#Maddow tells it as it is

[spideymichelle]

missing (pathological liar mj watson)

[sjw-irritant]

The woman who paid for Steele dossier propaganda and was fined by the FEC wants to impose criminal charges and fines on what she deems “propaganda”. :)

[patriottruth]

Were you devastated about trump obliterating Kamala Harris in the popular vote, taking every swing state, and doing better with women, pro-choice, and all the minority voters he insulted his entire campaign, and his entire life? Would you like to see the truth about that massive lie? Here it is...

Rachel Maddow: Why was donald trump's campaign telling his supporters not to vote, they don't need any votes, and to skip the polls?

As of 3:00 pm EST, November 6, 2024: trump: 71,958,119 votes (323.19% turnout from primary elections - his best case scenario was 50.5 million votes) Harris: 67,133,693 votes (464.09% turnout from Biden's primary elections - her worst case scenario was 62.7 million votes)

donald trump received 74,223,975 votes in 2020.

donald trump currently has 74,650,754 votes in 2024 (as if he actually received 100% of 36 million Registered Republican votes, 100% of 32.1 million Registered Independent votes, and somehow gained 6,550,754 Registered Democrat votes).

Kamala Harris currently has 70,916,946 votes (roughly 10 million votes less than Biden/Harris received in 2020). Considering that's mathematically impossible, why aren't Republicans screaming about cheating and fraud like they did in 2020?

With that math, 45,100,000 Registered Democrats − 6,550,754 Registered Democrat trump Defectors = 38,549,246 Maximum Remaining Registered American Electorate for Kamala Harris, with an additional 32,367,700 voters who were unregistered prior to the beginning of early and same-day voting. Why aren't Republicans screaming about fraud and cheating when Kamala Harris clearly had 32,367,700 voters come out of nowhere? For everyone saying 15 million Democrats simply stayed home and didn't vote for Kamala Harris, there's the proof that they didn't; because that'd mean the maximum remaining registered Democrat electorate for Kamala Harris would've dropped to 23,549,246, and by some miracle,47,367,700 previously unregistered voters somehow came out of nowhere during early and same-day voting to vote for Kamala Harris without Republicans ranting and raving about massive cheating and fraud by Democrats.

74,650,754 trump + 70,916,946 Harris = 145,567,700 votes counted thus far in the 2024 presidential election.

60% to 80% of voters polled across the United States believed donald trump was too old to be president leading up to the election, yet he somehow gained 426,779 votes from 2020, while Kamala Harris lost 10 million votes from 2020.

40% of the American electorate might have been willing to overlook donald trump's extreme cognitive, emotional, and physical decline and vote for him. That makes donald trump's best case scenario 58,227,080 votes for the 2024 election.

20% of the American electorate might have been willing to overlook that donald trump is clearly past his expiration date and not expected to live long enough to finish a 4-year term. That makes donald trump's worst case scenario 29,113,540 votes for the 2024 election.

33% of Republicans and 33% of Independents said for months they wouldn't be voting for donald trump again because of his failed COVID-19 response, his insurrection/January 6th assault to overturn the 2020 election, his proven sexual assault/rape, his felony convictions for his 2016 election interference and cheating on his wife the entire time his wife was pregnant and again 4 months after their son was born, and his classified documents theft, unsecured storage at mar-a-lago, and his sharing America's classified secrets with mar-a-lago guests, yet donald trump somehow gained 426,779 votes from 2020, while Kamala Harris lost 10 million votes from 2020.

2024 U.S. Registered Voter Stats (Pew Research): Republicans: 36 million voters

- 7 million (33%) Never trump voters = 29 million likely trump voters

- 11.5 million (55%) Never trump voters = 24.5 million likely trump voters

Democrats: 45.1 million voters

Independents: 32.1 million voters

- 10.6 million Never trump voters (33%) = 21.5 million possible trump voters

- 17.7 million Never trump voters (55%) = 14.4 million possible trump voters

If 100% of all registered voters actually turned out and voted in the 2024 U.S. presidential election:

trump (with a loss of 33% of Never trump voters and no Democrat defections): 50.5 million votes

Harris (with a gain of 33% of Never trump voters and no Democrat defections): 62.7 million votes

trump (with a loss of 55% of Never trump voters and no Democrat defections): 38.9 million votes

Harris (with a gain of 55% of Never trump voters and no Democrat defections): 74.3 million votes

Democrats outnumber Republicans by 9 million registered voters, and yet Kamala Harris allegedly received 10 million votes less than 2020, lost every swing state, and lost the election by 4 million votes nationwide?

Why is it that 33% of Independents said they wouldn't be voting for trump, yet he somehow received 100% of registered Independent votes?

There are approximately 41 million age 18-29 voters who usually vote Democrat, and up to 20 million of those females were expected to vote heavily for Harris/Walz in 2024, so where are all of those votes?

Why is it that hundreds of thousands of Americans are documented as voting FOR PRO-CHOICE on their state ballots, but then they all allegedly voted almost exclusively for ANTI-CHOICE donald trump instead of Kamala Harris based on HIS punitive non-Pro-Choice stance, his termination of national Roe vs. Wade protections, and nearly 1,000 women all over the United States are being raped and impregnated every week since his termination of Roe vs. Wade, women have been dying across the nation because they were denied emergency care, and 12 and 13 year old girls are being forced to carry their relatives' babies to term?

Why is it that hundreds of thousands of Americans are documented as voting for down-ballot Democrat candidates, but then they allegedly voted for donald trump instead of Kamala Harris?

Why is it that trump did so well in Michigan after repeatedly insulting Michigan during all of his Michigan rallies?

Why is it that trump did so well with Black men across the country after repeatedly insulting Black men across the country during his campaign and his entire life?

Why is it that hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans said they were going to put donald trump in the trash after they were called "garbage" at trump's Madison Square Garden rally, yet Puerto Ricans across the United States swung hard in his favor anyway?

Why is it that trump did better with Latinos across the United States than any other candidate in the last 40 years even after he called them rapists, scum, vermin, animals, inhuman, and murderous invaders who he's going to deport whether they're here legally, or not?

Why is it that donald trump told reporters he wasn't expecting any final results for at least 3 days immediately after he voted, but then somehow all of the nationwide election results were returned in less than 12 hours (which has NEVER happened in the United States)?

Lyin' and cryin' cowardly comrade donald j. trump has never won a championship at a course he doesn’t own and operate, always gets a turbo-charged golf cart that goes three times as fast as yours, so he’s always 200 yards ahead, and that gives him time to cheat. One time in L.A., he was playing $50 a hole with these three guys, he hits it in the pond. They see the splash. By the time they get there, it’s in the middle of the fairway, and they’re like, ‘What the F, Donald?’ And he goes, ‘It must’ve been the tide.’ He’s played in Pebble Beach, he’s played in the Tahoe one, where there are rules and judges and cameras. And in those, he’s never finished in the top half. So he wins when anybody who disagrees that he won is out of the club. That’s how he gets it.” - Rick Reilly

Kamala Harris currently has 70,916,946 votes (roughly 10 million votes less than Biden/Harris received in 2020).

Hillary Clinton beat donald trump by 3 million votes in 2016 with a total of 65,853,514 votes.

Clinton total fundraising 2016 election cycle: $769,879,088 Clinton total spending 2016 election cycle: $768,577,907 Clinton 2016 election votes: 65,853,514 Average Clinton voter 2016 presidential campaign donation: $11.69

trump total fundraising 2016 election cycle: $433,392,727 trump total spending 2016 election cycle: $422,620,473 2016 Republican Primary Voters: 31,047,313 trump 2016 election votes: 62,984,828 (202.89% 2016 national election turnout) Average trump voter 2016 presidential campaign donation: $6.88

Hillary Clinton's 2016 fundraising was 156% higher than donald trump's and she won the election by roughly 3,000,000 American votes.

