#1. what year will donald trump pass away

[jangillman]

President Trump's Achievements

Hey!! What has Donald Trump done while he was in office (as at July, 2017)!!!

1.Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch

2.59 missiles dropped in Syria.

3.He took us out of TPP

4.Illegal immigration is now down 70%( the lowest in 17 years)

5.Consumer confidence highest since 2000 at index125.6

6.Mortgage applications for new homes rise to a 7 year high.

7.Arranged 20% Tariff on soft lumber from Canada.

8.Bids for border wall are well underway.

9.Pulled out of the lopsided Paris accord.

10.Keystone pipeline approved.

11.NATO allies boost spending by 4.3%

12.Allowing VA to terminate bad employees.

13.Allowing private healthcare choices for veterans.

14.More than 600,000. Jobs created

15. Median household income at a 7 year high.

16. The Stock Market is at the highest ever In its history.

17. China agreed to American import of beef.

18. $89 Billion saved in regulation rollbacks.

19. Rollback of A Regulation to boost coal mining.

20. MOAB for ISIS

21. Travel ban reinstated.

22. Executive order for religious freedom.

23. Jump started NASA

24. $600 million cut from UN peacekeeping budget.

25. Targeting of MS13 gangs

26. Deporting violent illegal immigrants.

27. Signed 41 bills to date

28. Created a commission on child trafficking

29. Created a commission on voter fraud

30. Created a commission for opioids addiction.

31. Giving power to states to drug test unemployment recipients.

32. Unemployment lowest since may 2007.

33. Historic Black College University initiative

34. Women In Entrepreneurship Act

35. Created an office or illegal immigrant crime victims.

36. Reversed Dodd-Frank

37. Repealed DOT ruling which would have taken power away from local governments for infrastructure planning

38. Order to stop crime against law enforcement.

39. End of DAPA program.

40. Stopped companies from moving out of America.

41. Promoted businesses to create American Jobs.

42. Encouraged country to once again

43. 'Buy American and hire American

44. Cutting regulations 2 for every one created.

45. Review of all trade agreements to make sure they are America first.

46. Apprentice program

47. Highest manufacturing surge in 3 years.

48 $78 Billion promised reinvestment from major businesses like Exxon, Bayer, Apple, SoftBank, Toyota...

49. Denied FBI a new building.

50. $700 million saved with F-35 renegotiation.

51. Saves $22 million by reducing white house payroll.

52. Dept of treasury reports a $182 billion surplus for April 2017

(2nd largest in history.

53. Negotiated the release of 6 US humanitarian workers held captive in egypt.

54. Gas prices lowest in more than 12 years.

55. Signed An Executive Order To Promote Energy Independence And Economic Growth

56. Has already accomplished more to stop government interference into people's lives than any President in the history of America.

57. President Trump has worked with Congress to pass more legislation in his first 100 days than any President since Truman.

58. Has given head executive of each branches 6 month time Frame dated march 15 2017, to trim the fat. restructure and improve efficacy of their branch.

Observe the pushback the leaks the lies as entrenched POWER refuses to go silently into that good night!

I hope each and every one of you copy and paste this everywhere, every time you hear some dim wit say Trump hadn't done a thing!

THANK YOU!!!

Oh, yeah, and there's this..........

[lenaperseveranceoxton]

I know it's basically just self-harm, but man, reading the comments of any official Overwatch post on any platform has me bashing my head against a wall. Specifically, though, I foolishly just felt like reading the Steam comments on the recent post about the "Overwatch 2 Spotlight" announcement because I found it funny that Team 4 has otherwise forgotten to post there since Season 12.

Amid the "M*rvel R*vals better" slop connoisseurs (Don't even get me started about that damn game. It drives me up the wall that people basically just want to play the equivalent of launch Overwatch but worse. Franchise recognition aside, it still baffles me that it's gotten as big as it has. I don't CARE if the Crisp Ratt character plays like Tracer. I'm already Tracer!), there were comments about the game “dying” because it went "woke." No, wait, sorry, that's an outdated term. "DEI" "killed" the game.

Lena "Tracer" Oxton, the face of 2016's GOTY, has been a lesbian since December of the same year! In an era where people like LeafyIsHere were making it big on YouTube and convicted felon/adjudicated rapist Donald J. Trump had won his first presidential election, Team 4 stunted on all the haters and showed us the funky little time-jumper kissing their beautiful redhead girlfriend! They paved the way for LGBT representation in every hero shooter that followed, and I will die on that hill. Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 would not have a non-binary operator if it wasn't for them! I swear!

Anyway, back to the comments I've been seeing in Overwatch's official posts. Plenty of (totally fair-minded) critics apparently believe the game is "failing" because we don't get enough updates. Yes, Overwatch is supposedly failing because we only get one hero every ~18 weeks! ARE YOU KIDDING?

Maybe we could use more maps for the newer modes, but Overwatch is actually in such a good place right now! Although I still disagree with some of Season 9's changes, I'm still having a great time with it on a day-to-day basis. (In fact, the recent urges to play Overwatch have been distracting me from writing Overwatch fan fiction😔. Unfortunate.)

What ever happened to playing a game because you enjoyed it? Do people just not have attention spans anymore? Overwatch's current flow of content is FINE. It's okay to take breaks from games! Do you really need constant stimulation, a new set of jingling keys with each waking day?

Sure, I think Overwatch's monetization model could use some work. It was more satisfying to regularly play Overwatch when there was the constant promise of loot boxes rather than having nothing to earn with a maxed-out battle pass, but I understand it didn't bring in the big bucks. At the same time, I would assume Mythic Prisms could fill that gap now? Either way, it's too late. Microsoft would never let Team 4 take away such a large source of income now. (I do find it funny that people only complain about Overwatch's $20 skins when every other live-service game does the same thing, but that's neither here nor there.)

All right, all right. Why am I talking about all this? Well, the wording of Overwatch's announcement ("new heroes... coming this February and beyond") and the animation of Maximilien typing "43" at the beginning of Stéphane Cornicard's recently released reading of "The Pocket King" make me concerned that they're giving into the demands for more frequent heroes with Season 15.

(Don't let the flame die out, though, PvEbros!!!)

I won't tag him because I know he has a lot of shooters on this hellsite, but I am the most recent hero's #1 hater. (No hate to Conor McLeod, though!) Even with him aside, there are other heroes that I like as characters and don't mind playing as or against, but from a gameplay standpoint, they feel like unnecessary additions with fundamentally flawed kits. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm specifically talking about a certain Samoan here.) I think we could've stopped adding new heroes a while ago.

Still, if we must have a Hero 34, I think it's more probable that they will have ties to Maximilien, but with Stéphane Cornicard's heavy involvement in recent content, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume they've gotten him onboard to voice act a full-fledged hero, either. So, what's he going to do? Help his team pay their taxes?

It reminds me of when MomoDeary posted Lemon Tea art on her (now-locked) Twitter and captioned it with something along the lines of "Emily should be a hero, and her only ability should be blowing kisses to Lena from across the map to heal [them] 🥰," and you know what? I once opposed adding Emily as a hero, but now, I couldn't agree more. If more heroes are the only thing that can save this game, then I expect them to pay my taxes and/or be gay and do crimes. Only then will we truly be "so fucking back."

[mariacallous]

In the weeks leading up to the 2024 presidential election, speculation was rampant that if Harris won it would be because of a historic gender gap in favor of women, a gap that ran through all the age cohorts in the electorate and that would be magnified by the gap in voter turnout between men and women. Three factors supported this belief: 1) Harris is a woman; 2) the issue of abortion rights being taken away which had played a big role in the 2022 midterms and the 2023 off-year elections; and 3) Trump’s often misogynistic attitudes toward women. Many expected that a gender gap in favor of Harris would counterbalance weaknesses in other parts of the electorate and help Harris win, but it didn’t happen.

What did happen? Of the three possibilities, the most likely one is that abortion ceased to be an issue that would impact the vote beyond matters such as the economy, immigration, and crime. That was not the case in the immediate aftermath of the 2021 Dobbs decision that sent abortion regulation back to the states. In the 2022 midterm elections and in the 2023 off-year elections in Virginia, there was clear evidence that abortion directly affected voting for Congress and voting for the state legislature. But by 2024, two things happened to blunt the impact of abortion on the presidential race.

First, in the two plus years since the Dobbs decision, the pro-choice movement has concentrated on winning state ballot initiatives to protect the right to an abortion. Beginning in 2022, there were state referenda in six states and in every one—even very conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana—they passed by comfortable margins. Seeing a way to increase the number of women able to get an abortion and avoid unfriendly courts and state legislatures, the pro-choice movement went into action and placed a referendum on the ballot in Ohio in 2023 (which won easily) and then placed referenda on 10 more states for 2024. Some of these states—Colorado, Maryland, and New York—were blue states where Harris was expected to win. The referenda were expected to pass easily and did. They also passed easily where Trump was expected to win—in the deep red states of Montana (57.6%), Missouri (51,6%,) and Nebraska (55.3%.) In Florida, it did not pass, but that’s because although it got 57.1% of the vote, the legislature raised the bar for winning to 60%. South Dakota was the only state where the pro-choice referenda lost.

