#Steve Mnuchin

[refractorind]

Rabbi Sam wants TikTok

[msclaritea]

[friskyfreddie2024]

America: You Fucked Up

You could have chosen Hope. You chose Hate.

You could have chosen Empathy. You chose Enmity.

You could have chosen a New Beginning. You chose the Nazi.

We could have finally been rid of this cancer on American democracy. He could have been banished to obscurity, remembered only as the worst president in American history, and finally held responsible for his numerous crimes.

The ignorant, racist, misogynistic, white supremacist, pathologicial liar is now going back to the White House. He is a convicted felon, an admitted sexual predator, a total fraud, and a demented old man. He belongs in prison.

What did you do?

You ignored that the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, that inflation is at its lowest level in four years, that unemployment is at its lowest level in three years. You believed the lies about how terrible the economy is. I knew better.

You forgot about his 30,000+ lies while he was in office. I remember.

You forgot about his complete mismanagement and ignorance over COVID, resulting in the deaths of over one million Americans. I remember.

You forgot about the saber rattling over military exercises in the pacific, when Kim Jong Un threatened us with nuclear missiles, causing us to fear whether we'd see another day. I remember.

You forgot about waking up every morning dreading to hear the latest abomination he tweeted. I remember.

You forgot about "very fine people on both sides." I remember.

You forgot about "only the best people" like Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, Tom Price, Scott Pruitt, Steve Mnuchin, and many others who were given cabinet positions despite having zero qualifications for the job. I remember.

You forgot that 40 of his former cabinet members and dozens of former generals and officials refused to support him, saying he was "unfit to serve." I remember.

You forgot about January 6, "fight like hell". I remember.

You forgot that when he was told that his vice president was secured because the rioters wanted to kill him, he said, "So what?" I remember

You forgot about The Big Lie, "Release the Kraken" and 60+ failed attempts to overturn the election in the courts. I remember.

You forgot about "I just need you to find 11,780 votes." I remember.

You forgot about "They're eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!" I remember.

What now?

When a woman suffering an ectopic pregnancy dies because she doesn't have access to medical care, that's on you.

When they take away your neighbor, your co-worker, your friend, and deport them, that's on you.

When a woman is forced to suffer the agony of carrying her rapist's baby to term, that's on you.

When a transgender kid harms themselves because they can't get the medical care they need, that's on you.

When your middle-class taxes GO UP, while billionaires get even more tax breaks, that's on you.

When schoolchildren are killed by an assault rifle in a mass shooting, that's on you.

When children grow up ignorant because you banned books and dictated how history is taught, that's on you.

When Grandma can no longer afford a comfortable life because the Social Security she paid into all her working life, and provided income on which she now depends, has been cut, that's on you.

When violence against Jews, Asians, Hispanics rises again, that's on you.

When prices on the goods you buy skyrocket due to tariffs, that's on you.

When Ukraine, deprived of our support, is overrun by Russia, that's on you.

When the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world (as we were 2016-2020), that's on you.

What should you have done?

You should have exercised critical thinking skills, recognized the thousands of lies you were being told, recalled that his administration had four years to live up to his promises and failed at all of them. You should have realized that he is a profoundly stupid individual who doesn't give a shit about you or your family or anything except himself.

You had the last nine years to see that, and you still fell for his bullshit.

[azspot]

That said, Trump has a contradiction in his overall agenda, which is that while he wants the stock market to go up, he also wants to help his working class coalition, which will likely require the stock market to fall. Breaking up big tech will probably be good for the stock market. But antitrust in general is designed to foster more competition, which tends to increase quality and cut prices, but could also lower corporate profits. So I suspect we’ll see merger law get rolled back. I watch CNBC every day, and I see Trump donors and advisors like Steve Mnuchin and Citadel’s Ken Griffin talking excitedly about the coming merger boom and the need for consolidation everywhere except big tech.

Monopoly Round-Up: Trump Lays Out His Antitrust Agenda

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

"Harry did do a hospital visit and I got a little bit of Diana vibes from the few photos I saw (I think they were on Cat’s blog?)."

When i saw the photos from the hospital, i felt something was off on top of the obvious Diana cosplay.

Then i had a eureka moment. The beds were too neat and tidy, all the 'patients' looked healthy and posed plus they were all in scrubs. One of them didn't bother taking off his shades. No medical paraphenalia eg medical id bracelets, insect nets, IVs, blankets, charts, medical personnel to usher him around and or introduce the patients, no patients' personal effects on the drawers or elsewhere, medical supplies on the drawers, not even a glass of water. 

One of the patients said on camera, but audio cut from video posted to sussex.com that he'd received his prosthetic leg a year ago and it was working fine without any issues. 

I might be too deep in conspiracy territory when it comes to the Sussexes, but when it was announced that they were to visit a military hospital to see some military patients, i assumed they'd meet them in common room as they do UK patients.

I didn't think they'd stage them to cosplay Diana and also invoke *saviour barbie imagery and badly in a way that shows a complete lack of attention to detail. 