Biden total fundraising 2020 election cycle: $1,624,301,628 Biden total spending 2020 election cycle: $1,614,843,740 Biden 2020 election votes: 81,283,501 Average Biden voter 2020 presidential campaign donation: $19.98

trump total fundraising 2020 election cycle: $1,087,909,269 trump total spending 2020 election cycle: $1,090,633,916 2020 Republican Primary Voters: 18,900,288 trump 2020 election votes: 74,223,975 (392.71% 2020 national election turnout) Average trump voter 2020 presidential campaign donation: $14.69

Joe Biden's 2020 fundraising was 167% higher than donald trump's and he won the election by an easy landslide victory and American patriots mandate of roughly 7,000,000 American votes.

Harris total fundraising 2024 election cycle: $1,048,224,950 9/22/2024 Harris total spending 2024 election cycle: $728,659,506 9/22/2024 Harris cash on hand 2024 election cycle: $364,537,369 9/22/2024

trump total fundraising 2024 election cycle: $802,832,560 9/22/2024 trump total spending 2024 election cycle: $603,161,559 9/22/2024 trump cash on hand 2024 election cycle: $264,091,834 9/22/2024 2024 Republican Primary Voters: 22,264,875

Kamala Harris's 2024 fundraising is 177% higher than donald trump's, her rallies are far larger and more energized, and her Fox News ratings are 2.5 times better than donald trump's. It's definitely time to turn the page on donald trump and his anti-American MAGA Nazi cult, and for American patriots to put country over party and elect the first woman American President of the United States of America; because All Lives Matter, and it's time to finally prove it once and for all by including and uniting all American women and girls at the great American "We The People" table so that President Kamala Harris will be the first woman American President, but certainly not the last.

Why is it that donald trump includes this disclaimer on his financial disclosures so everyone reading the document is supposed to understand it's completely worthless? Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that personal financial statements and related footnotes to the financial statements: include a provision for current income taxes, as well as estimated income taxes on the differences between the estimated current values of assets and the estimated current amounts of liabilities and their tax bases; include the amount of unused tax credits and expiration dates; include amounts to be received in the future from estimated current values that are nonforfeitable, fixed and determinable, and do not require any future services; record the current estimated value of all closely held and other business entities as a net investment (assets net of liabilities) and disclose summarized financial information about each entity; record non-interest bearing deposits in exchange for rights or privileges; and, include all assets and liabilities of the individual whose financial statements are presented. The accompanying statement of financial condition does not reflect the above noted items. The effects of these departures from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America have not been determined. Because the significance and pervasiveness of the matters discussed above make it difficult to assess their impact on the statement of financial condition, users of this personal financial statement should recognize that they might reach different conclusions about the financial condition of Donald J. Trump if they had access to a revised statement of financial condition prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Kamala Harris is a prosecutor. donald j. trump is a career criminal and convicted felon who's been found guilty of rape, massive frauds in numerous court cases, and is being prosecuted for insurrection, election tampering, election fraud, racketeering, election interference, espionage against the United States, and theft of government documents and property. There's pretty much a 0% chance that there's no election fraud and tampering going on with these 2024 election results. donald j. trump and all of his other alleged newly-elected allies have to be able to maintain those lies and not have them overturned during the canvas, confirmation, curing, certification, recount, and litigation process between November 6 and December 17, 2024.

“If I happen to be president, and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.' They’d be out of business. They’d be out of the election.” - donald j. trump (November 9, 2023)

"I will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” - donald j. trump (November 12, 2023)

“This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.” - Liz Cheney

“Labeling a political opponent as a ‘fascist,’ risks inviting a would-be assassin.” - Hypocrites, Irony Assassins, and MAGA Nazi Cult Member Republicans Mike Johnson and Mitch McConnell (Finally coondemning donald j. trump and the entire treasonous, bigoted, and misogynist anti-American MAGA Nazi cult for calling all Americans who don't support or vote for donald j. trumpor MAGA Nazi Cult Republicans "traitors, anti-American, enemies from within, very bad people, very dangerous people, racists, radicals, extremists, communists, Marxists, fascists, thugs, liars, sick, ugly, stupid, mindless, thoughtless, brainless, disabled, deranged, criminals, rapists, cheaters, sleazebags, low-lifes, scum, trash, genetically inferior, weak, poison, insects, animals, rats, snakes, and vermin" during the majority of his interviews, speeches, and rallies for years on end since 2011 - October 25, 2024)

"As President, I was never an 'officer of the United States' and I did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States'. Therefore, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to me, can't be applied to me, and can't prevent me from running for or holding office for my actions on January 6, 2021."- donald j. trump (November 27, 2023)

"Get out and vote, just this time. "You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote anymore.You gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote," - donald j. trump to his MAGA cult supporters (July 26, 2024)

“We gotta stop the cheating. If we stop that cheating, if we don’t let them cheat, I don’t even have to campaign anymore. We’re going to win by so much. The 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. “Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.” - donald j. trump on "truth" social (September 7, 2024)

When he was asked about "outside agitators" affecting a peaceful 2024 election, certification, and transfer of power: “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. We have two enemies. We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia, and all those countries. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary by the military, because they can’t let that happen.” - donald j. trump (October 13, 2024)

[wizardpink]

What if The Chase is a book tour. What if a different city every night is a series of press junkets. What if the theater shows and art museums are interspersed with spots on The Tonight Show and Rachel Maddow. What if "Daniel Molloy is here this evening to discuss his controversial new novel, Interview with the Vampire." What if a slender assistant with rich black curls and unsettling, large, brown eyes paces backstage while chattering away to his bluetooth earpiece, fingers flying across the surface of his iPad while he tells whoever is on the other end of the line that Mr. Molloy's schedule is completely booked through mid June, but he may be able to move something around between SXSW and Cannes.

[seraphica]

A Walkthrough of Project 2025

By Emily Galvin-Almanza, originally on Twitter.

You may have heard the term “Project 2025” floating around, and you may even have cracked open the 900+ page document yourself, only to see a lot of kind of bland, policy-wonk text. So let me crack through the policy-speak and tell you WTF is in this document.

This is, um, a long thread. But if you want a lot of info about Project 2025, all in one place, you've come to the right place.

This document is what Trump and his team will do if elected. It’s their document, their plan, their platform. So like…it’s not *me* saying what they’ll do, this is *them* saying so. documentcloud.org/documents/2408…

Shall we dig in? I’ll organize and give you page numbers. I’m going to start with criminal justice stuff (of course) and then we’ll wander through other topics like repro rights (none), discrimination (fine, unless it’s against nuclear power), environmental protection (gone), etc

Predictably, this is a document full of states-rights claims, but (true to form) there is very little left to the states when it comes to a Trump criminal legal system.

Generally, the Constitution reserves criminal law to the states, allowing localities to create criminal accountability as they see fit. But under a Trump regime, “small government” just means “no EPA or medicare and HUGE expansions of DOJ’s criminal division power.”

A primary target? The discretion and decision-making of local prosecutors.

Prosecutorial discretion is part of the foundation of our legal system—the idea that the people elect their prosecutor, and can elect (or not elect) a person whose judgment they agree with when it comes to what to focus on when it comes to criminal prosecution.

The Trump DOJ will basically override local voters and prosecutors, bringing federal charges where they deem states not punitive enough. (553)

I should note that this is a ridiculous, massively difficult thing to do—our criminal court system is spread across 3,143 counties.

So what it really means is that the Trump DOJ will troll for cases they find politically meaningful, and use the full weight of the federal government to prosecute specific individuals who stand for stuff they don’t like.

They’re not just going to take on targeted prosecutions, they’re also going to legally come after prosecutors who they feel aren’t prosecuting enough. (553) It’s like this, but EVERYWHERE politico.com/news/2024/04/1…

And somehow they’re also going to do everything they can to make sentences harsher, and increase utilization of the death penalty (553-554).

They’re going to double down on the war on drugs, prosecuting interstate drug cases much more harshly (and by “interstate drug trade” they also mean “mailing abortion pills”) (555, 562).

They will also take election integrity out of the hands of the Civil Rights Division and put it in to DOJ’s criminal division (563), which means you see a lot more cases like Crystal Mason’s, but at a federal level: nytimes.com/2024/03/28/us/…

The long and short of it is, we often think of “prosecution of political enemies” as, like, Donald Trump sending DOJ after Liz Cheney or Rachel Maddow or something. And we forget that this can also mean persecution of ordinary people like Crystal Mason.