In the two swing states with abortion on the ballot, Arizona and Nevada, the referenda won easily, with 61.4% of the vote in Arizona and 63.8% of the vote in Nevada. What is clear from the outcomes in those states is that many people figured they could have their cake and eat it too—so to speak. They could vote to keep abortion legal but then vote for Trump for president. In Arizona, Harris so far only has 46.8% of the vote, meaning that 14.6% of the voters voted for the pro-choice position on abortion and for Donald Trump. In Nevada, Harris has so far received 47.2% of the vote—meaning that 16.6% of the voters voted pro-choice and for Trump. In many states voters have had a way to protect abortion rights while voting for Republican candidates.

The second thing that happened was that midway through his general election campaign, on October 1 to be precise, Trump—after a serious meeting with his staff where he was shown just how costly his support for abortion bans could be—issued a statement saying: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters (the will of the people!).”

By the time of the actual election, the gender gap had been cut in half and Harris’ lead among women had plummeted. A method for protecting abortion (the referenda) had reduced the need for voters to elect pro-choice candidates since they could still vote to keep abortion legal. And Trump, seeing the writing on the wall, clarified that he would take no federal action, clearing the way for large numbers of pro-choice voters to vote for him on the economy, immigration, or many other issues. Although Harris fared much better among women than men, according to election exit polls, she ended up doing no better than Biden with women. That torpedoed her strategy of emphasizing reproductive rights—and in the end helped to elect Donald Trump.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

The United States’ second exit from the Paris Agreement wasn’t unexpected. Even before he was reelected, now-president Donald Trump had promised for months that he would pull the country out of the United Nations pact to limit global warming: the Paris climate “rip-off,” as he called it. 

Some of the most immediate impacts will be financial. Leaving the Paris Agreement, which will take one year from the day Trump notifies the United Nations of his intention to do so, means the U.S. will no longer contribute to funding streams intended to help poorer countries transition away from fossil fuels and prepare for the impacts of climate change. Trump’s executive order said it “revoked and rescinded” the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan, which laid out a government-wide strategy to scale back public investments in international fossil fuel projects while increasing investments in clean energy and adaptation financing abroad.

In 2024, U.S. Congress appropriated $1 billion for climate mitigation in the developing world, and the country has contributed less than the other nations most responsible for climate change, like Germany and Japan. Although Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project run by three research institutions, has rated the U.S.’s contributions to climate finance “critically insufficient,” some experts have raised concerns that the U.S. halting funding altogether could have a chilling effect on contributions from other donor countries.

Even so, U.S. nonparticipation in the Paris Agreement is unlikely to dramatically change the pace of climate progress. That’s due to a couple of ways the treaty is structured. First, the 2015 pact never bound the U.S. to any specific amount of emissions reductions; it just required the U.S. to submit a “nationally determined contribution,” or NDC, every five years. 

The same is true of every other country that’s a party to the agreement. Not one has set a Paris-aligned emissions reduction target, and the United Nations Environment Programme estimated last October that countries’ collective emissions reduction pledges would allow 2.6 to 3.1 degrees C (4.7 to 5.6 degrees F) of warming by the end of the century.

Second, countries aren’t in any way compelled to adhere to the insufficient emissions reduction targets they submit under the Paris Agreement. These are only binding insofar as they are made binding by domestic law — and the U.S. has never passed any legislation holding it to its Paris targets.

Sheila Olmstead, a professor of public policy at Cornell University, said the U.S. exiting the Paris Agreement was “potentially mostly symbolic.” What will ultimately matter, she said, is what the Trump administration does domestically: for example, with vehicle emissions standards, greenhouse gas limits for power plants, and clean energy subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, which made $137 billion available for renewable energy infrastructure and climate resilience.

It remains to be seen what Trump will be able to achieve in terms of rolling back those policies, Olmstead said, though he has already signed a spate of executive orders to roll back vehicle emissions standards, pause climate spending under the Inflation Reduction Act, and expand oil and gas drilling on federal lands. State and local resistance could at least partially frustrate the president’s plans to do so — for instance, the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 governors whose states represent more than half of the country’s economy, have pledged to honor the U.S.’s most recent NDC submitted during the waning days of the Biden administration.

Still, a December analysis by the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm, found a deregulatory agenda — the type Trump has begun to enact — could lead to a 24 to 36 percent increase in climate pollution in 2035, compared to current policies.

[soliloqueeer]

13 Questions Every Harry Potter Fan Should Be Able To Answer

Question 1: Which house do you belong to?

Ravenclaw. I'm curious, creative and introverted. But I would also be happy in Hufflepuff since I am, at the end of the day, baby.

Question 2: Which Deathly Hallow would you choose?

If I'm being honest with myself probably the stone, to have one final conversation with my mother who recently, and very suddenly, passed away.

If that hadn't happened then I would've chosen the invisibility cloak because I love the idea of not being perceived.

Question 3: Which Character do you have a (not so) secret crush on?

Interesting question. I had to pick someone compliant with their characterization in the books then I'd probably say I'm most attracted to Tonks or Sirius, or the Weasley twins. But if you saw my AO3 history you'd think Tom Riddle.

Question 4: What are your Indepth and controversial thoughts on Severus Snape?

I think that Severus is a very tragic character. He came from poverty, was abused and neglected by his parents. The only person to ever show him kindness was Lily. He was canonically ugly, weird, and had bad hygiene. He was bullied by two classist Gryffindors and craved power and vengence which led him down a dark path. He died a hero who was courageous and self-sacrificing but I don't think she-who-shall-not-be-named wrote a convincing enough redemption story, especially not one in which the hero would give one of his son's Severus's name. He was still a wholly miserable person who was stuck in the past and verbally abused the child of his former nemesis for six years.

My controversial thoughts surrounding Snape was that he was first and foremost a genius - a potions prodigy who literally crafted his own spells as a teenager.

There was an unequal power dynamic between Severus and the Marauders. He was a dirt poor half-blood and they were rich purebloods. There was never any equal footing between them and as much as he participated in the feud, it was always in retaliation to their cruelty. (I can say this without bashing Sirius and James as all people contain multitudes).

I also don't believe Severus was a bigot. I think there's a good chance he hated muggles, as a result of the abuse from his father, but I he was too smart to buy into the idea of blood supremacy when he, a half-blood, was smarter than most of his pureblood peers. And when Lily, a muggleborn, was at the top of their class.

One of the more controversial headcanons I have is that Severus was recruited into becoming a Deatheater, not because he believed in their agenda but because he was allured by the promise of power, influence and vengeance. I believe he probably moved up high in the ranks after graduating Hogwarts because he was cunning, ambitious, and committed to proving himself and gaining Voldemort's respect. I also believe during his time as a Deatheater he most likely had to commit horrible acts of violence and cruelty, and that while Severus does have a sadistic streak (one that gives him the allusion of power), he does not wish suffering upon innocent people. He probably dealt with these peforming these acts by compartmentalizing his responsibiltiies as a Deatheater and using occlumancy.

One final thing I want to add is that I don't think Severus was obsessed with Lily in a 4Chan, incel sort of way (in fact, he kind of gives off ace vibes). In my opinion, Lily was the only person to ever give him love, kindness and compassion, and while he was in love with her, he was above all else, completely wracked with guilt over being responsible for telling Voldemort about the prophecy. He agrees to protect Harry because he feels indebted to her until the day he dies.

Question 5: Who, In your Opinion, Is more evil: Voldemort or Dolores Umbridge.

What a funny question. The first thing that comes to mind for me is Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the discourse in 2015-17 about which politician was worse. Voldemort (like Trump) is honest about who is is and what he stands for (self-interest and accumulating power). Alternatively Umbridge (like Clinton) tries to create the perception that she is good and righteous.

Umbridge represents the banaltiy of evil. She's sadistic and abusive, even towards children -all while wearing a polite smile on her face. She has the same vibe as a Catholic nun who abuses people in the name of god, and for Umbridge it was about the rule of law.

However, Voldemort's evil can't even be measured on the same scale. He's a meglomaniac eugenicst willing to purge the world of things he deems inferior to him. He was inspired by dictators like Hitler and Stalin.

It's far easier to hate Umbridge because she's not honest about who she is, and we've met a figure of authority who's exactly like her. Voldemort by all accounts and purposes, was far more powerful, influential and destructive, but too grandiose to relate to.

Question 6: Which death in the series is the most heartbreaking?

Sirius, Fred, Remus, but especially Fred. It was cruel to take him away from George. I think it would've been more satisfying if Percy, as a way to redeem himself to his family, sacrificed himself to save his brother during the Battle of Hogwarts.

Question 7: What Quidditch position would you play?

I wouldn't. I'd probably be in the stands or take advantage of the school being empty and fuck around in the empty castle all day.

Question 8: What Wizarding Career would you pursue?

Probably a teacher or academic/Unspeakable as I love research. That or someone who paints the magical portraits.

Question 9: Which book in the series is you favourite?

PoA was always my favourite as a kid because I really loved Lupin's character, and hearing about the Marauders. The time-turner plot gives me an eyeroll now but the climax is still one of the most thrilling to me. We also got a taste of Powerful Harry, which actually never came to fruition, but I really loved the idea that Harry was a very exceptional wizard who was coming into his powers and not just an every-man character.

Question 10: Who should have ended up together? Hermione/Ron or Hermione/Harry?

Hermione/Harry if it was developed earlier on. The author explained that Ron/Hermione was something she pigeonholed herself into in the first two books but later regretted it. I think canonically, Harry and Hermione are like siblings, but if their relationship was developed after PoA then it would've been really satisfying to see.