*saviour barbie = an instagram account inspired by Steve Mnuchin's book about her visit to Africa which was published at a moment in time where too many celebs were heading to Africa to ge photographed with poor black children in rural areas. It's pretty funny because it's all about the photos and not at all about the mission. Markle in Rwanda is the perfect example of saviour barbie trope.

[mariacallous]

t it, quoting an ancient adage Xi himself once cited, “The wise adapt to the times, and the astute respond to circumstance.”

Beijing’s high-stakes strategy for navigating a second Trump administration involves, in the words of national security heavyweight Donald Rumsfeld, both the known and the unknown in different quantities. Up top is the most familiar—the “known knowns,” and chief among these is tariffs.

Unlike in 2016, Beijing now faces Trump’s return with a sharper sense of what to expect, thanks to his prior policies. Chief among anticipated challenges are Trump’s intensified “reshoring” agenda and potential tariffs—such as 10-20% on all imports and an additional 60-100% on Chinese imports. These would pose direct threats to China’s export-driven economy at a time when the country is still struggling with a slow recovery, real-estate instability, and weakened consumer demand.

Chinese experts foresee a hardline cabinet in a second Trump term, with figures like trade hawk Robert Lighthizer indicating a more protectionist, confrontational approach. Unlike Trump’s first administration, where voices like Steve Mnuchin occasionally tempered his policies, a unified hawkish team would likely leave little room for moderation. Yet Beijing has been preparing—even if not always successfully—its “dual circulation” strategy aims to boost domestic consumption and curb export reliance, but results have stalled: Domestic demand lags, and export levels remain steady. This strategic pivot is evident in a surge of Chinese investment in Southeast Asia, as Beijing seeks to diversify its supply chains and shield its economy from trade shocks.

To reinforce its position, Beijing has ramped up countermeasures against U.S. companies, shifting from firing warning shots to dealing concrete blows. Skydio, the largest U.S. drone manufacturer, faces critical supply chain disruptions after China sanctioned it over sales to Taiwan’s National Fire Agency, forcing the company to ration batteries. PVH Corp., the parent company of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, now risks placement on China’s “unreliable entity list” for allegedly boycotting Xinjiang cotton, jeopardizing growth in a key market. Intel is also under scrutiny as the Cybersecurity Association of China pushes for an investigation into alleged security flaws, threatening Intel’s hold in a market that accounts for nearly a quarter of its revenue. These sanctions and probes reveal a bolder stance, showing that Beijing’s arsenal for retaliation is far stronger than it was during Trump’s first term.

Chinese experts also see potential blowback for the U.S. economy. A 60% tariff could push U.S. inflation upward, potentially forcing the Federal Reserve toward further rate hikes. Within Chinese policy circles, some view this inflationary risk as a possible check on Trump’s ambitions, noting that rising borrowing costs and asset volatility could dampen his support base for aggressive tariffs.

Beyond tariffs, Beijing is keenly aware of the limitations faced by alternative manufacturing hubs in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Regional bottlenecks—such as labor shortages, infrastructure challenges, and resource constraints—may prevent these regions from fully absorbing production shifts away from China. Ironically, these limitations could exacerbate U.S. inflation if Trump’s tariffs disrupt established supply chains without viable alternatives.

Trump’s anti-globalization stance is familiar, but the ideological shifts it ignites fall into what strategists call “unknown knowns”—factors that are understood but whose full impact remain uncertain. For Beijing, Trump’s isolationist rhetoric resonates with a rising tide of populism across Europe and parts of Asia, such as Italy, Hungary, and the Philippines, creating ideological undercurrents that both challenge and complicate China’s global aspirations.

Some nationalist voices in China view Trump’s “America First” approach as an opportunity. The logic is simple: If the United States pulls back from global frameworks or retreats from alliances like NATO, other nations may look to China as an alternative. But Beijing’s seasoned policy experts approach this notion with sober realism. While China recognizes the potential for Western alliances to fragment, it also understands that a wholesale “pivot” toward Beijing is unlikely.

European leaders may be frustrated with Trump’s isolationism, but they remain wary of China’s growing influence—especially given Beijing’s reluctance to condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This perceived tacit support for Russia has deepened European skepticism, fueling doubts about whether China’s expanding reach aligns with Europe’s strategic interests.

Beijing’s advisors are also attuned to the fact that the same populist forces driving Trump’s comeback are gaining ground in Europe. Economic strains have spurred protectionism. This sentiment has tangible economic implications: Calls for tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and other trade protections, particularly in high-value sectors, reflect Europe’s intensifying desire to shield its own industries.

For Beijing, the ideological dimensions of a second Trump term present new complications. While the United States retreating from its traditional global role could create openings, Europe is unlikely to align more closely with China. China’s strategy is to avoid positioning itself as a direct alternative to Trump’s America. Instead, Beijing is casting itself as a pragmatic, stable partner amid the uncertainties triggered by Trump’s disruptions.