People who are not high profile themselves, but whose conduct (or even mistake!) is in a subject matter area that makes them the political target. Under this regime, being in a state that would not choose to prosecute them may be no help.

It’s also important to remember the ramifications of highly punitive policies. A DOJ that seeks the max on every case, seeks the death penalty, increases immigration detention (below), is a federal government expanding (& lining the pockets of) the prison industrial complex.

We already live in a country where basically all social ills are funneled into our criminal court system. SCOTUS just increased that trend by allowing people who are living on the street with nowhere else to go to be prosecuted for…existing…outdoors.

But in this administration, we can see an expansion of what is criminal. You’ll see a lot of Torquemada-esque interrogatory stuff in the doc (especially at Treasury?!) but the most obvious expansion of the criminal system is into the zone of women’s health.

In other words, reproductive rights? Never heard of her. The document is pretty fixated on abortion, unsurprisingly, with plans to end all forms of abortion access (including pills) throughout the document (6, 104, 284, 450, 455 - 459, 503 - 529, 562)

There’s one point I’d like to hit on in particular: this week SCOTUS punted a case back to Idaho which was covered as a case allowing emergency abortions to save a woman's life.

But in fact, that's not what really happened here---the Court punted the issue back to the Circuit court, leaving the question of whether women need to be actively dying to receive an abortion open.

Reminder: long as there is legal uncertainty, there are doctors doing nothing while wondering what they're supposed to do as a woman lies bleeding and septic on their table. msmagazine.com/2024/06/28/emt…

The fact of the matter is, under a Trump administration, they could (and would) simply choose to stop fighting to make hospitals to offer abortion in cases where it is necessary to save a woman's life.

They could simply stop fighting for EMTALA, the statute that says hospitals that get federal dollars have to offer emergency care.

And also, in Project 2025, they want to go even farther than that, farther than banning abortion. They want to MAKE SURE DOCTORS DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW TO DO IT.

Specifically, this doc makes the Dept of Health and Human Services responsible for ensuring that training for doctors, nurses, and doulas doesn’t include anything about abortion (485-486).

Oh also DOJ is going to be the Abortion Police and go after anyone mailing abortion pills (562).

Side note: I don’t actually disagree with ensuring more coverage for things relating to women’s preventative healthcare but Project 2025 weirdly endorsing the rhythm method is hilarious

So they're gonna make you have all these babies. Who is going to take care of these babies? Were you thinking maybe you could get access to daycare? Oh no, mama, we want YOU to take care of the babies. What’s that? You had a job? Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it.

HHS now, under Trump, thinks the gay agenda is destroying families, but the presence of a biological father can prevent all manner of bad things up to and including teen pregnancy (presumably because dad is going to meet your date at the door with a shotgun)

But also….having an adult male father figure who is NOT your bio dad is apparently the worst and most evil thing in the world. BAN BOYFRIENDS.

The Trump administration would like to make the federal government close its eyes, put its fingers in its ears, and hum loudly when anyone says “gender." Specifically...

...they will scrub out any mention of the existence of trans/nonbinary/LGBTQIA+ Americans in federal agencies, policies, regulations, and legislation (4-5, 62, 259, 333, 475).

To quote, “the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights”

These terms are getting cut “out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.” (p 4-5)

Damn, who's the language police now?

This document—in a quest to be really, really fundamentalist about gender identity—also completely abandons the idea of supporting gender equality as a whole. Efforts to protect women and girls internationally? Hell no.

Like, USAID should “remove all references, examples, definitions, photos, and language on USAID websites, in agency publications and policies, and in all agency contracts and grants that include the following terms"

And the terms are “gender,” “gender equality,” “gender equity,” “gender diverse individu- als,” “gender aware,” “gender sensitive” (259)

They would very much like to kick trans people—and anyone gender nonconforming!---out of the military (103-104). Remember Demi Moore in GI Jane? Yeah the second she gets that buzz cut she’s OUT.

What about race discrimination, you say? Well, we will have no idea, because the Trump administration plans to stop collecting any data about that. The EEOC will stop collecting data about race entirely (583).

BTW when I say this is a tricky document, this is what I mean...

The document justifies ditching any data collection by saying that “Crudely categorizing employees by race or ethnicity fails to recognize the diversity of the American workforce and forces individuals into categories that do not fully reflect their racial and ethnic heritage.”

Which at first glance, a person could be like, yes! Racial identity is complex! Let’s not put people in boxes!

But then you step back and realize that NO LONGER HAVING DATA ABOUT WHETHER BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE ARE OR ARE NOT GETTING HIRED does exactly ZERO GOOD THINGS it just makes us UNABLE TO TELL IF BAD THINGS ARE HAPPENING.

The document is full of this—really normal-sounding pablum that actually means “we are choosing to have no idea whether Black and Brown people are being shut out of the workforce, why would the government want to know that?”

The government doesn’t need to know! Because they don’t think disparate impact—when a particular group is disadvantaged in the workplace—matters anyway!

They would “eliminate disparate impact as a valid theory of discrimination for race and other bases under Title VII and other laws. Disparities do not (and should not legally) imply discrimination per se.” (583).

BTW on this point they get hella hella weird about the idea of racial equity at the Treasury Dept…where they would essentially like to have an Inquisition:

Essentially, under this administration, any agency that wants to think about whether race is playing a role in the fairness of their sector can GTFO.

If you go into the original doc and search for “DEI” you basically enter a forest of grandpas yelling I DON’T SEE COLOR YOU CAN BE BLACK WHITE GREEN PURPLE OR POLKA DOT FOR ALL I CARE

BTW you were hoping that a Democratic Senate could be an effective check of some kind, first thing in this doc is that they want to kind of tell the Senate to F off

Specifically, the plan is to get Trump-loyalist appointees into position, scrap the Senate confirmation process for a lot of these appointees and let the rest start working even before Senate confirmation. (p136-137, 173)

All of the agency heads are clearly designated as political in this doc, not expert/neutral. So EPA (428), DOJ (560), FBI (552), HUD (508), DOL (615)...basically the doc calls for the insertion of as many loyalists as possible

And yes, the job of these loyalists is, in many cases, to dismantle the agency they head.

I don’t really know where to categorize this, so I’ll put it here: they think the Department of Homeland Security suffers from “wokeness.” I’m not making that up, they said in black-and-white serif font. I can’t make this stuff up. Page 135.

So like, to be clear, in the same breath as they’re talking about the wokeness of DHS, they would also like to reinstate the Border Patrol officers (who work under DHS mind you) who were accused of galloping up on migrant families and whipping them from horseback.

“CBP should restart & expand use of the horseback-mounted Border Patrol. As part of this announcement, the Secretary should clear the records & personnel files of those who were falsely accused by Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas of whipping migrants and issue a formal apology” (139).

FWIW what they’re referring to is some CBP agents who nearly trampled a kid and used their reins in a way that was, er, whip-like (and before you accuse ME of being overly sensitive, I have ridden exactly this way in my life BUT I WAS MOVING CATTLE NOT HUMAN BEINGS.) politico.com/news/2022/07/0…

Anyway, because DHS is too woke, they need to shrink it down until it mostly just detains and deports immigrants.

They’re gonna bust its union and remove most of its programs and privatize both the TSA and also FEMA’s flood insurance program so you can get bilked if you live in a region prone to flooding (shhhh don’t say the floods are due to climate change).

SPEAKING OF CLIMATE, we’re definitely going back to the same “if you don’t have any information about the problem, the problem cannot exist” strategy they use on race.

