Polls: Society & Politics

A pro-life writer based in Nashville asks, “Are men the future of the pro-life movement?”

Christopher Kuehl says if men heard 1 million babies were being killed on the Southern border, they would immediately spring into action. But news of 1 million ab*rtions annually brings little widespread response. Kuehl examines the main reasons he thinks men are less publicly pro-life than they should be, including being cowed by the message of feminism and the vague language used around that.

Watch the full story: ow. ly/CXRb50Z6csV

Men absolutely should be part of the future of the pro-life movement. The idea that men should stay silent on abortion because they are men is one of the most damaging feminist framings in the debate. If unborn children are human beings, then defending them is not “controlling women.” It is a moral responsibility that belongs to both men and women.

What do you think?…

A society has the right to recognize that public blasphemy against God or Christianity is not just “ordinary disagreement,” but an attack on the moral and religious foundation that shaped much of our civilization. At the founding, some states treated Christianity as part of the public moral order, and I do not think that history should be dismissed as automatically tyrannical.

That said, I would not support vague laws that punish honest theological disagreement, private unbelief, or respectful criticism. The line would need to be narrow and aimed at public, malicious, contemptuous attacks on sacred things — not at forcing belief.

I understand current First Amendment doctrine would likely reject laws like this today, but as a matter of principle, I do think states should have more authority to defend public moral order than modern secular liberalism allows.

At the time of the U. S. founding, some states had laws punishing blasphemy or speech considered contemptuous toward Christianity. Do you support or oppose allowing states to enforce blasphemy laws today?

Context: Multiple high-profile musical artists recently backed out of headlining the Freedom 250 National Mall festival celebrating America’s upcoming 250th anniversary. Performers like Martina McBride and Young MC stated they originally signed up expecting a wholesome, nonpartisan national event. However, following aggressive pressure and hyper-partisan framing from outside activist groups, several acts withdrew. Rock legend Bret Michaels went further, explicitly stating that his team had to pull out due to "unfounded and unforgivable" threats targeting his family, band, and crew. It is clear these mass cancellations were not peaceful, voluntary political choices. They were the direct result of anti-Trump, leftist terroristic intimidation utilizing targeted pressure campaigns and threats of violence to aggressively bully performers off a national stage. Considering performers originally signed up to honor the country and only fled after severe safety concerns, how should these mass cancellations be categorized?

Artists are dropping out of the Trump-linked Freedom 250 concerts. Here's why - https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/what-to-know-artists-backing-out-trump-freedom-250-concerts/4110246/?amp=1

If Hitler didn't consider them "white," I wonder what criteria he was using.

Maybe Germans can be distinguished by their square jaws, while Russians tend to have rounder faces. Which group do Poles generally resemble more?

A stark demographic report highlighted by the Manhattan Institute reveals that only 50% of young women hold a positive view of men, and that number plummets to just 35% for women under 25. Critics argue that this sharp generational drop proves that the closer a young woman is to modern university education, corporate DEI pipelines, and progressive media algorithms, the more she is taught to view men with hostility and suspicion. Is this plummeting favorability the direct result of institutional feminist conditioning, or is it due to unrelated societal factors?

Only 50% of young women hold a positive view of men. That number drops to 35% for women under 25.

How is the feminization of society working out?@HMDatMI and @MrWinMarshall on the consequences of female-dominated universities, corporations, and government: pic.twitter.com/u24xEHasaZ

— Manhattan Institute (@ManhattanInst) May 29, 2026

There might be hope the MAGAs finally disband completely. These signs are popping up all across the country. The cult is dying. If you’re MAGA and you’re reading this (i got most of them blocked) you can still leave and not be in the literal worst American political movement in history! History is not going to be kind to them if its written fairly like we do with nazi’s or confederate losers.

In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was passed. It included Section 24220, which requires passenger motor vehicles to be manufactured with "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology". I also assume it's intended to fight theft.

This goes into effect in 2027.

Drivers worry as federal surveillance technology becomes mandatory in new cars by 2027

And here's another article about it...

All New Cars Could Have Mandatory Surveillance Tech Unless Congress Stops This Mandate

Should this be required by law?

My view: Yes, it is fundamentally anti-women.