Xi’s administration has underscored this practical stance to emerging economies across Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and parts of Europe, promoting investment incentives, visa-free entry, and a revitalized Belt and Road Initiative focused on green and future-industry infrastructure. Beijing’s aim is to strengthen its reputation as a dependable economic partner for countries seeking growth and stability, without appearing to exploit the ideological rifts Trump’s isolationism has exposed across the West.

Xi is accelerating China’s push for self-reliance, especially in technology—a strategy captured in a phrase popular among Chinese advisors: “以不变应万变” (“respond to ever-changing circumstances with a steady core”). The drive toward self-sufficiency isn’t new; “Made in China 2025” set the stage. But recent directives from the Third Plenum and Xi’s call to foster ��new productive quality forces”—a frequently repeated Xi-ism—have pushed this ambition further, centering on breakthroughs in next-generation technologies—artificial intelligence, robotics, and semiconductors. This vision aims not only to reduce dependency on Western technology but to assert China’s dominance in frontier industries, with an eye to leading the fourth industrial revolution. For Xi, this is more than economic strategy; it is the fundamental answer to China’s domestic pressures and the ultimate trump card in its rivalry with the United States.

This quest for self-sufficiency also extends to forging stronger economic ties with the global south. Xi’s aim goes beyond building alternative trade networks to Western influence; he envisions a sanction-proof supply chain and financial network—a new global market immune to Western pressures that can fuel China’s ambitions independently.

Then there’s the “known unknowns”—the predictably unpredictable, something very much at the forefront with Trump. A defining feature of Trump’s political style is his highly transactional approach, adding a layer of unpredictability to what might otherwise be straightforward policies. Beijing has observed this pragmatism up close, recognizing that Trump’s business instincts often outweigh ideological commitments, occasionally opening doors for negotiation.

When the United States imposed sanctions on Chinese telecom giant ZTE, for example, Xi personally spoke with Trump, leading to a reversal of the sanctions. For Beijing, this underscored that Trump’s flexibility could be influenced by high-profile gestures that he perceives as personal acknowledgments—a dynamic Beijing sees as potentially useful.

Beijing also understands Trump’s showbiz background and his strong emphasis on image and ego. In 2017, Xi hosted Trump and his family with an unprecedented reception at the Forbidden City, a site traditionally reserved for China’s emperors, infusing the event with a level of grandeur rarely extended to foreign leaders. This carefully curated spectacle played to Trump’s appreciation for high-profile events and deepened his positive impression of Xi. This “personalized diplomacy” showcased Beijing’s understanding of Trump’s sensibilities and laid a foundation for a cooperative rapport between the two leaders.

With this in mind, Chinese advisors are prepared to pursue similar transactional openings in a second Trump term. Behind the scenes, Beijing is nurturing ties with influential American business figures who could serve as informal intermediaries to Trump’s inner circle. Elon Musk, for instance—whose Tesla operations are deeply tied to China’s market—may emerge as a potential bridge between U.S. business interests and Chinese policymakers.

Some advisors are also advocating for figures like former ambassador Cui Tiankai, who has previously established a rapport with Trump’s family, particularly his son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump. Cui’s connections could offer Beijing a valuable “track 1.5” channel for backdoor diplomacy, adding an extra layer of access and influence.

Still, Beijing is cautious about relying too heavily on Trump’s transactional tendencies. Recent remarks suggesting Taiwan should pay more for U.S. protection have sparked mixed reactions in China. Some view it as an opening to ease U.S. support for Taiwan, while others see it as a mere bargaining chip Trump could discard at any time. For Beijing, these mixed signals create a delicate balancing act: While it may aim to leverage Trump’s pragmatism, it knows any perceived concession could be revoked at a moment’s notice. In navigating Trump’s dealmaking style, China proceeds with cautious optimism, fully aware of his unpredictability.

Beyond Trump’s familiar transactional style, Beijing is on high alert for wild cards that could upend its plans. The nature of unknown unknowns is the impossibility to know what you’re missing, but there are some drastic, but not predictable, changes that could shake up U.S.-China relations. A sudden shift in U.S.-Russia relations, for example, could have major implications for Beijing. A closer alliance between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin might strain China’s relationship with Moscow, potentially isolating Beijing within the global power structure. Likewise, unexpected maneuvers by Trump in the Indo-Pacific could unsettle China’s carefully managed ties with regional powers like Japan, South Korea, and India.

A critical constraint on China’s ambitions lies in Washington’s tightening grip on technology exports, an escalating tactic that has introduced more unknowns into Beijing’s strategic calculus. While the general U.S. intent is clear—limiting China’s access to advanced technologies—the extent to which Washington will go remains uncertain. Recent export controls target crucial fields like semiconductors and AI, threatening to curb China’s technological progress at a pivotal time.