To that end, they would like to get rid of Offices of: Domestic Climate Policy (61) Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) (61) Clean Energy Demonstration (381) The Clean Energy Corps (386) Environmental Justice & External Civil Rights (442)

This means getting rid of climate efforts in foreign aid programs (257), stopping the USDA’s efforts to focus on sustainable food production (293—who will need to eat in 20 years anyway? Certainly not our children, they will have evolved to photosynthesize and graze on plastic)

Anyway they’re getting rid of energy efficiency standards for appliances (378) as well as cutting down all EPA activity related to climate change, including repealing the Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities (440)

BTW, I think it’s worth noting that there are a lot of things stated as binaries that aren’t binary. Ending energy efficiency requirements for appliances, for example, to focus on cycle time and reparability.

I also want a right to repair! I also hate it that my car’s internal computer makes it really hard to work on my own car! I just think that we, as consumers, have the right to demand BOTH and this doc incorrectly insists that we have to CHOOSE.

I don’t have to choose between repairing an appliance that massively pollutes the planet or having an energy efficient one that will lower my bills but break every two years. WE CAN DEMAND BOTH. False binaries are a sneaky, crappy constant in this document.

I’m highlighting them in particular because false binaries are also a way of dividing us. There are things I can agree with conservative friends on…literally Monday I was having a fun, productive, common-ground convo w/a conservative friend. False binaries are toxic bullshit.

Toxic ideas abound in here. You know how TX created an abortion regulation scheme that incentivized members of the public to effectively be abortion bounty hunters? Project 2025 would do the same for *science.*

Project 2025 would incentivize citizens to come after scientists under the False Claims Act for research misconduct. This is p 438. Fun times!

This is all part of diluting expertise so that the scientists who are trying to warn us about massive danger ahead can get drowned out by “citizen scientists” whose research the EPA will…equally prioritize??? 438.

Housing and Urban Development also gets their climate programs cut (508) because, much like food, who will need housing in the future? We will return to caves, as we should.

Oh, if how much oil drilling the US is doing matters to you as a voter, Project 2025 basically says maximum drilling, all the drilling, all the time (523-524).

Just a quick note in case you were thinking this was a serious policy document: note the contrast between the doc’s desire to let states drill as much as they want bc “States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results” (524)

And revoking CA’s ability to set its own air quality standards (627)…because…states…shouldn’t be allowed to self-regulate, I guess, if their regulations make things harder for the oil industry?

Oh also they’re gonna freeze all EPA activity which wasn’t Congressionally authorized on Day One (436). How often does stuff get through Congress anymore? This one echoes the recent SCOTUS decision which also strips regulatory authority.

Basically more drilling, no windmills, don’t even think about encouraging electric cars (286).

Also open season on wolves and bears (534) and let’s just mass execute America’s wild horses (529)

To break it down, if you, like me, are a mom who is concerned about the quality of water your kids are drinking at school, and wants the gov’t to be quickly responsive to new discoveries and problems (like PFAS!) that might give your kids cancer, well, you’re fucked.

If there’s a new thing that is discovered that we should regulate/know about, too bad, because of things like this: “Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated.” (425).

Climate, of course, impacts migration. The more the US contributes to climate catastrophe, the more the consequences will be felt by the developing world, particularly in regions close to the equator and low-lying regions.

What will we do about immigration? Build more prisons for immigrants (142), send unaccompanied children away (148) increase the fees to apply for asylum + generally make immigration more expensive (146) & make it so gang violence & domestic violence no longer justify asylum (148)

Cut funding for NGOs that help immigrants find safety, and instead spend that on walls and jails (149).

Eliminate prosecutorial discretion on immigration cases (150). Oh and we’re doing the head-in-sand thing again by eliminating the office that tracks immigration jailing. 165. They don’t want an “impediment to detention.”

For Americans who rely on government programs to do things like feed their children, keep a roof over their heads, or get healthcare, things will also get worse.

They really hate healthcare: “In essence, our deficit problem is a Medicare and Medicaid problem.” (283).

Even though they want people to have a lot of babies, they’re putting in new requirements on SNAP (299), reducing eligibility for Medicaid (467), cutting school lunch programs (302-303), and eliminating Head Start (482).

Oh and also fuck Sesame Street (247) (and public broadcasting generally).

Safe baby formula? Not a priority. “As for baby formula regulations generally, labeling regulations and regulations that unnecessarily delay the manufacture and sale of baby formula should be re-evaluated.” (302).

Speaking of schools, they’re going to get rid of the Dept of Education, which they say is “a convenient one-stop shop for the woke education cartel,“ (285, 319).

Instead of schools, let’s give teens more dangerous jobs. “Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs...DOL should amend its hazard-order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent.” (595).

There’s kind of a sharp contrast here between high trust of parents in some contexts (to let their kids work dangerous jobs) and low trust of parents in others (if a father isn’t father-y enough terminate parental rights as fast as you can (481-482)).

Obviously, the Biden efforts to forgive student loans are toast (354) but also public service loan forgiveness is toast! “End time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness.” (361).

Having a job may be overrated anyway, and so the Trump Admin will tell the Fed to only think about price stability, eliminating full employment as an economic goal (661). Actually WTH maybe abolish the federal reserve completely (also 661).

Oh also if you were looking forward to lower drug costs, they want to end the program where the gov’t can negotiate lower prescription drug costs. 465.

As a matter of fact, no one will protect consumers against fraud and dangerous products under this admin…they are going to eliminate the CFPB completely and return consumer protection to banking regulators who are SO GOOD AT CONSUMER PROTECTION OF COURSE (/s/) 839.

Education, of course, is critical to the ability to distinguish misinformation. Under Trump, we better get ready for a lot more disinfo, because they’re going to yank federal efforts to combat misinfo/disinfo online. Facebook free for all, now with AI generated videos! (155, 550)

Speaking of misinfo, there will be no more independent Federal Election Commission.

Headed by a Trump official (with or without Senate confirmation!) the FEC will only investigate claims the Trump administration wants investigated, and remove its authority to decide what to litigate by handing that over to DOJ. (803, 865)

Oh also the new president will have to have a way to quickly deal with any ongoing, er, litigation, like, uh, criminal cases (but also ongoing litigation that conflicts with his agenda, like, say, civil rights consent decrees or environmental enforcement litigation. (28)

In the name of EXPEDIENCY, they say, the President’s lawyer (the White House Counsel) should give high-level super fast advice without wasting time on, like, researched legal memos or anything.

In other words, what Trump does will be on the advice of a counsel who doesn’t write stuff down. Not great!

Oh also the person chosen need not have fancy credentials (oh okay I'm all for that) as long as they’re LOYAL (oh wait no). Also p 28.

I’m sorry to tell you guys this, but this is like…scratching the surface. This is the beginning. This is the stuff you should know now.

If there is something you care about in this world, I think you should dip into this document and search for it, because you might find something hideous. documentcloud.org/documents/2408…

[original thread]

[beauty-funny-trippy]

(Rachel Maddow, July 29, 2024)

Think about it. Trump is saying that if he is elected, he's going to make sure that our right to vote will be taken away from us. "WE the PEOPLE" will no longer have any say in our own government. And that he, and any tyrant after him, can never be voted out of office. Trump is telling us exactly what to expect under his dictatorship.

The infiltration of Trump's disciples into county election positions, means that Republicans' Project 2025 is not just a fascist wishlist for the future. ...It has already begun.

We need to vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers, up and down the ballot. Because if Republicans can create enough chaos by not certifying the election, Trump's corrupt Supreme Court will get involved and hand him the presidency — along with its king-like powers. Then our Freedoms, and America as we know it, will cease to exist.

Please, ...Please VOTE!

For as Trump himself has said, if he's elected, this will be the very last election. And your voice, along with hundreds of millions of others, will be silenced forever.

Let us not be known to history as..."The Generation that let Democracy Die."

[tomorrowusa]

"Nazi Town, USA" is a 2024 feature in PBS's American Experience series. It looks into the surprising degree of influence which Nazis had in the United States in the 1930s. There were even Nazi summer camps for kids.

It can be viewed (probably for a limited amount of time) at the series link above. Here's a preview...

To explore the topic more deeply, check out Rachel Maddow's excellent 8-episode podcast Ultra.

Rachel Maddow Presents: Ultra | an MSNBC original podcast

Ultra has somewhat more emphasis on Nazi attempts to penetrate government.