Question 11: Have you read Harry Potter and the Cursed Child?

No. Never will.

Question 12: Was Dumbledore a Hero or a Villain?

A hero. His plan worked in the end, as convoluted it may have been. I don't see Dumbledore as an all-good Santa-Claus-Grandpa character like his die-hard fans do, but I also don't see him as a chess-player villian twirling his moustache from the shadows.

I used to really hate Dumbledore because of how secretive he was. It was absolutely insane for him to have put Harry on that wild goose chase with such little information and it was a miracle they won the war at all.

At the end of the day, I think he was a man that feared having too much power due to the mistakes he made in his youth when he was hungry for it. He influenced things from the sidelines because he knew he was imperfect. He made mistakes all the time, and owned up to them, and if he was all-powerful those mistakes would have much graver consequences.

He loved Harry, in the end, and did not want to see him in that mess, but had the pressure of saving the world on his shoulders.

Question 13: Who is the real Hero of the Story? Harry Potter or Neville Longbottom?

Seems like a redundant question to me, but perhaps there's discourse around it I'm not aware of.

Harry is. But he doesn't carry that tile alone.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Cohn at HuffPost:

“Folks, he’s coming for your health care, and we’re not going to let that happen.” Those are the closing words of a new 30-second ad from the Biden campaign, focusing on the Affordable Care Act and the possibility of repeal if Donald Trump becomes president again. The ad buy is significant: $14 million to run the spot in a half dozen swing states, as my colleague S.V. Dáte reported. And it’s not difficult to understand why.

Trump’s attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 was highly unpopular. The backlash was almost certainly a big reason Republicans managed to lose both houses of Congress and the presidency over the next two elections. Reminding voters of this history can only help Biden and the Democrats, especially amid polls that show the 2010 health care law to be more popular than ever. And the threat to the law is real. Trump spent his entire presidency trying to tear down the program; when legislation failed, he tried to undermine the law by ― among other things ― taking away funds for advertising and promotion. Last fall, he returned to the subject in a Truth Social post, declaring, “The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it’s not good Healthcare. I’m seriously looking at alternatives.”

Trump followed up with what was supposed to be a clarification, stating, “I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!” But of course, that was just another version of the promises he made before taking office last time ― you may remember vows like “I’m going to take care of everybody” or “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.” He then proceeded to push bills that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have added more than 20 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured.

[...] Democratic leaders vowed to address that issue by increasing the subsidies, effectively realizing their original vision for the law. And they did precisely that in 2021. The American Rescue Plan, which Democrats passed and Biden signed, boosted the Affordable Care Act’s financial assistance so that nobody has to pay more than 8.5% of household income on a standard plan.

It was a temporary measure tied to the pandemic, but in 2022, they extended the subsidies through 2025. The impact has been substantial. Roughly 15 million Americans are saving an average of about $800 a year on their insurance, according to calculations by the Department of Health and Human Services. And like all averages, that covers a range of people. The savings amount to only a pittance for some, but it’s literally thousands of dollars a year for others. The enhanced subsidies have also had more subtle effects. Some insurers still sell “non-compliant” plans that resemble the old policies. These plans can be sold more cheaply because they have big coverage gaps that can leave beneficiaries exposed to punishing, catastrophic medical bills. (Loopholes in the law allow this.) However, fewer people are now buying those policies, opting for the more comprehensive plans available than the Affordable Care Act, according to a study from the non-partisan health research organization KFF. That’s because, with the extra subsidies, the more comprehensive plans don’t cost as much as they did before.

[...]

A Familiar Debate, An Uncertain Political Future

The new Biden ad says he wants to make the assistance permanent, consistent with a proposal in his latest budget. That wouldn’t be cheap. CBO pegged the cost at about $25 million a year back in 2022. It’d probably require more money more now. The inability to find enough offsetting cuts or revenue to cover that cost is one reason Biden and the Democrats didn’t make the bigger subsidies permanent last time. That could happen again. But it’s safe to assume that, at the very least, Biden and the Democrats would approve another temporary extension if they are in office and have enough leverage in Congress after 2024. If Democrats don’t have that kind of power come next year, the fate of these increased subsidies will be in the hands of Trump and the Republicans. And while they haven’t had much to say about the issue, it’s hard to imagine they’d be enthusiastic about extending the subsidies given their traditional hostility to government spending on social welfare, to say nothing of their animus towards Obamacare. Conservative intellectuals are already laying the groundwork.��Brian Blase, the former Trump administration official now president of the conservative-leaning Paragon Health Institute, has assailed the extra subsidies as regressive because they have made higher-income Americans eligible for assistance.

If Donald Trump wins in 2024, then there could be big consequences for Obamacare… and it won’t be pretty.

[dollarbin]

Dollar Bin #45:

Woody Guthrie's Lindbergh

I clearly don't aim to do anything too serious around here but I have periodically ensured that Trump supporters feel thoroughly uninvited to the Dollar Bin.

After all, Donald Trump does not understand the Dollar Bin. Our very own Neil Young is one of dozens of dollar bin artists whose music has been featured at Trump rallies against their explicit wishes and whose sentiments about that fact are well summarized by one of the guys behind Panic at the Disco: "Dear Trump Campaign, F--- you... Stop playing my song."

Plus, Trump wouldn't even know there was such a thing as the dollar bin. To him, there's no such thing as art, let alone art - or anything - that can be purchased for a buck. The shoes with his name on them cost a few hundred bucks; same with his bibles. Sure, he'd pretend to thumb through some old records if those records were in a swing state and there were a few dozen television cameras around recording his pithy and racist nonsense while a wave of nutjobs surged about outside, hoping to see him at it. But, thankfully, that photo op is one of the few he's passed by.

The truth is that my own life won't change too much if he gets reelected. I'm white, male, American by birth and heterosexual so I probably won't lose too many of my rights. But I'd rush home and burn every one my records; hell, I'd even root for the Yankees, Giants, Padres and everyone else to forever trounce my Dodgers - I'm that earnest about this - if I thought any of that would help keep Trump out of the White House for good. I just hate everything he stands for. For my daughters, my students, my neighbors, for everyone. He is evil. And we are better than him.

Why am I telling you all this instead of recommending a Randy Newman record or something? Well, it's my worry that too many of us will leave stones unturned in the next two weeks when it comes to stopping Trump's return to power. I don't want to look back and think "I shoulda..." And so, for this moment only, I'm turning this blog into a political plea.

So, let's listen to some Woody Guthrie!

If you don't teach high school history or haven't read The Plot Against America, here's some context for Guthrie's attack on an American legend:

Throughout the 1920's and 30's Charles Lindbergh was our country's Tom Hanks meets Michael Jordan: he was our biggest celebrity and our most celebrated retired athlete all wrapped up in one handsome package.

The basis for that fame was his record breaking flight across the Atlantic, but he wasn't just a pilot. Get this: the guy also invented some of the foundational technology behind modern surgery and artificial hearts.

What's more, he was a famously tragic figure: his infant daughter was kidnapped and died in what white media at the time described as the "Crime of the Century."

Meanwhile he was a racist, anti-Semitic fascist. There's no hyperbole in that statement.

And in 1940, the Republican party begged him to run for president. Lindbergh, who was shy and paranoid, ultimately declined to run but he made his views clear all the same: the best thing for our country to do was to side with Hitler in the coming war. After all, he reasoned, Jews ran the world and they needed to be stopped.

And here's the crazy part: if Lindbergh had accepted that nomination and appeared on the 1940 ballot he almost certainly would have won and been our President. Really. And then where the hell would we all be?

I see a lot of exasperated headlines at this point: why, given Trump's blatant criminal behavior, his increasing senility and his rampant megalomania, is this year's election so close? Why isn't Kamala "running away with this thing?"

The answer seems fairly obvious to me: 1/2 of our country is either too apathetic or disadvantaged to vote, and just a 1/4 of us plan to vote against Trump because we are neither disadvantaged nor apathetic and we have a healthy moral compass. But that means a full quarter of our country's ethical compass directs them to sexism, xenophobia and a preference for "I alone can fix it" fascism over democracy. And that means Trump may very well win.

It somehow doesn't matter that even Trump's longest serving Chief of Staff calls him a fascist. Our election will be a toss up.

Which brings us back to good old Woody. His song about Lindbergh, the Donald Trump of his day, is tons of fun, I think, plus you gotta dig that hook: in Washington; in Wash-ing-ton.

But Guthrie, though a genius, didn't record Lindbergh until 1944 - a full four years after the American people needed to hear the song and act on it. And Shakey, also a genius, didn't record Ohio until after those bodies were lying dead on the ground.

There are just two weeks to go folks. I'm no Woody Guthrie nor Neil Young, that's for sure. But this post is me singing my own paltry version of Ohio and Lindbergh. My song may suck but I'm earnest about it: I'm trying to sing while there's still time to correct our course.

I should be doing way, way more than this - I know it. But thanks for reading this all the same, and thanks for considering. I think our country, like the dollar bin, is full of wonder and beauty.

So let's save it.

[bopinion]

2024 / 41

Aperçu of the week

“The first casualty, when war comes, is truth”

(Hiram Johnson, progressive US politician, who was Governor of and Senator for California, among other things, on World War 1)

Bad News of the Week

Bavaria is Germany's largest federal state. It is larger than Ireland, for example. Or Denmark. Or Belgium or the Netherlands or Croatia or Switzerland. So it's pretty big by European standards. So if an area is three times the size of Bavaria, that's a lot. And the area of forest that has already been burned in Brazil this year is just as large.