Chinese analysts interpret these moves not just as competitive hurdles but as a calculated strategy to stall China’s ascent in strategic areas, particularly AI and quantum computing, which are critical to both economic growth and military strength. As Beijing watches for new layers of restriction, the scale and impact of U.S. actions remain fluid, injecting a destabilizing uncertainty into China’s tech trajectory. To brace for these unknowns, Xi’s broader vision is to shape an economy resilient enough to withstand unpredictable global shifts—whether driven by Trump 2.0 or other forces—without risking economic upheaval or, worse, destabilizing Chinse Communist Party (CCP) control. Trump’s return may add urgency, but Beijing views him as more a symptom of a chaotic world order than its cause, which only reinforces Xi’s long-held belief in fortifying China’s self-reliance. For Xi, bolstering resilience across technology, supply chains, and education is about safeguarding China from external shocks and cementing the stability essential to the CCP’S rule.

In truth, Xi’s groundwork for managing “Trump-style” disruptions began long before Trump’s first term. China’s approach has always hinged on minimizing vulnerabilities to external pressures, a direction deeply embedded in Xi’s worldview. Yet this pursuit of resilience walks a fine line. Strengthening defenses could deepen China’s isolation—a shield that may paradoxically create new weaknesses. Gains in domestic supply chains and tech independence mark real progress, but much of Xi’s vision remains aspirational. Beijing is racing to secure these defenses, understanding that, in a world increasingly defined by upheaval, China’s strength will be measured less by its rapid growth and more by its capacity to endure through turbulence.

[trexalicious]

Interesting that Rachel kind of confirms the rumor about her and then Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin in this interview...🤔

[houseofbrat]

Democratic party civil war, you say?

Matt Stoller on Kamala Harris:

There's a fair critique here of Kamala Harris skeptics. What basis do we have for skepticism? I'll lay out my views, which are largely policy-centered. I realize no one cares about what kind of leader Harris will be as President, but if there's one lesson we should take away from this moment, it's that we as a party should try to think more than five minutes ahead instead of panicking ourselves into a rushed decision. I started paying attention to Harris when she became California AG in 2010, because some friends worked to get her elected. It was in the middle of the financial crisis, Bush's and Obama's handling of which eventually led to the emergence of Trump. While AG, she had her most important test as an executive presiding over a big political economy decision - what to do about foreclosure crisis in California. Her position was unusual, because California is a big state, so the AG office is, staffed with many lawyers who can do complex finance analysis. Most states don't. There are only a few places - Texas, NY, Illinois, California - who have the capacity to truly wage independent litigation against powerful institutions like big banks. Harris pledged to do so. [Harris] pledged take on the banks and get something genuinely meaningful for homeowners for a mass legal violation called foreclosure fraud that put them on the hook for trillions. The details aren't important but if you want to know them read Dave Dayen's Chain of Title. It's something I was involved in. After two years where it became obvious Obama was on the wrong side, it was exciting to see a Democrat finally stand up.

Only, she didn't. Harris signed a sham settlement with a big fake fine number, that mostly let the banks do whatever they want, and I believe even get a tax deduction for the fines they did pay. As a result, a lot of people lost their homes who shouldn't have. That was a tragedy. But then when she was running for President in 2020, she *bragged* about what she did. It was rancid, similar to the worst of Obama. https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/kamala-harris-mortage-crisis… Later it came out that her staff had given her memos on how she should have prosecuted (later) Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest, but just chose not to. It's not hard to see that, had Obama (and Harris) actually put the bad guys away, a whole slew of Trump officials would have been in jail rather than in the cabinet. https://politico.com/news/2019/10/22/kamala-harris-attorney-general-california-housing-053716…

I didn't pay as much attention to her big tech work or her time in the Senate, but she's quite close to a whole slew of people in the industry, top execs at Google and Facebook like Sheryl Sandberg. While AG, which was when these companies cemented their dominance in America, Harris's office saw Facebook as "a good actor." She took no actions against big firms as AG, opposed important legislation, and even started a privacy-related "monthly working group that included representatives from Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Kleiner Perkins. In internal documents, Harris' office referred to the companies as "partners."' Again, standard operating Obamacrat stuff. https://businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-silicon-valley-big-tech-facebook-attorney-general-2021-11…… Harris's circle of friends and family are biglaw Obamacrats. Her brother-in-law Tony West was a high-level Obama official, and now GC of Uber. Her niece worked at Uber, Slack, and FB, and her husband was a biglaw partner at Venable and DLA Piper. His clients included Walmart, Merck, and an arms dealer, and there were ethics questions since DLA Piper had a long list of foreign clients. https://nytimes.com/2020/08/17/us/elections/doug-emhoff-kamala-harriss-husband-takes-a-leave-of-absence-from-his-law-firm.html…