Those espousing Nazi-friendly views in the 1930s did not disappear when the US entered World War II and fascism became very unfashionable. Those half-hidden feelings hibernated and occasionally emerged from time to time to poison discourse and endanger democracy. There are obvious echos of that movement today.

[homoquartz]

Maddow's a lib so you know, make of that what you will, but in this video she makes some important points.

Trump is taking steps towards dictatorship. Key among this is the fact that several states are reporting that their election votes will not be certified this year.

He is telling his constituents that he doesn't need them to vote for him. And that they won't have to ever vote again.

edit: fox news interviewed trump and asked him to clarify that he doesn't plan to become a dictator - he just kept repeating and going in circles, no outright denial

[mightyflamethrower]

25 reasons Trump won’t pay a dime to E. Jean Carroll

That eye-popping $83 million judgment will not survive an appeal. A proper settlement would subtract at least $82,972,000.

In 2019, a strange woman named E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of raping her in a changing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan. Trump called her crazy, and a jury found him liable for both sexually abusing her and defaming her with the “crazy” talk. Last week, a New York jury decided Carroll deserves $83 million for defamation.

Here are 25 reasons why that’s nuts.

1) Carroll has said rape is “sexy”

She backs up this insane statement with, “Think of the fantasies” (which my wife and I can’t stop saying to each other). For the record, having someone forcibly violate you against your will is the exact opposite of “sexy.”

2) She’s already bragging about shopping sprees

Remember in “Goodfellas” when that idiot shows up at the party with his wife wearing a $20,000 fur coat and De Niro tells him to “bring it back”? When you run a scam, you need to lay low for a while. Carroll, conversely, is making appearances on national television telling Rachel Maddow she’s going to buy her a “penthouse in Paris” as well as fishing gear and a motorcycle for her counsel (could she pick weirder presents?). Her lawyer awkwardly murmured, “Uh, that’s a joke.”

Yeah, this whole thing is a joke.

3) The scenario she described came from her favorite TV show

She is a self-described “Law & Order” fan, and there is an episode wherein a man muscles his way into a changing room at Bergdorf Goodman and sexually molests a woman. This is likely where she got the idea. She’s also a big fan of “The Apprentice.” Would you like to watch your rapist on TV?

4) She didn’t want to press criminal charges

Being on the cover of New York magazine is one thing, but taking your BS story into an actual courtroom is a whole other level of fraud. When Bill de Blasio said he would change the law to make the case admissible, Carroll kept awkwardly repeating, “The experts told me … the time has passed.”

5) They changed the law

The case had no merit because the statute of limitations on civil action had passed. So what happened? The New York State Legislature changed the law. Is there anything that screams “witch hunt” more than that? What are we, Zimbabwe?

6) The man who backed the lawsuit is a major DNC donor

Leftist activist billionaire Reid Hoffman is the money behind this operation. His motive is obviously to bankrupt Trump so he can’t run again. Carroll denied this at first because she’s a liar, but her lawyer was forced to come clean.

7) The whole thing was George Conway’s idea, apparently

Though she denies it, it’s clear this entire plan was concocted by “conservative lawyer” Conway at a radical leftist cocktail party in Manhattan.

8) Carroll’s lawyer is desperate to fix her reputation as a rape-enabler

Roberta Kaplan was supposed to champion victims of sexual assault with her #TimesUp movement, but she used it instead to run cover for perverts such as Andrew Cuomo. She got caught and she got fired. Her comeback included representing Ashley Biden (A Biden lawyer going after Trump? Is anyone surprised?), but this case could permanently rescue her Google results.

9) Carroll’s dress didn’t exist back then

Carroll said the rape happened in the early 1990s. We just learned the particular dress she said she was allegedly wearing did not exist at the time.

10) She cannot remember when the rape happened

We’re not talking about the exact date. She can’t tell us if it was 1993 or 1995.

11) She won’t let anyone test her coat for DNA

Carroll calls the dress her “bad luck dress” and told CNN she will never make a talisman out of it — as though the idea had occurred to anyone. Why did she keep it around? This could be the left’s Monica Lewinsky dress, but she refuses to let anyone analyze it.

12) She doesn’t know if Trump ejaculated

I don’t know if anyone reading this has engaged in sexual intercourse, but evidence of the male orgasm is almost impossible to hide.

13) She is a serial accuser

Despite being a 3.5, she has claimed men have sexually assaulted her at least a half-dozen times. This isn’t proof of Trump’s innocence in and of itself, but it becomes relevant when surrounded by 24 other points.

14) She said it wasn’t sexual

Carroll has said pretty much everything that you could say about this encounter, from “it was not sexual” to “it was the definition of rape.” She said she would not press charges, however, because it would trivialize the experience of illegal aliens who are being “raped around the clock.”

15) She’s not his type

Trump is into elegant Slavs. This woman is like that hysterical chicken lady from “The Kids in the Hall.”

16) The judge and Carroll’s lawyer are pals

We’re told Judge Lewis Kaplan was Roberta Kaplan’s (no relation) mentor back when they both worked at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Roberta Kaplan denies this, but it can’t be denied they worked at the same firm at the same time. That alone is a conflict of interest.

17) Carroll didn’t talk to anyone about the alleged assault, until she did

If a woman is sexually assaulted, she is morally obligated to report it immediately, so the rapist doesn’t do it again. Carroll did not do this. What’s more, she didn’t talk to any of her friends about it. At least not at first. This is peculiar behavior for a blabbermouth.

18) Even if it’s all true, the settlement would be tiny

Carroll alleged that Trump cost her a columnist job at Elle, but the magazine made it clear it ended her contract as an advice columnist based on nothing more than lack of interest. But let’s assume Elle fired her because Trump wrote a mean tweet. A good price for an advice column would be a couple of hundred bucks per piece. That’s $2,000 a year for Elle. Assuming Carroll lives as long as “Dear Abby” columnist Pauline Esther Friedman, who died at 94, that would be a whopping total of $28,000 (Carroll is 80).

So, we’re off by about $82,972,000.

19) She said women “love” being abducted

She told Charlie Rose (remember him?) in 1995 that women love the idea of a caveman knocking them unconscious with a club and then dragging them — by their hair — back to the cave. I’m no feminist, but I’m pretty sure the cerebral contusions from this kind of violence are not a turn-on.

20) She said it wasn’t a big deal

“I’m a mature woman,” she said. “I can handle it.” OK, then why does she need $83 million to recover? That’s four times the amount of money you get when your kid is decapitated.

21) She lives in a Mouse House

Anyone who doubts this lady’s mental state needs to check out her house. She calls it “The Mouse House” because it’s infested with rodents (to whom she has given individual names, such as “Terbrusky”). She has painted the trees blue. She has printed out 27 years of advice column questions and stacked them all over the place. Yes, writers can be weird. But it is impossible to look at her place and not think, “This is nuts.”

22) She is a hoarder

Hoarding is a mental disorder. You can’t sue someone for calling you “crazy” if you have a mental disorder.

23) Her cat is called “Vagina” — seriously

E. Jean Carroll is obsessed with sex and her vagina. She said she lives in the woods because if she lived in the city, she’d have 16 boyfriends. She’s 80, remember?

Her dog “Tits” has blue hair, and her cat is named “Vagina.” The left-wing media thinks this is irrelevant. “Among the stranger complaints made by the former president … was that the jury wasn’t informed about the name of his accuser’s cat: Vagina T. Fireball.” Uh, when the charge is “calling a sane woman crazy,” Vagina T. Fireball matters.

24) She writes notes to herself

Wait, doesn’t everyone do that? Not like this. “The Mouse House” is festooned with bizarre messages. Her microwave says, “Burn Baby Burn.” Her bookshelf says, “Always amused never angry.” And, in a moment of deranged honesty, she taped a note to a lamp that says, “Hold your nerve. Pursue your radical options to the bitter END!”

25) Carroll said she wanted to “rape” Trump

Apparently, she thought having rough sex with him in the changing room would make for a “funny story.” (Wait, I thought she didn’t tell anyone about what happened to her out of fear.) She also suggested she’d do it for $17,000 if he was unable to speak. Sounds awfully rapey, doesn’t it?