A total of 22.38 million hectares caught fire between January and September, according to a report by the MapBiomas initiative. This corresponds to an increase of 150 percent compared to the same period in 2023. The MapBiomas network consists of universities, non-governmental organizations and technology companies and examines satellite images, among other things, to keep track of environmental developments.

According to the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), the main reason for the fires is deliberate arson. To create grazing land for cattle and arable land for soybean cultivation. Brazil's President Lula da Silva is committed to better protecting the forests and has already achieved success through stricter legislation and prosecution, as well as defining new protected areas.

So why are the figures still soaring? Researchers attribute this to the ongoing drought stress in the Amazon and its neighboring regions, which simply makes it easier to burn and causes it to spread more quickly. At the same time, the second largest tributary of the Amazon, the Rio Negro, is currently drying up, with the water level at its lowest since records began - in 1902!

The first researchers already fear that the first tipping points have also been passed in Brazil. This would be a catastrophe for the planet's largest C02 reservoir, oxygen producer and biodiversity guarantor. And therefore for humanity. It shocks me that there is still political support for fossil fuels. For example, in the current US presidential election campaign, where even Kamala Harris has backed away from her opposition to fracking because it could cost her the swing state of Pennsylvania. Or in Germany, the automobile country, there is talk of “technological openness”. Or Hungary would prefer to buy Russian gas again. Or...

Good News of the Week

The first anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel. A sad day. Because it brought immeasurable suffering. First for the Israeli victims of the Hamas act of terrorism. And then on practically the entire Palestinian people. Both triggered by the extremism of individual so-called leaders who accept any victim for their ideologically blinded egoism - except themselves. The fact that there are now (one year after the attack!) still Israeli hostages with unclear whereabouts or conditions and at the same time the number of civilian victims of this war - because it is nothing else - is increasing daily is unbearable.

What I find good in this context is the differentiated view among the population here. In Munich, there have already been demonstrations with different points of view, which have certainly sharpened their own different points of view: “365 days - Munich against anti-Semitism” and “Palestine speaks Munich - 365 days of genocide”. The events took place on the same street. And remained peaceful and no clashes were reported. Even if both are too short-sighted, because not every Jew is a Zionist and not every Palestinian is a terrorist. On the contrary: a demonstrator holds up a sign that reads “Palestinians against Jew-hatred”.

Recently, an acquaintance told me about a video conference that a conversation partner from the USA suddenly left. He later apologized: he had been in his home office, his partner and he were of opposing political opinions and there would have been a huge row at home if he had found out what his international colleagues thought of Donald Trump. Namely nothing.

Such fundamental differences, which run like a deep rift even within families, were previously only known to me in the context of corona, when it seemed that vaccination supporters and opponents could no longer build any kind of bridge to each other. In the current political debate, there seem to me to be very few uncompromising hardliners. On both sides. Because there is consensus on one thing: the suffering must come to an end. That of the Palestinian civilian population and that of the Israeli hostages and their families. As long as we can agree on that, there will still be a basic understanding. For the good.

Personal happy moment of the week

We have been struggling with coronavirus and other colds for some time now and are still not really fit. As a result, real life is only taking place on the back burner: work gets done and we don't have the energy for the rest. Work-life balance looks different. But now we've finally been “outside” again. For brunch with friends. And we'll be doing it again a week later. It's nice to meet other people again without it being a meeting.

I couldn't care less...

...that the European Union can and probably will now impose punitive tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. The official reason is that Beijing is promoting car production with so many subsidies that competition is being distorted. In reality, however, the European automotive industry has simply been asleep. And what's more, the subsidy was invented in the European single market, so to speak.

It's fine with me...

...that a large majority of the CDU state associations (of the conservative Christian Democratic Union) are open to black-green coalitions. A corresponding blanket rejection, as repeatedly demanded by the Bavarian CSU (the sister party Christian Social Union) and its Minister President Markus Söder, is “absurd”. Exactly. In addition, North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg and Schleswig-Holstein are recognized as having good, solid and pragmatic governments. In a coalition of conservatives and the Greens.

As I write this...

...the clean-up work in Florida is progressing after Hurricane Milton plowed through the peninsula like Helene shortly before. The extent of the damage was less severe than feared, even though it could run into the billions and there were also fatalities. What is terrible, however, is how even such disasters are being instrumentalized by the Republicans in the US election campaign to support the dystopian future scenarios that Donald Trump is creating ever more blatantly. Particularly perfidious: the Democrats would take away urgently needed funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to “rescue” Americans in order to buy the votes of illegal migrants. Unbelievable: these guys still manage to leave me at a loss for words...

Post Scriptum

Asylum is a hot topic in Europe right now. The increasing popularity of right-wing parties is mainly due to the fact that (too) many believe the propaganda that the entire continent has a migration problem. As a result, even more moderate centrist parties now also have this issue on their radar and in their election manifestos. The lowest common denominator: less immigration is better than more.

It is therefore surprising that the right of asylum is now being extended. But fortunately, justice is blind. The European Court of Justice has now decisively strengthened the protection of Afghan women. It has stated that the repression of the Taliban regime is now so massive that they are generally considered to be persecuted.

They are therefore entitled to asylum in the European Union. In principle and regardless of individual examination and interpretation. Women are systematically discriminated against by the Taliban - simply because they are women. The fact that this discrimination means, among other things, that no woman is even allowed to leave her home without a male escort makes it unlikely that the theory will be put into practice. But for me, this decision alone is a very strong symbol.

[steelbluehome]

"The film mostly succeeds in this monstrous true story due to the transformative and utterly compelling performances of Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong. Stan’s gradual transformation is entirely believable, avoiding SNL-levels of parody through his eerily uncanny, surprisingly restrained, and frightening portrayal of a total and complete narcissist. He absolutely nails Trump’s body language, speech patterns, and facial expressions, and he does this more progressively throughout the film while never once overplaying it. By the time you reach the end of the film, his version of Trump is completely unrecognizable from the person we met at the beginning of the film, not just in mind and body (courtesy of some convincing makeup work), but also in spirit."

The Next Best Picture

"THE APPRENTICE” (click for article)

May 20, 2024

By Matt Neglia

THE STORY – A dive into the underbelly of the American empire, the film charts a young Donald Trump’s ascent to power through a Faustian deal with the influential right-wing lawyer and political fixer Roy Cohn.

THE CAST – Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Strong, Maria Bakalova, Martin Donovan & Joe Pingue

THE TEAM – Ali Abbasi (Director), Jennifer Stahl & Gabriel Sherman (Writers)

THE RUNNING TIME – 120 Minutes

Making a film about former President of the United States, Donald Trump, was always going to be a hot-button topic amongst cinephiles. Such a controversial figure who is still, to this day, a very real presence in our lives and has no intentions of fading away, one would think any form of a biopic about him would want to wait a number of years, perhaps after his passing, to tell any story about him so not to garner intense reactions out of people. But perhaps that’s the goal all along. No matter what the response to filmmaker Ali Abbasi’s (“Holy Spider“) latest film is, it’s going at least get some sort of a reaction out of people. And in a way, such a reckless and blatant approach to making and releasing this film now, while both his supporters and haters are out in full force during an election year where he will be the Republican nominee once again (barring an indictment of any kind) feels right in line with the kind of person Donald Trump is and has always been, well at least after he met Roy Cohn, which is what Abbasi’s film depicts. It’s not concerned with his Presidential years in the Oval Office, but rather the early days in his real estate career, when barely anyone knew who he was and through a mentor/protege friendship, it gave birth to this Frankenstein’s monster who not only became rich and famous, but infamous.

Before he made his billions, Donald Trump (Sebastian Stan) was a young, upstart real estate mogul looking to secure a deal with the city of New York under his wealthy father, Fred Trump’s (Martin Donovan) nose, who owned The Trump Organization. After venturing into a bar one night visited by some of the most powerful, corrupt, and wealthiest individuals in the city, Trump meets hotshot American lawyer and prosecutor Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong), a blowhard, vulgar, and offensive individual who doesn’t care about anything other than winning. Trump elicits Cohn’s help to get the feds to back off his family’s business so he can move forward with building a luxury hotel in the middle of Grand Central Station, and Cohn eventually agrees. He likes the kid and seizes the moment to take him under his wing and teach him his three key principles to winning: Rule 1: Attack. Attack. Attack. Rule 2: Admit nothing. Deny everything. And Rule 3: Claim victory and never admit defeat. This mental attitude would go on to become the blueprint for how Donald Trump would eventually grow his family’s real estate empire through the 1970s and 80s, leading to the unbreakable mindset that would one day lead him to the Presidency.

Naturally, there’s quite a bit of fear and hesitation about how Sebastian Stan would portray Trump in “The Apprentice” (the title of the film applying to Trump’s role under Cohn’s tutelage and a play off of his famous television show of the same name). Is this meant to be a comedy? A drama? Perhaps even a horror film? Abbasi’s film, surprisingly, plays everything mostly straight, giving the film “Succession” levels of Shakespearean drama (backed by some brass-heavy pieces of score which will also remind viewers of the hit HBO show) as the relationship between Trump and Cohn touches upon themes of friendship, loyalty, and betrayal. The two start off the film in totally different places, and, by the end, they swap as one eventually becomes humbled by life, and the other displays a total disregard for it and its rules based on the teachings he inherited from the other. By telling such a story, “The Apprentice” does not shy away from showing audiences what a driven but naive young Donald Trump once was but also the notorious scumbag he would grow to become.