How does this differ from Biden's track record? As a Senator, you could read him like Harris. Biden did whatever the credit card companies wanted, was in on bad trade deals, and was VP when Obama mishandled the financial crisis. But Biden always had a tinge of populism. In the 1990s, he went after Stephen Breyer in his hearing for the Supreme Court, calling him an elitist for instance. He was a foreign policy guy, and never liked the Silicon Valley and Wall Street execs, he always thought they looked down on him. As President, he delegated and ignored most domestic policy, and so some of it went to populists and union people while most of it went to neoliberals like Janet Yellen and Neera Tanden. The net result of Biden's choices is a mix - good policy in a few areas, and rank incompetence across a host of them, as well as fantastically incompetent messaging. What was Harris's role? As VP, she's largely been absent from most policy areas I follow, so I don't know how to think about her views on Biden's economic agenda. She's certainly never talked about or been involved in anything competition or regulatory minded that I can see. She does not seem to be a player in any of the big money areas. That said, Harris has proven incapable of managing important tasks like addressing or even explaining the obviously dysfunctional asylum process at the border, so it's hard to know how much she *can* actually do in terms of competence. There's also a lot of inertia here, it's not like she can change everything on a dime. She will inherit Biden's legacy and officeholders, and she hasn't done much as VP to thwart economic policy, for good or ill.

So how will she be as President? I don't want to overstate my read, it's just a guess. But since we're all just guessing, what I suspect is she'll lead to a total wipeout of Dems in 2026 and 2028 as the party turns wholly against working people, and a more complete Trump-y style realignment. And that's if she wins. So that's the optimistic scenario.

Dem Civil War commencing...

[odinsblog]

No one loves Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman more than America’s elite. In recent years, we’ve seen leaders, investors, and celebrities hold out a Saudi exception to human rights in the service of a blurry concept of national interests that requires the U.S. to constantly compromise its values in service of an autocrat. And so MBS has been welcomed back into the establishment fold, and he won over Washington. And now he’s taking a victory lap.

When Saudi Arabia convened a 2018 summit in Riyadh, businesspeople shielded their name tags from view, sheepish about seeking MBS’s money just days after journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. But the stigma has apparently worn off, and big names in finance, tech, media, and entertainment showed up at the Miami edition of Davos in the Desert.

The entire conceit of the conference is that Saudi Arabia can be abstracted from MBS, who is hardly ever mentioned yet remains the unspoken force behind the events. The host, the Future Investment Initiative Institute, a mouthful, is essentially the crown prince’s personal think tank. Session after session offered platitudes and ruminations on the least controversial ideas ever—AI is going to change the world! Climate is important! Sports bring people together! The two-day gathering was titled “On the Edge of a New Frontier,” itself a sort of redundant name. (Isn’t a frontier an edge?)

Yasir Al-Rumayyan, governor of a major sovereign wealth fund that’s currently under Senate investigation, led the proceedings. The Public Investment Fund that Al-Rumayyan runs is the conference’s founding partner and powers its lavish events. That Al-Rumayyan has $70 billion in annual investments to dole out is enough to draw out financial titans, curious entrepreneurs, and former Trump officials.

Jared Kushner, who had grown a beard, was talking about his theory of investing, without noting that MBS’s sovereign wealth funds had reportedly contributed $2 billion to his Affinity Partners. Steve Mnuchin, who similarly snared $1 billion of Saudi funds for his Liberty Strategic Capital, wore a suit and dress sneakers and talked about Israel as a tech hub. Mike Pompeo, in a tie, said that U.S. leadership in the world requires a “stability model” that involves working with “like-minded nations,” though “they’re not all going to be democracies.” Little wonder he rushed U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia as secretary of state as part of an end run around Congress.

Doing business with Saudi Arabia has become so normalized that the CEOs of major corporations and investment firms showed up in droves. There was Accenture’s Julie Sweet, Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, and Thiel Capital’s Jack Selby. David Rubenstein—the billionaire who has played host to President Joe Biden at his Nantucket estate—spoke alongside his daughter Gabrielle. (This year, the Biden administration didn’t send an emissary, but the deputy commerce secretary, Donald Graves, attended in 2021.)

Journalists have kept a distance from Saudi Arabia after the dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Khashoggi, but in Miami the moderators included CNN’s Bianna Golodryga, Fox’s Maria Bartiromo, Bloomberg’s Manus Cranny, and The Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker.

MBS has especially used boldfaced names to rehabilitate his standing post-Khashoggi, his crackdown on women activists, and the destructive Yemen war. In Miami, there was a fireside chat with failed Senate candidate Dr. Oz. “Saudi Arabia is, I think, doing some wise investing and shifting mindsets by trying to leapfrog, in some cases, where the West is,” Oz said.

For Gwyneth Paltrow, it was just another fun public event. She spoke about how Goop had “built meaning” for its fans, in conversation with entrepreneur Moj Mahdara, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton. It was particularly incongruous when Paltrow discussed bringing more women to the cap table to fight the patriarchy.

Rob Lowe had some advice for Riyadh’s efforts to break into Hollywood and create its own film industry. “My view is there’s no reason that Saudi shouldn’t be the leader in IP in the same way they’re attempting to be the leader in sports and everything else,” Lowe said. “You need to have someone who can communicate: Why Saudi, why now.”

For all of the glitzy stage management and slick social media branding, at many moments there were fewer than 50 people watching the livestream on YouTube. But what mattered more were the opinion leaders, financiers, and tycoons in the room.