Anyone who takes this case seriously and doesn’t see E. Jean Carroll as a complete basket case is a complete basket case.

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

By Rachel Maddow

On Dec. 1, 1960, the far-right preacher and racist demagogue Gerald L.K. Smith sent out a fund-raising appeal, headlined with a shocking claim in red type across the top: “HOLD YOUR BREATH: KENNEDY MAY HAVE LOST.”

The 1960 election had indeed been close, but the Democrat, John F. Kennedy, had prevailed, and his Republican opponent, Richard M. Nixon, had congratulated Kennedy on election night, over shouted protests from his supporters.

Three weeks later, Smith, the leader of what he called the Christian Nationalist Crusade, was telling his followers it was possible to reverse that result.

If Smith’s followers would only send him money, he would continue what he called his “subtle campaign of pressure” to persuade governors in states won by Kennedy that they should refuse to send Kennedy electors to Washington for the Electoral College count.

“This,” Smith promised, “could turn out to be the most shocking and sensational Electoral College vote in history.”

It was not. There were no shenanigans in the Electoral College count. Kennedy received 303 votes to Nixon’s 219, and the transition of power proceeded peacefully.

Today, it may be worth remembering Smith’s nut-ball campaign to overturn the 1960 election if only to see how far we’ve sunk. You used to have to get out into the far-flung wilds of American political life before you’d find people trying to persuade state or local officials to monkey-wrench the Electoral College by refusing to send their states’ real results to Washington for the Electoral College count. Not anymore.

Since Donald Trump and Ronna McDaniel, the then-chair of the Republican National Committee, phoned local officials in Michigan in November 2020 to encourage them not to certify vote totals, Republicans have quietly seeded county and state election boards with eager allies. Election boards across the country now include Republican officials who have not only propounded Mr. Trump’s lies about the last presidential election being “stolen,” they have tested how far they can go in denying the certification of the vote.

Republicans tried this ploy more than two dozen times in at least eight states since 2020. Two refusenik Republican election board members were indicted in Cochise County, Ariz. That case is pending. Two others were removed from their positions in Surry County, N.C. In New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Nevada, Republican officials who delayed or refused to certify the votes ultimately relented under legal pressure.

But in Georgia, the State Election Board approved a rule this month that gives election officials in each of the state’s 159 counties the option to delay or refuse certification in order to make a “reasonable inquiry” into the results. What counts as a “reasonable inquiry?” The new rule does not say.

Because Georgia law holds that election boards “shall” certify results within a week of the election, this rule almost certainly will face legal challenges. But in a state where Republicans have delayed or refused certification at least seven times since 2020 — more than in any other state — the rule injects a new layer of murk into the legal waters less than 100 days before the election.

On Monday, the board is expected to consider yet another revision to the rules that would afford members of county election boards an additional option for delaying or refusing certification. The rule would allow local board members to demand ���all election-related documentation” before certifying the results.

Imagine an election night this November in which the two parties are trading swing-state victories. The Democrats capture Nevada, while the Republicans take Arizona. The Republicans win the big prize of Pennsylvania, while the Democrats top them in Wisconsin and Michigan. The nation is waiting on Georgia. If Georgia goes red, it’s President Trump; if Georgia goes blue, it’s President Harris.

Then, local news headlines start to circulate. There are reports of unspecified “problems” in the vote in Fulton County. And in Gwinnett County. And in DeKalb, Coffee and Spalding Counties. Republican officials are refusing to certify the results in their counties. They say they are making “reasonable inquiries.”

As legal challenges wend through the courts, a wave of disinformation, confusion and propaganda swells, fueled by unproven claims that something is amiss in these Georgia counties, and also by similar noise — and possibly also certification refusals — in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Nevada. (All have seen local Republicans try the certification refusal ruse since 2020.)

Under recently revised federal law, each state has until Dec. 11 to send official, certified state results to Washington for the Electoral College count. But if a state doesn’t meet that deadline, then what?

The point of these certification refusals may not be to falsify or flip a result, but simply to prevent the emergence of one. If one or more states fail to produce official results, blocking any candidate from reaching 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment prescribes Gerald L.K. Smith’s dream scenario: a vote in the newly elected House of Representatives to determine the presidency. Each state delegation would get one vote; today, Republicans control 26 state delegations; Democrats control 22; and two are evenly divided.

Our democratic system is not invincible, but it is strong. Certification of election results is a ministerial responsibility that is not discretionary. Legitimate election challenges are handled with recounts and litigation, not by individual election board members. There is no loophole that allows bad-faith officials to so flummox the electoral system that they take the choice of the next president away from the American people.

But in the past three and a half years, the ad hoc certification ploys that failed to flip the last presidential election to Mr. Trump have been professionalized and systematized by Republican officials and their allies. A recent report in The Times quoted an official with the conservative Heritage Foundation saying that “the conditions” in the country are now such that “most reasonable policymakers and officials cannot in good conscience certify an election.” Michael Whatley, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has declined to answer when asked if the party intends to try to block vote certifications.

A contrivance like this is as nutty today as it was when Gerald L.K. Smith tried to make a version of it seem plausible in 1960. But this year, the firepower being brought to bear on the issue by the Republican Party is much more than a “subtle campaign of pressure” from a direct-mail grifter.

Opponents no doubt will fight any certification denials in the courts. Those efforts are important, and every state should be shoring up its own legal and electoral system now to prepare for, deter and defend against any effort to sabotage certification. But stopping such subterfuge also depends on an informed public that refuses to let false narratives take hold.

A cleareyed look at Republicans’ handling of the administration of elections since Mr. Trump’s effort to overthrow the last election should prepare us: Refusals to certify results should not necessarily be seen as indicating real electoral problems; they are more likely part of a bad-faith strategy to mess with the democratic process.

Now is the time to get to know your local election board, especially if you live in a place where election denialism has taken hold, and where certification refusals may be coming. Public awareness and vigilance can make a difference. No one should be surprised when certification refusals happen or when they are then exploited to try to maximize chaos and upset.

After all, the Republican nominee this year is no Richard Nixon.

[lastweeksshirttonight]

I've listened to this almost four times at this point, so I better write some thoughts on it. (Did you need them? Probably not but humor me.)

This whole podcast talks deeply about the emotional toll of COVID and the pandemic, so be advised.

Interview starts at 16:10.

To start, I think a thread that runs through this entire episode is Marc being more cynical or bitter than John about a point, and John pausing to realign himself with what his actual level of cynicism is. You can tell that Marc and John like each other a lot, but there is also a tension to some of their discussions that I find really interesting. Like a mental chess match where Marc has a clear POV and John is trying to subtly spin the response to be closer to his own ideals.

The interview opens with the two of them talking about microphone levels and people not being closer to the mic and how irritating it is when people don't know how to use microphones. I am weak to John talking

I haven't watched Rachel Maddow in a while, is she really doing radio shows about Spiro Agnew? What? Why?

John speaking about context and contextualizing our current dark reality. The way he viewed the pandemic and the extent of society's flaws, and how nothing was fixed was really interesting. For as much as he's said that he's allergic to sincerity, that's just plainly untrue. He really does want to believe in the best of everything around him - he later talks about how he loves his children so much it's painful, and I had the same thought. Marc's darkness is something else though, I would laugh helplessly too at being reminded that 30% of the country wants to kill me specifically (help)

"It will eat your messages and shit them back into your face." I truly enjoy when John goes this blue, it always surprises and delights me.

John wants everything to have a system. He really likes the John Wick coin-based hotel system. I don't quite know how the two of them got from the comfort conspiracy theories can provide in dark times to John Wick but hey.

Marc being mad about having no awards and John being like "you really didn't need to say your bitterness out loud bro" killed me.