The film mostly succeeds in this monstrous true story due to the transformative and utterly compelling performances of Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong. Stan’s gradual transformation is entirely believable, avoiding SNL-levels of parody through his eerily uncanny, surprisingly restrained, and frightening portrayal of a total and complete narcissist. He absolutely nails Trump’s body language, speech patterns, and facial expressions, and he does this more progressively throughout the film while never once overplaying it. By the time you reach the end of the film, his version of Trump is completely unrecognizable from the person we met at the beginning of the film, not just in mind and body (courtesy of some convincing makeup work), but also in spirit. The same goes for Strong as Cohn, who captures Cohn’s voice, slight head bob while speaking, and, more importantly, his viciousness, ruthlessness, and cruelty. The latter human qualities are particularly noteworthy for how Strong manages to pry even the slightest degree of pity for Cohn from the audience by the end after watching what a despicable human being he was earlier in his life is nothing short of fantastic acting from the Emmy Award-winning actor. Watching those almost inhuman powers transfer from one actor to the other seamlessly over the course of the two-hour runtime is the film’s best asset, as Abbasi never asks us to sympathize with Trump but instead seeks to give us a better understanding of how anyone could ever think and behave the way he does. By the time you’re done watching Abbasi’s cautionary character study, it starts to make a bit more sense.

Some will feel that none of this is new information and the film’s very act of existence is objectionable, given how much of a prevalent force Trump remains in our daily lives. While Stan and Strong’s exceptional work makes the film worth checking out, there are still numerous flaws to be found within its storytelling. The decision to shoot utilizing different video formats, such as celluloid filmstock and camcorder footage, provides a clear distinction between the time periods, accentuated by the film’s soundtrack comprising various hits from the time. Some of these needle drops feel appropriate, while one in particular during a physical assault by Trump on his former wife Ivana Trump (a sadly underused Maria Bakalova) feels completely out of place and cuts the horrifically violent act’s knees right from underneath it. Abbasi wisely avoids showcasing any and all contemporary scenes during Trump’s presidential run and eventual Presidency, but that doesn’t stop screenwriters Jennifer Stahl & Gabriel Sherman from constantly eluding to it in some heavy-handed ways. Whether it’s played for laughs or for a cheap wink at the camera to tell audiences unnecessary indicators such as, “See! That’s how he got his campaign slogan!” it never hits as hard as the drama conjured by Stan and Strong, nor the queasy feelings it produces in your stomach knowing what this power-hungry, nonsensical fraud of a businessman would later go on to do.

While Trump constantly fabricates the truth to create a scenario where he comes out ahead, Abbasi’s film is about getting as close to the truth as possible to paint a picture of a figure where he comes out not as low as possible but across as honestly as possible. That honesty is rotten to the core, and Stan’s immersive portrayal never breaks away from that truth. There is no breaking of the fourth wall to over-explain details to the audience, nor is there a sharp divide between the film’s drama and comedy, causing us to question whether we should take the film seriously or not. It’s as serious a film for our tumultuous times as any other. Although it might not be perfect, and some will rightfully question whether the timing of “The Apprentice” is justified, Stan and Strong provide awards-worthy work that will get people talking and hopefully convince them to see Trump for who he is and has always been.

[yetisidelblog]

We were on the brink of global tax fairness. President Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had secured momentum among 38 industrialized countries for a 15% global corporate minimum tax.[1] This historic effort would have shut down corporate tax havens and leveled the playing field for U.S. workers and businesses.

But now, Donald Trump has pulled the plug―walking away from this global agreement, allowing multinational corporations to continue exploiting tax loopholes and shifting profits to offshore tax havens, costing the U.S. tens of billions of dollars each year.

This is where the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act comes in.[2] Introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Lloyd Doggett this past week, the bill would reverse Trump’s harmful policies and stop rewarding corporations for offshoring jobs by:

Equalizing tax rates on profits earned abroad and at home.

Eliminating deductions for Global Intangible Low-Tax Income (GILTI) and other loopholes.

Preventing corporate inversions where companies dodge taxes by claiming foreign status.

The No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act is critical to restoring tax fairness and reclaiming revenue for vital investments like infrastructure, education, and healthcare.

Congress needs to hear from you: Tell them to pass the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act and end tax rewards for offshoring now.

@upontheshelfreviews

@greenwingspino

@one-time-i-dreamt

@tenaflyviper

@akron-squirrel

@ifihadaworldofmyown

@justice-for-jacob-marley

@voicetalentbrendan

@thebigdeepcheatsy

@what-is-my-aesthetic

@ravenlynclemens

@thegreatallie

@writerofweird

@anon-lephant

@bogleech

@mentally-quiet-spycrab

[yourreddancer]

Democracy Docket - Marc Elias

For the first week of Trump’s second presidency, we’re offering full previews of the exclusive content available to our premium members. There will be a lot of noise and distraction over the next four years — that’s why we’re here to expose the actions taken by the Trump administration to undermine our democracy and cover the legal efforts to fight back.

The most common question I receive is how everyday citizens can help in the fight for democracy. My advice is to take the first step, start with something small and see what works for you. Here are ten things all of us can do.

1. Stay engaged

When all the news is about Trump and pardons and lies, it is easy to want to retreat and stop paying attention. Don’t. It is precisely when things are hard that we must all lean into remaining vigilant and informed.

2. Help Democrats

The success of any opposition movement rests on the opposing party taking power. This is not a minor detail; in our system of government, it is the essential goal. Next time you want to attack a Democrat for being too much of this or too little of that, realize that you are only helping the GOP. Instead, find a Democrat you support and volunteer or contribute to their campaign.

3. Don’t do Trump’s work

This is more than simply resisting Trump’s actions; it is refusing to accept his false assumptions. When he says he wants to abolish birthright citizenship, do not accept the premise that he has the power to do so. Stay grounded in the truth: The U.S. Constitution is clear, Trump is powerless and the courts will reject his efforts.

4. Don’t grade on a curve

This goes both ways. Do not hold Republicans to a lower standard and do not hold Democrats to a higher one. When a Republican does something normal, recognize it is normal not exceptional. When a Democrat does something normal, recognize it is normal and not terrible.

5. Believe in the courts

Republicans control all three elected branches of the federal government. They do not control the courts. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has a solidly conservative majority, but the high court only hears a few dozen cases a year. And in some of those, the Court has sided with democracy. Most importantly, remember that Joe Biden confirmed a record number of new federal judges. And, of course, there are state courts. For better or worse, we are dependent on the courts to help protect democracy. Rather than assume they will not, insist they do.

6. Beware of false attacks

Pam Bondi is an election denier. Kash Patel has an enemies list of political opponents. Donald Trump has promised retribution. When you hear that a Trump foe is under investigation, be skeptical. When you read about anonymous leaks against pro-democracy leaders, consider that it may be part of an effort to discredit their work.

7. Support independent media

The legacy media is failing our democracy. Every day brings more news of another billionaire owner or corporate overlord bowing down to Trump. The solution is found in independent news outlets that have no incentive to make nice with the Republican Party. Some of these are broad-based news operations, some are issue specific. Pick a few and subscribe for free. Find one or two that you pay to support. It will go a long way to ensure a vibrant media ecosystem willing to stand up for democracy.

8. Use your town square

Every one of us has a town square. It may include our social media accounts, our local book club or dinner table. Use your town square to speak out in favor of democracy and against what Republicans are doing. Do not shy away from difficult conversations; seek them out. Engage the curious. Educate those who seek information. We all have a role to play, so don’t assume your voice is too faint or your platform too small.

9. Prepare for a long fight

In 2017, we hoped that Trumpism was a fluke and would pass. We now know it will not. We are in for a long fight and must build and commit to an opposition movement that will stand the test of time. We will have victories and setbacks, good days and bad. We must understand that this will not be over in one election or with the defeat of any one candidate. This is the fight of our generation, and it will take time.

10. Don’t give up hope

Our best political movements were hopeful. John Kennedy insisted that “we should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes.” Bill Clinton was the man from Hope. Barack Obama ran a campaign based on hope and change. Donald Trump and the Republicans want you to give up hope. Despair and cynicism fuel their movement. We must always, in the words of Jesse Jackson, “keep hope alive.”

[jangillman]

Here's a long list of President Trump's achievements whilst in office. You Koolaid drinking democrats better get yourself another cup, because this is going to take some time:-

What has Donald Trump done while he was in office (as at July, 2017)!!!

1.Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch 

2.59 missiles dropped in Syria.

3.He took us out of TPP

4.Illegal immigration is now down 70%( the lowest in 17 years)

5.Consumer confidence highest since 2000 at index125.6 

6.Mortgage applications for new homes rise to a 7 year high. 

7.Arranged 20% Tariff on soft lumber from Canada. 

8.Bids for border wall are well underway. 

9.Pulled out of the lopsided Paris accord.

10.Keystone pipeline approved. 

11.NATO allies boost spending by      4.3%

12.Allowing VA to terminate bad employees. 

13.Allowing private healthcare choices for veterans. 