Big Tech was there, too, with Google’s Caroline Yap and Dell’s Michael Dell. Nothing was quite as obsequious as last year’s gathering in Miami when Adam Neumann, Marc Andreessen, and Ben Horowitz—all beneficiaries of Saudi Arabia’s financial largesse—gushed about how MBS is like a “founder,” except “you call him, ‘His Royal Highness.’”

(continue reading)

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

You wanna know what really fucking bugs me? The only Secretary of the Treasury whose name I know is Steve Mnuchin, Donald Trump's corrupt little toady. I know this because every single dollar bill has the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury on it, and while most signatures are illegible caligraphic scrawls, Steve printed his name in block letters like a child. Nine out of ten bills I get as change have his name on them, clear as day, so I am consistently reminded of the nazi regime that destroyed us. I don't know George W. Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, I don't know Barrack Obama's, I don't know Joe Biden's, but I know trump's, and I can't even ignore it when I see it.

These bills will circulate for decades. People are going to collect them in the future. Someone is going to frame one and hang it on their wall as the first dollar they ever earned. It makes me so irrationally angry I could spit.

STeVen T: MNUChin with random capitalization as if he had to sound it out one letter at a time, fuckin ay...

[garudabluffs]

"Trumps Criminal Associates from A to Z”

Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump; >>> Greg Abbott, Ali Alexander, Samuel Alito, Rick Allen, Brian Babin, Jim Banks, Steve Bannon, Kathy Barnette, Bill Barr, Tom Barrack, Maria Bartiromo, Glenn Beck, John Bennett, Andy Biggs, Dan Bishop, Christina Bobb, Lauren Boebert, John Bolton, David Bossie, Kevin Brady, Mike Braun, Mo Brooks, Taylor Budowich, Ted Budd, Aileen Cannon, Madison Cawthorn, Tucker Carlson, Matthew Calamari, Kenneth Chesebro, Andrew Clyde, Jeffery Clark, Robert Cheeley, Chris Christie, Chris Collins, Susan Collins, James Comer, Kellyanne Conway, John Cornyn, Thomas Bryant Cotton, Kevin Cramer, Dan Crenshaw, Steven Crowder, Raphael Edward Cruz, Ken Cuccinelli, Warren Davidson, Louis DeJoy, Carlos DeOliveira, Ron DeSantis, Betsy DeVos, Lou Dobbs, Byron Donalds, John Eastman, Larry Elder, Jenna Ellis, Michael Ellis, Tom Emmer, Boris Epshteyn, Julie Jenkins Fancelli, Nigel Farage, Tom Fitton, Harrison Floyd, Michael Flynn, Matt Gaetz, Bob Gibbs, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Louie Gohmert, Sebastian Gorka, Paul Gosar, Trey Gowdy, Lindsey Graham, Charles Grassley, Mark Green, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ric Grenell, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Alina Habba, Harriet Hageman, Misty Hampton, Liz Harrington, Nikki Haley, Scott Hall, Sean Hannity, Josh Hawley, Jody Hice, Hope Hicks, Thomas Homan, Richard Hudson, Duncan Hunter, Laura Ingraham, Kay Ivey, Ronny Jackson, Jim Jordan, Mike Johnson, Ron Johnson, Alex Jones, Fred Keller, Keith Kellogg, Mike Kelly, Bernard Kerik, Charlie Kirk, Kim Klacik, Kenneth Klukowski, Jared Kushner, Trevian Kutti, Tomi Lahren, Kari Lake, Cathleen Latham, Bill Lee, Mike Lee, Stephen Lee, Mark Levin, Corey Lewandowski, Christopher Liddell, Mike Lindell, Billy Long, Barry Loudermilk, Cynthia Lummis, Nick Luna, Nancy Mace, Paul Manafort, Roger Marshall, Thomas Massie, Douglas Mastriano, Angela McCallum, Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, Ronna Romney McDaniel, Kayleigh McEnany, Johnny McEntee, Mark Meadows, Molly Michael, Chris Miller, Jason Miller, Stephen Miller, Barry Moore, Steven Mnuchin, Rupert Murdoch, Greg Murphy, Heather Nauret, Waltine Torre Nauta Jr., Peter Navarro, Carl Nichols, Kristi Noem, Ralph Norman, Oliver North, Devin Nunes, Bill O’Reilly, Candace Owens, Stefan Passantino, Kash Patel, Dan Patrick, Rand Paul, Ken Paxton, David Perdue, Scott Perry, Rick Perry, Mike Pence, Judge-Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Mike Pompeo, Erik Prince, Vladimir Putin, Sidney Powell, Kim Reynolds, Karrin Taylor Robson, Michael Roman, Chip Roy, Marco Rubio, Anthony Sabatini, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, George Santos, Steve Scalise, Dan Scavino, Rick Scott, Tim Scott, Jeff Sessions, David Shafer, Ben Shapiro, Bill Shine, Kyrsten Lea Sinema, Ray Smith lll, Victoria Spartz, Sean Spicer, Todd Starnes, Elise Stefanik, William Stepien, Shawn Still, Roger Stone, Jason Sullivan, Clarence Thomas, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, Tommy Tuberville, Mike Turner, James David (JD) Vance, Herschel Walker, Kelli Ward, Jesse Watters, Allen Weisselberg, Matthew George Whitaker, Susan Wiles, Ben Williamson, Chad Wolf, Lin Wood, Todd Young…Just to name a few. “Vote Blue in November: In numbers too big to rig, in numbers too real to steal….