John has no idea why LWT was moved into another category. He doesn't even know who he's competing against. The Emmys basically afford him the right to be left alone with his show. I think he values that more than anything in regards to LWT - this topic comes up multiple times in this podcast and John stresses that having no sponsors to be beholden to, no commercials, and seemingly little to no oversight makes them able to do things that just can't be done on commercial television. There are more details to mine about this later, but it seems like, for all the absolute chaos of HBO and Warner and Discovery (something John likens to continually having new fathers around and wondering if he even has to bother learning their names), he's still relatively free to plug away at LWT the way he and his team envision it. Which is a relief to hear, honestly, the delayed announcement of LWT being renewed really made me concerned that Discovery in particular was done dealing with him.

I like how John, when given questions, will often ask clarifying follow-ups in this. He's not one for vagueness as it seems - the one that particularly stuck out to me was Marc relaying how he struggles with pulling his thoughts together on current events, using the Gaza crisis as an example for him before asking how John settles on topics. John's response is to ask if Marc means in general, or om Gaza specifically. The conversation moves into the general and how LWT is made now that it's ten years in (John calls the research department a machine and I can tell Marc is hoping that John literally invented a research machine from his tone of voice), but those are two very different conversations that could be pulled from that one question.

I also love John and Marc taking the piss out of John's show. Truly, if John leaves his desk, you obviously just sat through 30 minutes of the worst human misery possible.

-

Marc: "Because of your innate Britishness and your sense of humor, that... you do irritate -"

John, sounding like something just activated in his brain and as darkly as I've ever heard him: "I love to."

Marc: " - the right - ???"

-

My new favorite running theme in John's interviews is his apparently very tense relationship with his lawyers. The nitty gritty of the legal needs of the show, and how John views his lawyers and the frustrations that come with trying to do hard-hitting topics while having lawyers drop out from conflicts of interest, always fascinates me.

John also delves into the security he requires because of the breadth of people he's pissed off. He doesn't seem to care at all and enjoys pissing these people off, despite his wife's concerns. (I'm so sorry Kate you married a deeply weird man) John derives such pleasure from irritating people that it outweighs, say, never being able to go to Thailand without being arrested.

I cannot believe the Sacklers tried to come to the LWT office. Jesus Christ the entitled gall of these people.

Marc offends John with his assessment of England having many destroyed buildings, which leads into him saying, in a way reminiscent of the long-lost American from the Bugle, that he "enjoys the castles". God I miss the American. "How old's this wall? Holy fuck!"

-

Marc: "What are we gonna do about the futility..."

John: -cracks the fuck up-

Marc, finding his point: "...of..."

John: "Let it hang. Feel free to let that hang in the air. Let's just all enjoy the fact that we're all filling it in and coming up with different, equally valid, depressing ends to that sentence."

-

John is so severely offended and killed by Marc's suggestion that he did a Q&A tour. The absolute lowest form of entertainment in both of their minds. John mentions that he emphatically told people they could leave before the Q&A they hosted at the John and Seth stand up show I was at because he feels so strongly about this. I wrongly assumed this was because John hates himself and can't imagine people sticking around for him, but in my defense, that's usually the reason he tells people not to do something/shits on his bangs/etc.

(We still have like 30 min of this podcast, why am I like this)

The question of "what's gonna happen" is a pretty dark one, as John notes. He fears the worst but hopes people will work hard to stop the path we're on. Marc wanting to illustrate where we are is pretty ridiculous, as John points out - just look around.

I think Marc talking about what "all right" means to people gets to something that deeply concerns me about what the future of this country will be for me. I don't want to be that cynical but there is a deep well of selfishness in the US (rightfully identified) that does keep the country from uniting and fighting for survival in times like this. We're definitely at that turning point and I really want to hope we don't drive off the cliff.

I am not really emotionally prepared for jokes about John being in prison, I was genuinely a bit concerned about that The Last Time. That's my own problem though.

I didn't expect to get more information about John leaving The Daily Show on this podcast, but that's one of the most interesting things discussed. Marc asks if John left TDS because he felt the freedom he has with HBO wasn't there, and John says that wasn't the case - his contract expired at the end of 2013, after his summer hosting gig. Ideally, and Jon and John had discussed this (!!), the goal was to have John do TDS in the summers so John could, you know, rest. Sleep. Not be beholden to the horrors all the time. But Comedy Central, in John's blunt words, "didn't really care", so he went to HBO. The way that John mentions that "they would have probably kept [Jon] longer" if they'd actually tried to keep John around sounds just a tinge bitter and honestly, yeah. I'm annoyed hearing that we could have had this magical 2-host version of TDS and CC just... sucks. God I hate them. They gave me most of my worldview as a teenager because of TDS, but fucking A man.

Also interesting to hear, however vaguely, that John had some other offers. Wonder what those were. My best guess, based on what else was going on at that time, is TBS (who later made Full Frontal with Samantha Bee and were building around Conan) might have made a play.

I'm not a parent, but I do appreciate the discussion of parenthood, particularly how anxiety-inducing it can be. Hearing John talk about his worries regarding his prematurely-born son definitely resonated, and I'm glad his son is doing well now. ❤️

The brick joke in the middle of the parenting discussion is the hardest I've ever laughed at Marc Maron. Truly. Masterful brick joke.

I don't have an elegant tag for this - there's much more than what I touched on here in the podcast, and I appreciate how deep the conversation gets. It was really nice to listen to this multiple times during my hell day, and to hear John talk deeper about things that he's rarely asked about.

Also I'm sorry I wrote like fucking too many k words on this, I clearly had thoughts

[isakvaltersnake]

first watch was for me, now second watch for THOUGHTS

Act 1:

obsessed with the way they turn into each other when the cake is coming down slash how Henry slips into Alex when getting up

zahra is so hot my goD I want her to top me

Henry showing off in his fuck boy raybans and fancy vintage car YOU WANT HIM TO WANT YOU SO BAD ITS EMBARRASSING

Henry’s soul leaving his body at “Vicky 👊”

Henry being turnt by the way alex smells

Henry’s “I need to get out of here” upon first meeting alex and deeply understanding that this beautiful boy could ruin the charred remains of his heart if he let him

Henry IMPOSSIBLY AND HOPELESSLY CHARMED

straight up FUCK miguel

Henry using bitmojis is how you really textually understand he has like 1 friend

Henry is so bad at dancing oh baby you would’ve been laughed out of a middle school gym with those moves

why am I mad that everyone got low at the wrong part of the song

ALEX WANTS TO LOOK COOL IN THE RED ROOM SO BAD ITS EMBARASSING

THE LOOK WHEN HENRY LEAVES ALEXS ROOM FUUUUUUUUCKING HELL

Act 2:

the fucking polo scene. Alex so horned up, Henry so sweaty. chefs kiss

henry infinitely smoother than alex wow

only momentarily AND ALEX TOOK THAT AS A CHALLENGE

Henry playing with that fucking ring like it’s a noose around his neck

ALEX FFS ACT LIKE YOU'VE BEEN SOMEWHERE BEFORE

this sex scene actually just being a clean demonstration of two people who fill each other with so much comfort and peace engaging in a physical act of love wowwww they invented romance wtf

I do love this alex in texas side quest seeing as there wasn’t time for the book storyline

SHOULD I TELL YOU THAT WHEN WE’RE APART YOUR BODY COMES BACK TO ME IN MY DREAMS

giggling during sex is peak romance these nerds are IN LOVE

HE SAID NO SO FAST THESE NERDS ARE IN LOOOOOVE

“look at us now” and the way I yelled DIVORCED OSCAR?!

“it won’t even matter if anyone sees us” the way you could see henrys heart shatter in real time jesus

i felt myself getting too close and i didn't want to break his heart. henry, my love, baby girl, boo boo the fool.