14.More than 600,000. Jobs created

15. Median household income at a 7 year high. 

16. The Stock Market is at the highest ever In its history. 

17.  China agreed to American import of beef. 

18. $89 Billion saved in regulation rollbacks. 

19. Rollback of A Regulation to boost coal mining.

20. MOAB for ISIS

21. Travel ban reinstated.

22. Executive order for religious freedom. 

23. Jump started NASA 

24. $600 million cut from UN peacekeeping budget. 

25. Targeting of MS13 gangs

26. Deporting violent illegal immigrants. 

27. Signed 41 bills to date

28. Created a commission on child trafficking 

29. Created a commission on voter fraud

30. Created a commission for opioids addiction. 

31. Giving power to states to drug test unemployment recipients. 

32. Unemployment lowest since may 2007. 

33. Historic Black College University initiative

34. Women In Entrepreneurship Act 

35. Created an office or illegal immigrant crime victims. 

36. Reversed Dodd-Frank

37. Repealed DOT ruling which would have taken power away from local governments for infrastructure planning

38. Order to stop crime against law enforcement. 

39. End of DAPA program. 

40. Stopped companies from moving out of America. 

41. Promoted businesses to create American Jobs. 

42. Encouraged country to once again

43. 'Buy American and hire American 

44.  Cutting regulations 2 for every one created. 

45. Review of all trade agreements to make sure they are America first.

46. Apprentice program

47. Highest manufacturing surge in 3 years. 

48. $78 Billion promised reinvestment from major businesses like Exxon, Bayer, Apple, SoftBank, Toyota...

49. Denied FBI a new building. 

50. $700 million saved with F-35 renegotiation. 

51. Saves $22 million by reducing white house payroll. 

52. Dept of treasury reports a  $182 billion surplus for April 2017 (2nd largest in history). 

53. Negotiated the release of 6 US humanitarian workers held captive in egypt. 

54. Gas prices lowest in more than 12 years.

55. Signed An Executive Order To Promote Energy Independence And Economic Growth

56. Has already accomplished more to stop government interference into people's lives than any President in the history of America. 

57. President Trump has worked with Congress to pass more legislation in his first 100 days than any President since Truman.

58. Has given head executive of each  branches 6 month time Frame dated march 15 2017, to trim the fat. restructure and improve efficacy of their branch. 

Observe the pushback the leaks the lies as entrenched POWER refuses to go silently into that good night!

I hope each and every one of you copy and paste this everywhere, every time you hear some dim wit say Trump hadn't done a thing!

THANK YOU!!!

[trumpnewsinternational]

Trump 2024 Save America

Trump 2024 Save America Kindle Edition

by Jason Burns (Author)  Format: Kindle Edition

4.0 4.0 out of 5 stars    1 rating

See all formats and editions

Trump 2024 Save America : A Deep Dive into Donald Trump's Presidential office achievements and future policies

In this riveting and insightful book, we delve into the world of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and eventual election as the 47th President of the United States. Jason Burns comprehensive narrative uncovers the intricate layers of the political landscape that lead to his victory. It provides informative information for undecided voters as well as helping Republicans have the skills to engage in this election cycle.

Through meticulous research and engaging storytelling, we explore the key moments, strategies, and personalities that shaped Trump's journey. From the primary elections to the general campaign, we provide an in-depth analysis of the issues, controversies, and turning points that have captivated the nation and the world.

This book offers a unique perspective on the role of social media, public opinion, and the electoral college system in shaping the outcome of the election. We also examine the impact of Trump's political background, business acumen, and unconventional approach to politics on the American political landscape.

Trump 2024 Save America is the best book on Donald Trump's Presidential Journey it is an essential read for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of modern politics, the power of the presidency, and the ever-evolving dynamics of the American electoral process. This book is a must-have for political enthusiasts, history buffs, and those seeking to comprehend the forces that continue to shape our nation's future. You must have this book. It will give you Political and Spiritual resources to be effective defender of Democracy .You need this book as it brings you back to the founding principles of the nations history and documents. The Christian faith is also explored as an important foundation for the Trump strategy for 2024.Every grass roots Trump supporter will find this book a wealth of information and encouragement as the elites try to take away your freedoms .You need this book it will keep you strong campaigning in this election term. You cant sit on the side lines. You have to get in the trenches and this book will help you do that. Jason Burns is simply:

The genius behind this captivating narrative is a writer of exceptional talent, whose words not only inform but also inspire. With a unique ability to weave complex information into engaging and accessible prose, the author has crafted a masterpiece that delves deep into the heart of political intrigue.

Jason has a keen eye for detail, coupled with a profound understanding of human nature, allows him to bring the political issues and events to life in a way that resonates with readers from all walks of life. This author's gift for political writing transcends the pages, leaving a lasting impression on the minds of those who have had the pleasure of experiencing his work.

As you embark on this unforgettable journey through the world of politics, you will witness the brilliance of a writer who has mastered the art of captivating the reader's imagination. Prepare to be enthralled by the words of a true literary prophet.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free. – 1961 Ronald Reagan

Google on Amazon and you can get the book.There are many books on Amazon by Jason Burns and the topic of Trump.

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

By Jim Rutenberg and Alan Feuer

Former President Donald J. Trump and his allies are rolling out a late-stage campaign strategy that borrows heavily from the subversive playbook he used to challenge his loss four years ago, this time with reinforcements from outside groups built on the false notion of a stolen election.

With Election Day only three days away, Mr. Trump is already claiming the Democrats are “a bunch of cheats,” as his allies in battleground states spread distorted reports of mishaps at the polls to push a narrative of widespread fraud.

Mr. Trump and his most prominent supporters have pointed to partisan polling and betting markets to claim that he is heading for a “crushing victory,” as his top surrogate Elon Musk recently put it. The expectation helps set the stage for disbelief and outrage among his supporters should he lose.

And in a direct echo of his failed — and, prosecutors say, illegal — bid to remain in power after the 2020 election, some of his most influential advisers are suggesting he will yet again seek to claim victory before all the votes are counted, a move that ushered in his efforts to deny his defeat four years ago and helped set the stage for the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In many respects, though, the effort that led to Jan. 6 never ended.

“It’s been four years of spreading lies about elections and recruiting volunteers to challenge the system, filing litigation,’’ said Joanna Lydgate, the chief executive of States United Democracy Center, a nonprofit group that works with state officials to bolster confidence in their elections. “What we’re seeing today is all of that coming to fruition.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to an email seeking comment.

In a statement, Dana Remus, a top lawyer for Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, said, “It isn’t surprising that he is already questioning the results of a still ongoing election” and added, “He failed when he tried this in 2020, and he will fail again.”

Polls show the race is effectively tied, leaving the possibility that Mr. Trump will win and have no reason to dispute the outcome. In that case, the question of whether to accept the results would fall to Ms. Harris, who has said she would uphold “free and fair elections” and the “peaceful transfer of power.”

For all the similarities, there are important differences between now and 2020, some of which reassure the coalition of civil rights lawyers, Democrats, Republicans and election administrators working to prevent a repeat of 2020:

Congress has passed a new law, the Electoral Count Reform Act, meant to make it harder to stop the final certification of the results by Congress on Jan. 6, as Mr. Trump tried to do four years ago.

Mr. Trump no longer has control of the federal government — which he sought to use to press his 2020 case. In the states, there are fewer like-minded Republicans in key positions of power than there were four years ago.

Some of the loudest clarions for stolen election theories have paid heavily for circulating them, including Fox News, which last year paid Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to settle a lawsuit over the network’s promotion of false theories that Dominion’s machines had switched votes.

And the experience of 2020, along with more recent clashes over voting issues, has taught election administrators lessons about fortifying themselves against a similar effort this year.

“You have the benefit of something having happened once before,” said the Pennsylvania secretary of state, Al Schmidt, a Republican. “You learn from it to guide you moving forward.”

But the threat of another chaotic post-election period remains.

While Mr. Trump no longer has control of the federal government, a movement of activists has succeeded in putting election-doubting conservatives in position across the voting system, as poll watchers, election workers and even local officials in charge of certifying local results.

The new law has loopholes that Mr. Trump could try to exploit. For instance, the law sets a new, hard deadline by which states must send their final, certified election results to Washington ahead of the Electoral College vote. But some Trump-aligned officials have called for blocking certification at the local level, raising the possibility that the process could be stalled ahead of that deadline. The law has no clear remedy for cases where it is missed.

blob:https://www.tumblr.com/1a9bd5cd-e5eb-4efc-a32c-03dc9af494fe

Finally, though some news organizations like Fox and Newsmax have faced serious defamation claims for spreading conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines, the major social media platforms have dramatically scaled back efforts to curb false content.

None have gone farther than X, formerly Twitter, whose founder, Mr. Musk, has actively used the platform to promote the sense that Mr. Trump is destined to win and to spread his own false voting claims.

“There has been a lot of investment by allies of President Trump to suggest that his victory is inevitable,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan organization that advises election officials. “That’s the expectation being set among some of his supporters.”

Step 1: Claim Victory

The period leading up to Election Day has featured several scenes that seem to be ripped from court filings in the federal case charging Mr. Trump with election interference over his actions after his defeat in 2020. (Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty.)

When Stephen K. Bannon, an influential right-wing media figure and close Trump adviser, was released from prison on Tuesday, he quickly told reporters that Mr. Trump should act preemptively on election night and simply claim victory.

