I am blocked, but here is what I have. Feel free to forward.
Dear Vance,
So you're running for NY Congress and you honestly think threatening women's gonna win you votes?!! Seriously?
If this is what New York's offering as candidates these days, no wonder the dating scene's a disaster. Pathetic doesn't even begin to cover it.
Your response to Teresa was... let's just say it shows critical thinking isn't your thing. Like, at all.
That "era of the zero tolerance left" line coming from YOUR PARTY? The same party that spent years canceling anyone who disagreed with them? Censoring speech left and right? Demanding everyone think exactly like them? That's what you call irony, Vance.
Quinn's Law #21 says "hate speech is any speech a liberal doesn't agree with." And boom—there it is. Someone's literally just holding a sign. Exercising their First Amendment rights. And your side loses its mind. Because here's the thing—the left CAN'T allow free exchange of ideas. If people actually heard all viewpoints, nobody'd choose the left. That's why they have to shut down anyone who disagrees.
Now, about your incredibly dumb question—"what about women being banged?" Real classy, Congressman.
Let me explain something called CONSENT. Maybe they skipped that day in whatever education you got before running for Congress? Women being "banged" (wow, such elegant terminology) happens between CONSENTING ADULTS making their own CHOICES.
Nobody's out there threatening or intimidating women on the street during consensual activities. You see the difference? No? Let me use smaller words.
The man in that video is using his physical presence to intimidate someone. That person's just exercising their constitutional rights. In a lot of jurisdictions, that's assault—threatening behavior that makes someone fear they're about to get hurt. And those cops? Standing right there watching. Doing nothing. Why? Because the victim's expressing conservative views.
Flip the situation around and those same officers would've had the aggressor in cuffs faster than you can blink.
Here's where Quinn's Laws #22 and #23 come together. "Liberals love democracy unless it doesn't go their way" and "Liberals love the law unless they don't agree with it. Then they just don't obey it."
Your party celebrates violence and intimidation when it helps your politics. But scream about "threats to democracy" when conservatives peacefully protest? Please.
Which brings me to your absolutely moronic closing question about the "male loneliness epidemic." This might be some of the dumbest logic I've ever seen, and that's saying something.
Men aren't lonely because they can't threaten and intimidate women on the street. That's not even... how do you think that makes sense? They're lonely because people like YOU created a culture where:
Traditional masculinity gets attacked constantly
Men are guilty until proven innocent
False accusations have zero consequences
Family courts systematically screw over fathers
Boys get medicated just for being boys in schools designed by and for girls
Men's mental health gets dismissed as "toxic masculinity"
But sure. Blame it on guys not being able to harass women with signs. Real genius-level analysis there.
Let me flip this back on you. How do you think women in NY-8 feel seeing a congressional candidate suggest that threatening and intimidating women is somehow acceptable? How many of them are gonna feel safe with you representing them when you can't even condemn basic assault?
Here's what actually went down in that video (since you apparently couldn't figure it out):
A woman was peacefully exercising her First Amendment rights. A man approached her in a physically threatening way. Used his size and proximity to intimidate her. Police officers watched this happen and did nothing—because of her political views. And your response? Defend the aggressor.
This isn't complicated, Vance. Most people learn "don't threaten people" in kindergarten. But apparently that's too advanced for someone running for Congress as a Democrat.
Your party spent DECADES claiming to champion women's rights. Yet here you are defending intimidation of women. Your party claims to support free speech, but here you are defending suppression of peaceful expression. Your party says it's against violence, yet here you are minimizing threatening behavior.
This is exactly why Democrats keep losing elections, by the way. Americans are tired of the hypocrisy. Tired of the double standards. Tired of politicians who can't even condemn basic assault when it's caught on video right in front of them.
Quick history lesson, since you might've missed this part: YOUR PARTY founded and empowered the Ku Klux Klan. Created Jim Crow laws that lasted almost a century. Filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 75 straight days.
So when you defend intimidation tactics? You're just continuing a long Democratic tradition. Using fear and violence to suppress opposition. The only thing that's changed is who you're targeting—political opponents instead of racial minorities. But the tactics? Exactly the same.
Quinn's Law #1 says "liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent." Your party claims to protect women while defending men who threaten them. Claims to support free speech while celebrating its suppression. Claims to oppose violence while minimizing assault.
Maybe before running for Congress, develop some basic moral clarity about right and wrong? Or at minimum, learn that threatening women isn't a campaign strategy.
But what do I know? I'm just someone who can watch a video and identify assault when I see it. Apparently that disqualifies me from running as a Democrat.
One more thing, Vance.
I spent 23 years as an Army medic. While I was in Iraq, I opened a school. A fire station. A hospital. I escorted girls to school so they wouldn't be killed just for wanting an education. After that I was a civilian paramedic. Now? I teach at a high-need, high-risk district—the kind of place where public schools basically gave up on the students.
So when you suggest defending women's right to peaceful expression is somehow wrong, maybe ask yourself what you've actually done to protect anyone.
#ProtectWomenNotThreats #FreedomOfSpeech #DefendTheFirstAmendment #DemocraticHypocrisy #ViolenceIsNotTheAnswer #NY8DeservesBetter #RealProtection #ConstitutionalRights #StopTheIntimidation #QuinnsLawsProvenAgain