Act 3:

BECAUSE IT COSTS YOU NOTHING. No Henry in fact this is costing me everything. Kwjakasnsnkanskamskkaksjmsbwkkss

I will not trade one prison for another SORRY THE ANGST GIRLIES ARE EATINGGGG

sorry but if the love of my life ever danced with me in a low lit museum and told me he would try to be brave for us I would simply cease to exist

low key lmao and well done @ Alex’s grip on Henry in bed cause the last time they slept together Henry snuck out in the middle of the night and ghosted him for a week straight

ngl I hate that they didn’t even get a phone call before the speech

ok so i didn't get america he is my choice but i did get i fell in love with a person who happens to be a man and that man happens to be a prince

baby he says like I haven’t been waiting like an hour and a half to hear it

Alex watching Henry play piano oh honey he is never beating the competency kink allegations

stephen fry Alex already admitted it what’s your endgame my dude

Henry leaning back to talk back to his gramps like he was going into sport mode was v sexy actually

THE FINGER TOUCHES

straight up Rachel Maddow with more lines that pez, she should’ve had her own promo

Henry with the hand hold/hand in the crook of alex’s arm combo was so baby girl of him I couldn’t be prouder

they traded the key and the ring back cause it was only til they could have all of each other again and now they can pls kill me this is the end

do you think anyone noticed? I hate him so much omfg

[faelapis]

red white & royal blue is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but it was also just crazy enough to be watchable. i felt like i was going to die. here are some insane highlights of my viewing experience:

the presidents son (alex, one of our leads) is a beto o'rourke liberal who thinks democrats can win texas. everyone agrees to let him try despite having no political expertise. he never mentions the issue of gerrymandering. he's gonna do it solely because he has this brilliant, secret memo with some 5head strategy nobody has ever thought of before.

we never get to read the memo, or even know what his plan is.

it works. they win texas.

there's cameos from equally delusional libs like joy ann reid and rachel maddow.

stephen fry plays the king of england.

king stephen fry is initially homophobic.

but don't worry, the royal family eventually reforms and definitely doesn't need to be abolished :)

uma thurman is the president.

president thurman has dialogue educating the audience on the importance of safe sex & using condoms during anal.

there's a whole scene where they hear what they think is a gunshot. in a hospital. they use it as an opportunity to force the two leads together in a closet for some tee-hee involuntary closeness.

the fact that it could've been a shooter is basically ignored. the scene has no fear or tension.

they do the trope where there's a sassy female side character who is basically just there to tell the main gay couple they're idiots for pining after each other without taking action.

there are several Very Important Monologues about impostor syndrome and how coming out isn't mandatory and every individual queer person's choice uwu.

there's a sneaky reporter who everyone knows is sneaky but the main lead keeps sharing juicy details to anyway. surely he won't leak this. its off the record!

they pair the two leads' black friends together. said black friends have no personality or character arcs.

the main romance is only slightly less contrived.

i'm pretty sure they told hollywood at gunpoint that you're homophobic if you don't appear in this movie, so there's a bunch of other cameos i forgot about as well.

all in all an excellent movie for watch parties. especially if you want to experience the out-of-body dissonance of an extremely generic lazy hallmark romance, but with explicit sex scenes and overt centrist liberal politics. at any point i was expecting hillary clinton to show up for a 5 second cameo to wink at the audience & say that being gay is okay.

2/10, would watch again and again until i end up in a liberal fugue state where i, too, believe that dems will win texas any day now.

[thepoliticalvulcan]

On the overuse of "sanewashing."

A lot of complaints about the coverage of Trump come back to the concept of "sanewashing."

The idea that, if you'll pardon the joke in poor taste, Trump is being taken literally not serious. Or conversely, sometimes he's being taken seriously but not literally.

So which is it?

I happen to agree that things like breathless coverage of Trump vibing for 40 minutes as he just plays his favorite songs is bizarre and informs precisely no one of the stakes of this election.

On the other hand, I'm not so confident in my understanding of how people experience media and the electorate itself and its priors that I am resolute that attempts to cast Trump as freezing up or disassociating isn't exactly what's called for after nearly three years of MAGA (and Julian Castro - remember him from the 2020 primary?) banging the table about Biden's age and seeming inability to express a clear idea unscripted.

Then of course you may even take it a step further and start thinking about how persuadable conservatives or low information voters might react to the coverage itself. Does focusing on Trump being silly convey to persuadables that he's not a serious person or that there's something wrong with him, or does it tell them that the media is grasping at straws and being uncharitable?

See how fast this turns into a hall of mirrors?

For my part, while I continue to think that pundits like Rachel Maddow obsessing over the Steele dossier was malpractice and an example of when "going low when they go low" is itself silly and invalidating rather than fighting fire with fire, I've moved closer to thinking that throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks is probably more sensible.

However! The personal "brands" of individual commentators, journalists, and media outlets do matter too. If the New York Times & NPR appear to be "sanewashing" Trump its because their "brand" is the "mature" media. There's no shortage of people in the media willing to "go low" if you think that's what's called for - and again, I'm not sure you're wrong. I enjoyed the "Weird" discourse. I don't know if it was useful or effective, but it was fun and energizing the base is one arrow in the quiver of effective organizing.

Getting mad at media figures because they're critical of Trump in the wrong way is sometimes a valid form of media criticism but sometimes I think people just don't understand what lane this or that reporter or outlet is moving in and what considerations they make about their reputation or even their own personal orientation towards the world. Expecting NPR to behave like a shitposter is ultimately silly. Expecting them to be empirically correct is reasonable. On the other hand, perhaps it is worthwhile if you are a fan of "the old NPR" and protective of its reputation to complain when NPR does behave like a shitposter.

Because ultimately you should want NPR to be able to speak with credibility to an audience that considers itself objective and information literate. Let Robert Evans, Jon Stewart etc. handle the "informing through shitposting lane." Their being shitposters doesn't mean they don't have something of value to say, it means they speak to a different audience that understands credibility and integrity differently, and is suspicious of the pretentiousness of traditional journalism among other things.

[misfitwashere]

Can fascism be American?

Thoughts from the road, #2

TIMOTHY SNYDER

OCT 19

Continuing yesterday’s theme on fascism, responding to questions about the possibility of American fascism. There have been American fascist movements in the past, and perhaps more importantly a tradition of us-and-them politics, sometimes under the surface. There are fascists in the present who continue American fascist traditions. And we invite fascism in the future by telling ourselves that it cannot happen here. Exceptionalism opens both the front and the back doors…

In these remarks I invoke directly or indirectly:

Sarah Churchwell, Behold, America

Sarah Churchwell, “It has happened here,” New York Review of Books, 22 June 2020.

Rachel Maddow, Prequel: An American Fight against Fascism

Heather Cox Richardson, “Letters from an American”

Timothy Snyder, Black Earth

[tomorrowusa]

Anybody who claims that both major US political parties are the same is either a mindless airhead or a self-deceived cult member.

Third parties and independents in US presidential elections are a bad idea in "normal" cycles due to the archaic Electoral College. This year is not close to normal.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out, Biden would like to campaign on abortion and the economy. But the existential threat to democracy by Trump and his groveling Republican Party has shifted the emphasis to the basic existence of this country.

Complain all you like about the electoral system in the US but don't ignore it while trying to make progress politically.

It doesn't matter if a majority of Americans don't want Trump to be president if they don't properly use the available electoral tools. Republicans need to be stopped via the system that currently exists. Voting for impotent minor parties will do nothing to keep Trump from returning.

Way bad régimes in other countries have come to power with much less than a majority of popular votes.

In South Africa in 1948, the pro-apartheid National Party won 37.70% of the popular vote as opposed to 48.18% for the more moderate United Party. But because of the existing first past the post parliamentary system then, the National Party in coalition with the even more extreme Afrikaner Party (3.93% of the vote) won a majority of seats in Parliament and were able to institute apartheid which lasted until 1990.

In both elections in Germany in 1932 the Nazis got less than 40% of the popular vote: 37.27% in the July election and just 33.09% in the November election. Despite these unimpressive results they managed to take power because the opposition was divided and failed to stop them. Famously, the Communist Party of Germany (16.9% of the popular vote in November '32) welcomed the Nazis. According to Communist ideology, fascism is supposed to be the final stage of capitalism and the German Communists were licking their chops; long story short – Ernst Thälmann, head of the German Communists, was executed on Heinrich Himmler's orders. Communists are stupid – but that's another story.

Not taking the threat of dictatorship seriously does not have happy endings in history. And it's always easier to prevent dictatorships than it is to remove them. If a candidate tells you he's going to be a dictator, believe him.