381 Comments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8rIL3xUKc

[luimnigh]

For my birthday, my parents got me a piece of paper with the signature of one of the Executive Producers a few movies I love: The Lego Movie, Edge of Tomorrow, The Man From UNCLE, Mad Max Fury Road.

Unfortunately, that Executive Producer is Steve Mnuchin.

It's a $50 bill.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

Next Tuesday (Oct 31) at 10hPT, the Internet Archive is livestreaming my presentation on my recent book, The Internet Con.

#20yrsago Wired runs a balanced Broadcast Flag story — last week to fight the proposal https://www.wired.com/2003/11/fcc-moves-to-stifle-tv-piracy/

#20yrsago 20,000 libertarians to move to New Hampshire https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/us/libertarians-pursue-new-political-goal-state-of-their-own.html

#10yrsago HOWTO protect yourself from Internet surveillance, EFF edition https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/ten-steps-against-surveillance

#10yrsago D&D with toddlers https://web.archive.org/web/20131107181349/http://gygaxmagazine.com/selected-content/dming-for-your-toddler/

#5yrsago Steve Mnuchin stole Cesar Sayoc’s house https://theintercept.com/2018/10/26/cesar-sayoc-foreclosure-steven-mnuchin/

#5yrsago The Copyright Office’s DMCA-defanging is nice, but man, there are: So. Many. Hoops to jump through https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-wins-dmca-exemption-petitions-tinkering-echos-and-repairing-appliances-new

#5yrsago Chicagoans can actually play “Machine Learning President,” the election RPG https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/25/18010142/machine-learning-president-2020-election-larp

#5yrsago China Telecom has been using poisoned internet routes to suck up massive amounts of US and Canadian internet traffic https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=mca

#5yrsago Using science to fine-tune your fake blood recipe https://www.wired.com/story/water-flour-syrup-dye-mastering-the-elements-of-fake-blood/

#1yrago Uline's billions fund voter suppression https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/26/boxed-in/#bircher-jr

[jpoliticsandevents]

Who is the vice president... for Joe Biden... your policies are exactly like Joe Biden. You've not deviated one bit from Biden on anything besides rhetoric, and you dont get to wake up one day and pretend to be someone with a different track record, you are just Kamala; A crooked bitch who is no better or worse than big bad orange man. Your boss built those cages that you ignored as 'Border Tsar'. You will do anything for money just like Trump or Biden, same foreign policy, same domestic policy, exploding national debt, and no real ideas of any variety in that empty skull allowing you to turn on a dime for donor demands. You threw innocent men in jail, locked parents up for truancy, and kept people past their sentences in jail so they could make another nickel for some greedy corporation milking their jailtime, you didnt prosecute Steve Mnuchin, you've never once said anything insightful, and your 'populism' sounds like the worst fake versions of fridge magnet quotes.

"First of all, you're not running against Joe Biden, you're running against me."

[justiceheartwatcher]

Trump nominates Scott Bessent for Treasury Secretary | Just The News

[theculturedmarxist]

Yves here. We are overdue on giving a full-bore treatment on Project 2025, but this post will hopefully serve as a starting point. Sadly, ambitious and well-organized right wing campaigns to greatly increase the acceptance of their social and policy agenda have proven to be extremely successful, witness the Powell Memo and the Project for the New American Century. Trump is the explicit target of this Heritage Foundation scheme. Because the first Trump presidency was very much a “dog that caught the car” event, Trump had perilous little in the way of plans, and on top of that, weak cabinet members. For instance, Steve Mnuchin’s tax reform plan was an embarrassment, barely rising to the level of a napkin doddle. So after that misfire, the Administration took up the anti-tax lobby’s plan, include their off-the-shelf language. Trump might be a tad better prepared to be President if he wins again, but that does not make him any less receptive to pre-packaged programs from his fellow travelers. So this initiative very much bears watching.

By Diana Cariboni, who started writing for Tracking the Backlash in 2018 and is now openDemocracy’s Latin America editor. She was previously co-editor-in-chief of the IPS news agency and led its Latin America desk for more than ten years. She wrote the book ‘Guantánamo Entre Nosotros’ (2017) and won Uruguay’s national press award in 2018. Originally published at openDemocracy

Last month, populist leaders from around the world gathered for the Europa Viva 24 summit in Madrid. Headlines from the event were dominated by the big names in attendance – Argentinian president Javier Milei, France’s Marine Le Pen, Chile’s José Antonio Kast, and Italian and Hungarian prime ministers Giorgia Meloni and Viktor Orbán – and the fact it ended in a diplomatic row between Argentina and Spain.