As Mr. Bannon said: “He should stand up and say: ‘Hey, I’ve won this. And we have teams right now that are going to make sure that this thing is not going to be stolen.’”

In recently filed court papers naming Mr. Bannon as a co-conspirator in Mr. Trump’s federal election interference case, the special counsel, Jack Smith, noted that Mr. Bannon had said the same thing four years ago.

“What Trump’s going to do is just declare victory, right?” he said, according to the records, later adding, “That doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just going to say he’s the winner.”

Mr. Trump did just that, unleashing a barrage of lawsuits challenging swing-state results, nearly all of which failed as various judges found claims of fraud to be lacking.

That legal failure did not stop his efforts. He and several allies then sought to convince Republican legislators in states that President Joseph R. Biden had won that they had the power to submit their own slates of pro-Trump Electoral College delegates, effectively rejecting the popular vote. Several of those involved in that operation were later indicted.

The new law specifies that only governors or other executives can send electors to Washington, cutting state legislatures out of the process. Yet, some Trump allies have already suggested they could again turn to state lawmakers.

An architect of the 2020 strategy, John Eastman, recently told Politico that he believed the new law was unconstitutional. (Mr. Eastman is under indictment in Arizona and Georgia over his 2020 election activities and has pleaded not guilty in both states.)

Step 2: Sow Doubt

Elections always bring a range of human and technological errors, but Mr. Trump and his allies have distorted the nature of such events, painting them as evidence of Democratic wrongdoing.

“They’ve already started cheating in Lancaster,” Mr. Trump said at a rally on Tuesday night in Allentown, Pa. A day earlier, he had posted on Truth Social that Lancaster County, Pa., had discovered “Fake Ballots and Forms.”

Pennsylvania was “cheating and getting caught at large-scale levels rarely seen before,” he declared later in the week.

In reality, the episode in Lancaster was worrisome but was not evidence of widespread of malfeasance. Election officials said that a batch of suspicious registration applications — not ballots — had been turned in by a canvassing firm. Officials reported them to law enforcement agencies.

In 2020, it was a fringe of Mr. Trump’s advisers and allies that cheered him on. Now, the entire party machinery — and prominent and influential allies — are using various levers to claim publicly that the only way Mr. Trump can lose is through cheating.

The Republican National Committee, which is now under the joint leadership of the former president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, and the one-time party counsel, Michael Whatley, has made “election integrity” a top priority. (The lawyer in charge of the committee’s “election integrity” team, Christina Bobb, was charged with conspiracy by the Arizona attorney general in connection with her efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power four years ago; she pleaded not guilty.)

Last week, Mr. Whatley posted online about the arrest of a woman at polling station in Delaware County, Pa., who had been urging voters to remain in line, calling the incident election interference. The local authorities later defended the arrest, saying the woman had been acting disruptively.

Using another tactic from 2020, Mr. Trump and his allies have also complained this year that states like Pennsylvania and Arizona are unlikely to finish counting votes until well after Election Day, suggesting the delays are somehow improper or nefarious.

In 2020, conspiracy theories about the pace of the vote count were some of the first to swirl in the days after Mr. Trump’s defeat.

Election officials note that mail ballots can take more time to count and that delays are not a sign of trouble. Still, they have been working to speed the process, knowing they are in a race against misinformation.

“You’ve got to decrease the amount of time,’’ said the secretary of state in Nevada, Cisco Aguilar. “Shut down the chatter.”

Step 3: Disrupt

While Mr. Trump’s 2020 effort was chiefly focused on disrupting the last step of the election — certification of the results in Congress — Mr. Trump’s allies this year have also zeroed in on vulnerabilities at the beginning of the process.

That starts with about 10,000 local jurisdictions where officials have a mandate to certify the votes before sending them up to their state capitals, which upon their own statewide certifications then send their totals and delegate slates on to Washington.

Though the task is prescribed by law as mandatory throughout the states, board or commission members in at least 20 counties across eight states have moved to block certification, in some rare cases succeeding at least temporarily.

Officials across the swing states have prepared legal papers to force any recalcitrant boards to certify results on time.

Both sides are paying close attention to the process, which Mr. Bannon seemed to hint at during his remarks this week.

“The only thing that matters,’’ he said, “is votes that can be certified from American citizens, and that’s what we’re focused on.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/02/us/politics/donald-trump-kalama-harris-campaign.html

[khawthorneofficial]

Ethics of the Military- an essay

Final essay for Writing 122. Fair warning, this was an argumentative assignment, not informative, so it has a lot of my own beliefs in it.

"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one." ~Tombstone of gay Vietnam veteran Leonard Matlovich (1943-1988)

You walk out of the mall with your friends on a sunny day, laughing and joking. You have drinks and snacks, and shopping bags full of your scores in your arms. As you walk down the sidewalk, you spot an elderly man sitting on the curb. He looks like he hasn't bathed in a while, and he's accompanied by a yellow lab in a service dog vest. Upon looking closer, you see he has a prosthetic leg. He holds a flimsy cardboard sign in his hands. Written on it in thick black sharpie are the words Homeless Disabled Veteran- Anything helps. As you pass, he holds out his grimy ballcap. Feeling pity for him, you fish a ten-dollar bill out of your wallet and drop it into the hat. He smiles at you with yellowing teeth and says, "God bless." As you walk away, though, you feel a guilty sensation in the pit of your stomach. You wish you could have done more.

We all know that the United States has a major homelessness problem, but did you know that out of a homeless population of over 630,000, 1 in 10 are military veterans? The institution of the military doesn't always pay people back by setting them up to thrive after their service is done. Militaries as we know them have been around for centuries, and certain forms of similar institutions date as far back as history itself goes, and many people see a military as a necessary institution. But is it? The institution of the military has many ethical problems that cause both physical and mental harm to both members, and the people caught in the crossfire of their wars. Veterans are abandoned by the system as soon as they are no longer able to serve, certain people are never given the chance, and war takes a tremendous toll on both soldiers and victims.

The first military as we know it was the Order of St. George, founded in Hungary in 1326, but armies for the sake of fighting wars can be traced as far back as ancient Mesopotamia, which is also the earliest recorded civilization, going back as far as 5,000-8,000 BCE, though the exact number varies depending on the source. For as long as humankind has had civilized society, we've been fighting wars. From the black blood-stained fields of Homer's Iliad, a fictionalized account of the probably-historical Trojan War, to the desolate trenches of World War 1, to the conflict taking place between Russia and Ukraine right now, war seems to be an inescapable human experience. As such, countries have naturally developed forces to fight them for us. But, contrary to what some people believe, it's far from a perfect system, and if you look into it enough, you begin to see that the good outweighs the bad. Most people currently and formerly enlisted in militaries are genuinely good people, but that's just what makes the institution itself so heinous and despicable.

It's no secret that our society has always been very patriarchal. Ergo, for centuries, social institutions like armies and militaries only permitted men to be members. Nowadays, most militaries allow women to join, but the standards are still different. For instance, women are not required to sign up for the draft when they turn 18 like men are. But women aren't the only group militaries have historically discriminated against. Prior to Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation in 1863, African American men were not allowed to serve in the US military. However, in case anyone thinks discrimination in the military is a thing of the past, remember that only 6 years ago in 2017, then-president Donald Trump passed a law that would bar transgender individuals from serving in the military. However, fortunately, in 2021, current president Joe Biden lifted said ban, allowing trans people to serve again. There have also been multiple harsh policies about gay people's involvement in the military. The quote at the beginning of this essay is engraved on the tombstone of Leonard Matlovich, a man who fought in the Vietnam War as a member of the US Air Force. During his time in the military, he earned high honors in the form of a Bronze Star and Purple Heart, but was ultimately discharged from the Air Force after 12 years of dedicated service simply for disclosing that he was gay. He would go on to become a champion of the gay rights movement, but ultimately died in 1988 due to complications related to AIDS.

Discrimination is not the only problem with the military. Service, especially in active war zones, can take an enormous physical and mental toll on survivors. In a study conducted in 2022, a whopping 76% of surveyed US veterans stated that they suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This is a disturbing amount compared to the just 5% of normal Americans who struggle with the disorder as of 2023. PTSD is a relatively new term. Around the time of World War I, conditions that would surely lend themselves to a PTSD diagnosis were known colloquially as "shell shock" and "war neruroses", as at the time they were solely associated with war veterans. This thinking continued to World War II, albeit with "shell shock" being replaced by the term "Combat Stress Reaction" or CSR for short. The condition was not dubbed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder until 1980 in the DSM-III, after research revealed that the psychological disorder could affect those who had suffered non-battle forms of trauma, such as sexual assault and traumatic accidents.

One place in which you can always look to for an idea of the horrors of wartime are accounts written during or about the first World War by those who fought on either side. While there are many poems, songs, and books attempting to glorify and romanticize the war, there are also many that employ the true horror. Such pieces include British poet Wilfred Owen's works, such as Anthem for Doomed Youth and Dulce et Decorum est and the book All Quiet on the Western Front, a fictionalized, semi-autobiographical account written after the end of the war by German veteran Erich Maria Remarque. The latter has been turned into several movies, with versions released in 1930, 1979, and 2022. (I watched part of the 1979 version as part of my study for this essay.) Anthem for Doomed Youth is a tragic meditation on all of the innocent young lives lost to a war they thought would bring them glory and fame, while Dulce et Decorum est is a harrowing and haunting account of what it was like to live through a gas attack, written about a real one that Owen himself was caught in, and aptly describing the brutal memories and flashbacks that followed. All Quiet on the Western Front, however, tells the story of a class of schoolboys who were convinced by their teacher to join the army and are brutally killed one by one. Depressingly enough, the plot of the book was largely inspired by Remarque's own experience in the military during the great war. In the video Modern Classics Summarized: All Quiet on the Western Front by YouTube Channel Overly Sarcastic Productions, narrator Red employs a "War is Hell" counter in one corner of the screen while she talks about the book and footage from the 1979 movie plays. Tellingly enough, by the end of the review, it has reached 54.

