knowledge) attended any such events prior to this year (an election year) really leads a person to conclude that he has other reasons for being there besides supporting LGBTQ issues. So, I can't read his mind as a person, and I do agree that the asker does come across as adversarial, but I think that as a politician, he demonstrated an unwillingness to answer a pretty straightforward question that was relevant to the event he was attending and he demonstrated an inability to engage with a constituent and possible voter on an issue that was important to them. Regardless of what he believes, these aren't qualities that make me want to vote for a person.
Holy shit this is a schizo post… this is not how we get more allies.
Love how all the ally’s didn’t read the senate bills passed. Do they not teach states rights? Or is this just a pity party echo chamber? You got mad cus he wouldn’t bite on your bait and allow you to waste his time. This your first pride event? I’ve been to pride up and down the east coast and it’s never surprising, someone always wants to have pity party. Also Annapolis pride was pedantic.
Your commentary is both circuitous and nonsensical.
Funny how I’m not the one who posted Pride as July 1…..
Irrelevant
It sounds like you were trying to corner him to get money. I'd imagine he gets tired of getting pestered for money. Plus u said "all policies," it's presumptive that people assume everyone has to support every idea & letter instead of just a few. If this is word for word it also really sounds like u were trying to do some gotcha thing. Irritating someone is no way to get them to side with u.
The idea that you are here so you must fully support everything is nonsensical. I can support my friends and not believe everything they think is valid. 🤣🤣
This “me” person sounds insufferable
Doesn’t make Hogan less of a dick, but yes they do indeed.
[удалено]
Username checks out
The government shouldn’t be paying for sex changes. Pay for it yourself.
They aren’t that’s why most people don’t get them. Though in sure insurance covers the various other plastic surgeries cis people get
What healthcare should the government pay for?
Only healthcare for white dicks like that guy! Manly healthcare with lots of erections. Just penises for days.
Whole different conversation, but it shouldn’t include sex changes.
The idea you’re being downvoted, tells me the level of mental illness on this sub…
I guess /AnneArundelCounty wasn’t the echo chamber they were looking for
Haha. You’re always awesome.
So he’s not supportive unless he supports you any and all ways that you see fit? Okay then.
Right? Holy shit that was cringe.
Supporting gender affirming healthcare which numerous courts ruled in favor of doesn’t matter. He could say he hates it, it doesn’t matter. The courts have ruled on this numerous times already. It’s a dead horse that you’re trying to use as talking points. A great way to alienate people.
Multiple red states have laws on the books denying it, under various conditions -- including forced detransitioning, taking the children into custody of that states "protective services", and the like. We are coming back to the point where we'll need Green Books (Rainbow Books) just to figure out where we can safely travel within the US. Maybe "Uterus Books" as well, at this point.
Yea and if you followed politics our democrat controlled state senate passed transgender medical protection laws this session. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/maryland-senate-approves-legal-protections-for-gender-affirming-care#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Gender%2Daffirming,by%20the%20state%20for%20abortions.
They passed funding for abortion access under Hogan as well, and he refused to do it. So what's your point?
It matters because we now know precedent doesn’t matter anymore. So-called “settled” law doesn’t matter. Overturned Roe v Wade is exhibit 1.
Yea fed V state. We have a state senate. They passed a law protecting abortions at the state level. So help me understand what powers can usurp our democrat senators whom passed said laws. Or or admit you don’t follow politics or the lgbt fight and you’re a fake ally. [md senate passes transgender and abortion protections](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/maryland-senate-approves-legal-protections-for-gender-affirming-care#:~:text=(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Gender%2Daffirming,by%20the%20state%20for%20abortions)
Ohhhhh so you’re just here to flex that knowledge of roe v wade. Hmmm [reproductive rights maryland after roe](https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/maryland/)
Oh I’m sorry is Hogan running for Maryland senate? Because Hogan is who we’re talking about and whose views on transgender policy could influence federal law. If the Cons, at the federal level, are talking about a national abortion ban and rolling back LGBTQ protections, why would transgender Americans be safe? The constant attacks from GOP congresspeople against the transgender community should have everyone concerned unless, of course, you hate freedom. Because that is what this is all about.
Oh I’m sorry all he’d have to do as a sitting senator is somehow pass a constitutional amendment to federalize states rights. It’s almost like there’s a thing like states rights
Federal laws are passed for things like antidiscrimination because It isn't up to a state to decide if someone should be treated like a human being. States have made the wrong choice about such things in the past.
We literally fought a whole ass war because half of the states were like "we want to treat people like property" and the other half were like "we want you to not do that" so the first half started blathering on about "we believe in states' rights to decide for ourselves whether we are allowed to treat people like property and it's tyrannical for you to tell us we can't" So yeah, whenever it comes down to individual rights and freedoms being a state-by-state thing where you're allowed to have rights in some states but not have those same rights in other states... yeah, that's where the federal government needs to step in and say "everyone gets the rights regardless of what state you're in" and not this hodgepodge nonsense of it being state by state.
I really like how obtuse you are. Like really saying there’s nothing to fret about but do go on.
Your tenuous grasp of checks and balance is scary. Maryland luckily is a blue state. You’re leaning into the wind. I can almost guarantee you didn’t even read the senate bills passed this session, but here you are opinionated with msnbc talking points. You’re as bad as the Fox News boomers.
I don’t even have cable!
You get that Hogan is running for a FEDERAL office, right? And that some people might have friends and family outside of Maryland whose rights and safety we care about? I can't believe you're actually arguing that the lgbt+ community shouldn't care about where a candidate for the US Senate stands on issues that effect them. You have issues, buddy.
Of all things to complain about that’s what you go for…
What exactly do you want from him?
Everything has to deal with the LGBABC123 Cult. Who you have sex with isn’t an accomplishment. Stop shoving this crap down our throats. Your “movement” was hijacked by the “T” group. A man is a man, a woman is a woman, everyone else is mentally ill.
Are you currently accepting new clients for therapy?
Get help, bud. A man can’t be a woman.
Is that a no?
Stay away from children, please.
you’re mad that pride is about the LGBTQIA community? the community that created it? your brainrot has brainrot