Why democrats demeaning females by renaming women and girls, "cervix-havers," "bleeders," "birthers," etc?
Do you know why democrats are renaming women, "cervix-havers," "people with vaginas" and, as I just heard today, (Sen. Hawley exchange with Prof. Bridges) "a person with a capacity for pregnancy," instead of just calling us what we are, women, and/or mothers? And, do you know why democrats have so thoroughly embraced this misogynistic absurdity, leading to the atrocities from men just barging into female-only spaces unchallenged, leaving no dignified or safe, single-sex spaces for women and girls, to unstable young women having their healthy breasts removed to become a "body with no breasts?" Also, why is it only women and girls democrats are targeting for this demeaning language perversion? I don't see democrats referring to men as "bodies with testicles," "prostate-havers" or referring to fathers as "a person with a capacity to ejaculate." Please do a segment addressing this elephant in the room. I've never seen such cowardice in refusing to defend the sex-based rights and realities of women and girls. It's as if all democrats think women and girls are, are "bodies that abort."
Political Satire
Hi Krystal and Saagar! Love the show! I’m wondering what are your thoughts, if any, on any political satire you’ve loved in the past. I think the film In The Loop is a perfect example of how Washington works and how the people who are unelected staffers can make decisions that can do irreparable damage to our government. Have either of you seen this movie and if not what is your favorite satire. Love the show! Andrew
Hunter's Activities & The Secret Service...What Was Known and Done, and When?
Honest Question: To the extent that some of Hunter's activities seem clearly illegal and others possibly so, is there a news case to investigating the role and actions of the Secret Service with respect to Hunter Biden's protection? Setting aside questions of taxpayer funding, etc., is (or isn't) a bigger issue that the Secret Service is an important and well regarded law enforcement agency that now sits under a reputational cloud given they have been actively guarding an individual committing what seem like obvious and sometimes self-admitted criminal activities? Wouldn't you think that a law enforcement branch could sniff these out right under their noses? Maybe they did, in which case what is their legal and ethical responsibility to report or intercede? Thanks! - dgg Longtime listener, day 1 BP subscriber, 1st time questioner.