Another similar poem from the same era is Glory of Women by Siegfried Sassoon. While the overall concept of the poem is more than a little misogynistic, implying that women shallowly romanticize and glorify war, while men suffer the consequences, it does happen to have some excellent anti-war lines. "O German mother dreaming by the fire, While you are knitting socks to send your son, His face is trodden deeper in the mud." (Sassoon, Glory of Women. 13-15.) If you take this line at face value, there is something almost comforting about it. Sassoon was an Englishman, and thus in writing this part, he shows some sympathy for this other side- while the tone of the rest of the poem make it clear that he is mocking the oblivious mother for thinking her son would live, he is portraying the son's death as a negative.

As recent as the concept of PTSD is, trauma from war has been known for a long time, so long that what we might now diagnose as this disorder appears as far back as the plays and epics of the Trojan Cycle, some of the oldest literature in existence. Particularly in Homer's Odyssey, we see Odysseus, Menelaus, and other veterans of the Trojan War are still grappling with the reality of what happened in Troy even ten years later. At one point it is even mentioned that Helen, wife of Menelaus, has to drug her husband to prevent him from being overwhelmed by brutal flashbacks of the war. This is a testament to the adverse mental effects the decade-long Trojan War has on those who fought in it. Also in the Odyssey, we see Odysseus in disguise break down when a song about the Trojan War is played in the hall he is dining in. This incident is ultimately what causes him to reveal his true identity to his hosts, so it's safe to say that even this cunning hero has been shaken by the horrors of war. Even back then, people knew war wasn't always something to romanticize.

There is also the matter of POWs, or prisoners of war. Many military veterans who were held captive during wars such as the Vietnam war or Korean war still hold a lot of trauma from those situations. Rather recently, news channel CNN interviewed two former POWs who had been captured in Vietnam. One of the men, Staff Seargent Ken Wallingford was crammed into a 5-by-six "tiger cage". (The particular article makes it unclear whether it was a cage actually designed to house tigers or if it was just called that, but a quick Google search reveals the latter). No actual tigers were kept inside with Wallingford, although that didn't make the experience any more pleasant. Wallingford reportedly spent ten months inside the cramped cage. At 5 feet 11 inches tall, he was unable to even stand up in the tiny space. His comrade, Mark Smith, was captured at the same base and endured even worse conditions. Smith was forced to stay inside a hole in the ground, with any protection from the elements he was allowed rotting around him. He ended up contracting two different types of malaria from the mosquitoes he was left at the mercy of, and was lucky to make it back to the US alive.

Most people who enlist in the military or go off to war have genuinely good intentions. They're brave, selfless people who want to give their life to protecting their country and people. They aren't the problem. The institution of the military, however, is. It's perfectly fine to have National Guard officers out in the community, giving people their Covid shots, but when it comes to wartime, the military as an institution has no problem throwing these young people's lives away, and coming back to the statistics of homeless veterans in the US, leaving them by the wayside when they can no longer serve the cause. We are taught that it's a form of glory, the ultimate perhaps, to sacrifice ourselves for our countries and the nebulous concept of patriotism. "My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." (Owen, Dulce et Decorum est. 25-28). The Latin phrase at the end of this particular Wilfred Owen poem, from which the title is taken, translates to "it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country." This very ideology is part of why the military as an institution is highly unethical in its expectations of members.

One counterargument that might be brought up in response to these statements is the fact that if military institutions were done away with, we would have no one to fight for us when wars break out. However, perhaps without militaries, there wouldn't be as many wars to fight. There are 15 total countries without official militaries, including Lichtenstein and the Marshall Islands, and several more with unofficial institutions but no proper armed forces, including Mauritius. Many of these countries still do have treaties with others in the case that they do require assistance in a wartime situation, but the system seems to have worked, with these countries staying out of those kinds of conflicts.

Ultimately, while having a military can be useful in some cases, the system is very flawed, and in a better world we wouldn't have to put up with those problems- and maybe we don't in this one either. Militaries pretend to care about their members, but throw their lives away nonchalantly and cast them by the wayside when they decide that they've served their purpose. Is it really worth it?

Works Cited:

Leonardmatlovich.Com, www.leonardmatlovich.com/. Accessed 30 May 2023.

Elflein, John. "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder during Service after 9/11 among Veterans U.S. 2022." Statista, 19 Apr. 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/1202701/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-during-service-after-911-by-problem-veterans/.

"How Common Is PTSD in Adults?" Va.Gov: Veterans Affairs, 13 Sept. 2018, www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_adults.asp#:~:text=About%205%20out%20of%20every,some%20point%20in%20their%20life.

Starger, Martin, et al. All Quiet on the Western Front. CBS, 1979.

Overly Sarcastic Productions, Modern Classics Summarized, all quiet on the Western Front

"History of PTSD in Veterans: Civil War to DSM-5." Va.Gov: Veterans Affairs, 17 Aug. 2018, www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/what/history_ptsd.asp#:~:text=In%20World%20War%20II%2C%20the,became%20battle%20weary%20and%20exhausted.

Homer, The Odyssey

Homer, The Iliad

Owen, Wilfred. Anthem for Doomed Youth

Owen, Wilfred. Dulce et Decorum Est

Sassoon, Siegfried. Glory of Women

Lendon, Brad. "One of These Vietnam War Pows Spent 10 Months in a 'tiger Cage.' What Happened to the Other Was Even Worse." CNN, 29 May 2023, www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/asia/vietnam-cambodia-pow-50-years-reunion-intl-hnk-ml/index.html.

"List of Countries without Armed Forces." Wikipedia, 7 May 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces.

[pashterlengkap]

DNC criticized for featuring no trans speakers while shying away from trans issues

For the first time in over a decade, the Democratic National Convention (DNC) did not feature a single trans speaker. Additionally, the event has been called out for failing to feature discussions of trans people. This came to light when Harvard CyberLaw Clinic instructor and trans activist Alejandra Caraballo posted on X: “This was the first DNC since 2012 to not feature a trans person speaking. ‘We’re not going back’ doesn’t apply to the trans community.” Related From the DNC floor, Kamala Harris is ready to stand up against bullies. Here’s how. In an LGBTQ Nation exclusive, senior spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign Kevin Munoz offers perspective on what to expect from the Democratic ticket. This was the first DNC since 2012 to not feature a trans person speaking. "We're not going back" doesn't apply to the trans community.— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) August 23, 2024 Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today The two prior DNC events were held in 2016 and 2020. In 2016, Sarah McBride, who at the time was national press secretary with the Human Rights Campaign and not yet a state lawmaker, spoke at the convention. In 2020, then-Virginia state Delegate Danica Roem (D) spoke. McBride was the first out trans primary speaker at a DNC event, and both DNCs had talked in detail about trans issues. However, almost none of the speakers at the DNC this year discussed transgender rights issues. There were only two direct mentions of trans people at a main speaking event: Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, and Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) both mentioned trans issues in passing. However, the DNC this year featured the largest number of LGBTQ+ delegates ever. Delegates are the individuals selected to represent their state or territory in order to officially nominate the presidential candidate. Over 800 delegates out of the total 4,700 were members of the LGBTQ+ community. Of that number, only around 50 were trans, according to the Harris-Walz National LGBTQ+ Engagement Director Sam Alleman. This was reportedly the largest number of trans delegates in history, in spite of making up just 1% of total delegates. Among those delegates were Congressional candidate Sarah McBride, Maine LGBTQ+ advocate Gia Drew, drag queen John Hellman (also known as Belle Pepper), and Dr. Joeigh Perella, a New Jersey county official. Another update: more than 50 trans and non-binary delegates were elected to nominate Kamala Harris — the most ever sent to a DNCC!— Sam Alleman (he/him) (@SamAlleman) August 19, 2024 Perella also had a brief speaking role during the New Jersey delegate roll call, however this was not a main speaking role and her speech lasted less than a minute. She spoke about making New Jersey and America as a whole a safe place for LGBTQ+ individuals. The Democratic platform this year states the party’s commitment to transgender rights and desire to oppose restrictions on transgender healthcare. The Republican National Convention (RNC), on the other hand, openly attacked trans people in multiple speeches, including those by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). Additionally, Eric Trump made remarks disparaging trans people, and former President Donald Trump (R) made an offhand attack on trans people. Republicans have pushed transgender-related culture wars in the country, resulting in an influx of anti-trans bills introduced across the United States. Many of these bills have been targeting gender-affirming care for minors, with some states instituting bans on the practice. This has led thousands of trans people to flee their home states for other states that present themselves as trans-friendly.  A representative from the DNC sent LGBTQ Nation a statement via email: The 2024 Democratic National Convention has been one of the… http://dlvr.it/TCM4sB