If the argument is that women need abortion to be equal to men, the implication is that women’s natural ability to become pregnant is a liability or a defect that must be neutralized before they can compete. That does not sound pro-woman. It sounds like measuring women entirely against a male standard and treating motherhood as an obstacle to success. True empowerment shouldn't require women to reject their own biological reality to fit into a system designed around men. Real respect for women should mean honoring women as women, not treating pregnancy and motherhood as problems that must be eliminated.

what do you think? Do you believe saying women need abortion in order to be equal to men is fundamentally anti-women?

MAGA movement has been slowly hemorrhaging supporters, over un-kept campaign promises, and stealing Massie's house seat while endorsing swamp creatures like Lindsey Graham was the final nail in the coffin that finally killed the movement. The members who chosen to stay have become the MIGA (Make Israel Great Again) movement.

Ready for the truth?
Trump has already lost. Regardless of the outcome in Kentucky … MAGA is dead, the GOP is fractured and a new movement is born. pic.twitter.com/HgqDqoo0CR

— Shannon Joy (@ShannonJoyRadio) May 19, 2026

Trump policies cost everyone $10,000 a year to live. Republicans will not show up to vote in November to vote. So far in Special elections Republicans have not shown up. Democrats voted more in Texas than Republicans. Republicans don't see a difference in Democrats and Trump. The Republicans that do vote will be voting for Democrats or 3rd Party.

All 3 are no APR for 21 months but the first of the three has the lowest rate.
Info on A. 0%, 21 billing cycles for any balance transfers made in the first 60 days
14.99% - 25.99% Variable
New! 0% Intro APR for 21 billing cycles for purchases, and for any balance transfers made in the first 60 days. After the Intro APR offer ends, a Variable APR that’s currently 14.99% - 25.99% will apply. A 5% fee applies to all balance transfers. Balance transfers may not be used to pay any account provided by Bank of America.
No annual fee.
No penalty APR. Paying late won't automatically raise your interest rate (APR). Other account pricing and terms apply.
This offer may not be available elsewhere if you leave this page. You can take advantage of this offer when you apply now.

Info on B. 0%, 21 months from date of account opening
16.49% - 27.24% (Variable)
After that the variable APR will be 16.49% - 27.24%, based on your creditworthiness. Balance transfers must be completed within 4 months of account opening.
There is an intro balance transfer fee of 3% of each transfer (minimum $5) completed within the first 4 months of account opening. After that, your fee will be 5% of each transfer (minimum $5).
No Annual Fee - our low intro rates and all the benefits don't come with a yearly charge.
Buy now and pay later. Split your payment for eligible purchases of $75 or more into a fixed payment with Citi® Flex Pay.
Get free access to your FICO® Score online.

Info on C. 17.49%, 23.99%, or 28.24% Variable APR
Up to $600 cell phone protection (subject to a $25 deductible) against covered damage or theft when you pay your monthly cell phone bill with your card
$0 annual fee.
Up to $600 of cell phone protection against damage or theft. Subject to a $25 deductible.
Through My Wells Fargo Deals, you can get access to personalized deals from a variety of merchants.

I'm a bit sick of the stupid "America isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense. (FWIW, Germany, France, and Italy are also republics, the UK, Denmark, and Spain are monarchies; all of them are democracies.)

Democracy:

"Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives"

"A government under the direct or representative rule of the people of its jurisdiction."

"A state with a democratic system of government."

"Belief in political freedom and equality; the "spirit of democracy"."

Republic:

"A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor; a country with no monarchy."

"A state, which may or may not be a monarchy, in which the executive and legislative branches of government are separate." (archaic)

The suspect, Jacob Wenske, explicitly emailed a threat stating: 'Death to Erika Kirk... Every Christian nationalist shall perish in the bombing that will take place.' Coming less than a year after Charlie Kirk was tragically assassinated, trying to downplay or excuse an active bomb threat because you dislike someone's faith or politics is unconscionable. Vote Yes if you condemn this extremism outright. If you vote No, you are validating targeted political terrorism.

Why do you think people hate Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk, and Christian’s enough to do this?

Feminism because the economic argument falls apart under scrutiny. Historically, people raised large families through far worse financial crises, and even today, wealthy Nordic countries with massive government childcare subsidies and strong safety nets are seeing their birth rates crater. The root issue is an ideological crisis, not a financial one. Decades of feminist messaging have systematically dismantled traditional family structures, trading mutual interdependence for hyper-independence and corporate ladders. It has created a cultural rift where men and women are socialized to view each other as political adversaries rather than cooperative partners. You cannot solve a 'relationship recession' with economic policies when modern culture openly celebrates solitary lifestyles and treats the foundation of coupling as oppressive.