But away from all of this noise and fury was a lesser-known speaker: Roger Severino, a former official in Donald Trump’s administration and the vice-president for domestic policy at influential US think tank The Heritage Foundation.

In a six-minute speech delivered in Spanish, Severino described Trump as a victim of lawfare launched by “the lefties” and said young people are subjected to a “culture and a medical system” that tells them to “explore all sexual appetites at age of 10” and that “abortion is not about destroying babies but about healthcare”.

Adding that young people are also taught “that if you are uncomfortable with your sex you were probably born in the wrong body, and surgeries can fix that mistake”, he said: “I’m here to tell you that God doesn’t make mistakes.

Severino is one of the architects of the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump term, named ‘Project 2025’. This aims to reshape the federal state in 180 days, fire tens of thousands of public servants and replace them with people loyal to the conservative cause, undermine the separation of powers, attack public education, and erase or restrict the rights of women, LGBTQ people, workers, migrants and Black people.

It also seeks to dismantle policies to tackle climate change and push for an energy agenda reliant on fossil fuels.

Its plan for doing so is set out in the ‘Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise’, an 887-page playbook published by the think tank, whose mission is “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and strong national defence”.

It is not absurd to say that some of the Heritage Foundation’s suggestions may well become law if Trump is elected in November. The politically well-connected organisation was founded in 1973 and published its first ‘Mandate for Leadership’ as Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 – later boasting that Reagan had enacted more than 60% of its policy recommendations.

Severino, who was Trump’s director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote Project 25’s section on health. Of the 199 times the word ‘abortion’ is mentioned throughout the document, 149 are in this chapter, which urges the federal government to remove (or restrict as much as possible) any sexual and reproductive healthcare and rights whose oversight it has responsibility for.

Severino suggests eliminating the approval of abortion pills and banning their distribution by mail; barring the use of federal funds to transport people seeking an abortion in a state where it’s illegal to one where it isn’t; cutting federal funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers; and removing emergency contraception from workers’ health insurance coverage.

In contrast, it’s hard to find any proposals to tackle the US’s real public health crises: opioids, falling life expectancyand rising maternal and infant mortality rates. This is perhaps unsurprising; the Heritage Foundation sees the Supreme Court’s overturning of the 1973 Roe decision that protected abortion up to 23 weeks as a victory – but also as “just the beginning”.

In the two years since Roe’s repeal, 21 states have banned or drastically restricted abortion, and legislative and judicial battles are raging in others attempting to follow suit. But the number of abortions carried out annually has actually increased, according to multiple studies – and so grow the dystopian battleplans for the continued war on reproductive autonomy. Several US cities have made it illegal to use their roads to transport people seeking abortions from a state where abortion is prohibited to one where it is permitted.

Project 2025 wants the Department of Health to go further still, urging it to “protect life, conscience and bodily integrity” and place “strong respect for the sacred rights of conscience” at the top of its agenda. Severino’s chapter calls for legislation requiring states to record data on abortions, including the number of terminations carried out, the reasons for them, the method used, the length of the pregnancy, and the state of residence of the person seeking an abortion.

It also suggests that scientific research conducted with public money should focus on “the risks and complications of abortion” and on “correcting and not promoting misinformation about the health and psychological benefits of giving birth compared to the health and psychological risks of intentionally taking a human life through abortion”.

But Project 2025’s focus isn’t only on reproductive health.

The president who takes office in 2025, the foreword says, must “remove from every existing rule, regulatory agency, contract, grant, regulation, and federal law the terms sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of First Amendment rights” (which protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech and press, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances).

The future government must also “immediately cease the collection of data on gender identity, because it legitimises the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of the constant multiplication of subjective identities”, Severino adds.

An Anti-Rights Past and Future

The Heritage Foundation is not the only highly influential institute involved in the writing of Project 25. Of the 100 organisations that sit on its advisory board or directly contribute to the playbook, several have been crucial to the advancement of extremist agenda in the US in recent decades and years.

In 2018, four years before Roe was overturned, Mississippi banned abortions after 15 weeks in the state – with legislation modelled on a bill conceived by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as an anti-LGBTQ hate group and which sits on the Project 25 advisory board. The law was challenged and stayed by two courts on the grounds that it was unconstitutional because it violated Roe.

The law’s promoters took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, aiming to challenge and ultimately overturn Roe. Their strategy relied on the court having a right-wing majority, which was ensured by Leonard Leo, a conservative lawyer and activist who has founded a network of groups and funding hubs. Leo, who had already been influential in the appointment of three other justices, successfully lobbied Trump to appoint three anti-abortion members to the court – achieving a conservative supermajority of six out of nine justices. Leo’s network of nonprofits has reportedly donated millions of dollars to organisations that sit on the Project 2025 advisory board since 2021.

The result has been that around a third of women of reproductive age in the US, as well as other people who do not identify as women but can get pregnant, now live in a state where abortion is banned or severely restricted, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The Heritage Foundation, ADF and Leo didn’t answer our requests for comments.